"... If you want to play competitively, then you must develop an opening repertoire. ..." - GM Patrick Wolff (1997)
Very basic study guide to hit 2000
Sort:
Basic advice to reach 2000:
Study these 2 books cover to cover:
- Soviet Chess Primer
- Soviet Middlegame Technique
Study tactics (Daily for months in a row - focused).
kindaspongey wrote:
"... If you want to play competitively, then you must develop an opening repertoire. ..." - GM Patrick Wolff (1997)
"From my experience (...) players below 2100 rarely play the theoretical mainlines. Usually, these players are just aiming for a solid position without having to know a lot of theory."
"I usually play players rated below 2200. Most of them don't seem to have theoretical knowledge beyond move 5 or so."
- Jorn Damman (1999 USCF)
"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
Jul 8, 2017
0
#27
It is really sad to see how little respect several people here show to this guy. He his given advices how to improve in chess, and he deserved respect because he reached a level in chess that most of us can only dream about. It remembers me the time Roger Federer had problems to win grand slams (tennis). I heard often very disrespectful comments on how Federer "could not play tennis", and this from horrible tennis players with a cigarette in the lips and a bottle beer in the other hand, with a huge belly.
The advices the guy give here are only for people willing to invest time and energy in chess. If you are a very weak player, don't be ashamed, but do not attack the guy who his directing his advices to potential good players.
Coming back to the post. I am close to 1500 in rapid, and I will take your advices seriously. However, I like to learn openings. How can I explain this,it relax me. It gives me an idea how to play good moves.
I do not play 1.e4 but 1.d4. I know, a lot of people here will abort the game immediately after see my first move, but in real life 1d4 gives me very playable positions. Do you think that a beginner like me can also follow your advices playing 1.d4?
The advices the guy give here are only for people willing to invest time and energy in chess. If you are a very weak player, don't be ashamed, but do not attack the guy who his directing his advices to potential good players.
Coming back to the post. I am close to 1500 in rapid, and I will take your advices seriously. However, I like to learn openings. How can I explain this,it relax me. It gives me an idea how to play good moves.
I do not play 1.e4 but 1.d4. I know, a lot of people here will abort the game immediately after see my first move, but in real life 1d4 gives me very playable positions. Do you think that a beginner like me can also follow your advices playing 1.d4?
Jul 8, 2017
0
#28
BobbyTalparov wrote:
markmorenz-harbinger wrote:
Respectfully, the premise of this post (and the plethora of posts like it all over the internet) is sort of silly. Anyone who has played at a Master level, as this Author claims to have done, is in the .008% of the best players on the planet. There is a universe of difference between what they call a blunder and what the rest of the chess playing world calls a blunder.
My rating is barely 800 OTB and I tend to play at 1300 or so level online or vs. AI when I'm well-rested and not too rusty. I've played 45 years and, while I occasionally do "blunder away a piece", I also could pick 100 people randomly out of the general populace and beat 90 of them soundly, and most of the rest with a little effort. In fact, the last time I looked, my ELO was right at the 50th percentile for all the USCF rated players in the U.S.
My point is not that I am anything but a very, very weak club player. My point is that there is such a *vast* difference between each of the steps: IGM, Master, Advanced, Intermediate, Experienced Amateur and Beginner that every level I've include would tell the level below them to "stop blundering away pieces". It is only helpful in the context of specific advice from those within your own level of play.
I appreciate the sentiment. But I despair of ever finding someone who really knows how to *teach* chess. I remain able to beat just about any casual player and to lose consistently to those who spend hours/day practicing. That's as it should be, but now that I've joined chess.com's latest iteration (it was a long time ago I was on the ICC), maybe, like water, I can find my own level, yes?
_Mark
I do not know what database you were looking at, but a 754P21 rating (your current rating) is nowhere close to the mean, nor median, for USCF rated players (the actual median is around 1250). It is closer to the 25% percentile. You could find 100 people who do not know how to play chess, or who simply know how the pieces move, and beat them, but that is about it. Anyone who knows a few basic tactical motifs will make you look like a beginner. Again, this will sound harsh, but it is to point out that your assertions are entirely incorrect.
Yeah, ...no.
In 2007, back when I last looked, the median chess rating for the uscf was 657. I doubt it's changed that much--unless they are no longer using the same rating system.
BTW, I *was* eliminating people who don't know how to play from my "100 people" assertions. And that was based on experience (I've been playing a long time, after all)...
The fact remains: the vast, vast, *overwhelming* majority of casual-but-experienced players (like you'd find in a church chess club, for example, or at a park) have as much chance to beat me as I have chance of beating a 1600 player (8% chance, mathematically for a 400 elo difference).
