Yes, it is totally nonsense. And you know that very well.
Both of you guys are in denial. Proof that you are both dead-wrong is right in front of you (it takes about a minute to search up maxkho and sort all games by date), yet you willingly choose to ignore it. Well, what can I say, you guys do you👍
Both of you guys are in denial. Proof that you are both dead-wrong is right in front of you (it takes about a minute to search up maxkho and sort all games by date), yet you willingly choose to ignore it. Well, what can I say, you guys do you👍
You think online rating gains is evidence of your progress from 0 to expert level in under 2 years? I bet you believed the Liver King was natural, too.
To demonstrate why it is nonsense: take a look at the graph of child prodigies like Magnus, Fabiano, Hikaru, MVL, Kasparov, Fischer, etc. It took each of them 4-6 years to go from complete beginner to roughly 2000 when they had 2 massive advantages over you (kids learn faster and have much more disposable time to throw at Chess). You claim you made this progress as an adult, while working on a technical degree. One of 2 things is true: you are lying about being a complete beginner or you have cheated to boost your online ratings (or both). As one of your LiChess accounts was banned for the latter reason, the reader can decide which they think is more likely.
Just like you cannot go from learning to read to finishing a bachelor's degree in under a year, you cannot go from a true Chess beginner to expert level in under a year (and certainly cannot do it while working on a Master's degree in Data Science - unless you have discovered the secret to the flux capacitor ...). This is especially so with the attention seeking mentality that drives you to create these types of nonsense threads on both the chess.com and LiChess forums. Your fantastical claim is that you did something that none of the best child prodigies we have seen were able to do, and you did it later in life while working on a degree in a highly technical (meaning studies are time consuming) field. I have oceanfront property next to Danny's house in AZ that I will sell to anyone that buys that crap; and I will give them a great price!
Both of you guys are in denial. Proof that you are both dead-wrong is right in front of you (it takes about a minute to search up maxkho and sort all games by date), yet you willingly choose to ignore it. Well, what can I say, you guys do you👍
You think online rating gains is evidence of your progress from 0 to expert level in under 2 years? I bet you believed the Liver King was natural, too.
To demonstrate why it is nonsense: take a look at the graph of child prodigies like Magnus, Fabiano, Hikaru, MVL, Kasparov, Fischer, etc. It took each of them 4-6 years to go from complete beginner to roughly 2000 when they had 2 massive advantages over you (kids learn faster and have much more disposable time to throw at Chess). You claim you made this progress as an adult, while working on a technical degree. One of 2 things is true: you are lying about being a complete beginner or you have cheated to boost your online ratings (or both). As one of your LiChess accounts was banned for the latter reason, the reader can decide which they think is more likely.
Just like you cannot go from learning to read to finishing a bachelor's degree in under a year, you cannot go from a true Chess beginner to expert level in under a year (and certainly cannot do it while working on a Master's degree in Data Science - unless you have discovered the secret to the flux capacitor ...). This is especially so with the attention seeking mentality that drives you to create these types of nonsense threads on both the chess.com and LiChess forums. Your fantastical claim is that you did something that none of the best child prodigies we have seen were able to do, and you did it later in life while working on a degree in a highly technical (meaning studies are time consuming) field. I have oceanfront property next to Danny's house in AZ that I will sell to anyone that buys that crap; and I will give them a great price!
I think games in which I play like a complete beginner (~200 elo) 3 years ago are good evidence that I was a complete beginner 3 years ago, sure. To be more specific, my dad taught me the basic piece movement when I was 5, but I found the game really boring and didn't have any interest in it until 2020. I still played a few games every year or so on social occasions, but I had probably played a total of 30-40 games (including many games in which neither player knew the actual rules) in my life before that point.
Also, Magnus was rated almost 2100 FIDE after 2 years of playing: he started at age 8 and was 2064 well before his 11th birthday. My FIDE rating after 2.5 years was 1950, so Magnus improved faster than me, at least in classical.
And I'd like a source on the claim that children learn faster than young adults, because from what I've heard from chess coaches and even general studies (unrelated to chess specifically) on learning in children and adults, the exact opposite is true. Children learn better (i.e. more thoroughly), but adults learn faster.
As to my degree, I slacked off hard. I didn't even attend lectures, let alone do any revision (except on the day of the exam or a few days before). I still ended up graduating, but I had spent almost no time on uni at all. I split most of my time between chess and my other hobbies, them being football, judo, dancing (cutting shapes), philosophy, linguistics, and a few others. Out of all of them, chess was the one that I spent the most time on (if you include chess-related videos on YouTube). So I still got a lot of exposure to chess.
Both of you just come across as jealous. The intention of this post wasn't to seek attention at all; if it was, don't you think I'd at least mention that it took me less than 2 years to get to 2200? Smh... I made this post because I was wondering how far I could go and what my goals should realistically be. Nothing to do with attention-seeking.
I think games in which I play like a complete beginner (~200 elo) 3 years ago are good evidence that I was a complete beginner 3 years ago, sure. To be more specific, my dad taught me the basic piece movement when I was 5, but I found the game really boring and didn't have any interest in it until 2020. I still played a few games every year or so on social occasions, but I had probably played a total of 30-40 games (including many games in which neither player knew the actual rules) in my life before that point.
Yada yada. You do not have to reiterate your story. You have it plastered all over 2 profiles and multiple posts. The simple matter is this:
1) If you were stronger than a complete beginner, it would be easy for you to fake it for a while. And then progress quickly. For example, it took me less than 1 month to go from 400 to 2000 on my alt account here (playing around with some new openings). That does not mean I went from being a "complete beginner" to expert level in 1 month.
