RoadMap for achieving 2000 Elo rating in 1 year - Chess Forums - Page 4

devarajusa · 2012-08-02T16:23:00-07:00

Here I give you a roadmap for rising to the 2000 Elo level in just one year. Kindly note that this does not apply to rapid, blitz or bullet chess. I only make one assumption here, that you are already familiar with chess and a casual player at 1200. Step 1: Avoid blunders. Time period: 1 month. Play

scandium

Aug 4, 2012

0

#61

AdvLegitimate wrote:

waffllemaster wrote:

AdvLegitimate wrote:

i started about a year ago and have a fide of 1800 now, so i think its do able considering how lazy i am

All that laziness must go into your chess.com games. All your ratings here suggest you're

i find it difficult to motivate myself to play online, since theres no real reward for winning, im always insanely bad at blitz and i cant figure out why

Winning is its own reward in and of itself. If you want to play online for money, take up poker.

scandium

Aug 4, 2012

0

#62

paulgottlieb wrote:

I'm sure winning is its own reward, but I too find it much easier to concentrate and play hard in an OTB tournament environment. It just feels so much more "real" than a game I play in front of my computer, sitting in my pajamas

Same 64 squares. Same pieces that move the same way.

OTB tournament chess means traveling some distance for me, which makes it a very rare event. For me, this has always been as real as it gets since I play the widest range of players and styles from all over the world.

scandium

Aug 4, 2012

0

#63

AcivilizedGentleman wrote:

scandium wrote:

paulgottlieb wrote:

I'm sure winning is its own reward, but I too find it much easier to concentrate and play hard in an OTB tournament environment. It just feels so much more "real" than a game I play in front of my computer, sitting in my pajamas

Same 64 squares. Same pieces that move the same way.

OTB tournament chess means traveling some distance for me, which makes it a very rare event. For me, this has always been as real as it gets since I play the widest range of players and styles from all over the world.

It's absolutely impossible for me to take an online seriously even remotely as close as I do otb. Everyone is far more serious in a tournament they paid to enter and travel to instead of just a random online game where the only penalty for losing is -13

When I play online I constantly alt tab to be on msn or roam through other websites. If I did that on my level otb I'd get crushed but here I still manage to stay 1800+ in the longer time controls

"Its an online game, I don't take those seriously" just sounds to me like a convenient way to rationalize losses. A board imbued with some sort of magical property that makes it special just because its located in a tournament hall instead of on your screen. Same squares. Same goal.

To me a win is a win. *shrug*

scandium

Aug 4, 2012

0

#64

AcivilizedGentleman wrote:

If you're saying that a random rated live game on chess.com is as serious as your average paid tournament then you're talking out of your ass.

If I am, then explain to me exactly what makes tournament chess so different? Keep in mind as you do so that I have played tournament chess in the past, so I don't speak from inexperience with the one.

Same 64 squares board. Same pieces. Same moves. Same match of the minds.

Or do the tournaments you play in have some kind of gizmo board that shoots little treats through the squares when you make a good move?

nameno1had

Aug 4, 2012

0

#65

scandium wrote:

AcivilizedGentleman wrote:

If you're saying that a random rated live game on chess.com is as serious as your average paid tournament then you're talking out of your ass.

If I am, then explain to me exactly what makes tournament chess so different? Keep in mind as you do so that I have played tournament chess in the past, so I don't speak from inexperience with the one.

Same 64 squares board. Same pieces. Same moves. Same match of the minds.

Or do the tournaments you play in have some kind of gizmo board that shoots little treats through the squares when you make a good move?

I am not saying a tournament hall is more comfortable than some people have it in their home, but I have plenty of distractions here that I wouldn't have at an OTB tourney.

atarw

Aug 4, 2012

0

#66

No one will care, if you go into an OTB tournament, and when they ask do you have a FIDE rating, you'll say yes, its 1300, but my chess.com rating is 1900!

Do you think they'll care?

Chess.com is a kind of practice, not a real rating, FIDE, USCF, CFC, etc. are the real thing

atarw

Aug 4, 2012

0

#67

The way, I see it, for me, take your chess.com rating, minus it by a 100 (for me), and you'll get roughly my real rating.

GhostNight

Aug 4, 2012

0

#68

I like Becky's comment the best, not everyone is able to achieve a high rating in the chess world. And one way to really know if you fall in the unfortunate group, is do just what she said, find a (confident) chess coach, in a while he/she will be able to tell you.............

scandium

Aug 4, 2012

0

#69

No joey, to me it just sounds like a weak way to rationalize losses online. Online or offline its the same game and a person with a pulse on the other end of the board (physically or virtually) as an opponent.

Cost does not equate value - but the prize money and expenses have to come from somewhere, so everyone pays the entry fee whether you have any realistic chance of a monetary prize or not. Only a very tiny portion of chess players are able to do it for a livelihood, so unless you're one of them then online chess essentially equals offline chess. No easier, no harder. If anyone does find offline chess more demanding, then that is a quirk in their psychology and has nothing to do with the game itself.

e4nf3

Aug 4, 2012

0

#70

The best advice given is to reduce the blundering. I wish I had thought of that.

Chessking46

Aug 4, 2012

0

#71

paulgottlieb wrote:

Quads may not be the best place to pick up rating points easily, but that's not important. If you're going to improve at chess, one of the most important things you should do is play lots of rated OTB games. You learn more and improve more from one rated game that from almost anything else you do. The lessons you learn under stress are the lessons you remember. And there's nothing better than serious games to show you where your weaknesses are.