And those same club players have that same, very small chance of beating a master. And those masters have such a chance to beat the top-tier players. And those same church club players that I beat so easily, would just as easily beat those folks "who simply know how the pieces move". Your sneering assertions don't undercut my essential argument about how people can't empathize with those who aren't in their ratings-world, they only confirm them. Egos of many 'vested' chess players are such that they group everyone like George Carlin joked about grouping drivers: everyone who drives faster is a maniac while everyone who is slower is a moron (or somehow are unable to learn). It just isn't correct. And for those of us who are trapped in between it's frustrating because I love the game and would like to learn along with others in my strata...
Peace, _Mark
Jul 8, 2017
0
#29
bb_gum234 wrote:
markmorenz-harbinger wrote:
I appreciate the sentiment. But I despair of ever finding someone who really knows how to *teach* chess.
Yeah, it's pretty rare.
If someone says 2000 is easy, or here's a fool proof plan, just ask them how many of their students are 2000 and watch them shut up real quick
Agreed. Well said. _Mark
In last 3 years, my ratings rose from 700 to 1700 blitz. So, I would like to give some guidance to lower rated players based on my experience because I was hoping for a similar guidance when I was at that rating. I had to figure out these things on my own. So, I'll help others. I'll give specific advise based on ratings because general advise like 'study, review, play...etc' is really useless. So, I'll try to be specific with my advise. Ratings mentioned below are blitz ratings. Generally, longer time control ratings tend to be atleast 200 points more than blitz rating. Ok, so lets start:
Below 600 rating: These players have to learn how the pieces move. I would recommend some drills to learn how the pieces move(particularly the knights). But, I would add one caveat that my rating never went below 600, so I don't have first hand knowledge.
600 -1000 rating: Drills for piece movement would still be useful( particularly knights). The main opening that you get to see at this level is scholars mate. So, learn the scholar's mate and its refutation. I would recommend Susan Polgar's video on the subject which you can find on youtube. As for tactics, practice one move checkmate. Learn basic checkmate patterns using queens. Basic backrank mate. Learn to checkmate with 2 rooks vs king. And also queen +rook vs king. They will be useful for finishing off games where you have clear advantage. As for strategy, you will see that at this level your opponents will bring out their queens out very early. You can use that to develop all your pieces with a tempo by attacking his queen. Keep opponent queen under constant attack. And the most important point at this level is - don't trust your opponent's judgement. Whenever your opponent moves a piece, check if it en prise. Of course, the same applies to your moves.
1000- 1400: You get to see blackburne shilling gambit upto 1200. Beyond that you get to see players using Italian game as white. They mainly try Fried Liver Attack. You can learn a few simple ways to avoid going into fried liver or you can learn some refutation. Another opening that you see lot of white players using is King's gambit. As black, players mainly use philidor defense. Learn legal trap to use against philidor. You will get atleast a few wins just through that trap. Another popular opening for black at this level in Giuoco Piano. As for tactics, practice 2-3 move mates(particularly those involving some sacrifices). Concentrate on escape squares of the king or any trapped piece. Whenever, you are under attack, see if you can counter attack the opponent's king or queen. Concentrate on basic tactics like pins, fork and discovered attacks. As for endgame, learn basic endgame checkmates like king+queen vs king and king+rook vs king. Also learn king+soldier vs king. At this stage, you will have to learn to play with your minor pieces.
1400-1800 rating: At this rating level, you start seeing lots of openings particularly by black players. The most common are French and Sicilian. In sicilian, you see dragon and accelerated dragon from 1300 to 1500. Beyond 1500, you see other sicilians. You will also see Giuoco piano. But Giuoco piano is quite popular from 1200 onwards. As white, players will also use Ruy Lopez. As for tactics, learn all the basic checkmate patterns like anastassia, greco, anderssen, Arabian, smother,...etc. As for endgame, learn endgame basics like lucena and philidor. Queen+king vs king+soldier. King opposition. The main tactical idea that you will encounter from here onwards is zwischenzug I.e. Intermediate move of opponent. Generally, tactical blunders or bad sacrifices happen at this stage as players miss a defensive move of their opponents like a desperado or blocking using a piece. One tactic quite common at this stage is removing the guard and overloading( generally queen).
One general recommendation to all players below 1800 is to avoid d4 and Ruy Lopez. OK, these are my views. Any constructive criticism or feedback is welcome. Hope you will benefit from advise and succeed in getting better at chess. All the best.
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.
Jul 8, 2017
0
#32
BobbyTalparov wrote:
markmorenz-harbinger wrote:
Yeah, ...no.
In 2007, back when I last looked, the median chess rating for the uscf was 657. I doubt it's changed that much--unless they are no longer using the same rating system.
BTW, I *was* eliminating people who don't know how to play from my "100 people" assertions. And that was based on experience (I've been playing a long time, after all)...
The fact remains: the vast, vast, *overwhelming* majority of casual-but-experienced players (like you'd find in a church chess club, for example, or at a park) have as much chance to beat me as I have chance of beating a 1600 player (8% chance, mathematically for a 400 elo difference).
