Time to get 1500 rating

137! I think that's genius? Good job!

Wtf 's wrong with you Lewis? You tell others they are stupid for nothing and when they are joking by posting Iq test results when they know there's no reliability between a real professional test and a basic online test, when they know there aren't almost any correlation between Qi and chess skills to make you look smart... Congratulations.. Or it's because you didn' t notice it was a joke because you're such an ignorant yourself?

Yeah greg135 kco and JEMORANGE, it's why  I never play bullet and bliz, I basically play online to analyse every possible move.  

How long is a piece of string...?

Obviously, it will be different for everyone, but to get over 1500 I'd suggest a player will need:

1. Some _understanding_ of openings as well as an opening book

2. Fundamentals of strategy and tactics

3. Enough practice to make blunders acceptably rare

4. A habit of taking _time_ over each move.

Anyone interested enough to play (nearly) every day for an hour or two and study one or more books I'd expect to be able to get to 1500. But do note that ~75-80% of players on the site aren't up to 1500, so it won't "just happen".

How fast? I got there in three months, but I used to play 20 years ago. And I think I'm nearing the limit of how far I can improve merely by playing, and need to start studying again (as I did as a teenager) and treating the games as online/correspondence games, not just interrupted slow paced over the board games.

For a total beginner? Hours spent playing and studying probably count more than calendar time, but given the slow pace (or at least, what *should* be slow pace of online games) I'd be surprised at less than six months.

If it takes a year, it takes a year. Longer than that (while spending time over moves, studying, and analysing won and lost games) I'd suggest some coaching would help: a couple of hours a day and not getting near 1500 would suggest to me that some aspect of the game is not well enough understood and some outside input would be useful.

All my own opinions; take or leave. Might be right; might be wrong.

To be honest, when you start like me, you should consider opinions of people better than you right, they have more experience than the noob (in this case, I am the noob)

For the time put into chess... I don't have that much to spend... About 1 day or 2 per week to see my online games and tha'ts all.

If you don't have much time to spend, you need to spend it well. I don't see any option but to break your time into: playing, analysing completed games, and study.

[ Edit: I misread your current game status. 52 is your _completed_ game count, not your current game count. So ignore the next three paragraphs, please. Rather than delete them I've italicised them. Maybe I should just have deleted this whole post. ]

You're currently playing 52 games. One hour each of those days: one minute per move, no time for post-game analysis or study.

Two hours: either one minute per move and one hour for analysis/study or (more likely) you're spending all the time playing.

Were I you, I'd wind back the number of games. I've currently got ~20 on the go, and that's too many to find time to study as well on days that I play. So I'm trying to wind back (but am in a couple of tournaments, get cadged into joining matches, ...).

[ Edit: back to the sensible comments. Or I hope sensible comments! ]

Partiular ratings aren't a great reason to play chess. If you're enjoying what you're doing, you could just stick with it. If you want to improve though and only have time on a couple of days a week, I think you'll need to rearrange things a bit. Study needn't be "not fun": playing through master games can be interesting and enjoyable. Even learning endgames, when you get that "Ah!" moment when you know how you could have won a game you lost or drew isn't bad.

All up to you: hobbies are supposed to be fun. Seemingly they always include some frustration and occasional disappointment, but figure out what works for you. If you hate study you can always return to playing many games at a time, at whatever level is "natural" to you.

This is incomplete, we should say the more you study and play the more you will improve. You can see a lots here who have thousand and thousand games, but no improvement in their game. Both study and playing are important.

Yeah, I really enjoy chess, but I don't have much time these days(end of scholar year). The thing I do is playing online games and analyse every move possible up to 5 moves ahead. I barely don' t post analyse my games, I only look them back fast (5 mins). I then play other games and when I get stronger, I analyse my ancient games to realize I made ridiculous mistakes.

My decision sounds like it was rather like you're doing, if for a different reason. Since I was coming back to chess, I decided to "just play" until I got back in form.

