U2200 or U2000

It's not the USCF titles that are a joke, but the ECF titles. You berate USCF "Experts", but don't mention ECF's Regional Masters, County Masters, Club Masters, Team Masters, and even Club Maestros? You don't even need an ECF rating of 100 to become a maestro!

At least with the USCF, in order to become an expert one must score in the top 10% of all tournament players. That's a pretty significant accomplishment. As an IM friend who was +2500 FIDE of mine said after I had given a simul, there are only a few people in the world who could tell the difference in quality between us. Of course the difference between a 2150 (which was my rating at the time) and a 2520 is vast, but it is also very esoteric. A 1500 rated player would have a hard time telling the difference. In the days before ratings, I would have been considered a master simply because I had won city championships and could give simuls. 

Again, I agree that there's a huge difference between an expert and a +2300. But in terms of general knowledge and skill, a rating beginning with a 2 deserves respect. 

  The maestro has been caught with his pants down.

If you had a bad tournament in the U2000, you definetly shouldn't play in the U2200 next time. You have to prove that you're better than everyone in the U2000 before you can move up.

I don't agree with that anymore. A lot of the young kids who are improving would have played in the U2200 in my position, even if they believed they would have scored badly in the U2000 section. I am discovering that it is more valuable for me to do things that players who improve actually do rather than take the advice of others who may or may not be improving (and, if they are adults, are likely not to be).

Simply not true.  I have had, and continue to have, more success against Experts than A-Class players.  Why that is, who knows?

Do you want to be one of those guys : when i see their profile - they have higher average rating of opponents than their own rating and their stats is something like 2000 wins vs 20 000 loses and years go they are still same low rating..

Doverblitzking, don't underestimate a USCF experts, we beat GMs on otb games. I have seen some the FIDE rated played of 1800- 1950, they don't play any better than USCF players, some them play worse. I have the confidence if ever enter a FIDE tournament unrated, my first will be at least in the low 2000 without any study at all; with some study easily reach 2200 FIDE.

In my chess club here is my score and my winning percentage is in the 70%.

Tournaments Entered: 28
Games Played: 129 (78 wins / 23 losses / 28 draws)
Win Percentage: 71.3%    

If I can improve my wins against the experts and masters I reach master level. All it take is studying endgame and tactics and tweaking the opening a little.  

 I know two friends who are uscf expert beat a GM otb, no low rated player can do this, I have not beat a GM, maybe in the future.

 In my chess club I have to play against very talented kids who are low rated but their rating is climbing up very quickly, these kids love is to play against experts and masters, for them is scalp, increase of their rating and bragging rights; you better believe I play my best against these talents, it keeps you sharp and fighting spirit against kids who sole purpose is to beat a higher rated player.

Playing in U2200 is good for gaining rating points--but you don't gain strenght. Eventually, your rating will whoosh back down because you played "up"

I don't think there's any reason playing my section would be more likely to make me improve than playing one section up. Playing up also avoids playing other people playing up in my normal section, as well as being more likely to get useful postmortems. Also I definitely play better when I play up.

Finishing 0.5/6 in the U2200 section might have a negative psychological impact. Its also worth considering that.

If you can't beat a low rated player you can't play chess. Meaning you have to have the skills to beat a player who is low rated; if your chess foundation is shaky you will not have the skills to beat a low rated, you have to be the one dictating the direction of the game not your low rated player. My only complain is the rating gain not losing to a low rated. Look at what areas you need to improve and what rating level you have the hardest time beating, if the 1500, 1600, 1700 or 1800 are giving you a hard time, by improving the score against these low rated you will go up in rating. If I can improve on 1600 to 2200 range I easily go to high 2100, if I can beat the 2200 to 2300 I can become a master.  

But does that logic actually lead to improvement? Doesn't seem like it to me. I'm not going to keep playing the same section over and over again until I win money. I'm going to challenge myself

@dpnorman, the worse that can happen is climbing too quickly in rating and  fearing you will to lose a low rated and drop below expert or master. This happen to experts who attain the coveted master level and quit chess so they never drop below master. You need chess knowledge so you have the confidence to play against any rating level and still maintain your rating without the fear dropping below whatever level you attain. I study endgame and it help to build my confidences in that area and save some lost position or won position that if I did not have knowledge I would of drew instead won it. I am studying more tactics and tactical positions and games to recognize the opportunities and to plan them better too in my games.

What leads to improvement has very little to do with what section you play in a tournament. Hate to break this to you. 

IMO you are correlating playing "up" with breakthrough performances. 

