Yes, you must take into account how young the person is, because young people can improve fast. But if you have played 200 games, and your rating is at one particular area, and you predict your rating will increase 100 points suddenly next month, I'm more inclined to think you are just overestimating yourself (due to the temptation) rather than your guess being very rationally based (indeed, we don't really know what improves rating, do you need to know 20 more concepts, 50, something else? Which kinds of concepts, etc etc.). Indeed, the best kind of information we have for future ratings is past results/ratings. People will go nuts and say "oh but the future might be different from the past." Well, sure, but you have to go by something lol. One's rating can change but I don't expect it to increase 100 points in one day :)
what's the main difference between a 1300 and a 1800 player?
This forum is mis-named, I learnt nothing about what the title says, apart from the obvious that a higher rating has more chance of winning. Wow what an insight.
So you are, in other words, almost entirely ignorant about the rating system and how it works and how it came about. But this doesn't stop you from making pronouncements about it in spite of your ignorance.
Fortunately there is a cure for ignorance, but you'll have to make the decition to implement it on your own.
I didnt know the background,
It is not logical that rating is predictions.
Your rating is simply an average of your previous performances. The Elo system assumes that your future performance will vary according to the standard or gaussian distribution around you "real" playing strength, of which your actual current rating is an extimate based on a sample.
If this assumption is true then you can indeed predict future performances according to the current estimate of your "real" strength. You can predict, for example, that about 70% of your performances will lie within +- 200 rating points of your "true" strength. If you consistently perform better than your rating implies then your rating will increase to the point where the statistics of the normal distribution will predict your performance accurately. That is, the estimate of your "real" strength will be adjusted to fit the observed facts.
Elo ratings actually do in fact predict future performances quite well, so this lends evidence to support the belief that the underlying assumptions are in fact true, or at least a pretty good approximation to the truth.
If your argument were true then, for example, election polls would also be way out when in fact when well done they are actually quite accurate.
I follow you better now, and it did help to read the wikipediaarticle,
What I meant was that rating isnt prediction, but aftergamesstatistics,
I understand that ratings are the statistics that is the best tool for making predictions, and I think its almost spot on for experienced players, and a bit too old to describe players that is improving too fast.
My impression is a bit off, because I play in an environment where players have faster ratinggrowth than normal (my club got three Norwegian champions and two silver in the kid championship, and those kids are flying for example from 1000 to 1500 Nsf-elo very fast).
That kidboom is kidding with the statistics; Isak Sjøberg was at 1063 NSf-elo in the clubchampionship this winter, in november he got 1409 (and 1632fide). I am fresh in chess and play in the kid-class (c) All the ratings in the clubchampionships gets far behind the normal Norwegian level, because I cant beat a 1063 Kid with 1063 strenght when he actually is far above 1200. I went to a tournament in november (Kiwi-Konnerud), with a nsf-elo below 1000, and no players below 1600 could beat me.
I think the difference between a 1800 player and a 2300 player his that the 2300 player spends is energy playing and improving his chess rather than on blog tennis.
I think the difference between a 1800 player and a 2300 player is that the 2300 player spends is energy playing and improving his chess rather than on blog tennis.
And the difference between Fide 1422 and Fide 2300 is probably that the 2300 in stead of relaxing with internetdebates works out physically, and gets som fresh air. A 2862 does play a lot football and basket. Actually no players in the history of chess have ever reached 2860 fide without playing basket and football (soccer). In Norway there is a top athlet school, and that school have classes for both chess, football and basket, and a lot of other sports. The Icehockeyplayer Mats Zucarello Aasen also went to that school. GM Simen Agdestein is teacher there.
The difference between 1800 and 2300 also might be the difference of a first year and a last year chesstudent at this school (NTG)
DjonniDerevnja, excellent post!
I think the old saying still goes: healthy mind in a healthy body.
If your body is healthy then your mind will be healthy, too.
Fat people are, usually, not the brightest.
Not eating breakfast and lunch doesn't help them the slightest bit.
Exercise is what helps.
I noticed that my cognitive performance increased dramatically once I started cycling again and now that I go to GYM I can learn and comprehend much quicker and better.
DjonniDerevnja, excellent post!
I think the old saying still goes: healthy mind in a healthy body.
