05 Feb 06
Good books are listed all over the forum a little searching should turn them up. Classics would include: My System, How to Reassess Your Chess, and Logical Chess: Move By Move. I also highly recommend that you read some endgame book. I personally find Pandolfini's endgame manual rather basic but it covers everything you need to know in a logical step by step format.
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by NordlysI still believe my "real" rating is around 1600-1700. But it seems to me there are a lot of players who are 1700-plus who make bad mistakes. Conversely there are a lot of players of 1400ish who play solidly and can cause me all sorts of problems by capitalising on a blunder.
I don't think so. Don't let my current rating deceive you, it's inflated. My "true" rating is probably more around 1600, and it would be much lower if I would move as fast as most players here seem to move. And as I said, I would probably still be a very bad OTB player.
I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that ratings are a crock of ****.
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by NordlysThat's still not a good beginner. It more like a decent intermediete or a super super super^100 great beginner
I don't think so. Don't let my current rating deceive you, it's inflated. My "true" rating is probably more around 1600, and it would be much lower if I would move as fast as most players here seem to move. And as I said, I would probably still be a very bad OTB player.
05 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RahimKWell, thanks. 😀 But it all comes down to how you define words like "good" and "beginner". Some people may mean "just learned the rules and knows how to move the pieces" when talking about beginners. Obviously I have come a bit further than that. But compared to people who have been playing for years and/or have played hundreds of games, I am still a beginner.
That's still not a good beginner. It more like a decent intermediete or a super super super^100 great beginner
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by Nordlys'Beginners' can be misleading. What about 1200's who have played for 20 years. Some people are just weak players unfortunately. Once someone gets to around 1500, I don't believe they can really be called a beginner, more an intermediate. 2000 is the start of what id call 'strong' players.
Well, thanks. 😀 But it all comes down to how you define words like "good" and "beginner". Some people may mean "just learned the rules and knows how to move the pieces" when talking about beginners. Obviously I have come a bit further than that. But compared to people who have been playing for years and/or have played hundreds of games, I am still a beginner.
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by Another BalvenieIm sure all those things are good, and fine and willl help any good aspiring chess player.
How long did it take you to develop good chess skills?
I am new to the game. I just purchased Chessmaster training tool which seems to be helpful.
I am also trying to play as many games as I can. I can't seem to coordinate defensive and offensive strategies. When do I go to offensive. It seems like when I do this early in the game I always lose yet oppents that do it kick my ass.
I did my own research by asking every master or expert who would tell me.
"how did you get good" (not in those exact words, but close enough)
From what info they would devulge, is that they played over many games.
Old games, and new.
Remember back when, there wer'nt as many chess books, as now, and definitly no chessbase or fritz.
Most of the Masters i asked where 40+ or older.
What they had was games, playing, and advice from other players.
And for sure, play as many stronger players as you can.
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by welsharnieYes, "beginner" can be misleading. When I use it, I mostly think of how long someone has been playing, although the reached level also comes into it to a degree. As for how long someone has been playing, I compare it a bit to playing an instrument, and I would definitely call someone who has been playing for a bit over a year a beginner. The question, of course, is whether this is a fair comparison.
'Beginners' can be misleading. What about 1200's who have played for 20 years. Some people are just weak players unfortunately. Once someone gets to around 1500, I don't believe they can really be called a beginner, more an intermediate. 2000 is the start of what id call 'strong' players.
When you talk about ratings, I don't think you can compare RHP ratings with OTB ratings. I feel that Correspondence Chess is much easier to learn for a beginner, and an RHP rating around 1500 really isn't that hard to achieve if you take your time to make your moves, and use the analysis board and opening databases.
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by NordlysReally?! I dont think my rating here will quite reach my OTB rating...
Yes, "beginner" can be misleading. When I use it, I mostly think of how long someone has been playing, although the reached level also comes into it to a degree. As for how long someone has been playing, I compare it a bit to playing an instrument, and I would definitely call someone who has been playing for a bit over a year a beginner. The question, of cou ...[text shortened]... if you take your time to make your moves, and use the analysis board and opening databases.
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by welsharnieI know there are quite a few people whose OTB ratings are higher than their RHP ratings, which always amazes me. But you are not a beginner, so I may still be right. I think experience plays a much bigger role in OTB play. In CC, you can make up for your lack of experience by taking your time to explore a position, and by using databases. I still need to think about some things like easy mating patterns which an experienced player could do while half asleep, and I still look up many openings which an experienced player would have memorized. But of course it's also a question of what format fits your skills best. I am very poor at visualizing, and I don't do well under time pressure, so CC is ideal for me.
Really?! I dont think my rating here will quite reach my OTB rating...
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by Nordlysi think it is because weaker players can seriously improve their standard of play here, just by taking time to eliminate blunders, although some do not. stronger players find it harder to improve their game by as much i feel...
I know there are quite a few people whose OTB ratings are higher than their RHP ratings, which always amazes me. But you are not a beginner, so I may still be right. I think experience plays a much bigger role in OTB play. In CC, you can make up for your lack of experience by taking your time to explore a position, and by using databases. I still need to thi ...[text shortened]... I am very poor at visualizing, and I don't do well under time pressure, so CC is ideal for me.
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by welsharnieIt sounds like you basically agree with me then. A beginner is a comparatively weak player, so CC is easier than OTB chess for a beginner (provided that you use the possibilities of CC). I don't think you'd find many players who get to an OTB rating of 1500 after playing chess for half a year (or am I wrong about this? ), but you don't need to be a genius to achieve this here.
i think it is because weaker players can seriously improve their standard of play here, just by taking time to eliminate blunders, although some do not. stronger players find it harder to improve their game by as much i feel...
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by NordlysThat depends. Adults I know have become OTB 1500 in around 6 months, not with children however...
It sounds like you basically agree with me then. A beginner is a comparatively weak player, so CC is easier than OTB chess for a beginner (provided that you use the possibilities of CC). I don't think you'd find many players who get to an OTB rating of 1500 after playing chess for half a year (or am I wrong about this? ), but you don't need to be a genius to achieve this here.
06 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by welsharnieOkay. I guess children would have problems getting there in half a year here as well. It would be interesting how far the same people who became OTB 1500 in around 6 months would have come here if they had played here instead of OTB. Or how far I would have come OTB if I had played OTB instead of here...
That depends. Adults I know have become OTB 1500 in around 6 months, not with children however...