why not compete against yourself have you really hit a plateu or has the competition hardened!!!
Whats the point of playing chess if 1800 still cant be considered master
Sort:
I think nr 1 rule is that chess should be fun. Of course we all want to be better and it's satisfying to get a higher rating (I think most of us agree with that). I remember once in a chat on Twitch someone joked and said "The only thing that matters in life is the blitz rating online" and something may be behind that. We are very focused on to get a high rating but maybe we forget to have fun "here and now" while playing... Every game and every moment in chess should be fun and exciting imo.
It's hard to think like that I think and of course it's very frustrating to keep on playing day after day (month after month) and it seems impossible to get a higher rating at all. Study tactics, play games, take the lessons at chess.com or getting a good coach should increase the rating more than 1047 I guess... But, don't forget: Have fun! :-)
1800 is a good player imo.
i might be slightly off but i have this feeling that IMs are usually around 2400 (i know its a rough estimate) and at that point you are propably strong enough to be a chess coach.
May 8, 2020
0
#46
Yeah, 2400 is arbitrary.
And a lot of the time GM is overkill when teaching beginners. You watch them show standard games and talk about forks and discovered checks. I mean, I could do that easily, a lot of people could.
May 8, 2020
0
#47
I dunno dawg I’m 1800 but I still don’t think I’m very good. Just remember ratings can be frustrating but only you can make yourself better, it takes time and patience. So whenever you play just do your best and try to learn, you will get better in time. Worrying about your current level doesn’t help you in the moment.
nicely done , thx for sharing
May 8, 2020
0
#49
Uncleluke, I think that goes with the territory of anything that invites lifelong improvement. To a typical person on the street who knows how the pieces move and that's it, you are phenomenally good at chess. And you already were when you were 1300. But to you now 1300 is child's play because you've improved. If you get better still you'll eventually think 1800 is crap. Was Magnus crappy at chess ten years ago? I'll bet he feels that way about himself by obviously that isn't objectively true. It's an effect of growth. So to OP when a GM says "I sucked when I was 1800" or even "1800 sucks" that isn't an objective statement. if it reminds you that everyone can get better that's cool, but if it's frustrating you then remembered it's a dialectical comment not an objective observation.
whats this game whos playing
May 9, 2020
0
#52
lager_guy99 wrote:
Uncleluke, I think that goes with the territory of anything that invites lifelong improvement. To a typical person on the street who knows how the pieces move and that's it, you are phenomenally good at chess. And you already were when you were 1300. But to you now 1300 is child's play because you've improved. If you get better still you'll eventually think 1800 is crap. Was Magnus crappy at chess ten years ago? I'll bet he feels that way about himself by obviously that isn't objectively true. It's an effect of growth. So to OP when a GM says "I sucked when I was 1800" or even "1800 sucks" that isn't an objective statement. if it reminds you that everyone can get better that's cool, but if it's frustrating you then remembered it's a dialectical comment not an objective observation.
All I'm trying to say is that getting better takes time and patience and feelings of insecurity about ones current status isn’t helpful. I’m aware that to a gm I’m pretty bad, all I’m saying is that insecurity doesn’t help me improve. Stop comparing yourself to others! You are you and that’s good enough.
1800 is a very good player by percentile of people who play chess and an unthinkably good player compared to the general population. Most of us who want to enjoy chess but not make it the centre of our lives probably wouldn't make it much farther.