Well that's impressive but chess.com ratings are a little inflated compared to uscf. Also, most of the people that played in the tournaments were quite young (most less than 18 years old) so studying was necessary to make up for the lack of experience. If you play chess for years and years you can develop a good game sense overtime just from sheer trial and error.
What's the highest rating one can achieve without seriously studying?
Sort:
ScatteredWealth wrote:
I mean, the rating that I'm at right now was not from studying.
Me too.
I suppose studying could possibly help my rating go up. But I figure why. I remember studying in school. That doesn't sound like much fun at all.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
ScatteredWealth wrote:
I mean, the rating that I'm at right now was not from studying.
Me too.
I suppose studying could possibly help my rating go up. But I figure why. I remember studying in school. That doesn't sound like much fun at all.
That is a really weird misunderstanding on your part. In chess, "studying" practically means "reading a chess book" or "watching an educational chess video".
magipi wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
ScatteredWealth wrote:
I mean, the rating that I'm at right now was not from studying.
Me too.
I suppose studying could possibly help my rating go up. But I figure why. I remember studying in school. That doesn't sound like much fun at all.
That is a really weird misunderstanding on your part. In chess, "studying" practically means "reading a chess book" or "watching an educational chess video".
Yeah, I can say with at least 100% certainty I'm not going to read a chess book. An educational chess video is a long shot too, because I just like playing chess. I'm not so much interested in studying it.
I never had any training and started at chess pretty late (age 13). I played chess informally for a long time and peaked 1500 rapid. To cross that point you just need to invest a bit into openings and grind puzzle
I started chess when I was 36 and became a strong player within the context of club, county and tournament chess in the Uk, within five years. I learned a lot of openings so I could transpose between them and I never did a puzzle, so far as I can remember. Analysing real games, including your own, is good. Puzzles are bad. Hence we get people with "puzzle ratings" of 2400 who can't reach 1400 in real chess play.
I mean, the rating that I'm at right now was not from studying.