If your body is healthy then your mind will be healthy, too.
Fat people are, usually, not the brightest.
Not eating breakfast and lunch doesn't help them the slightest bit.
Exercise is what helps.
I noticed that my cognitive performance increased dramatically once I started cycling again and now that I go to GYM I can learn and comprehend much quicker and better.
You are right, I will both start at the gym early january, and go skiing. :-)
I am taking up professional darts to improve my chess. You need a steady hand to pick up the right piece and move it to the right square.
The difference between a 1300 and a 1800 rated player is 500.
I am following the example of Smyslov and going to a war zone to play chess while the bombs are falling to get psychologically tough. The only problem is that Botvinnik is already dead.
You can join the Brumtown League!!!
Ed_Seedhouse, Thanks for the insight. As an A Class USCF player, I can attest that very few of my losses stem from lack of understanding. Rather, laziness is the usual culprit. I accept as advice: willingness to struggle every move of every game and always be alert for simple tactics, especially in deceptively quiet positions
My USCF rating is 1920. I studied endgames (read/studied Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge by Avberbakh three times, positional chess (read/studied My System by Nimzowitsch at least twice, and tactics (read Winning Chess by Chernev and Reinfeld at least five times and 1001 Ways to Checkmate by Reinfeld at least eight times. I read other books also but these helped me the most.
The books above gave me a good background in basic chess understanding and filled my head with hundreds of positional and tactical patterns/ideas. However, the book that I benefited from the most is Judgment and Planning in Chess by Euwe. I think that this book “put it all together for me” after reading the books above. Choosing ANY plan is better than just moving without a plan. And once you have the basic chess knowledge down (by reading the books above or similar books) you can evaluate a position and choose a plan that's logical given the characteristics of the position.
Note that I NEVER studied openings. I just learned the basic opening principles and followed them for the most part. I believe that I benefited from this because I would almost always get into positions that weren’t “book” and it was obvious to me that, more often than not, my opponent didn’t know how to evaluate the position. You also have a psychological advantage because your opponent is unable to play his “favorite” opening.
Think of it this way, I spent hundreds of hours studying endings, tactics, positional and strategic ideas while my opponents were spending many of their hours studying openings that they will probably rarely get to play.
I noticed that if I could get into a “playable middlegame” I would usually outplay my opponent because of my better understanding of chess.
However, once you become an “A” player (USCF 1800 – 1999) you will need to study openings if you want to advance to expert – master.
I accept as advice: willingness to struggle every move of every game and always be alert for simple tactics, especially in deceptively quiet positions
Strenth at chess is the result of many factors. If I may perhaps oversimplify we have 1. Chess knowlege and 2. How well you apply your chess knowledge.
I think the latter tends to be overlooked by a lot of chess players who spend all their time developing chess knowledge and then often find themselves unable to actually use it during the stress of a game.
Even against fellow C.F.C. experts, if I examine my old games I find that most of them turned on some fairly simple tactical point. Most of the errors are, in retrospect, "obvious" ones if you are not sitting at the board under the extreme stress of actual play. If presented with these as problems most B class or better players would solve them immediately.
Another thing that helps me to play closer to what my actual chess knowlege would allow is, at the start of the game, especially a tournament game, to take a moment to consciously "put aside" all my doubts and fears and assume an air of confidence. A confident attitude allows us to use our minds at their maximum ability. That won't mean we don't lose, of course, but it helps us think better in my experience.
Oh hi Ed! are you still going to the chess club?
Otb I loose a lot beacause of not spending time right. Very often the wrong move have not got as many seconds as it should, and the startrush tosses my head away. Once after six rapid moves(in a 90m+30s game) I thought;" this is going bad, my mind isnt connected , I must go and take a coffe immidiately". I went for a coffe to try to get my mind reset, went back to the board, sipped slowly and evaluated, and realized that I should have taken coffebreak two moves earlier. Fortunately my opponent, who was heading for rook for knight, did complicate it to much, so I got away with it.
If you want to study openings at the club level, find out who is your next opponent and prepare for him. Otherwise your time is better spent learning to play typical middlegames and endgames. I once had a 2200 rating when the ratings were not inflated as they are today. No good learning too much about openings when you don't have the skills to put your opponent away. Polugaevsky used to say that the purpose of the opening is to get a playable middlegame. Leave the fine opening preparation for the professionals who have a better chance of employing it and also have the skills to benefit from it.
