Forums

Very basic study guide to hit 2000

Sort:
yureesystem
yureesystem
Jul 10, 2017
0
#41
StupidGM wrote:
yureesystem wrote:

The title should be how o get a bullet rating 1800 and show you how. Getting a real otb rating of 2000, only a 2000 uscf or fide can show you how not a online bullet rated player.

My peak OTB rating for USCF is 2000, and back then you couldn't get a FIDE rating unless you were 2200+.

I guess that qualifies me, so....

1.  Put your pieces on the right squares

2.  Stop hanging stuff

As for openings, it never hurts to start building a repertoire that you will never have to change, but without technique beyond memorizing variations the repertoire won't pay off.  Where it will pay off is as your rating goes up you'll find that you don't have to rebuild your openings because they won't be getting busted early. 

 

 

 

 At my level " otb expert" you are correct opening repertoire is important, there is no way I can avoid studying some opening to be competent against experts and masters; but I see experts and masters choke in some tactical situation and badly play the endgame and for me to go forward I need to be more competent in tactics and the endgame to become a master. I relaying this through experience but not some fantasy generalization.

yureesystem
yureesystem
Jul 10, 2017
0
#42
StupidGM wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
StupidGM wrote:
yureesystem wrote:

The title should be how o get a bullet rating 1800 and show you how. Getting a real otb rating of 2000, only a 2000 uscf or fide can show you how not a online bullet rated player.

My peak OTB rating for USCF is 2000, and back then you couldn't get a FIDE rating unless you were 2200+.

I guess that qualifies me, so....

1.  Put your pieces on the right squares

2.  Stop hanging stuff

As for openings, it never hurts to start building a repertoire that you will never have to change, but without technique beyond memorizing variations the repertoire won't pay off.  Where it will pay off is as your rating goes up you'll find that you don't have to rebuild your openings because they won't be getting busted early. 

 

 

 

 At my level " otb expert" you are correct opening repertoire is important, there is no way I can avoid studying some opening to be competent against experts and masters; but I see experts and masters choke in some tactical situation and badly play the endgame and for me to go forward I need to be more competent in tactics and the endgame to become a master. I relaying this through experience but not some fantasy generalization.

Either that or you need better positions to begin those middlegame and endgames.

I find that every time I plug up a hole in my opening repertoire that my rating goes up because I wind up stealing rating points from those who play that line.

 

 

 

 At expert level I can get a playable middlegame against master (2200-2299), but against the very strong masters 2400 elo I get crush, its not the opening but their deep understanding of position, they always beat me badly in the early middlegame or outplay me in endgame; against low masters and experts I have no problems holding my own. I have not done enough analyzing complex positions, to develop calculation skill and assessing position correctly, every strong master have done this to develop to their chess strength. To beat a very strong master you need to be very competent in the endgame and tactics, good endgame help you to plan better, which pieces to exchange and which to keep, what acceptable weakness to allow and what to avoid, and if you need to sacrifice material to keep your piece active, a strong master know this and beyond.

kindaspongey
kindaspongey
Jul 10, 2017
0
#43

"... going from good at tactics to great at tactics ... doesn't translate into much greater strength. ... You need a relatively good memory to reach average strength. But a much better memory isn't going to make you a master. ... there's a powerful law of diminishing returns in chess calculation, ... Your rating may have been steadily rising when suddenly it stops. ... One explanation for the wall is that most players got to where they are by learning how to not lose. ... Mastering chess ... requires a new set of skills and traits. ... Many of these attributes are kinds of know-how, such as understanding when to change the pawn structure or what a positionally won game looks like and how to deal with it. Some are habits, like always looking for targets. Others are refined senses, like recognizing a critical middlegame moment or feeling when time is on your side and when it isn't. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2012)

yureesystem
yureesystem
Jul 10, 2017
0
#44
StupidGM wrote:
yureesystem wrote:

 

 At expert level I can get a playable middlegame against master (2200-2299), but against the very strong masters 2400 elo I get crush, its not the opening but their deep understanding of position, they always beat me badly in the early middlegame or outplay me in endgame; against low masters and experts I have no problems holding my own. I have not done enough analyzing complex positions, to develop calculation skill and assessing position correctly, every strong master have done this to develop to their chess strength. To beat a very strong master you need to be very competent in the endgame and tactics, good endgame help you to plan better, which pieces to exchange and which to keep, what acceptable weakness to allow and what to avoid, and if you need to sacrifice material to keep your piece active, a strong master know this and beyond.

 If you knew what was REALLY wrong with your game, you'd simply fix it. 

You say "it's not the opening" but I bet it is.  Here's my example from the QGA:

 

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 Nc3 e5 4 d5 Nf6 5 e4 b5 6 Nxb5 Nxe4 7 Bxc4 Bb4+ 8 Kf1 Bxf2+! -/+

 

Now White is obviously lost here, but do you know how many players keep trying to "improve" on 6...Nxb5?  Never mind that the engine still says it's -0.80 or whatever, these people don't identify 3. Nc3 as the first mistake, or 5. e4 as the key mistake.  The position can still be half-decent for White if he avoids 5. e4, but the move is so "logical" that people just assume it can't be the "losing move."  "Oh no, it's that tactical shot 7...Bxf2+ that beat me!"  It's not.

Bobby Fiischer showed very clearly how to become the best player in the world.  I don't know why people fight his teaching and example so badly.  90 percent of his study was openings.  Endgames and middlegames are like basic chores, whereas opening study is like designing and remodeling your home.  Of course that's the real hard work in chess, and it's something most either do not wish to do, or refuse to invest the time to do it.  Fischer invested that time and look where it got him.  Bill Lombardy is the one who preached total immersion to Fischer and should be the one who gets the credit for his success more than any third party.  Jack Collins was just a babysitter for the most part (though this was very important as well).

 

 

 

 

7.Bxc4? IS A MISTAKE, white alright on 7.Qa4 with a slight advantage. I have opening repertoire for white very narrow and I know them well and for black developing very aggressive lines; like  I said before you get to a position where it require hard core calculation and even at strong expert and low master they haven't perfect it. I play with many experts and some masters and go on experience and not some fantasy. Below expert level they can't calculate at all and that is why they lose to experts and masters, it take practice and a lot tactics to calculate well and most players aren't wiling to do it