U2200 or U2000

Markle wrote: You have a good score against A players, but all i am saying is not all experts are going to have an easy game against an A player

That is true. You don't have a bad rating yourself, not too many players are rated 1900 uscf, so you accomplish something incredible. In fact being a A-class ( 1800-1999) is incredible accomplishment that few players ever obtain, a lot European players never reach this level.

If you want a challenge, I think you're going to get that with the U2000 anyway - since you already have the burden of overcoming your difficult performance the last time you played there. This should serve as motivation. So see how well you can do in the U2000, gain some rating points, then after more experience you'll be better prepared to take down the U2200 and beyond. There is plenty of time for that. First prove that you can defeat this level of opposition. And yes, whatever you do, remember why you began chess in the first place. Enjoy and good luck!

So I have one game left, not really having a very good tournament. I do definitely now regret not having played U2200. Most of the young kids and the people really trying to improve in this tournament are playing up, whether they're 1600s playing U2000 or 1900 in U2200. And that's probably how they're going to get better. A lot of people gave the advice on this thread that I need to learn to beat lower-rateds before I can play experts, but I think the people playing up are much more likely to have a constructive tournament for their chess than people playing their section. I see that in this tournament, a lot of kids are playing up, whereas the vast majority of adults play their section. And maybe that's not coincidental with the fact that adults improve much less frequently and at much lower rates than kids. If I had played U2200, I would not have had a very high score, obviously, but I would not only have a chance to learn more from the games but I would also have less pressure on myself to win.

In the future, I will definitely play up in open tournaments whenever I reasonably can. I do regret having switched sections in this tournament.

Are you not learning much from the games because you're mopping the floor with your opponents? that doesn't sound like what you're saying...

dpnorman, I'm betting you weren't seeded in the top half of your section. The people competing for the prizes in the large open sections are all going to perform well over 100 points above the rating limit. 

Your poor performance could be in part due to your mindset. But more likely, it was due to the tough competition. 

I disagree strongly with yureesystem's argument that you should avoid playing in higher sections out of consideration for your opponents. You should avoid playing in higher sections because you have so much still to learn from your current peers.

Actually I was in the top half because once again, so many people played up (mainly younger players than myself), and so in the first round I got paired against a 1500, which was not at all what I wanted from this tournament. I'm not criticizing the 1500, for the record; that situation is another thing I could have avoided if I had played up

Thank you. I had a good start but have gone 0.5/3 yesterday and today

I think your reasoning may be a bit backwards.

Lots of kids play up because lots of kids are underrated. They even changed the K factor for anyone under 18.

It's not that: lots of kids play up, therefore kids improve faster than adults. They improve faster than adults therefore they play up more often than adults.

And if you score poorly vs U2000 then what makes those lessons worth so much less than when you score poorly in U2200?

It sounds to me that the OP is in a bit of a slump. 

Yeah, I don't know. It may just be too late in my life for me to improve much over my current rating, so I'll just be stuck in the 1800s.

I just figure that the only people who improve at chess with any consistency are children, and children have the habit of playing up in large tournaments and valuing experience and strong opposition over winning games/money. And they improve much faster and more consistently than adults. I might as well take a lesson from the only people who seem to know how to improve at chess.

Strange thing is, as i agree with profmain and the bold text in the post bellow him, i have to say that i gain rating here by avoiding equal and lower rated, becouse i will lose good % of the time playing them . But  also i can win vs higher rated and a lost from them dont cost much Elo...

So if you want rating go u2200 section. If you want to learn play u2000.