2) If you were a complete beginner and decided you wanted to pump up your ratings to feed your ego and started using Stockfish to help you, after playing a bunch of rather bad games, well ... self-explanatory.
While I'm no fan of the cheat detection systems on either chess.com nor LiChess, LiChess already made their determination on which scenario was happening.
Also, Magnus was rated almost 2100 FIDE after 2 years of playing: he started at age 8 and was 2064 well before his 11th birthday. My FIDE rating after 2.5 years was 1950, so Magnus improved faster than me, at least in classical.
You linked his FIDE graph, which starts when he was 13. Nice try.
Magnus learned to play at age 5 (see his documentary titled "Magnus"). His dad said he was not particularly good at the time and didn't really take to it until he was almost 8. At 8-years-old, he was roughly 600-level (again, according to his father). FIDE does not give ratings that low, so it was using the local club ratings at the time. It took him until age 10 to get close enough to 2000 (while literally studying chess non-stop virtually every day!) to start playing FIDE-rated events.
It is easier to see the progress of guys like Fabiano and Hikaru because USCF gives ratings as low as 100:
Fabiano (~4 years): http://www.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=12743305
Hikaru (~3.5 years): http://www.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=12641216
You are claiming you did it faster than any of these guys, much later in life. Like I said, I have oceanfront property to sell for a great price to anyone that buys that load of nonsense!
You've played less than 20 classical rated games. In the USCF, you would still have a provisional rating because that is not enough to really gauge where your rating should be, but given the fact that you have gone +6-8=7 against an average rating of ~1900, it would indicate that your current rating of 1951 is a bit high. That said, the fact that you have an OTB rating of ~1500-1800 ECF after 3 years would indicate that you are not being honest about how strong you were when you "started" in 2020.
And I'd like a source on the claim that children learn faster than young adults, because from what I've heard from chess coaches and even general studies (unrelated to chess specifically) on learning in children and adults, the exact opposite is true. Children learn better (i.e. more thoroughly), but adults learn faster.
I could just refer you to my coach (an IM who also happens to be a neuroscientist), but common sense and actually looking at the research will show you that what you are claiming is nonsense:
https://irisreading.com/why-children-learn-faster-than-adults-and-how-you-can-learn-their-tricks
The brain of a child is a sponge. They pick up everything. This is why it is MUCH easier to teach a child a language than it is an adult. That is not to say that you cannot still learn as an adult, but it takes longer, and takes more effort. To make a claim that an adult progressed from 0 to X faster than any of the child prodigies in that field is a demonstration of trying to BS people.
But, I do not expect someone who is ~23 to really grasp that, yet. You simply have not been exposed to enough.
As to my degree, I slacked off hard. I didn't even attend lectures, let alone do any revision (except on the day of the exam or a few days before). I still ended up graduating, but I had spent almost no time on uni at all. I split most of my time between chess and my other hobbies, them being football, judo, dancing (cutting shapes), philosophy, linguistics, and a few others. Out of all of them, chess was the one that I spent the most time on (if you include chess-related videos on YouTube). So I still got a lot of exposure to chess.
You do not get a bachelors and get into a masters program by slacking off (at least not at a halfway decent university). So, either you are lying (again), or you are going to a crappy school. As someone who has taught Computer Science at the university level, trying to cram at the last minute is a great way find yourself on academic probation. In short, if your approach to your studies for the first 2.5-3 years of university was to slack off, that doesn't bode well for your chess study habits.
Both of you just come across as jealous. The intention of this post wasn't to seek attention at all; if it was, don't you think I'd at least mention that it took me less than 2 years to get to 2200? Smh... I made this post because I was wondering how far I could go and what my goals should realistically be. Nothing to do with attention-seeking.
Who are you trying to convince? I am not jealous of your online ratings. I could not care less! What annoys me is you trying to push yourself as someone who found some secret to rapid improvement. Max (what is it with Max's and this nonsense") Duetsche tried do that a few years ago and was quickly introduced to the harsh reality. Anyone can make a claim on the internet, but when that claim goes so far outside the norm to become outlandish, it is almost always because it is complete BS. You going from 0 to 2000 in ~21 months is in the same vein as the Liver King being natural.
EDIT: I almost forgot ...
In terms of determining your improvement goals (besides the fact that using rating as the basis for that is silly), a typical adult beginner can expect to go up 100-200 points per year (on good years!). Some exceptional cases have been seen from time to time, but they are exceptions because of how they happened. For example, Michael de la Maza went from 1300 to 2000 in 2 years (note, it took him 2 years to go from a non-beginner to 2000 in the same time period you are claiming it took you to go from complete beginner to the same level), but he did so when he was single, no kids, and unemployed where he literally spent 6-10 hours per day with a focused study regimen (drilling tactics) to make that improvement. Quite a bit different from your claim of "I just analyzed a few of my games and BAM, got so much better!" Other rapid adult improvers have similar stories (you can see some of them by looking at the archives of the Perpetual Chess Podcast).
I think games in which I play like a complete beginner (~200 elo) 3 years ago are good evidence that I was a complete beginner 3 years ago, sure. To be more specific, my dad taught me the basic piece movement when I was 5, but I found the game really boring and didn't have any interest in it until 2020. I still played a few games every year or so on social occasions, but I had probably played a total of 30-40 games (including many games in which neither player knew the actual rules) in my life before that point.
