07 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RahimKI think the key here is how high your opponents are rated AND how carefully you play against weaker players. - if you play against weaker payers as carefully as others on average, the percentage of wins times the gain you get will keep your rating the same. because the amount of points you win is determined by the average play of two players rated at your and your opponent's level.
As for more time in cc it's only the same if both parties use equal amounts of time. I spend more time now days, my opponents spend less time and my rating goes up and there's goes down...
BUT if you play those games more carefully than on average, you will not lose nearly as often, but still get the rating boost as if you lost just as many games as similarly rated people on average. that will give you the extra boost.
I don't know how far that will get you, but it will have an effect. it would be neat to have an average of your opponents ratings in the profile, so you could interpret the ratings a bit more accurately. you can have a rough estimation of that by looking at the player's win/loss ratio. the more wins against losses, the weaker opponents he's playing relatively. although no single number can express how carefully they play against weaker players. (there should be some kind of 2d-graph for that to be possible, a quality-graph of sorts.)
07 Feb 06
Originally posted by wormwoodHey you subscribed!
I think the key here is how high your opponents are rated AND how [b]carefully you play against weaker players. - if you play against weaker payers as carefully as others on average, the percentage of wins times the gain you get will keep your rating the same. because the amount of points you win is determined by the average play of two players rated at ...[text shortened]... . (there should be some kind of 2d-graph for that to be possible, a quality-graph of sorts.)[/b]
Ya, i think you gotta play extra careful against lower players, so you don't lose against then and lose a ton of points. That way you always get some points out of them, and continue playing strong player and even if you lose whatever, you won't lose that many points.
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
07 Feb 06
Originally posted by Another Balvenietwo-to-three years of solid practice can push you to the 1800 USCF range. it is possible to reach the 2000 USCF level but to go beyond will require serious devotion similiar to any university pursuit.
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.
07 Feb 06
Originally posted by tonytiger41You would have to have a talent for chess to get to 2000, not just effort (note the people who play for their entire lives and only get to 1200). I think this depends on how good people can be, some people can get to over 2000 without 'serious devotion'. They would have to work at it, obviously, but maybe not to a level that someone would study something at university.
two-to-three years of solid practice can push you to the 1800 USCF range. it is possible to reach the 2000 USCF level but to go beyond will require serious devotion similiar to any university pursuit.
You can have all the expensive coaching you can afford, read all the books you like, and play 8 hours a day, but without any sort on knack for the game, you won't make it too high up the ratings...
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
07 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by welsharniei remember having this dicussion once before with several strong players at the marshall chess club years ago we concluded that with hard study, anyone with some intelligence could reach master level. we based this hypothesis on our lifelong observations of the players at this club. We thought becoming 2300 was the upper limit, but surely 2000 was attainable. basicly we believed anyone short of being an idiot could become a good strong amateur chess player with the proper instruction.
You would have to have a talent for chess to get to 2000, not just effort (note the people who play for their entire lives and only get to 1200). I think this depends on how good people can be, some people can get to over 2000 without 'serious devotion'. They would have to work at it, obviously, but maybe not to a level that someone would study something ...[text shortened]... day, but without any sort on knack for the game, you won't make it too high up the ratings...
07 Feb 06
Originally posted by tonytiger41i remember reading that the 'average' person had potential to reach 1800. i have to say i dont believe that most people who study chess could reach 2000, based on what i've seen while playing chess. Remember, wasn't there that genius scientist who loved chess, and spent a fair bit of time studying it, yet was a useless player?
i remember having this dicussion once before with several strong players at the marshall chess club years ago we concluded that with hard study, anyone with some intelligence could reach master level. we based this hypothesis on our lifelong observations of the players at this club. We thought becoming 2300 was the upper limit, but surely 2000 was ...[text shortened]... t of being an idiot could become a good strong amateur chess player with the proper instruction.
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
07 Feb 06
Originally posted by welsharnieyour example is surely true, but i think this is an issue of studying effectively. in our lifetime we all have experienced studying long hours ineffiectively; despite desire to learn, if we have poor study programs, it will not be optimal. this is absolutely true with studying chess; just because one reads the chess book doesn't mean knowledge is acquired, but with proper guidance and hard work --- then one can make progress.
i remember reading that the 'average' person had potential to reach 1800. i have to say i dont believe that most people who study chess could reach 2000, based on what i've seen while playing chess. Remember, wasn't there that genius scientist who loved chess, and spent a fair bit of time studying it, yet was a useless player?