So the point in playing Quads is not to pick up rating points, it's to become a better player. Over any reasonable period of time, your rating will represent your chess strength, so concentrate on getting stronger

Thank you. That's exact, I could be bad at the beginning but now, I'm better (to get thinking, who cares about rating at the beginning? Rating doesn't mean like this 2000-rated adult has to brag against the 1000-rated adult saying, "Ha! I'm better than you!")

scandium

Aug 4, 2012

0

#72

ACG:

I only played in 2 tournaments, both of them were in 2003 so my rating was provisional. Until June, I hadn't played online or offline since 2004. I was well shy of the 20 games needed for an established national rating when I stopped playing, though it had nothing to do with chess in general or tournament chess specifically.

I'm not sure how others play blitz online. I've never taken blitz very seriously. For that matter, I don't take ratings too seriously either - though I do see them being useful for gauging how you should match up against a similar rated opponent within the same rating venue. And its good for seeing any tangible gains in playing strength, whether the rating being used as the measure is offline or online (which is not to suggest that an online rating corresponds to an offline rating - they do not).

Andre_Harding

Aug 4, 2012

0

#73

Kids crying at tournaments is an epidemic.

scandium

Aug 4, 2012

0

#74

Andre_Harding wrote:

Kids crying at tournaments is an epidemic.

That is sad on so many levels.

Elubas

Aug 4, 2012

0

#75

I find pellik's comment about kids of age 10-15 crying or nearly crying during a chess game pretty hard to believe. I have never seen it happen, not even in the scholastic sections, and I have been playing in tournaments for over 4 years.

For the record, I do take my online games very seriously, because what better is there to do while I'm at a chess board -- I may as well look for the best move -- but of course, I guess it depends on the person. I wouldn't have as much fun and learning in my games if I played my moves superficially and half-heartedly.

nameno1had

Aug 4, 2012

0

#76

I think kids crying is a reflection of the pressure put on them by coaches and parents. Sometimes I think people need to let kids be kids and not make a game have too much importance. A great example of this is in the movie "Searching For Bobby Fischer". Josh Waitzkin's parents and coach were at odds with each other over Josh's recreational activities.

It is true kids can be emotional, hate failing and put the pressure on themselves, but I will still blame parents and coaches for not better preparing them and emphasizing that it is only a game and that they are still loved and appreciated whether they win or lose. It is not only unfair to them, but it is a distraction to their opponents.

scandium

Aug 4, 2012

0

#77

pellik:

That was a very good and informative read. Thanks for posting that.

jaxter88

Aug 4, 2012

0

#78

scandium wrote:

Winning is its own reward in and of itself. If you want to play online for money, take up poker.

Actually, even if you want to play face-to-face for money, take up poker.

Elubas

Aug 4, 2012

0

#79

That really is sad. Going from winning to losing sucks ass, yes, but at least handle it with enough class not to cry and give up on life!

waffllemaster

Aug 4, 2012

0

#80

pellik wrote:

devarajusa wrote:

@pellik

"I've completed an 800 points in a year trek to 2000. I have yet to meet another person who has done the same, although I've seen others improve pretty quickly."

Congrats! Can you share with us what kind of study plan or routine you followed during that period? That would be helpful for all.

Thanks

Wafflemaster did a good job at summarizing my viewpoints on prescribing training routines. That said, I can still discribe a little about my personal study methods.

The majority of my study time has had a very opening-centric approach. This is not to say I spend lots of time studying openings (you just don't need to know much theory), but that I've always focused on positions and themes that are directly related to the openings that I play.

My typical casual (when I have no goals in mind) study session is to open up chessbase and play through a basic opening to reach the tabiya that I associate with it. Then I'll pull up the reference tab and start considering what all of my opponents standard plans are, and seeing how strong GMs deal with those plans. I make a point of trying to completely understand the pros and cons of each plan, as well as looking a little deeper to see what allows those plans to succeed or fail.

For example, I spent a long time (switched away just a few months ago) playing the QGD exchange where you can pretty much count on reaching this position-

So from here black has only a handful of good plans. He can play Nf8, Be6, Rc8 and start preparing a c pawn advance (resulting in an isolated d pawn or hanging pawns), he can kick the bishop back with h6, he can play Nf8 and immediately c5 (where Rad1 is quite effective and c4 can be met with Bf5). Etc. For each of the plans I try to figure out a challanging way to proceed against them (also for variations outside the tabyia like meeting an early Be6 with a pillsbury style attack to win a tempo from the threat of f5 trapping the bishop).

So that's how I like to study. I strive to understand the strategic implications of every viable plan in the opening for both sides. Then when I'd play I'll try to find similarities between the position I wind up in and the plans I'm familiar with. When weird moves come up then I'd focus on seeing how this changes the strategy I'm familiar with. Does it make any plans better/worse and why.

Of course this is just one method of study, and I'd still keep chugging along with endgames, tactics, and more general middle-game planning studies too.

Now, in case this post isn't long enough-

There is one other study method I've used to great effect. I like to study games where GMs beat up on masters. I jump to the end of the game and see how the GM won, then I back up and piece together the story of where that winning position came from. Usually it's along the lines of the weaker master making a poor pawn move and losing all of his activity to defending the bad structure.

The more I've come to understand about the mistakes masters make the more I can appreciate and understand the subtle maneuvering in more balanced GM vs GM games, which greatly increases my enjoyment of watching high quality chess.

Anyway, I hope all this helps.

Very interesting pellik. I've been churning this idea over in my head for awhile now, that a good way to study would be to keep a notebook on my openings which I fill with ideas seen in strong games almost exactly as you described. What ideas were played, why did they work/fail, and so forth. I'm pleased to hear it works well for you because this actually sounds like fun... and if I can make studying fun it's the best of both worlds

The GM beating master games I hadn't though to look at but it makes sense. You use some very sensible study ideas I think.

Are there any GMs you prefer? Or maybe a certain ear? I think I'd want to avoid games that go into "now I win because I was able to calculate this long sequence" too early in the game.