Yada yada. You do not have to reiterate your story. You have it plastered all over 2 profiles and multiple posts. The simple matter is this:
1) If you were stronger than a complete beginner, it would be easy for you to fake it for a while. And then progress quickly. For example, it took me less than 1 month to go from 400 to 2000 on my alt account here (playing around with some new openings). That does not mean I went from being a "complete beginner" to expert level in 1 month.
2) If you were a complete beginner and decided you wanted to pump up your ratings to feed your ego and started using Stockfish to help you, after playing a bunch of rather bad games, well ... self-explanatory.
While I'm no fan of the cheat detection systems on either chess.com nor LiChess, LiChess already made their determination on which scenario was happening.
Also, Magnus was rated almost 2100 FIDE after 2 years of playing: he started at age 8 and was 2064 well before his 11th birthday. My FIDE rating after 2.5 years was 1950, so Magnus improved faster than me, at least in classical.
You linked his FIDE graph, which starts when he was 13. Nice try.
Magnus learned to play at age 5 (see his documentary titled "Magnus"). His dad said he was not particularly good at the time and didn't really take to it until he was almost 8. At 8-years-old, he was roughly 600-level (again, according to his father). FIDE does not give ratings that low, so it was using the local club ratings at the time. It took him until age 10 to get close enough to 2000 (while literally studying chess non-stop virtually every day!) to start playing FIDE-rated events.
It is easier to see the progress of guys like Fabiano and Hikaru because USCF gives ratings as low as 100:
Fabiano (~4 years): http://www.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=12743305
Hikaru (~3.5 years): http://www.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=12641216
You are claiming you did it faster than any of these guys, much later in life. Like I said, I have oceanfront property to sell for a great price to anyone that buys that load of nonsense!
You've played less than 20 classical rated games. In the USCF, you would still have a provisional rating because that is not enough to really gauge where your rating should be, but given the fact that you have gone +6-8=7 against an average rating of ~1900, it would indicate that your current rating of 1951 is a bit high. That said, the fact that you have an OTB rating of ~1500-1800 ECF after 3 years would indicate that you are not being honest about how strong you were when you "started" in 2020.
And I'd like a source on the claim that children learn faster than young adults, because from what I've heard from chess coaches and even general studies (unrelated to chess specifically) on learning in children and adults, the exact opposite is true. Children learn better (i.e. more thoroughly), but adults learn faster.
I could just refer you to my coach (an IM who also happens to be a neuroscientist), but common sense and actually looking at the research will show you that what you are claiming is nonsense:
https://irisreading.com/why-children-learn-faster-than-adults-and-how-you-can-learn-their-tricks
The brain of a child is a sponge. They pick up everything. This is why it is MUCH easier to teach a child a language than it is an adult. That is not to say that you cannot still learn as an adult, but it takes longer, and takes more effort. To make a claim that an adult progressed from 0 to X faster than any of the child prodigies in that field is a demonstration of trying to BS people.
But, I do not expect someone who is ~23 to really grasp that, yet. You simply have not been exposed to enough.
As to my degree, I slacked off hard. I didn't even attend lectures, let alone do any revision (except on the day of the exam or a few days before). I still ended up graduating, but I had spent almost no time on uni at all. I split most of my time between chess and my other hobbies, them being football, judo, dancing (cutting shapes), philosophy, linguistics, and a few others. Out of all of them, chess was the one that I spent the most time on (if you include chess-related videos on YouTube). So I still got a lot of exposure to chess.
You do not get a bachelors and get into a masters program by slacking off (at least not at a halfway decent university). So, either you are lying (again), or you are going to a crappy school. As someone who has taught Computer Science at the university level, trying to cram at the last minute is a great way find yourself on academic probation. In short, if your approach to your studies for the first 2.5-3 years of university was to slack off, that doesn't bode well for your chess study habits.
Both of you just come across as jealous. The intention of this post wasn't to seek attention at all; if it was, don't you think I'd at least mention that it took me less than 2 years to get to 2200? Smh... I made this post because I was wondering how far I could go and what my goals should realistically be. Nothing to do with attention-seeking.
Who are you trying to convince? I am not jealous of your online ratings. I could not care less! What annoys me is you trying to push yourself as someone who found some secret to rapid improvement. Max (what is it with Max's and this nonsense") Duetsche tried do that a few years ago and was quickly introduced to the harsh reality. Anyone can make a claim on the internet, but when that claim goes so far outside the norm to become outlandish, it is almost always because it is complete BS. You going from 0 to 2000 in ~21 months is in the same vein as the Liver King being natural.
1) So you think I was faking games for a full month, having played a total of almost 200 games, all just to create a plausible narrative of rapid improvement 2 years later? And all that just to boast about it to strangers on the internet? Lmao, that would be some dedication right there. Although apparently not enough dedication to have considered not randomly switching to a new account where records of my early progress wouldn't be visible. I'm not going to lie, your narrative doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but whatever makes you sleep at night 
The internet has invented a new word for this exact type of narrative: cope.
2) The matter of fact is I still had a FIDE rating of 1950 2 years later. So whatever cheating you think happened in between (it didn't; Lichess literally private messaged me that my ban was an automatic decision that wasn't manually reviewed, and allowed me to create a new account ─ my current one ─ which is something they don't normally do), it still stands that, in this scenario, I was a complete beginner in 2020 and a ~2000 FIDE rated player in 2022.