08 Feb 06
1 edit
Steve Lopez wrote an article 'Improvement for the Average Player' for Chessbase's T-Notes on March 30, 2003 (which I have printed off and refer to often). I'm paraphrasing, but the main points are there. These are his ideas, not mine, so please don't think I'm coming off as a know-it-all. I'm quite the opposite, and I have A LOT to learn. Anyway, here is the "meat" of his article:
How to Improve Your Chess Game
1. Study tactics!!! Chess is mostly short-term tactics.
2. Study endgames. Studying endgames is incredibly boring, but it's almost as important as learning tactics. It's good to know how to win (or draw!) in an endgame. Endgame study separates men from the boys. Spend most of your time on those two subjects: tactics and endgames.
3. Spend some time studying positional play/long-term strategy.
4. Do NOT spend a lot of time studying or memorizing opening systems/theory until you reach Elo 2000+. That is a hard rule to unlearn, but follow it.
5. Play as much chess as you can, especially with a stronger player. Swallow your pride and allow yourself to get beaten on the board. Your Elo will thank you for it.
6. Record your games and go over them--especially your losses--with someone stronger.
7. Replay over games of other good players (www.chessgames.com is good for this) and try to really understand why they made the moves they did.
8. Don't kick yourself when you lose: losing teaches you things, and there are more important things in life than winning at chess.
I also recommend Seirawan's 6-book 'Winning Chess...' series.
Those methods and his books have helped me *tremendously*. I've doubled my Elo in a matter of a couple years. It could have been shorter, but we had a baby and moved to a new city. I couldn't study as much.
Best wishes!
--
Brent
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by JusuhWell, once again, Robert oppenheimer is a good example of a person who started playing chess early, had a life-long devotion to the game, and still couldn't break 1200 or so strength. He was a genious, but he sucked at chess.
no. without any talent one`s limit might be 2200. but 2000 is open for anyone who is ready to study...
08 Feb 06
3 edits
Originally posted by Another BalvenieYears... years... years... I've played since I was 9 years old, and I am now 34 years old. Up to the age of 30, I was playing 1300-1400 chess. Good social player. That's about it. However, I didn't realize how much I had learned by just playing. So, when I studied the Lev Alburt course, it sort of solidified all my chess experience and made it active. My RHP rating went from borderline 1400 to now 1590. I should break 1600 soon. Some people spend a lifetime perfecting a line or an opening, or a strategy. Most people only have one or two openings for each color and practice to perfect it all of their life. When you get right down to it, you are simply "born to play at a certain level." In other words, with hard work and a lot of study, you are only destined to become so good. It's genetic, I believe. Some people are born to be "1800" players with much study and much play throughout their lives. Some people are only meant to go as far as "1800." You can defy the laws of genetics by manipulating your brain with the De La Maza plan for chess perfection, but do you really want to bleed from your skin like Jesus in the Garden Gethsamane? LOL Me neither. Is it really worth it? Is it that important to you? My only goal always is to reach a strong A-class player rating. The A-class player has a chance in any game, even against a grandmaster. If the grandmaster is caught looking, he could possibly lose. Of course, the odds are against it, but it's much more possible than with a lower rated player. 1800 players have chances in any tournament. I've seen it happen in Chess Life. An 1800 player has beaten GM Gurevich (who won the National open a record 7 times). I saw a game Bobby Fischer lost against an 1800 player who was a reporter/novelist guy. Plus, once you get to the GM level, it's all memorizing lines and opening theory. I've heard another GM (I forget who it is) who said that chess at the professional level has become watered down. If you play e4, he'll play c5, and then both Grandmasters pretty much know the way it is going to go. Only, they attempt to find innovations in the position. Personally, I will never wish or care to become a Master or a Grandmaster. Even a Master - once he gets there - only ends up in a much more competitive arena with other Masters. An 1800 player is king of the class players! 🙂 I think that's plenty strength for me at least, and it's very attainable. Who are you going to play chess with in the park who can beat you if you're 1800? I mean, not Central Park in New York of course, but any other park. 1800 players are in a high position on the totem pole compared to your layman. I'd be satisfied with that. To achieve to 1800 chess rating is a huge success and an enjoyable one at that. 🙂
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.
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by DrumboThird years ago or so this was published on some chess website, Uscf, chessbase, etc... can't rememeber which one
I agree, power, 1800 is an accomplishment to be proud of, and one most people can't reach, regardless of intelligence or amount of study. I've seen a lot of keen chess players who ate, slept, and lived chess for 30 years, but couldn't break 1500.
If your 1800 and over , you are in the top 15% or all chess players around the world. So 1800 is a strong rating compared to the average player.
I believe this to be true. I know rhp rating aren't accurate like OTB but just as an example, the player tables shows, 3000 active player or so, I'm at 1700 and i'm number 480 something so say 500.
so 500/3000 = 1/6 is over 1700, = 17% about.
So I can see about 15% of the player on here being above 1800.