Real even Chan admits it
Why are 1200s so good
Sort:
https://www.chess.com/blog/bhavyarajjadeja16/magnus-the-knightmare
May 19, 2025
0
#46
You know what’s funny that little kid that crashed out on me still hasn’t responded even though he has been online.
I agree. I'm 1300 and my games in that rating is just there but when I drop to 1299, that's when I get really really serious. It's probably the urge to get to 1300 that makes them/us good
May 24, 2025
0
#50
1200s literally do the same thing every game. Opposite side castle, trade off any fianchettoed bishops and bush random pawns on your king.
May 24, 2025
0
#51
ChanMan4 wrote:
im 1300 now sui but i bet I'm gonna go back down pretty soon
GUESS WHAT I WENT BACK DOWN I WANNA JUMP OFF A BRIDGEEEEEE(IM KIDDING DONT TAKE THIS COMMENT DOWN) HOW AM I GONNA REACH 1500 AHAHAHAHA
Sololevelingsirjohn wrote:
BECAUSE THERE not actually 1200, their closer too 1600, and so on. This site is full of fake beginners. Nearly everyone here has years of play and or professional play or are lightly cheating with a engine. Just like they use engine for 1 or 2 very important moves, so its impossible to detect, so the honest player will lose. Its toxic here and most of the players are also toxic..."
Once upon a time, cheating meant that people with low ability would use engines to get high scores. Now it means people with high (but not great!) ability are trying to be low rated so that they can feel like they are winning all the time. So strange.
ok
hi chess is so fun
BMWash73 wrote:
Sargon_Three wrote:
Detach yourself mentally from your or your opponent's "rating".
If all you're doing is playing for a rating, it becomes a serious grind and won't be fun anymore.
This line of thinking is why so many young men in particular - struggle with life.
You have to know where you rank in any situation, know what you have to do to move up, and work relentlessly to attain that move upwards.
You need to be honest with yourself about where you rank, and ELO tells you that you are not good, well, you are not good. Identify what needs to be done to improve, one thing at a time, and see that measurement improve.
Thats not just chess, its life.
You're right when it comes to training. Knowing your level and your weaknesses is key, for all sorts of reasons. But it's not just about rating. Some people are simply good at performing under pressure, while others—who aren’t any less skilled or knowledgeable struggle to show it. Traits like stubbornness in calculation are insanely useful and something you need to bring to a solid level.
Choosing the right resources and topics really depends on your actual playing strength.
That being said, Elo is just a summary of past results. In single games, it hardly matters. I don’t even want to know how many times I got into worse positions just because I underestimated someone based on their rating. The thing might also work exactly the other way around and one might overestimate the opponent.
In my first game against a GM everything he played made sense to me, because I was assuming that a GM must play very strongly. After he took half an hour for a move I realized that it was me who had outplayed him - despite a 750-rating difference (I still went on to mess up badly and lose).
From outside it always looks strange when my students are underestimating or overestimating an opponent, but I made this experience and so has everyone else.
May 28, 2025
0
#59
Just bcuz they are better than 1200s, I'm 1000s and my opponent's game rating usually 1700s or higher, and some of them used to be 1500s but they lost their elo for some reasons
yes