I sent you a link to Magnus' monthly ratings since his registration with FIDE. Look below the graph, and you will see that he was almost 2100-rated in 2001 (aged 10). Magnus learnt the rules at 5, and so did I. That doesn't count for anything, though, because neither he nor I actually played, or were interested in, chess until later in life. He started playing at age 8, at which point he was still a complete beginner with practically zero prior chess experience. Two and a bit years later, his FIDE rating was over 2000. So yeah, he definitely improved slightly faster than me. And again, he was a child, so that's a lot more impressive than similar progress that I've made as an adult.
Yeah, I've just started playing OTB, which indicates that I will likely be getting stronger as I play more games. In fact, I believe I have already gotten stronger than when I first started. Anyway, my current rating of 1955 ECF is definitely too low, which should be evidenced by the fact that I have been gaining rating ever since I got my first stable rating (which was unfortunate as it got stabilised exactly when my worst streak of games ended). I'm around 2100 ECF strength right now (as evidenced by the fact that my performance rating since getting my stable rating is 2065). It will take a while for my rating to catch up, though, and my FIDE rating will probably cross 2000 before my ECF rating hits 2100 (even though these are supposed to be equivalent).
And no, my OTB ECF rating has never been 1500-1800 ─ in fact, it has never been below 1930 ─ so I don't know where you got that from, nor how that implies that I'm not being honest about when I first started playing chess.
As to the "research" that you linked, an article on an unknown website that doesn't back up its claims at all isn't the most reliable source lol. Here is a more plausible account (it's more plausible because at least it is based on the experience of a teacher of 15+ years) that supports my claims. Of course, even that is only anecdotal evidence and should be taken with a grain of salt, but it's better than what you gave me. Actual "research" would be peer-reviewed papers published in academic journals, but I haven't found anything of the sort relevant to the topic.
"You simply have not been exposed to enough."
I've talked to various chess coaches and teachers in different fields. I promise you I've been exposed to enough.
"You do not get a bachelors and get into a masters program by slacking off (at least not at a halfway decent university)".
I went to a Russel Group uni and did Master's at a top 30 uni in the UK. So yeah, I did get a Bachelor's ─ and a Master's, too boot ─ by slacking off. I'm not proud of that at all as I could have done a lot better, but the matter of fact is I had loads of time to spend, a lot of which I spent on chess.
"In short, if your approach to your studies for the first 2.5-3 years of university was to slack off, that doesn't bode well for your chess study habits."
I know. I never actually properly studied chess, and I realise that's something I will probably have to do if I want to improve OTB. But we'll see what happens. Either way, that's not really relevant to what we're discussing.
"What annoys me is you trying to push yourself as someone who found some secret to rapid improvement".
Yes, I sort of have. My students will agree with me on this, at least in part.
I'm focused on both. As someone who is obsessively competitive, I will never be able to "not care" about my rating; and even if I play unrated, I will still care about playing my opponent in accordance with my strength ─ so if, for example, my opponent appears to be weaker than them, I will always want to beat them. That's not necessarily a bad thing, either ─ I love chess as is, but the competitive aspect just brings some extra spice to it, and big winning streaks or upset wins feel all the more satisfying as a result.
I'm not going to lie ...
That would be a first.
The internet has invented a new word for this exact type of narrative: cope.
You use that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means. Keep trying.
2) The matter of fact is I still had a FIDE rating of 1950 2 years later. So whatever cheating you think happened in between, it still stands that, in this scenario, I was a complete beginner in 2020 and a ~2000 FIDE rated player in 2022.
You played your first FIDE rated game in Aug 2022 with a first provisional rating of 1952. You still have a provisional rating, and it has done nothing but gone down over the last 6 months (sitting at 1850 currently). Like I said, either you were not a complete beginner in 2020, you were cheating online, or both.
Lichess literally private messaged me that my ban was an automatic decision that wasn't manually reviewed, and allowed me to create a new account ─ my current one ─ which is something they don't normally do
This is not at all how their process works. So no, that is not what happened. If the automatic system flagged you and the manual review cleared you, they would reinstate your account. They would not keep the flag on your previous account and let you create a new account.
I sent you a link to Magnus' monthly ratings since his registration with FIDE. Look below the graph, and you will see that he was almost 2100-rated in 2001 (aged 10).
I think you got lost in the details. He was almost 11 while being in the mid-2000 rating range. That is roughly 3 years after he started taking chess study seriously. You are claiming you did BETTER than the best player in history WITHOUT seriously studying chess. Are you buying your own BS at this point?
Two and a bit years later, his FIDE rating was over 2000. So yeah, he definitely improved slightly faster than me. And again, he was a child, so that's a lot more impressive than similar progress that I've made as an adult.
Incorrect. An adult improving at half that rate would be impressive. An adult claiming they went from 0 to 2000 (or 0 to 2400 in every time control on 2 different sites) is nonsense.
Yeah, I've just started playing OTB, which indicates that I will likely be getting stronger as I play more games. In fact, I believe I have already gotten stronger than when I first started. Anyway, my current rating of 1955 ECF is definitely too low, which should be evidenced by the fact that I have been gaining rating ever since I got my first stable rating (which was unfortunate as it got stabilised exactly when my worst streak of games ended). I'm around 2100 ECF strength right now (as evidenced by the fact that my performance rating since getting my stable rating is 2065). It will take a while for my rating to catch up, though, and my FIDE rating will probably cross 2000 before my ECF rating 2100 (even though these are supposed to be equivalent).
LOL. Okay. I could spend time refuting this, but as the saying goes, time will tell.