If you look at my rating (which follows form, somewhat) you'll see I took a dip, then got a handle on things, and have been mostly improving my rating since.

My judgement is that "just playing" isn't going to take me much further, and that I need to study more and analyse (my own games and others) more if I am to improve much more. Also take serious time over my moves (as it sounds you're already doing, but I only do sometimes -- shh! Don't tell my opponents).

As I have a parallel aim to get my over the board chess back into shape (which, truly, it never was, really) I need to study openings some more: I have sufficient theory to lean on opening books for online chess, but for live and/or over the board: I feel a lack.

Good luck with both your studies and your chess!

I think for a normal person studying seriously, would be able to get to 1500 fairly quickly.  I think in 1 - 2 years they should do it starting from scratch.  I played some chess in school for fun and then started studying 6 months ago, there I was rated around 1300 live chess and I started playing nearly every single day, doing tactics, learning opennings, strategy in the middlegames, and going over master games.  Not so much study on endgames yet...

Don't take online ratings here too seriously because everyone uses databases and analysis for days.  That is another form of chess.  You should practice live chess or over the board chess to improve the most.  With longer time controls the better...

I used to great at 2-5 minute games..... until i came to Chess.com. Then i understood why i was making moves better in games. Then people start suggesting getting these great books. Well i had to go and get them. Then my Bullet game suffered with do this and do that so i am under 1500 player.

Now i could try to return..... to playing instinctive which i tried sometimes but then comes the mistakes. I finally solved the blunder problem without having to sit on my hands as many suggest. Like to get back to my all star self of 2years ago in 5 minute games which Chess.com  has as Bullet without ruining my other game.

Thanks for your thoughts, but can you explain what does I cited means? I mean, what difference it has and what influence it has on learning?

That is not true all of them. I think they have some refernce material. As when i play a rare variation of it i have found some make some serious bad moves.

How do i know?  I play Vote Chess and 80% of the teams us it(database). So i know the difference when i see it.

Means this is "online" chess, the Internet successor to correspondence chess.

One difference is that opening books/databases are allowable resources, unlike in live games or over the board tournaments. So playing a rare opening isn't as much of a challenge as it might be for an opponent at your local chess tournament.

Another difference is that people have (typically) days to make a move, and so can consider each move for far longer than they could across the board. Not that many at the lower rating levels do if their play and number of concurrent games is anything to judge by ...

Aaaah my main weapons would be rare variations if i went to a tournament. I do well with them under all situations.

A database is only good if you know the opening. I have seen to many teams in Vote Chess use a database and was well on their way to losing at move # 10 and did not know it. And if you do not know how to use your pieces to play in a situation well the database is your end your game in a slow and painful death.

Your current online rating of 1332 is based on only 3 games. No rating can be considered even halfway accurate until you have played dozens of games. Even should you win all your current games and hit 1500 for one game, it wouldn't really be accurate. The US Chess Federation used to have "provisional" ratings, until you have played a certain number of games-- which I think was 24 before you have an "established" rating.

Your live chess (standard) rating of 895, based on 21 games, or your blitz rating of 537 , based on 24 games, are probably much more accurate of your current level of play.

Like for most of us, there's nowhere to go but up.

Then comes the Sandbagger!

Yeah but my standard and blitz games were way before I got stronger (+300 to +400 in my online rating).

Ollave: But if I let others use database whilst I don't use them, isn't it to their advantage? This makes them stronger and I face a stronger opponent and I get better?

If you choose not to use an opening book or database, then you'll be placing yourself at a disadvantage. If you want to learn about openings and look up the opening after you play, I guess that's one way to learn. Your games, you play how you prefer!

One time it might pay to leave the book early is if you are much stronger than your opponent. I am playing a 2000+ player (~500 points higher rated than me) in a tournament who is taking that tack. Our first game took 40 moves until I resigned, yet in our second game he's left the book early as well. Not, so far as I can see, to his advantage; however I suspect "something" will happen later in the game and I'll still lose. We shall see ...