Will I be able to reach Master level?
Sort:
Oct 13, 2015
0
#183
<AdmiralPicard> is a clever fellow who "knows all about" people rated 1600, and even 1800 - while himself "boasting" a modest rating in the 1400s.
The kind of player who comes around when you're having a great time in a club, playing someone, and a minute later nobody's feeling good anymore and the atmosphere changes.
Simply put - no respect.
Oct 13, 2015
0
#184
By the way - I forgot to mention that similarly to <MorraMeister>, I have, too, upon visiting my Tel Aviv chess club for the first time in 1989, been convinced that I should be able to at least "give a good fight" to the local master :-) !!!!
I've made the same mistake - I've already read a book or two (understanding maybe 5% of what was there) and managed to be on a par with the best chess players of my class in school (where really everybody, or almost, loved chess) - so I thought - what the hell... let's show these nerdy fellows who's boss!!
I was seventeen... the director of the club (IM Yochanan Afek, by the way - I'm sure you heard the name) told me - "no, you shouldn't play that guy" (it was FM Ran Shabtai - an amazingly funny fellow and a great, brilliant mind) he said - "he's a master".
And I'm like - "so what?" :-)
hahahahaha!!!
So he said - "no, better play some of these kids" - and pointed to a group of kids, from half to 3/4 my size...
I said - fine, whatever...
Then the tiniest kid in the group, who had just recently gotten his first rating above 1500, just beat me to a pulp in under twenty moves, in blitz time controls.
I said - wait, I never played blitz before... let's play without the clock.
Fine, he said - and again beat me to a pulp in under twenty moves :-) !!!!
Talk about a rude awakening!!
- - - - - - - - -
Epilogue: in 2001 I met FM Ran Shabtai in a blitz competition in which very strong players were playing. I finished one place before last, with 1.5 point out of 9.
The guy I beat was rated around 2000... but against FM Shabtai I had a very promising position - an endgame with two minor pieces for each player, but I had an extra pawn, a passer on d6! (I was playing white).
However, as the master still had four minutes to my two - I offered a draw, which he gratefully, if "astonished-ly" accepted.
He asked me - "why"?
I said - well, you had more time, I couldn't see a clear plan to do anything with that pawn - and I felt that it would fall at some point and I would just lose on time or make some mistake.
It was a great practical decision, borne of RESPECT (again) of that really strong player - and incidentally, the first time I actually drew a Fide Master in tournament play in any time control.
Later, I managed several draws against FMs in Rapid and Classical time controls, and in recent years also got some wins in blitz tournaments. But it was neither easy nor quick to get to my level, which may be aptly called "tickle-the-master" level. Just last Saturday I beat an FM in a blitz competition here in Café pantin...
On another note - even these children who make master before puberty, need to work very long and very hard to get there, and to have incredible amounts of talent AND emotional maturity, far and beyond their actual "physical" body age. So again, RESPECT please.
Oct 13, 2015
0
#185
solskytz wrote:
<AdmiralPicard> is a clever fellow who "knows all about" people rated 1600, and even 1800 - while himself "boasting" a modest rating in the 1400s.
The kind of player who comes around when you're having a great time in a club, playing someone, and a minute later nobody's feeling good anymore and the atmosphere changes.
Simply put - no respect.
Because chess.com ratings are serious business am i right? Well i don't take this any seriously and i use online chess as my playground just for some fun and test a lot of things, i easily resign games that aren't making me happy and i don't even try to win besides trying new things, but so that you know i have 1964 Fide rating OTB and i've had several performances of 2k, 2,1k, i know a thing or 2 about what i'm talking about, i can tell the differences between 1500, 1800 and 2k players because i've been them, and for the most, what i said stands true.
A 1500 player is someone who mastered a few openings and has little knowledge of midgame and endgame, a 1800 player has a deeper understanding of a few specific openings and has mastered the art of "not blundering", and a 2k player learns to play positionally by exploiting weaknesses, closing&opening positions, and midgame and endgame mastering. I wouldn't say there are serious differences in opening knowledge between a 1,8k and 2k player, most of the difference falls into mid-game experience.
one look at your figures and solskytz takes the lead.
AdmiralPicard wrote:
1600-1700 isn't really an achieve, all it takes is mastering the basics of endings, a bit mid game and master a specific set of openings that fullfil your tastes. Some people just have trouble achieve those ratings because they're taking the wrong approach to chess. I've seen many players stuck in their 1500 rate because all they do is looking for the opponents to fall into their traps, instead of taking a more serious approach to chess. They might be pretty good at setting traps, but that's really not enough against someone who can avoid them.
In personal experience one just notices a wide gap in experience between 2k+ players and 1800, not really below that. A 2k player will most usually have an experience and an approach to the board in a much deeper way than a 1,8k, and almost beat them everytime once out of the book.
For 1,8k OTB all it takes is mastering like caro-khan, sicilian, italian game and maybe scandinavian. When you have a solid knowledge of at least those 4 openings, pretty much 1,8k is granted. Many 1,8k players don't even have a solid mid-game knowledge or ending, but they've mastered the game of trading pieces without losing any to some point. It's just above 2k that' you'll see players going out of their way in openings trying to approach new positions and solid exploitations of opponent's weaknesses
I have to disagree with this. Reaching 1600-1700 requires nothing but learning to not drop pieces, and not missing simple tactics.
Getting over 1800 requires a good firm understanding of how to formulate a middlegame plan.
Once you start approaching 1900, you need to have established a solid opening rep. Not memorized 20-30 deep, but a firm understanding of the ideas behind those openings, and the pawn structures associated with them.
just one mans opinion...
Oct 13, 2015
0
#188
AdmiralPicard wrote:
solskytz wrote:
<AdmiralPicard> is a clever fellow who "knows all about" people rated 1600, and even 1800 - while himself "boasting" a modest rating in the 1400s.
