A formidable wall of text.
Why 30/0 is, IMO, the best option for improving your chess…
Sort:
I can certainly appreciate that.
If this works for you fine. Are there studies that show systematically that 30 minutes games are the best for improving? Correspondence games give you more time to review each move and try to understand. The added bonus is not having to deal with waiting for the other player. Live games are lousy. Why would someone torture themselves with this?
Jun 14, 2013
0
#25
No, 30/0 is not the best option. But it's best on chess.com
Real long over the board tournament games are best.
Does anybody remember reading or hearing that you should play stronger player and win about 30% of the games to improve.
Threebeast wrote:
Does anybody remember reading or hearing that you should play stronger player and win about 30% of the games to improve.
Haven't heard it and it doesn't make any sense to me. Winning, while a good way to know that you are indeed improving, doesn't improve your game, at least not for the standard player. The 70% loss will be what is improving your play IF you pay attention to the mistakes and go back over to find how you could have won.
Phylar wrote:
Threebeast wrote:
Does anybody remember reading or hearing that you should play stronger player and win about 30% of the games to improve.
Haven't heard it and it doesn't make any sense to me. Winning, while a good way to know that you are indeed improving, doesn't improve your game, at least not for the standard player. The 70% loss will be what is improving your play IF you pay attention to the mistakes and go back over to find how you could have won.
I may be wrong here, but I think the advice might still make sense... In the sense that winning 30% of your games against stronger apponents would mean that you are playing people that are only slightly better that you (on average). You are of course right that losing teaches you more than those games you won, but if you played a grandmaster 100 times and lost 100 games, how much would you learn? I don't know the answer myself, but I think it implies that you need to crawl before you can walk, walk before you can run... and winning about 30% of your games, i.e. losing or drawing 70% of your games, means you are in about the right category to learn more about chess without being overwhelmed... just my 2 pennies... (sorry, forgot to transition from English to American)...
Excatly, I remember reading that if playing slight stronger player you should about win about 20 to 40 percent of your games and will learn with getting your head bash in all the time. I just cannnot remember where I saw this infomation.
Jun 28, 2013
0
#30
Why not join the Dan Heisman Learning Center and play Slow Chess League tournaments using G/45+45 and now even G/90+30 time controls? These are time controls that allow you to play what Dan Heisman calls "real chess" and really make improvements. Our tournament formats that allow you to negotiate for playing times that can fit these longer time controls into your schedule is the way to go. Tournaments attract more serious players, so you aren't going to snag a G/30+0 game with somebody that disconnects after 5 minutes because he thinks you take too long anyway. And there's a lot more than that offered. Why not stop by, join, and try it out?
I am think the best time control is 45 45. For me bulllet blitz an d rapid not helping plus I just end up moving pieces without any thought.
If anybody is interested in playing slow games in live like 45/45, 75/30, 90/30 or etc.....you can join the below groups.
Dan Heisman Learning Center
♔NM Aww-Rats Free Video Lessons!♔
♙World Standard Time Control Chess Club 365 Days a year!♙
I'd say because you have more time to think about your moves