RoadMap for achieving 2000 Elo rating in 1 year - Chess Forums - Page 9

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

Stevie65

Aug 6, 2012

0

#161

No chip e4nf3..just tryin to hold on to my humility..sorry do not wanna go retro with our relationship.sorry will read more carefully!

zborg

Aug 6, 2012

0

#162

@e4fn3 has upgraded his membership, changed his country, and brought his trolling into this snake oil thread about fantastic chess improvements (for 3 easy payments of $19.95). No surprises there.

Hasn't your embarassment from @Snake's thread on "Troll Wars Exposed" at least disposed you to temper you caustic assertations, just a bit?

Only 10 percent of ACTIVE tournament players in the U.S. break 1800 ratings. And everyone rated above 1600 is "very busy" playing and trying to improve.

Most will not break 1900, the 93 percentile. Fide 2000 "in a year" is even more ridiculously outlandish. Get a life.

@Joey appears to have broken the Expert Level, you should be listening to him, instead of spewing mindless insults. Ditto with @Ponz, a former U.S. Correspondence Champion.

WTF have you been smoking, @e4nf3?

Stevie65

Aug 6, 2012

0

#163

wow!! joey..That is an impressive number! Never even thought to look..any chance of a couple of lessons?

For free of course!

zborg

Aug 6, 2012

0

#164

Only one percent of actively tournament players in the U.S. break 2200. And that's qualitatively lower than most GMs who are roughly about 2600+.

Every 400 point rating increase brings "vastly greater understanding" of the game. And no shit, everyone 400 point lower VASTLY UNDERESTIMATES how hard it is to increase their playing strength.

It's not just a question of statistics and ratings distributions. It should be just common sense, for just about anyone who has put in a serious effort to improve their playing strength.

The main assertion of this thread is as misleading as the diet fads, get rich quick schemes, and 3-easy-payment ads that swamp TV advertising during the wee hours in the middle of the night, when drunk folks sit in front of their TV set or computer terminal.

DavidSaville

Aug 6, 2012

0

#165

Actually, I think he is right, especially about having a plan outline, even if it is simple. As my master GM Gufeld said, any plan is beter than no plan, just be willing to adjust. I have a student who started less than 2 years ago at age 8. He is now 9 years old and won the last 5 tourneys he played in raising his elo to about 2000. He even drew GM Kudrin in a 15 player simul with the video on u-tube. he was 660 elo at age 8 when he started. He won the under11 Nationals and blitz tourney at 8-0.

e4nf3

Aug 6, 2012

0

#166

There are some really crazy people on the internet.

Now, zborg...I am not including you in that category (at least I don't think I am, but I could be wrong)...I don't have a clue about your rabid attack, though. Do you have hemmorhoids or something...getting yourself all enraged over nothing?

Where did I say hitting 1800 or anything above as doable for the average player? I said it is HARD.

And, your ad hominems against me...pitiful as they are...and your sycophantic affair with that guy who viciously attacks really nice people and posts a photo of a hanged household pet? I think that speaks volumes about YOU.

Why not spend some time and effort improving your chess, instead? You sure could use it. lol

Now, I'll bet you are glad you messed with one of us "old people".

zborg

Aug 6, 2012

0

#167

Hardly. The only thing separating our ages is your gray hair.

And you're trolling this thread, despite your avowed intentions.

e4nf3

Aug 6, 2012

0

#168

That's a pitifully weak retort, son.

zborg

Aug 6, 2012

0

#169

Glad to see you posts are become more incisive. Albeit lame.

e4nf3

Aug 6, 2012

0

#170

You know, I had to do some homework on you. Seems you are a major, major troll:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/alleged-nm-has-been-quotoutedquot

zborg

Aug 6, 2012

0

#171

Your 10 second homework is rather lame, too.

I "own" my avatar, profile, and posts, whereas you have long since abandoned the field for being responsible for your posts.

Being old and crotchety is not a license to spread mayhem in the forums. Apparently, you view that as your God-Given Right.

No surprises there.

scandium

Aug 6, 2012

0

#172

Dargone wrote:

Silver_Surfer24 wrote:

If we all spent thirty hours a week on chess like Pellik here I'm sure many of us would have similar results to his own. The catch is simply that most of us aren't physically able to dedicate that amount of time to chess due to jobs and other commitments, or lack the will power to follow through on a long term serious attempt to better their game. Most burn out in a short period of time or opt to play loads of blitz chess or some other fruitless activity as far as real chess progress is concerned.

I'm reminded of this quote by seven time Mr. Olympia body builder Ronnie Coleman based on this discussion that I think is relevant to why there are so few Experts on up to GM's chess players out there. The same goes for chess:

"Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder but nobody wants to lift no heavy ass weights"

Yeah, this is spot on. I've been hitting it hard for a few months and have definitely improved a lot compared to when I was aimlessly playing blitz. My last two games at the club were against Class A players and I gave them both a great game. I've had draws against Class B players the past couple of months too. Unfortunately, most of the regulars at the club are at least Class B and we have a lot of regulars who are Experts. This is of course tough on my rating as I'm not playing other "improving players" and a loss that's close is still a loss. Most of the other players seem to think my rating is probably around 1400-1500 USCF. I certainly feel that if I keep this level of study up I could hit 1800+ after a year or so.

However, I'm already feeling the burnout and have not really been doing much chess this past week. I'm seriously thinking about taking a break because there is a lot more to life then chess and it's pretty much all I do now. I don't want to be the guy at the chess club I spoke of earlier.