And no, my OTB ECF rating has never been 1500-1800 ─ in fact, it has never been below 1930 ─ so I don't know where you got that from, nor how that implies that I'm not being honest about when I first started playing chess.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was basing that estimate on your performance and looking at the games you've played where I do not think you were getting assistance.
As to the "research" that you linked, an article on an unknown website that doesn't back up its claims at all isn't the most reliable source lol. Here is a more plausible account (it's more plausible because at least it is based on the experience of a teacher of 15+ years) that supports my claims. Of course, even that is only anecdotal evidence and should be taken with a grain of salt, but it's better than what you gave me. Actual "research" would be peer-reviewed papers published in academic journals, but I haven't found anything of the sort relevant to the topic.
ROFL. You complain about an article I link and proceed to refute it by linking a blog post. Seriously, if you want me to link academic papers and articles about said academic papers:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/202211/one-reason-kids-learn-faster-adults
https://www.popsci.com/science/children-brain-learning-gaba/
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/why-children-learn-better-than-adults.html
https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/study-reveals-why-children-may-be-better-learners-than-adults/
If you haven't seen the articles on the subject going back over 100 years, you haven't been paying attention. If you want to see the difference, try teaching a language to a group of 5-year-olds and a group of 35-year-olds. The 5-year-olds will be fluent far faster than the 35-year-olds.
EDIT: Besides, the point being made in the blog post is that adults learn more efficiently as kids have nothing to do but learn so they spend far more time in the process. While the second part is true, the first part is debatable - as one of the papers linked above points out.
I've talked to various chess coaches and teachers in different fields. I promise you I've been exposed to enough.
The point flew over your head. Come back in 15 years when you have some more living under you.
I went to a Russel Group uni and did Master's at a top 30 uni in the UK. So yeah, I did get a Bachelor's ─ and a Master's, too boot ─ by slacking off. I'm not proud of that at all as I could have done a lot better, but the matter of fact is I had loads of time to spend, a lot of which I spent on chess.
I know. I never actually properly studied chess, and I realise that's something I will probably have to do if I want to improve OTB. But we'll see what happens. Either way, that's not really relevant to what we're discussing.
So, you must be a genius in Mathematics, Data Science, and Chess. I'll look forward to seeing the contributions you make to the field if you were able to coast through an advanced degree with poor study habits.
Yes, I sort of have. My students will agree with me on this, at least in part.
Followers of the Liver King thought his "method" worked as well. Reality is a cold shower.
But guys it can be that he is telling the truth? Becoz some guys say that if u study properly then u can reach 1800fide in just two years....he studied 3years ....it can be possible that he studied obsessively? Like say 5hrs a day? But as pawn tsunami said that his rating is going down,so probably he is not yet a master but close to it like a 1800 fide
2-3 years from beginner to Class A is an insanely fast rate of improvement. To give you an idea of how rare that is, this is the rating graph for Tani: http://www.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=16649696
It made national headlines (not just in the chess world!) when he won the NY State Championship in 2019 (when he had a rating of ~1300) a year after learning how to play and again when he earned his NM title in 2021. That is, it took him about 2-2.5 years to go from 100 to 2000 and that made national headlines (in combination with his incredible story). That kind of improvement is extremely rare. So, to see an adult claiming they were able to do the same thing in less time, while going to college is amusingly asinine.
Both of you guys are in denial. Proof that you are both dead-wrong is right in front of you (it takes about a minute to search up maxkho and sort all games by date), yet you willingly choose to ignore it. Well, what can I say, you guys do you👍
You think online rating gains is evidence of your progress from 0 to expert level in under 2 years? I bet you believed the Liver King was natural, too.
To demonstrate why it is nonsense: take a look at the graph of child prodigies like Magnus, Fabiano, Hikaru, MVL, Kasparov, Fischer, etc. It took each of them 4-6 years to go from complete beginner to roughly 2000 when they had 2 massive advantages over you (kids learn faster and have much more disposable time to throw at Chess). You claim you made this progress as an adult, while working on a technical degree. One of 2 things is true: you are lying about being a complete beginner or you have cheated to boost your online ratings (or both). As one of your LiChess accounts was banned for the latter reason, the reader can decide which they think is more likely.
Just like you cannot go from learning to read to finishing a bachelor's degree in under a year, you cannot go from a true Chess beginner to expert level in under a year (and certainly cannot do it while working on a Master's degree in Data Science - unless you have discovered the secret to the flux capacitor ...). This is especially so with the attention seeking mentality that drives you to create these types of nonsense threads on both the chess.com and LiChess forums. Your fantastical claim is that you did something that none of the best child prodigies we have seen were able to do, and you did it later in life while working on a degree in a highly technical (meaning studies are time consuming) field. I have oceanfront property next to Danny's house in AZ that I will sell to anyone that buys that crap; and I will give them a great price!
I think games in which I play like a complete beginner (~200 elo) 3 years ago are good evidence that I was a complete beginner 3 years ago, sure. To be more specific, my dad taught me the basic piece movement when I was 5, but I found the game really boring and didn't have any interest in it until 2020. I still played a few games every year or so on social occasions, but I had probably played a total of 30-40 games (including many games in which neither player knew the actual rules) in my life before that point.
Also, Magnus was rated almost 2100 FIDE after 2 years of playing: he started at age 8 and was 2064 well before his 11th birthday. My FIDE rating after 2.5 years was 1950, so Magnus improved faster than me, at least in classical.
