Garry Kasparov's my great predecessors book series is excellent. His series on himself (Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov) which I'm currently reading is also equally excellent, with great in-depth analysis of games.
Whats the point of playing chess if 1800 still cant be considered master
Sort:
wait LoveNlies is a troll account
... remember the feeling of setting up the chess board the first time. The wonder of castling and whether a fianchetto would work; or a combination that you finally SAW, the mating net, or the nastiness of a pin or discovery. Winning a won game, and the heartbreak of loosing one. That, for me is what chess is about. Ratings are a measurement to find players to challenge me. Enjoy the game! Which means sometimes you need a break to re-calibrate.
Peace
BARS
May 7, 2020
0
#27
Malik243 wrote:
so how good is a 1800 player
Look at the little histogram, top right of this web page:
https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/live/rapid
If you hover your mouse over the curve, it tells you some numbers.
Makes 1800 look good, doesn't it. But, it's just a number. Enjoy your chess 
Best wishes
Ikhet wrote:
... remember the feeling of setting up the chess board the first time. The wonder of castling and whether a fianchetto would work; or a combination that you finally SAW, the mating net, or the nastiness of a pin or discovery. Winning a won game, and the heartbreak of loosing one. That, for me is what chess is about. Ratings are a measurement to find players to challenge me. Enjoy the game! Which means sometimes you need a break to re-calibrate.
Peace
True. Wise words.
May 7, 2020
0
#29
What do you think the value of a "master" title would be if it were easy to achieve?
May 7, 2020
0
#31
llama44 wrote:
I don't deserve to have someone study my games, I'm not nearly good enough, but I appreciate it
It's not completely stupid, but I'd recommend looking at annotated Morphy or Capablanca games.
Or you can even google "best attacking games" or "famous world championship games" or something like that.
One of my favorites was this game
Black sacrifices ALL of his minor pieces, then checkmates with a pawn!
I study karpov's games, because positional chess is more important than attacking chess.
@llama44 what a game
May 7, 2020
0
#34
An_asparagusic_acid wrote:
llama44 wrote:
I don't deserve to have someone study my games, I'm not nearly good enough, but I appreciate it
It's not completely stupid, but I'd recommend looking at annotated Morphy or Capablanca games.
Or you can even google "best attacking games" or "famous world championship games" or something like that.
One of my favorites was this game
Black sacrifices ALL of his minor pieces, then checkmates with a pawn!
I study karpov's games, because positional chess is more important than attacking chess.
I always liked Karpov style play over Tal style, because it seemed to me any idiot could calculate a sacrifice, but to win with a positional crush meant you understood something deeper about the game.
So that's my preference too, but I don't think one is more important than the other. In fact many games contain both types of ideas. You can use a strong attack (or the threat of one) to force positional concessions, and vice versa.
May 7, 2020
0
#35
llama44 wrote:
An_asparagusic_acid wrote:
llama44 wrote:
I don't deserve to have someone study my games, I'm not nearly good enough, but I appreciate it
It's not completely stupid, but I'd recommend looking at annotated Morphy or Capablanca games.
Or you can even google "best attacking games" or "famous world championship games" or something like that.
One of my favorites was this game
Black sacrifices ALL of his minor pieces, then checkmates with a pawn!
I study karpov's games, because positional chess is more important than attacking chess.
I always liked Karpov style play over Tal style, because it seemed to me any idiot could calculate a sacrifice, but to win with a positional crush meant you understood something deeper about the game.
So that's my preference too, but I don't think one is more important than the other. In fact many games contain both types of ideas. You can use a strong attack (or the threat of one) to force positional concessions, and vice versa.
IMO, attacking is a great way to destroy <1600 blitz players, but other than that pure attacking is ineffective.
May 7, 2020
0
#36
Malik243 wrote:
Been spending a year well 2 but I took a break for a year and am not able to get past 1050 for some reason been trying for the past week been able to beat bots at 1300 but not anymore for some reason and now whats even the point looking around online and here tells me that even when you get to 1800 your trash and there not even that good I dont know anymore a waste of years and money trying to get better if that is the case is 1800 really crap and also how long will it take me to get there my rating right now is 1047
For the majority, playing chess is similar to solving a 1000 piece puzzle... without having the photo. It doesn't have to be that way, but most try to do it on their own. Funny enough, people who also don't have the picture love to share their insights.
About 1800 being "trash"... who says that? A 1500 player? Ratings are a measure of results and not of the quality. Months ago I played against a 1800ish WFM in some blitz games. She was really good and solved strategic problems like a master. Either she was very well trained or had a good natural understanding of what she was supposed to do with her pieces and pawns. However, her calculations skills were not at the same level, which explains her ratings. On the other hand, I often play a close to 2200 blitz player whose main asset is building a turtle-like position in order to win on time. The 1800 WFM will likely progress in the game as soon as she polishes her calculation skills. The other guy still doesn't understand what chess is about, no matter his better competitive results.
So, do you want to have a photo of the puzzle in front of you? Learn to assess a position accurately by understanding how the piece activity will likely evolve for both sides.
jacobsperber wrote:
a long time. years probably
Years for everyone of course, except for YGNR who learn chess in yesterday and start beating 2000+.
May 7, 2020
0
#39
Nicator65 wrote:
Malik243 wrote:
Been spending a year well 2 but I took a break for a year and am not able to get past 1050 for some reason been trying for the past week been able to beat bots at 1300 but not anymore for some reason and now whats even the point looking around online and here tells me that even when you get to 1800 your trash and there not even that good I dont know anymore a waste of years and money trying to get better if that is the case is 1800 really crap and also how long will it take me to get there my rating right now is 1047
For the majority, playing chess is similar to solving a 1000 piece puzzle... without having the photo. It doesn't have to be that way, but most try to do it on their own. Funny enough, people who also don't have the picture love to share their insights.
About 1800 being "trash"... who says that? A 1500 player? Ratings are a measure of results and not of the quality. Months ago I played against a 1800ish WFM in some blitz games. She was really good and solved strategic problems like a master. Either she was very well trained or had a good natural understanding of what she was supposed to do with her pieces and pawns. However, her calculations skills were not at the same level, which explains her ratings. On the other hand, I often play a close to 2200 blitz player whose main asset is building a turtle-like position in order to win on time. The 1800 WFM will likely progress in the game as soon as she polishes her calculation skills. The other guy still doesn't understand what chess is about, no matter his better competitive results.
So, do you want to have a photo of the puzzle in front of you? Learn to assess a position accurately by understanding how the piece activity will likely evolve for both sides.
Of course there are players who play with low quality, but most players play without relying on traps and flaging.
Not that everything you say I disagree with. For example yes, it's better to watch a youtube video of some titled player going over a famous game. That way they'll explain stuff.
For the game I posted, you can google "Polish Immortal"