I started tournament chess in my late 20s and was pretty successfull which meant at a class tournament I was almost always playing a rapidly rising scholastic player. I have played or observed closely (board next to me repeatedly) most of the young gm's im's and fm's we have. I played Shankland when he was 1700, and I am certain that playing up has very little to do with your rating or improvement. 

Shankland wasn't losing to other 1700s, he was a beast at 1700 and if he played up it was because his coach (IM Pruess) thought he could get some scalps.

If you play U2000 and have a negative score then there are still serious flaws in your game that need to be addressed. 

Hate to say it, but every player has a phase of rapid improvement, but not every player when they hit a wall, have the gumption to push through. Kid or adult. 

In this case, yureesystem's full of ... well. You know. 

Nimzo's on the right track tho. Talk to your coach. Work out what went right and wrong with him. Don't listen to a bunch of anonymous people posting on some forum on the internet. Talk to someone who knows you and your goals. If you're paying him to help you, you should either listen to him or find a new coach. 

SmyslovFan wrote: 

In this case, yureesystem's full of ... well. You know.   

Coaches don't really help, my friend who was 1400 uscf for a long time had three coaches and still was 1400 uscf. He was so desperate he ask me what to do to go up in rating: my advice was three things, 1st. Play 1.e4 as white, 2nd. play sound and no unsound sacrifice, 3rd. Study chess through chess books ( Logical Chess Move by Move by Irving Chernev,, The Most Instructive Games of Chess ever Played by Irving Chernev and Modern Chess Strategy by Ludek Pachman. ) These three chess books my friend gain four hundred rating points, he is now a 1800. Three coaches and my friend who was middle-age was a low rated but when he study through chess books he climb to 1800; it took him two years.  This also work with college students too, my friend who is a college student was 1200 and I recommemd that he study several chess books and his rating and the quality of his move improve and he was beating high rated players. Studying from chess books is more thorough than any coach. In my thread " How To Beat A otb Expert", Ron is my student, free of charge I did not except any money to help my friend or any chess player who really wanted to improve; coaches basically is all about money, you learn more from a book than any coach! I also help high rated player, one was a kid who was 1900 and extremely talented but stay at 1900 level, and we work on the endgame and I give him a lot encouragement and we went over his club game and he eventually went o 2200 uscf; I think in this case it was more because he is extremely talent but he couldn't overcome some obstacle: but I encourage him to persevere.

It sounds like you are reacting to a poor tournament. I'm 19, and have been playing in USCF tournaments for 3 years. The first year my rating went from 1400ish (provisional from a scholastic) to 1840ish. The next year I reached 1950ish. This year my rating has risen to 2075. So I think at your age you can certainly improve a lot.

When I had a poor tournament I would often think about quitting chess altogether, but I think this was a bit extreme.

As for rating sections, I think they're somewhat irrelevant. If you had played in the u2200 and had a poor result, you might say something like "I'm going to play in my section whenever possible."

I don't think the rating section matters too much. If you do think that you'll improve more from the u2200 section, though, then certainly try that next time. I do know that after having a great result in my first open tournament, my rating almost reached 1800 and then slowed down a bit. For awhile when I was 1800-1900 I often struggled to win against lower rated opponents or improve my rating. I think this might be normal.

Lately I've been doing much better against lower rated opponents. I'm not exactly sure what changed, but I do know my confidence increased dramatically. Perhaps it's just because of experience. Whatever the case, if you review your games to find your weaknesses, work to improve these areas, and keeping playing, I'm sure you'll improve 

SJFG wrote:

dpnorman wrote:

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.

It sounds like you are reacting to a poor tournament. I'm 19, and have been playing in USCF tournaments for 3 years. The first year my rating went from 1400ish (provisional from a scholastic) to 1840ish. The next year I reached 1950ish. This year my rating has risen to 2075. So I think at your age you can certainly improve a lot.

When I had a poor tournament I would often think about quitting chess altogether, but I think this was a bit extreme.

As for rating sections, I think they're somewhat irrelevant. If you had played in the u2200 and had a poor result, you might say something like "I'm going to play in my section whenever possible."

I don't think the rating section matters too much. If you do think that you'll improve more from the u2200 section, though, then certainly try that next time. I do know that after having a great result in my first open tournament, my rating almost reached 1800 and then slowed down a bit. For awhile when I was 1800-1900 I often struggled to win against lower rated opponents or improve my rating. I think this might be normal.

Lately I've been doing much better against lower rated opponents. I'm not exactly sure what changed, but I do know my confidence increased dramatically. Perhaps it's just because of experience. Whatever the case, if you review your games to find your weaknesses, work to improve these areas, and keeping playing, I'm sure you'll improve   

Very positive and encouraging, one of best post.