And I'd like a source on the claim that children learn faster than young adults, because from what I've heard from chess coaches and even general studies (unrelated to chess specifically) on learning in children and adults, the exact opposite is true. Children learn better (i.e. more thoroughly), but adults learn faster.
As to my degree, I slacked off hard. I didn't even attend lectures, let alone do any revision (except on the day of the exam or a few days before). I still ended up graduating, but I had spent almost no time on uni at all. I split most of my time between chess and my other hobbies, them being football, judo, dancing (cutting shapes), philosophy, linguistics, and a few others. Out of all of them, chess was the one that I spent the most time on (if you include chess-related videos on YouTube). So I still got a lot of exposure to chess.
Both of you just come across as jealous. The intention of this post wasn't to seek attention at all; if it was, don't you think I'd at least mention that it took me less than 2 years to get to 2200? Smh... I made this post because I was wondering how far I could go and what my goals should realistically be. Nothing to do with attention-seeking.
Do I understand this correctly, you set more priority for chess over your academics?
I don’t regretting graduating top of class over chess.
ngl I feel like @pawntsunami is right here...
1. Children do learn faster than adults (you definitely don't usually see "adult goes from beginner to grandmaster in 3 years!" in the news headlines)
2. Slacking off while still doing well in classes? Are you sleepwalking while writing these?
3. Improving is suspiciously fast (you can't really just improve as fast as Magnus, if you really were... then better be seeing you on the world championship stage in a few years)
4. Title of post "When will I stop improving?" ... yeah no-one asks that unless its basically bragging. Additionally with all the evidence that @pawntsunami has against you, MUCH more likely you're just a cheater (what happened with that lichess account hm? there's gotta be a reason for the ban)
But guys it can be that he is telling the truth? Becoz some guys say that if u study properly then u can reach 1800fide in just two years....he studied 3years ....it can be possible that he studied obsessively? Like say 5hrs a day? But as pawn tsunami said that his rating is going down,so probably he is not yet a master but close to it like a 1800 fide
2-3 years from beginner to Class A is an insanely fast rate of improvement. To give you an idea of how rare that is, this is the rating graph for Tani: http://www.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=16649696
It made national headlines (not just in the chess world!) when he won the NY State Championship in 2019 (when he had a rating of ~1300) a year after learning how to play and again when he earned his NM title in 2021. That is, it took him about 2-2.5 years to go from 100 to 2000 and that made national headlines (in combination with his incredible story). That kind of improvement is extremely rare. So, to see an adult claiming they were able to do the same thing in less time, while going to college is amusingly asinine.
... I don’t think it’s called class A for fide. And if you are referring to uscf, it’s not that special at all to get it in 2-2.5 years (fide is much different from uscf just saying prob like 1500 fide or lower)
this post just seems like an ego boost. Any criticism anyone gives you shrug it off lol.
Im struggling to understand the actual point of the question. "When will the natural improvement stop". You're basing your natural talent/improvement on a chess.com rating. This is just embarrassing.
Also with hindsight, it seems you only gained 200 rating points between this post being made over a year and 3 months ago, and now, which is definitely signs that your rating increase has stagnated.
You got your answer. 2400 in blitz on a chess website. Like someone else mentioned which you scoffed at, go play in real RATED organised OTB tournaments, and lets see if this "natural" talent and improvement shines there.
Edit: just checked this guys profile, forget this post, his entire profile is just self glorification, no one should take this post seriously, ignore him.
I'm not going to lie ...
That would be a first.
The internet has invented a new word for this exact type of narrative: cope.
You use that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means. Keep trying.
2) The matter of fact is I still had a FIDE rating of 1950 2 years later. So whatever cheating you think happened in between, it still stands that, in this scenario, I was a complete beginner in 2020 and a ~2000 FIDE rated player in 2022.
You played your first FIDE rated game in Aug 2022 with a first provisional rating of 1952. You still have a provisional rating, and it has done nothing but gone down over the last 6 months (sitting at 1850 currently). Like I said, either you were not a complete beginner in 2020, you were cheating online, or both.
Lichess literally private messaged me that my ban was an automatic decision that wasn't manually reviewed, and allowed me to create a new account ─ my current one ─ which is something they don't normally do
This is not at all how their process works. So no, that is not what happened. If the automatic system flagged you and the manual review cleared you, they would reinstate your account. They would not keep the flag on your previous account and let you create a new account.
I sent you a link to Magnus' monthly ratings since his registration with FIDE. Look below the graph, and you will see that he was almost 2100-rated in 2001 (aged 10).
I think you got lost in the details. He was almost 11 while being in the mid-2000 rating range. That is roughly 3 years after he started taking chess study seriously. You are claiming you did BETTER than the best player in history WITHOUT seriously studying chess. Are you buying your own BS at this point?
Two and a bit years later, his FIDE rating was over 2000. So yeah, he definitely improved slightly faster than me. And again, he was a child, so that's a lot more impressive than similar progress that I've made as an adult.
Incorrect. An adult improving at half that rate would be impressive. An adult claiming they went from 0 to 2000 (or 0 to 2400 in every time control on 2 different sites) is nonsense.
Yeah, I've just started playing OTB, which indicates that I will likely be getting stronger as I play more games. In fact, I believe I have already gotten stronger than when I first started. Anyway, my current rating of 1955 ECF is definitely too low, which should be evidenced by the fact that I have been gaining rating ever since I got my first stable rating (which was unfortunate as it got stabilised exactly when my worst streak of games ended). I'm around 2100 ECF strength right now (as evidenced by the fact that my performance rating since getting my stable rating is 2065). It will take a while for my rating to catch up, though, and my FIDE rating will probably cross 2000 before my ECF rating 2100 (even though these are supposed to be equivalent).