I think what you're saying is spot on. It takes a lot of effort to improve at chess and if most people had the ability and desire to put in 30+ hours a week, then there is no reason to assume that they could not achieve what Pelik did. Assuming of course a good plan of study. Obviously, playing 30+ hours of Blitz/Bullet is not going to show anywhere near the results of the plan I've been following or what Pelik has been doing.

A break can be a good thing for your game - so long as its not an 8 year one, like the one I just came off of ;)

I have mixed feelings about blitz. I think its not so good for players who are stuck in the hanging material stage, as the fast time control only encourages their bad habits.

Its also not so useful when you're working toward improving your strategic/positional game, as learning to make plans and find or create weaknesses is time consuming in a way that is not so compatible with the pace of blitz.

For tactics, on the other hand, I found it useful when I was last active and quite a bit stronger than I am now - the fast play of blitz meant, for me, lots of opportunities for the tactical shots and mating attacks I was focused on at the time. It sort of served to reinforce the learning through the execution of the ideas in play.

Right now I've all but cut out blitz entirely as its not doing anything for game right now.

e4nf3

Aug 6, 2012

0

#173

zborg: No surprises there

I think I had something thoughtful to say. Then you attacked me by ambush.

No ice cream for you.

Metastable

Aug 6, 2012

0

#174

Beckyschess wrote:

My luck, im good at chess, or at least ok, but I suck at singing which totally blows.

Have I got the plan for you, then! Start with one month of just not hitting sour notes. Then one month of trying to remember the lyrics. Then one month of practicing scales with marbles in your mouth. You'll be on TV before you know it.

Chessking46

Aug 6, 2012

0

#175

It's not like math. It's not like you can study 4th grade math in one month, then 5th in a month, pre-algebra, calculus... and everything. It's not like you can become a mathematician in a year. And so, it took me two months to learn 4th grade math, and a month to learn 5th, three for 6th, and I'm studying 7th.

Chessking46

Aug 6, 2012

0

#176

streetfighter wrote:

I'm not sure paying a coach $125 per month and not even knowing the names of openings or which side it is who plays the named opening is value for money, but hey, if you're happy! Pity your coach is also breaking the T&C's of the site with his coaching.

You think I don't know what 1. e4 Nf6 is? It's the Alekhine's Defense.

Wait, I think I missed the point.

Icy_Clench

Aug 6, 2012

0

#177

1200 to 2000 in a year? Challenge accepted! My rating in real life is 1256. I mark today, August 6th, 2012 as the start. In one year I vow to come back and repost my rating.

waffllemaster

Aug 6, 2012

0

#178

pellik wrote:

waffllemaster wrote:

pellik wrote:

AndyClifton wrote:

And we're supposed to believe that? lol Looks pretty fishy to me...

I've redacted my name and peak rating, but hopefully this will help alleviate your disbelief.

Not to undermine your achievement, it's great, but write a book, really? The first thing someone has to wonder is the amount of chess related activities that happened between 2005 and 2011 after which your rating was just trying to catch up. Obviously you weren't accurately rated after every game, you're accurately rated after you plateau.

And of course has to wonder as well about your sub 1000 rating, and how accurate that was. Did you languish for many tournaments/months at sub 1000, climb 800 points in a year, then level off? That's certainly not shown either, and I still have to wonder if a person like this even exists.

My thought about a book is that I have relatively recent experience with what it's like to be a weaker player trying to make sense of the rules and guideliens layed out in the books that I read. Most books are written by people who have been good players for a long time, and don't seem to really understand why others are not as good as they are.

I'm not trying to pull something over here (why would I?). I did play chess between 2005-2011. I played internet blitz when I was at a computer that couldn't play real games (GFs house, library). I played the London system exclusively as white and the Slav and Scandinavian (with 2...Nf6) as black. My rating online would fluctuate between 1100-1300. I never studied, my rating never improved. But I do believe that the pattern recognition I gained was invaluble at propelling me from 1200 to 1500 during my first few months of taking chess seriously.

My rating chart is too smushed together to really see it but I did hit a few small (one month) plateaus while I was improving (the last few months I've stalled but I always kind of wanted a break at 2000). My winning % has generally been somewhere in the neighborhood of 66% the whole time, so it's not like I was just winning game after game. I'd improve enough to get to play up against stronger people, lose, study, come back and win the next time.

Tournament performance wise I've seen fairly consistent strength increases as well. Every tournament I've played I've been one section higher then I was before (They seem to stagger so the first tournament has U1500 U1700 U1900 the second has U1400 U1600 U1800, etc.). So I'd manage around 4.5/7 or 6/9 in every one. Never good enough for money but good enough to know I belong there. If I was really a stronger player when I started I'd have won a lot of money on the way up.

I really was a 1200 player who made it up to 2000 in a hurry. But I was never the type of 1200 player who studied and didn't improve.

Thanks for the detailed response, it helps me see the whole picture.

The idea that you can remember more easily what it's like to a weak / improving player makes sense. Wasn't trying to be rude, I'm a skeptical person :)

Da-Novelty

Aug 7, 2012

0

#179

Icy_Clench wrote:

1200 to 2000 in a year? Challenge accepted! My rating in real life is 1256. I mark today, August 6th, 2012 as the start. In one year I vow to come back and repost my rating.

Go ahead, I doubt that...but one more thing please don't dissapear in case you don't make it lol.

RichDavisson

Aug 7, 2012

0

#180

Step 1: Get to 1600.

Step 2: Play a 24 game match against a player who is sitting at a 2000 floor, but is really only about 16-1700 in strength.

Step 3: Repeat monthly. Should be good enough for 18-1900 at least.