If you're not going to shake hands and say good game, at the very least don't cry.
RoadMap for achieving 2000 Elo rating in 1 year
Sort:
To be honest, I'd rather see the kid cry than start hopping around as if they've suddenly started hearing dance music as soon as they get += or an otherwise comfortable position.
Does that make me a terrible person? 
That's valid wafflemaster, but crying after a game is like thinking the result of your life was dependant on that game!
That said, I think the kind of kid you described would do both 
hicetnunc wrote:
Very good training methods shared by Pellik here.
I enjoy the 'master vs. amateur' games too, though I usually pick +2400 wins against -2200. Pellik's choices may help him achieve a higher level.
I think this is an excellent idea. The only problem I have is that I don't get to play players of that level yet. If there were a good progression for using this method as you go up in rating, it would be phenomenal. I find playing against weaker opponents, the opportunities to play the moves masters and up typically use in their games aren't available. As better theory is used, the best moves that better players play are playable.
Agree wafflemaster. The kids that cry are the same ones that celebrate when winning.
In the past year I have beaten two 2000+ kids who had won National championships...they cried like babies.
pellik wrote:
I've never noticed GMs calculating all that much (not counting endgames).
LOL. I'm not sure where you came up with that...but I think you ought to look a little harder.
I've read articles saying stuff like "masters actually calculate more than grandmasters," so I get what he is saying. The point is they know what is necessary to calculate and what isn't, so by choosing the right times for a deep calculation they can play very efficiently. I'm sure a grandmaster's calculating ability is exceptional, but I think pellik was talking about how much they need to rely on that.
If you say "how much they need to rely on that against substantially weaker players"...then okay, I'll buy that. But against each other?...I think there's lots of calculations going on. Maybe not so much with somebody like Karpov or Petrosian...but with Kasparov, Tal or Nunn?! lol Those guys are spouting out reams and reams of vars.
You thought it was mean spirited? I didn't. Anyway, he sounds like a nice guy.
pellik, speak not of that which you know not of.
pellik wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
hicetnunc wrote:
Very good training methods shared by Pellik here.
I enjoy the 'master vs. amateur' games too, though I usually pick +2400 wins against -2200. Pellik's choices may help him achieve a higher level.
I think this is an excellent idea. The only problem I have is that I don't get to play players of that level yet. If there were a good progression for using this method as you go up in rating, it would be phenomenal. I find playing against weaker opponents, the opportunities to play the moves masters and up typically use in their games aren't available. As better theory is used, the best moves that better players play are playable.
When you understand how to gang up on a weakness it doesn't matter what level your opponent is- either they defend it successfully (at the cost of activity) or lose material. Learning how to exploit mistakes is useful at all levels. The more subtle the mistakes you know how to take advantage of the more you'll get to use the skill.
I agree with that. It is different though, trying to take advantage of mistakes when you haven't learned to recognize them yet. Trying to recognize intermediate level mistakes from watching master videos seems like it would be confusing for me.
It seems to need to happen the other way around. The reason is, you are comparing a mistake a master made in a position a master would play. I am not going to see pattern recognition when playing against weaker opponents because, they play different positions. It stands to reason I need to somehow work my way up the chain of understanding. I can't work my way down it.
pellik wrote:
Nameno1had-
More important then being able to take advantage of master level mistakes is not making those mistakes yourself. Regardless of the level of competition you have being aware that moves you're considering are potentially weakening and finding alternatives will only make you better.
Very true. It is possible to make the same mistakes at various levels. I guess deciding on the applicable method for one's rating is so subjective, due to many factors.
Planning for tommorow is a great way to make sure you will be able to manage each day that comes, but if you can't take of the exact problems of the day, you may never see tomorrow. This why I am not looking to get to caught up in what could be.
Aug 4, 2012
0
#94
Am I the only one who has noticed that the Original Poster has abandoned this thread long ago?
Well, you were until you brought it up (I would advise you against a career in espionage).
He skedaddled on account of lack of appreciation for his revolutionary chess revelations.
The prophet is never appreciated in his own thread.
Lol dunno what u guys been reading. In fact, I have been following up with people who have already done this. I was pleasantly surprised to hear from people like pellik and AdvLegitimate who have already achieved this feat of increasing 800 points in an year. Was good to compare their plans and ideas with mine.
And other posts confirmed my suspision on Rapid chess. I would like to add one more step: Stay away from Rapid chess until you get good. Especially online rapid. Rapid is good for fun. But its not a substitute. OTB rapid is preferable to online like Kramnik once remarked. Bruce pandolfini was right in Searching for Fischer: Chess is an art. lets keep it that way.
I find what you are saying to be hilarious.
Especially: Stay away from Rapid chess until you get good.
You do know that rapid chess is slower than blitz and bullet? Actually, I suspect you don't.
My favorite chess is rapid, 15 min. I find it quite s-l-o-w.
I suspect you may mean: Stay away from bullet and blitz chess until you get good.
With that, I would agree with you. And, I wouldn't recommend 15 min rapid chess to a beginner. 30 min. rapid chess would be better. Best of all...when you start playing chess don't use a clock at all. Take your time. As long as it is not so much that your opponent wants to take off his shoe and hit you with it.
Very good training methods shared by Pellik here.
I enjoy the 'master vs. amateur' games too, though I usually pick +2400 wins against -2200. Pellik's choices may help him achieve a higher level.