I strongly dissagree that at your age you cant improve. I am 10y older and i improve/learn every day/week, cuz i spent a lot of time reading and waching videos and i have so much more waiting me to study. It is just a matter of time and desire. Adults just have other things to do, while school boys just school and chess and p**n.

dpnorman wrote: 

So I have one game left, not really having a very good tournament. I do definitely now regret not having played U2200. Most of the young kids and the people really trying to improve in this tournament are playing up, whether they're 1600s playing U2000 or 1900 in U2200. And that's probably how they're going to get better. A lot of people gave the advice on this thread that I need to learn to beat lower-rateds before I can play experts, but I think the people playing up are much more likely to have a constructive tournament for their chess than people playing their section. I see that in this tournament, a lot of kids are playing up, whereas the vast majority of adults play their section. And maybe that's not coincidental with the fact that adults improve much less frequently and at much lower rates than kids. If I had played U2200, I would not have had a very high score, obviously, but I would not only have a chance to learn more from the games but I would also have less pressure on myself to win.

In the future, I will definitely play up in open tournaments whenever I reasonably can. I do regret having switched sections in this tournament.  

Actually I was in the top half because once again, so many people played up (mainly younger players than myself), and so in the first round I got paired against a 1500, which was not at all what I wanted from this tournament. I'm not criticizing the 1500, for the record; that situation is another thing I could have avoided if I had played up.  

Yeah, I don't know. It may just be too late in my life for me to improve much over my current rating, so I'll just be stuck in the 1800s.  

It seems you had a bad tournament and didn't get the positive results. When you have a bad tournament, go over your games to see if you were playing too passive or too risky, making one move blunders; a lot time just playing someone lower rated is stressful in its self. There is an art in beating low rated players, every player have their approach, my is more like Capablanca or Karpov, play solid and accumulate small pluses, eventually my opponent makes a mistake, I get a strong attack , a large middlegame advantage or a won endgame; other time I play like Anderssen or Morphy very tactical. Below expert level I have very good results, you have to learn to beat player below 1800 level consistently. In one tournament I played a very talent girl, she was 14 years old and rated mid 1400 uscf, she outplay me in the opening and I struggle to survive in the middlegame, I started looking for tactics and try to complicated our game, she was making tiny mistakes throughout our game, it was enough for me to find a queen sacrifice to win the game. BTW this girl is 1800 uscf after a few months playing her. When I played a kid I treat them like master, I play my best against them; it is always attitude you must see yourself winning, if you let your guard down you will lose.

Dpnorman, you said you have a coach. Go over the tnmt with your coach and work with him to figure out what went wrong. Just as importantly, go over what went right! Then get a plan together to reach your goals.

If you've stalled at 1800, what can we say, ok, you probably won't be a GM.

But stalling at 1800 definitely does not make 1800 your limit. Especially at your age. Many people work hard with no improvement only to have something click for them, and gain 200 points quickly.

Dp - This is called confirmation bias. How many of the 47325 active scholastic players in the country are ever going to reach 2200? At 1841 you are already in the top 1250 scholastic players in the country?!?

There are about 5000 players in the country with a higher ranking, to move up rating wise you have to climb over them (or beat a ton of people lower than you). The difference between a 2000 player and a 2100 player is much larger than a 1600 to a 1700 so yes you might not see the meteoric rating rise you have had in the past but it doesn't mean you can't improve.

At U20 and U2000, you certainly have a large scope for improvement, even without working super-hard on your chess...

I was around 2200 when 17 around 30 years ago and I was under no illusion that I was good enough to be a GM......different class altogether...Getting to 2200 is not too difficult and I did it without any deep positional study, but to push to 2400 and beyond, unless you're a prodigy, you need to do a fair bit of focussed study.   just my humble opinion.

Also, you've probably heard this before, but USCF rating are inflated by about 100 ELO compared to European ELO ratings....so there is a problem for you also when playing in an European rated tournament.

My fide rating is higher than my USCF - but that might be because I take Fide rated games far more seriously?!

Well thats impressive for you.    I don't play any tournaments now that are FIDE rated and I don't live in the USA anymore so my USCF rating will stay as it is, although I never played anyone above FIDE 2000 to achieve the rating I had.  Honestly, USCF rating are a bit of a joke, along with the psuedo titles at different levels, but i guess it gives players something to aim for.

I personally do not class any player as an expert until they are over FIDE 2200 or at least USCF 2300.  Otherwise they are just different levels of amatuer.

regards