The kind of player who comes around when you're having a great time in a club, playing someone, and a minute later nobody's feeling good anymore and the atmosphere changes.
Simply put - no respect.
... i easily resign games that aren't making me happy and i don't even try to win besides trying new things, ...
You might want to review the terms of service so your posts don't all magically disappear.
I love these " rude awakening stories " as I have one of my own ! I finally found a chess club to attend in 1973 , having been drawn to competitive chess by the rise of Fischer and the 72 match with Spassky . I had no experience against tournament players and no exposure to organized chess at age 20 in 1973 , then I learned of this otb club in SC , about 40 minutes drive from my home town . At the time I was the best player from my high school years ( less than 6 players played regularly ) and I could beat all my friends and family handily so I thought I might be an undiscovered " Fischer " type of prodigy . So , on my first visit to the chess club I was truly expecting to beat everyone there with little difficulty ! The actual result was very sobering : I lost all games and most of them were 20 moves or less ! Literally everyone in the club was better than me and the best one there that night was a 1700 B class player ! I lost games to the young , the old , males and females ... I lost all games .... LOL A few months later I joined my first rated tournament , it was just a club tournament and what we called a " Quad " . Players were divided up by rating in groups of 4 and then played a round robin against one another with the winner in each Quad/group of 4 receiving a trophy . The time control was G/1 hr . Since I had no rating the TD put me in a group of C class players and they were all rated 1500-1580 . My strength was probably really about 1200 at that time and I lost all 3 games ! These two initial chess experiences really woke me up and made me realize that I wasnt good at all and that I had a lot of work/playing to do if I wanted to be a good player . 
Oct 13, 2015
0
#190
I was the second best in my high school until the other guy graduated a year before me. Last time I was able to find a rating for him, he was USCF B Class (I was still C then). After a year as the best in my high school and my first year of college, where I easily beat everyone that I played in the dorm, I gave up chess for religion.
I had played at my city's club in high school and played in a USCF correspondence event.
For the next several years, I played chess with my wife (now former wife) and a friend from church. I always won.
In graduate school, I bought my first computer (an 80386 with 1 MB RAM) and Chessmaster 2100. After my Ph.D. exams, I was burnt out on school and wasted most of a month playing chess with the computer. I also played in a chess tournament on campus, losing to the winner but winning my two other games. I had one friend who usually beat me and we played chess when we could.
After finishing graduate school, I reconnected with the Spokane Chess Club. I told the president that I thought I was an A Class player based on estimates from Pandolfini's column in Chess Life and my performance against Chessmaster 3000. In fall 1995, I played in my first rated tournament and earned a provisional rating of 1250.
When I finished my 25th rated game almost a year later, I was mid-1400s. I had a winning position on the top board in round four of the Washington state C Class Championship in November 1996. Finishing that game with a win would have given me no worse than a tie for first and a rating above 1500. I lost it and the next, finishing with 3/5.
In February 1998, I went 0-5 in a tournament, dropping me below 1400. This event was after my first date with my current wife. In 2012, I took second place in the same event.
In 1998, I started playing chess online.
I hit 1600 USCF in the 2006 Fall Club Championship, and crossed 1800 in 2009. My peak USCF was 1982 in 2012. I have been as low as 1847 since 2012. After dropping to that low, I won an event that kicked my rating back over 1900.
My city has one expert, half a dozen A Class players, and several youth players in the 1300-1600 range who beat A Class players with regularity. It is easy to improve one's skill without gaining any rating points.
MorraMeister wrote:
So I got to thinking about this discussion. And my extrememly humbling first half dozen tournaments and all this talk about whether or not a 1700 rating is an accomplishment, etc. (Which I maintain that it is very mush so).
This website arguably has members that take chess more seriously than the general population. But probably not as seriously (on average) than players on say ICC, for example. But still, players on here care about ratings, and leartning chess, etc.
I don't say this to brag but to make a point. My online rating on chess.com is in the low to mid-1800's. What does that mean?
According to the stats on here, I am rated higher than about 96-97% of the players on this site. probably equates to about 99% or more of all chess players on the planet - which includes casual players who don't take it very serisously.
My point is this- if you make it to 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900 whatever - you have reason to feel proud and satisfied. Don't get so hung up on the title master, as it is just a title attached to a (somewhat) arbitrary rating level of 2200.
dont get me wrong, I would like to be a master as much as the rest of you - but at the age of 54 with kids, a house, a very demanding job, other hobbies, chores, etc. etc. I am very satisfied to say that I have achieved a rating level in the top 5% (OR LESS)
Well said!
You dont need to be a Master to have a title. Every class has a title. Category 1...category2...category 3...etc.
Oct 13, 2015
0
#192
MorraMeister wrote:
I would like to be a master as much as the rest of you -- but ... other hobbies,
The horror! There should be chess and only chess.
Great stories!
Yeah, when I was young I too thought I was destined for chess glory. I worked hard at it on my own and then with a couple of friends. When I got around to tournaments, I didn't do badly. My first USCF rating was 1498.
Over the next four years I managed to push my rating up to 1759, but I was sure humbled by how hard the going was. By then I was in college and I really needed to buckle down to sorting my life out and it made sense to let chess go.
My friends were talented and pressed on to expert and master, but it took them years and decades to do so.
Oct 13, 2015
0
#194
If I had spent each hour toward building a house, rather then on chess, by now I would have, what, maybe 5,000 houses?
Oct 13, 2015
0
#197
When you make an accusation, you have to support it with facts. Oops. I guess I just became a known troll.
You have never seen one of those posts? They show up every so often.
Then it should be easy for you to find me one.
Feel free to look for one