Right. Like I said, it's close to the OP, but not quite, and certainly it required more effort then the provided "roadmap" seemed to suggest.
Oh, you meant that it's USCF. Yeah, that's true. It's still 700 points in a year though.
RoadMap for achieving 2000 Elo rating in 1 year
Sort:
To answer the op:
Q#1 :- Seriously, do you really think that your method would lead someone to cross elo 2000 in a year? cos i really really doubt that. It's too superficial and vague.
Q#2 :- Are you dreaming? Of course you are. I am just helping you wake up.
Q#3 :- Do you sometimes wish that this is real but alas this is just in your head? Certainly, I know for sure.
I do apprepriate your hope and optimism of doing something note worthy. For many people achieving 2000 in a year itself is a feat. Some people worked like dogs for many years but still fail to cross that magical line.
Seeing things like this, I believe, would less appreciate those fellows who achieved this feat by dedication, hard work and sacrifice. I know your intention is good. Anyway, I am hurt by your thread. Do you know that year by year the competition is getting stiffer?
I would be happier if players who are absolute beginners and intermediate show some respect for us 2000+. By personal experiences, it takes many years to calculate atleast 3 moves deep, many years just to learn to focus, many years to learn openings repertoire, etc etc. Just to tell everybody here that getting 2000 is not an accident by lots of failures, pains, and sacrifices.
Aug 5, 2012
0
#124
pellik wrote:
My friends from local clubs keep telling me I should write a book once I reach master . I actually might give that a shot as I really want to start coaching for money (and a book would help), but I wouldn't respect myself doing that unless I at least have crossed 2200 first.
Your achievement is remarkable and your method sounds good, so you'd probably have a lot to teach to other people. Not everybody would be able to go through all the process without detailed guidance though (I mean some steps that may seem 'natural' for you might prove difficult for other people).
I like point 2: "study chess theory" (two months).
"Pawn structures, [...], forks".
Yeah
@Adv legitimate
If you take into account, learning basic strategy and such at low level will gain you a ton of points,
So true. I wasted 5 years playing tonnes of games without actually learning anything. Believeing that intense thinking and experience would somehow propel me foreward. Never got past that 1300 level. Then I committed to study chess like a senior preparing for exams. And my abilties skyrocketed. All the information and knowledge required for a beginner is already available. One just has to make use of it.
@Da-Novelty
Q#1 :- Seriously, do you really think that your method would lead someone to cross elo 2000 in a year? cos i really really doubt that. It's too superficial and vague.
Q#2 :- Are you dreaming? Of course you are. I am just helping you wake up.
Q#3 :- Do you sometimes wish that this is real but alas this is just in your head?
Well worked for me.
I would be happier if players who are absolute beginners and intermediate show some respect for us 2000+.
You gotta be kidding me! In what way is others learning disrespectful to you? I heard this from others too. That this is a disgrace. Let me get something straight to you. If you are good at chess, good for you. If you spent years to master it, congrats. But dont think that me or anyone who has lesser rating owes you anything. Everyone will follow a plan that they think is best for them, and it doesn't matter how 'respected' the others feel.
Aug 5, 2012
0
#128
devarajusa wrote:
@Da-Novelty
Q#1 :- Seriously, do you really think that your method would lead someone to cross elo 2000 in a year? cos i really really doubt that. It's too superficial and vague.
Q#2 :- Are you dreaming? Of course you are. I am just helping you wake up.
Q#3 :- Do you sometimes wish that this is real but alas this is just in your head?
Well worked for me.
I would be happier if players who are absolute beginners and intermediate show some respect for us 2000+.
You gotta be kidding me! In what way is others learning disrespectful to you? I heard this from others too. That this is a disgrace. Let me get something straight to you. If you are good at chess, good for you. If you spent years to master it, congrats. But dont think that me or anyone who has lesser rating owes you anything. Everyone will follow a plan that they think is best for them, and it doesn't matter how 'respected' the others feel.