If you want to study openings at the club level, find out who is your next opponent and prepare for him. Otherwise your time is better spent learning to play typical middlegames and endgames. I once had a 2200 rating when the ratings were not inflated as they are today. No good learning too much about openings when you don't have the skills to put your opponent away. Polugaevsky used to say that the purpose of the opening is to get a playable middlegame. Leave the fine opening preparation for the professionals who have a better chance of employing it and also have the skills to benefit from it.
eastyz, I feel a strong need for openingstudy, I meet a lot of different players both in the club and in national or more local tournaments. The problem is that good openingrehearsing is required to reach the middlegame without too bad wounds. I am not talking about memorizing, but be able to play ok against various attacks. My first goal as black is to defend against d4 and d5. I have tried to train an hyperaccelrated dragon. Trained a lot. Standard opening in maybe 500 blitzgames and 150 online. I have tried various variationes that isnt accelerated dragon, and answered in different ways (other Sicilian variations)trying to dance along with my opponents.
I had my first otb big win wanting to play hyperaccelrated. I was fideratingless and at 878 NSF, My opponent was ca 1600NSF/1800FIDE. He played well with no (to me) visible blunders. I got the edge, the flow, and felt on top tempowise in 20 moves forgetting that I planned hyperaccelrated(I moved an early d6), it was a normal fianchetto d6 Sicilian.
Because I had rehearsed a lot, I was able to lead, and to carry speed into the middlegame and made a tough mate in 78 on him. He was a bit to offensive and made himself a doublepawn and lost a bishop for knight opening up a rookline. Later he attacked with knights , pawn and king, and I defended with bishops. One bishop was able to run and attack a pawn far away, and I got a second queen late in the game.
I get really trashed by players rated both below and above when the opening fails, and that have been in more than 50% of my games.
So , I want to be soo good at all necessary openings that I can survive to the middlegame and also become good enough in the middlegame to reach the endgame too.
Maybe this has already been said, but really, as a mid 1800s player, the difference is just not hanging material and having a solid (but not excessive) grasp on openings. Just my 2 cents.
This seems about right to me. And one difference between A class and Experts is psychological toughness. I jumped from A class to high Expert class (C.F.C.) in the early 1990's and the only clear change I can point to is that I reformed my psychological approach to the game and became much more willing to struggle every move of the game, to basically refuse to ever give up during a game, and to refuse to be intimidated by a rating. My calculation ability didn't really improve nor did my positional understanding. I did start to make a conscious effort to be alert for cheap tactics all the time, and that seems to have made quite a difference. Not so much depth as awareness.
Refusing too give up is important, especially down at my level. To me a position can look absolutely lost, but whe analyzing with a GM he could point out various opportunities I had to get advantage long after I felt bad.
It isnt necessarily lost when it looks lost.
Well personally I went from about 1200 to 1400 in a few months. The difference is now I know a few more complicated openings, I recognize more tactical positions and I recognize opponent mistakes better. That's probably the main difference between any two ratings.
The difference is the 1800 player will probably beat the 1300, but who knows? Maybe the 1300 is better and will win?
1300s that is better than 1800 are usually kids, maybe at the age of 9,10 or 11. I am a middleaged fastrising man, and I am at 1422 worse than 1800s , and probably closer to 1600 level, while Linnea, 9 years old at 1425 Fide is significantly better than me, more like 1700.
I guess Magnus Carlsen, when he got 1300, can have been above 1800 strenght, because he elevated from ca 900 to 1900 in a year.
That's a good point. Some 1300 players have potential to reach 1800 or higher but may not have experienced as many mistakes and have not learned certain aspects of the game yet to allow them to improve.
I think the very few 1300`s that is at 1800 strenght have low rating because it reflects their previous gameresults. So if this number tells us about half a year ago, they might have improved that much since then. Those 500 points are a lot, and you shal improve at the speed of Magnus to do it in six months (which I guess is a normal timedelay between FIDE-ratingstrenght and official achieved FIDE-rating at that strenght).