And those same club players have that same, very small chance of beating a master. And those masters have such a chance to beat the top-tier players. And those same church club players that I beat so easily, would just as easily beat those folks "who simply know how the pieces move". Your sneering assertions don't undercut my essential argument about how people can't empathize with those who aren't in their ratings-world, they only confirm them. Egos of many 'vested' chess players are such that they group everyone like George Carlin joked about grouping drivers: everyone who drives faster is a maniac while everyone who is slower is a moron (or somehow are unable to learn). It just isn't correct. And for those of us who are trapped in between it's frustrating because I love the game and would like to learn along with others in my strata...
Peace, _Mark
Your current rating is under 800. Your expected probability of winning against a 1600 is just under 1% (you overestimated your chances by 700%).
If you want to learn, then step 1 is admitting that what you are doing is not working and try something different. A good coach can help you identify your roadblock, but I would wager to guess your biggest weakness is tactics, with the second biggest weakness being endgame technique (i.e. winning a won game). However, don't take my word for it - hire a coach, send him (or her) some of your self-annotated games, and see what they say.
I have had Masters analyze my games. But I'm afraid you've missed the point. You see, I never intended to make this thread about me, but about teaching in general. I will never be a "good" club player since I am not going to spend multiple hours every day practicing Chess. I already know that. When I do practice Chess regularly, my rating jumps several hundred points. Check and Check.
My original comment had to do with empathizing with just how *enormous* the difference is between the various "classes" of chess player and how that really defeats intent when accomplished players try to impart their wisdom. My comment was about TEACHING CHESS.
Advising someone to "Practice tactics" from an OTB 2000 is like an NBA player advising basketball players to "practice taking it to the hole". It's just a platitude.
Also, I didn't overestimate anything. Remember ELO ratings are relative to the pool of players that you are playing against. A 1200 OTB in rated chess tournaments would likely be a 1600 or better in your average online chess site where the general populace plays (like Yahoo used to be). I picture myself at about 900 - 1100 depending on how rusty I am. Even Chess.com is a self-selecting survey. So, here, I bet my rating will be closer to my OTB. Whereas, on other sites I clock in at 1100-1300 or so (again, depending on how rusty I am). My comment was geared towards the overall population, not just the hardcore types. :-)
For the record, I played a few games here to see what the analysis says: My "Best Move" is at 50% and my mistakes and blunders *combined* is at about 15% (almost no inaccuracies, though...which I find interesting). Anyway, obviously, I have much to improve upon. But I also think the insight i'm offering is as good a $.02 as any.
Anyway, I wish you all well in your Chess travels.
Best, _Mark
To all U1500 players here who are arguing:
Please listen to BobbyTalparov
To BobbyTalparov:
You are probably wasting your time. You've given good advice multiple times, how many of them listen? If they wanted to improve enough they could find the information on how to improve (articles, videos, books). You aren't required to volunteer it, especially when they don't seem to want to listen. Those that want to get better enough can find a way. There is lots of information publically available nowadays.
I think the odds are >80% that whoever the last poster BobbyTalparov was giving advice to will argue back and not apply whatever good advice BobbyTalparov was giving.
For someone who tends to give such good advice, I'm surprised his online rating is <1700.
I bet he probably doesn't take it seriously.
Based on his advice, it would make sense (in my opinion) for him to be at least 1700-1800 USCF strength (or at very least capable of reaching there quickly).
Jul 8, 2017
0
#36
logozar wrote:
For someone who tends to give such good advice, I'm surprised his online rating is <1700.
LOL!
BobbyTalparov wrote:
...
bb_gum234 wrote:
I think it's pretty different though. My advice (FWIW) is a player needs to immediately learn a little bit of everything (tactics, openings, endgame, strategy, attack, defense, etc). Then repeat over and over, each time learning more in all areas.
I'll offer a slightly different example: When learning mathematics, do you study addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, algebra, trigonometry, statistics, calculus, and partial differential equations all at the same time, learning a little bit of each and then going back to learn a little bit of each? No. The higher level math requires an understanding of the lower level math. If you do not understand tactics and endgames (which combined are the basic arithmetic of chess), the rest will go over your head ...
"... This book is the first volume in a series of manuals designed for players who are building the foundations of their chess knowledge. The reader will receive the necessary basic knowledge in six areas of the game - tactics, positional play, strategy, the calculation of variations, the opening and the endgame.
... To make the book entertaining and varied, I have mixed up these different areas, ..." - GM Artur Yusupov (2008)
Bobby Talparov wrote: Tactics drive (literally) everything in chess. Which is why practicing them alone will benefit a club-level player more than anything else
This said it all and any level can benefit from tactical study.
"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)
"I conceived the idea of writing a popular booklet devoted to the endgame back in the early 1950s, ... I thought it was important to select the minimum which any chess enthusiast should know in order to handle competently the concluding phase of the game. ..." - Averbakh
Sorry but I stopped reading after he said "I play with a very tactical style".