Do you mean you reached 2000 elo in one year ? If so, can you provide us with your rating graph, like pellik did ?
pellik wrote:
People that I've seen progress quickly fall into one of two categories- they either have a very good (and usually quite expensive) coach, or they have a talent for figuring out what they need to do to improve. Either way, the plan needs to be custom tailored to the individual and constantly adapted as strengths/weaknesses change.
Some great comments made by hicentunc and pellik on this thread, I have to study them. This one is the greatest.
I plan to study by myself in the first year and if the passion is still there I'll hire a very good coach in the second one.
Doing tactics 1h/day helps a lot.
sisu wrote:
Chessking46 wrote:
yay!
1) Yes, I have The Complete Book of Chess Strategy. That's why everyone's looking at me weird in the Alekhine's Defense.
2) I have one. It's like... $125 per month. I have about 6-8 classes. That for 8 classes is... 15.62 or 15.63 per class. For six, it's about 20.83.
3) I'm like you.
4) My schedule is clogged, with every once in a while, eight people yelling at me.
5) For white:
e4... Two Knights Defense/Giuoco Piano
For black:
against e4: Giuoco Piano/Giuoco Pianissimo/Opening that i do not know the name of
against d4: Indian Game. I almost won against a player with it today. Instead of the Colle/Queen's Gambit.
against c4: Very small time: Reversed Sicilian. Then it transposes into a loss.
against f4: f4 d5
Good work chessking! Some more advice: don't overdo those videos... a few at a time :)
For anyone else who is interested, I teach via Skype online. If you know how the pieces move and are about 1500-1600 on this site, I'll easily get you to 2000 rating, if you put in the effort that chessking is doing. Send me a message.
I'd also suggest the tactics trainer!! 3 puzzles a day keeps the blunders away!
thank you.
Andre_Harding wrote:
DavyWilliams:
When I am playing chess, I do not have a good time unless I am winning (or let's say, making draws against good players). This is completely normal; it's an attitude.
The higher a person's rating gets, the less happiness/more frustration they show. If you don't believe me, go to a tournament where masters and IMs/GMs are playing, and observe how unhappy they are.
To very serious players, chess is not just some pastime. It is a part of our identity.
I'm kind of like this too, but I'm ashamed of it. I should enjoy chess for its beautiful logic, not as some boost to my self-esteem. I think this effect is especially prevalent among professional players, because they may have to, to an extent, do things with their chess style and chess study that they might not fully enjoy, but is necessary for them to have sufficiently good results. That's of course a big reason for "grandmaster draws": they could play imaginatively but to an extent they feel compelled to play for results, and sometimes a safe approach might work out the best for that.
When trying to become a good chess player, you have to ask yourself if it's worth turning the game from something fun into a chore, in order to move up. The rating level at which a player starts to feel that varies.
devarajusa wrote:
@Da-Novelty
Q#1 :- Seriously, do you really think that your method would lead someone to cross elo 2000 in a year? cos i really really doubt that. It's too superficial and vague.
Q#2 :- Are you dreaming? Of course you are. I am just helping you wake up.
Q#3 :- Do you sometimes wish that this is real but alas this is just in your head?
Well worked for me.
I would be happier if players who are absolute beginners and intermediate show some respect for us 2000+.
You gotta be kidding me! In what way is others learning disrespectful to you? I heard this from others too. That this is a disgrace. Let me get something straight to you. If you are good at chess, good for you. If you spent years to master it, congrats. But dont think that me or anyone who has lesser rating owes you anything. Everyone will follow a plan that they think is best for them, and it doesn't matter how 'respected' the others feel.
@devarajusa
I only disagree with your post because that's not true. Of course you don't owe me anything and you are free to do as you like. As far as your thread goes, it's very very disrespectful to all chess players.
How can you give 1 month for tactics/strategy/openings etc etc and say that it will give you 100 pts? By this attitude, chess players are devalued.
You know in serious otb games every single point is earned by merit. Why do we respect IM's or GM's, because they earned it. Whether you personally respect someone or not is not my problem, I just want to openly disagree with you and your thread because you unintentionally hurt many chess players sentiments.
All for three easy payments of $19.95, and shipping is free!
Step right up and get your Snake Oil.