LOL. Okay. I could spend time refuting this, but as the saying goes, time will tell.
And no, my OTB ECF rating has never been 1500-1800 ─ in fact, it has never been below 1930 ─ so I don't know where you got that from, nor how that implies that I'm not being honest about when I first started playing chess.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was basing that estimate on your performance and looking at the games you've played where I do not think you were getting assistance.
As to the "research" that you linked, an article on an unknown website that doesn't back up its claims at all isn't the most reliable source lol. Here is a more plausible account (it's more plausible because at least it is based on the experience of a teacher of 15+ years) that supports my claims. Of course, even that is only anecdotal evidence and should be taken with a grain of salt, but it's better than what you gave me. Actual "research" would be peer-reviewed papers published in academic journals, but I haven't found anything of the sort relevant to the topic.
ROFL. You complain about an article I link and proceed to refute it by linking a blog post. Seriously, if you want me to link academic papers and articles about said academic papers:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/202211/one-reason-kids-learn-faster-adults
https://www.popsci.com/science/children-brain-learning-gaba/
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/why-children-learn-better-than-adults.html
https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/study-reveals-why-children-may-be-better-learners-than-adults/
If you haven't seen the articles on the subject going back over 100 years, you haven't been paying attention. If you want to see the difference, try teaching a language to a group of 5-year-olds and a group of 35-year-olds. The 5-year-olds will be fluent far faster than the 35-year-olds.
EDIT: Besides, the point being made in the blog post is that adults learn more efficiently as kids have nothing to do but learn so they spend far more time in the process. While the second part is true, the first part is debatable - as one of the papers linked above points out.
I've talked to various chess coaches and teachers in different fields. I promise you I've been exposed to enough.
The point flew over your head. Come back in 15 years when you have some more living under you.
I went to a Russel Group uni and did Master's at a top 30 uni in the UK. So yeah, I did get a Bachelor's ─ and a Master's, too boot ─ by slacking off. I'm not proud of that at all as I could have done a lot better, but the matter of fact is I had loads of time to spend, a lot of which I spent on chess.
I know. I never actually properly studied chess, and I realise that's something I will probably have to do if I want to improve OTB. But we'll see what happens. Either way, that's not really relevant to what we're discussing.
So, you must be a genius in Mathematics, Data Science, and Chess. I'll look forward to seeing the contributions you make to the field if you were able to coast through an advanced degree with poor study habits.
Yes, I sort of have. My students will agree with me on this, at least in part.
Followers of the Liver King thought his "method" worked as well. Reality is a cold shower.
"That would be a first."
Lol. Yes it would.
"You use that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means".
Oh, it means exactly what I think it means. You can't accept that there are people out there that have progressed much faster than you, so you invent these ridiculously implausible narratives to cope. Yeah, that's textbook copium.
"it has done nothing but gone down over the last 6 months (sitting at 1850 currently)".
Yeah, because when I started playing OTB, I was around ~1900 FIDE strength, so my rating went down from 1952 (it only went as low as 1850 because I lost to two very underrated juniors). But it is going to either close to, or back over, 1900 depending on the result of my game tomorrow. So it is now increasing again, and as I said, it will probably keep increasing until around 2000, which appears to be my true strength atm (again, as evidenced by my ECF performance rating in the past few months being 2060).
"This is not at all how their process works. So no, that is not what happened."
I literally have screenshots, but as I said, whatever makes you sleep at night.
"He was almost 11 while being in the mid-2000 rating range."
No, he was 10 years and 4 months old. He started playing chess when he was somewhere between exactly 8 years old and 8 years 6 months old. So he had only been playing chess for 2 years when he was 2060 FIDE rated. My FIDE rating was 1950 at the same point in my chess journey, so Magnus improved faster than me.
"I was basing that estimate on your performance and looking at the games you've played where I do not think you were getting assistance."
Lol. So I think I am cheating OTB AS WELL AS online? Wow, I'm quite the cheater, aren't I? Anyway, would you mind sharing which games you think I wasn't getting assistance in? Please. I'm genuinely very curious.
As to your sources, please check what they are actually saying.
"It is often assumed that children learn more efficiently than adults, although the scientific support for this assumption has, at best, been weak." A single study which only deals with visuo-perceptual learning won't change that.
"Come back in 15 years when you have some more living under you."
And what would that change, exactly? I am not seeing your point.
"So, you must be a genius in Mathematics, Data Science, and Chess."
First of all, if that were true, why would it be surprising? All of these are related disciplines with lots of inter-transferrable skills. Wouldn't make sense for someone who is a genius at chess to be more likely to also be a genius at maths? For my part, no, I am not a genius, but I do appear to have a natural talent for all of these disciplines. However, even players who aren't as talented at chess could still improve rapidly and make significant rating gains if subjected to my coaching.
"Reality is a cold shower".
Not for my students, though, all of whom have already improved since they started taking lessons from me (despite having been stagnant previously).
But guys it can be that he is telling the truth? Becoz some guys say that if u study properly then u can reach 1800fide in just two years....he studied 3years ....it can be possible that he studied obsessively? Like say 5hrs a day? But as pawn tsunami said that his rating is going down,so probably he is not yet a master but close to it like a 1800 fide
I said I didn't actually ever study per se ─ I just played online Rapid and Blitz, did game review of some of the games, and watched chess content on YouTube (mostly Eric Rosen, Chessbrah, Hikaru, and GothamChess).