If you act now... this deal includes an incredible drawing board ...
Your's now... and it's absolutely free... just for trying this once in a lifetime special
zborg wrote:
All for three easy payments of $19.95, and shipping is free!
Step right up and get your Snake Oil.
International shipping?
pellik wrote:
I'd say that chess has to compete with my work and family, but truthfully it's my work and family that have to compete with chess.
and one more q: how many hours/week were dedicated to chess studying/playing? thanks
Aug 5, 2012
0
#137
Greenmtnboy wrote:
I would use "Rocky" as an example of how to achieve greatness in sports or even chess. You wake up early every morning, play highly motivational music as you do your workouts, have a breakfast of champions, including drinks made with raw eggs, raw milk and high performance powders in a blender.
Hire the strongest masters to push your chess calculative ability to the maximum, completely avoid sex, plow through a dozen of the best chess books and periodicals a week. Set your sights very high--go for IGM!!! Surely there are plenty of people inferior to you intellectually who have achieved that rank!
This "Rocky" joke was already made way earlier in this thread...
that is so YESTERDAY, dude..
Elubas wrote:
Andre_Harding wrote:
DavyWilliams:
When I am playing chess, I do not have a good time unless I am winning (or let's say, making draws against good players). This is completely normal; it's an attitude.
The higher a person's rating gets, the less happiness/more frustration they show. If you don't believe me, go to a tournament where masters and IMs/GMs are playing, and observe how unhappy they are.
To very serious players, chess is not just some pastime. It is a part of our identity.
I'm kind of like this too, but I'm ashamed of it. I should enjoy chess for its beautiful logic, not as some boost to my self-esteem. I think this effect is especially prevalent among professional players, because they may have to, to an extent, do things with their chess style and chess study that they might not fully enjoy, but is necessary for them to have sufficiently good results. That's of course a big reason for "grandmaster draws": they could play imaginatively but to an extent they feel compelled to play for results, and sometimes a safe approach might work out the best for that.
When trying to become a good chess player, you have to ask yourself if it's worth turning the game from something fun into a chore, in order to move up. The rating level at which a player starts to feel that varies.
This is spot on. I can remember my very first tournament from 1996 like it was yesterday, and even then I was not happy playing in it. All I cared about was getting 2.5 out of 4 so that I could get a trophy (I lost my first game, won my second, and was distraught after losing my third game...I took my anger out on the last opponent, who was by far the highest rated of the bunch...I always play better when I'm angry).
My obsession was just on getting good and becoming a strong player. Specifically, I wanted to become a Grandmaster one day. I was never really focused on enjoying the game, which I guess is sad on some level.
No matter how slim my odds are now of reaching GM, I'll keep torturing myself (improving my game) until I drop.
@Andre_Harding: Good luck 
Dargone wrote:
pellik wrote:
As a side note as bad as sometimes spending 30 hours a week on chess sounds, you know there are people who probably approach that with bullet chess on this website.
30 hours a week, assuming a full-time job, would leave little time for anything else! However, you only get one life so do whatever makes you happy.
I will share this story with you and others who may be a bit "obsessed" with chess (which includes me currently if I'm being honest).
There is a guy at the Las Vegas Chess Club who recently returned after a short hiatus. He's an older gentleman and was lamenting the fact that he tries to do other things in his life now because, as he put it, all he had was chess for most of his life. His exact quote was that he "woke up one morning with no wife or kids and all he had was chess."
It made me really think after listening to him because I've been spending a lot of time on chess these past few months. I'm getting lessons from Dan Heisman, playing at the club twice a week, playing in tournaments and doing a lot of studying.
Not picking on you because I'm probably approaching a similar time per week at chess. However, at the end of the day it is simply a game and I think that I've been spending more time than is healthy on it.
Yep, Paul Morphy said essentially the same thing - be careful it doesn't take over other more important aspects of life. He wanted to be a great lawyer, but was far better know for his chess- died in his 40's as I remember.
Not 2000 ELO.
http://www.chess.com/article/view/an-optimal-self-preparation-program-for-1400-ndash-1600-uscf-rated-players