Also, no, my rating isn't going down; it's going up. My FIDE rating will increase between 30 and 50 points this month (depending on the result of my game tomorrow) to close to, or just over, 1900. I am definitely not 1800 FIDE strength, nor was I ever at that strength since I started playing OTB. I'm currently around 2000 FIDE strength, but it might take a few months for my rating to fully catch up.
And recall that I had only been playing for just over 2 years ─ not 3 years ─ when I got my first FIDE rating of 1952.
And yeah, I'm obviously telling the truth, but the people here don't seem to be very comfortable with the idea that random internet strangers can be significantly better than them at chess.
Both of you guys are in denial. Proof that you are both dead-wrong is right in front of you (it takes about a minute to search up maxkho and sort all games by date), yet you willingly choose to ignore it. Well, what can I say, you guys do you👍
You think online rating gains is evidence of your progress from 0 to expert level in under 2 years? I bet you believed the Liver King was natural, too.
To demonstrate why it is nonsense: take a look at the graph of child prodigies like Magnus, Fabiano, Hikaru, MVL, Kasparov, Fischer, etc. It took each of them 4-6 years to go from complete beginner to roughly 2000 when they had 2 massive advantages over you (kids learn faster and have much more disposable time to throw at Chess). You claim you made this progress as an adult, while working on a technical degree. One of 2 things is true: you are lying about being a complete beginner or you have cheated to boost your online ratings (or both). As one of your LiChess accounts was banned for the latter reason, the reader can decide which they think is more likely.
Just like you cannot go from learning to read to finishing a bachelor's degree in under a year, you cannot go from a true Chess beginner to expert level in under a year (and certainly cannot do it while working on a Master's degree in Data Science - unless you have discovered the secret to the flux capacitor ...). This is especially so with the attention seeking mentality that drives you to create these types of nonsense threads on both the chess.com and LiChess forums. Your fantastical claim is that you did something that none of the best child prodigies we have seen were able to do, and you did it later in life while working on a degree in a highly technical (meaning studies are time consuming) field. I have oceanfront property next to Danny's house in AZ that I will sell to anyone that buys that crap; and I will give them a great price!
I think games in which I play like a complete beginner (~200 elo) 3 years ago are good evidence that I was a complete beginner 3 years ago, sure. To be more specific, my dad taught me the basic piece movement when I was 5, but I found the game really boring and didn't have any interest in it until 2020. I still played a few games every year or so on social occasions, but I had probably played a total of 30-40 games (including many games in which neither player knew the actual rules) in my life before that point.
Also, Magnus was rated almost 2100 FIDE after 2 years of playing: he started at age 8 and was 2064 well before his 11th birthday. My FIDE rating after 2.5 years was 1950, so Magnus improved faster than me, at least in classical.
And I'd like a source on the claim that children learn faster than young adults, because from what I've heard from chess coaches and even general studies (unrelated to chess specifically) on learning in children and adults, the exact opposite is true. Children learn better (i.e. more thoroughly), but adults learn faster.
As to my degree, I slacked off hard. I didn't even attend lectures, let alone do any revision (except on the day of the exam or a few days before). I still ended up graduating, but I had spent almost no time on uni at all. I split most of my time between chess and my other hobbies, them being football, judo, dancing (cutting shapes), philosophy, linguistics, and a few others. Out of all of them, chess was the one that I spent the most time on (if you include chess-related videos on YouTube). So I still got a lot of exposure to chess.
Both of you just come across as jealous. The intention of this post wasn't to seek attention at all; if it was, don't you think I'd at least mention that it took me less than 2 years to get to 2200? Smh... I made this post because I was wondering how far I could go and what my goals should realistically be. Nothing to do with attention-seeking.
Do I understand this correctly, you set more priority for chess over your academics?
I don’t regretting graduating top of class over chess.
It was very stupid of me to have done so, and I definitely regret it, but yeah, that's basically what happened. It wasn't just chess ─ I had other hobbies which I also focused on ─ but the crux of the matter is the same. Moreover, I even knew that I was going astray and felt terrible about it, but still couldn't do much to change it, somehow. I have a pretty bad case of ADHD, which made things of that nature very difficult for me.
Fast improvement is possible, these days, as there are a ton of resources available to aspiring players.
When I was a new player, this is all I had: a chessboard, a few dusty old chess books, and ... that's it. I even struggled to find opponents for the first few years of my learning; I spent most of the time playing against myself.
There was no such thing as Stockfish. There was no internet. I spent many years forming bad habits, because I had no high-level answers to learn from ... if I made mistakes in my play, I was forced to find the solutions on my own (or to simply shrug and accept that some things I might never understand).
These days, a new player can have opponents available in a few seconds, at any playing level. You can have an engine point out your mistakes (and suggest improvements) in an instant. There are grandmasters who play online while streaming, and discuss their thoughts while playing ... all sorts of learning opportunities that new players from several decades ago could not have dreamed of ...
It's not unreasonable to see players improve quite rapidly, in today's age - assuming they have the dedication (and the obsession to pursue it).
I recently saw an 11-year-old with a 2600 online blitz rating ... not unusual at all, in today's era. It's kind of mind-boggling, when you think about it.
Why is it nonsense lol
I learned how to read a year ago and just earned my bachelor's degree last week and got accepted into a master's program. When will I stop learning?!