- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
Originally posted by Drumboi disagree. a person of minimal intelligence can reach up to 2000 with the proper trainning and coaching. your reference to players who haven't reach such levels after 30 years only means they practiced and studied very causally, and didn not have proper coaching.
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.
Originally posted by tonytiger41For those of us who have played thirty years or more, and still languish at the 15-25th percentile (1500-1800), and have at least minimal intelligence, I suspect we suffer from something more serious than the want of good coaching, or disciplined and effective study methods. I've spent most of my life winning chess games against players who are far worse than me. These wins have rewarded my bad habits, and reinforced my unsound ideas.
i disagree. a person of minimal intelligence can reach up to 2000 with the proper trainning and coaching. your reference to players who haven't reach such levels after 30 years only means they practiced and studied very causally, and didn not have proper coaching.
Consider two games that many of us have played:
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 d6 3.Qh5 Nf6 4.Qxf7#
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bg4 5.h3 Bh5 6.Nxe5! Bxd1?? 7.Bxf7+ Ke7 8.Nd5#
The first of these is more common, and works more often, although it requires employment of the positionally risky early queen move. The second is rooted in sound positional moves, and sets a deadly trap. But, if the black player does not fall for the trap, playing the correct 6...Nxe5, white still gains a pawn and better position after 7.Qxh5 Nxc4 8.Qb5+ Qd7 9.Qxc4.
These two are elementary, and should be familiar to everyone above 1200, but similar positional errors that work against weak opponents hold back the 1600 players who have decades of experience, and often have taken lessons from a master.
It is for these reasons that Jeremy Silman's books are so highly regarded. The Amateur's Mind directly addresses the erroneous thought processes that hold back intelligent players with modest tactical acumen.
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
i've studied statistics causally for the last three years because work related projects demand it. now i'm of average intelligence and have the ability to applied myself in serious self-study. results of studies so far have been average. now what if i decide to go back to the university and enroll in the statistics program? chances are i will understand statistics so much better.
my point is that most chess players don't really study chess, they play and study very causally. skimming a chess book, memorizing a couple of openings, playing at the chess club and rarely analyzing a position are not examples of chess studying 'best practices.'
so let me qualify my assertion -- with serious study, anyone can rearch 2000 ... but serious study requires the same study practices that one would exhibit for unversity studies.
now i stopped playing chess for over 15 years and remember an instance when i glanced at a friend's game and could not see a mate-in-one. studying made me an above average player; lack of effort or study will make me look like a beginner.
Originally posted by tonytiger41I disagree. Playing under the influence of alcohol would cause my rating to plummet, but drinking was a way of life in college, even more so in graduate school. 😵
but serious study requires the same study practices that one would exhibit for unversity studies.
I still have to disagree. How can you claim that people who played for 50 years of their life, and still are 1200, could reach 2000? They may not have studied heavily, but they have played regularly all their life, read numerous books, and been shown various tactics and themes by stronger players, yet still cannot improve...
I played up to about 1500-1600 level uscf years ago, then i quit completely for twenty years for lack of time. When i came back i found through playing otb that my rating had jumped about 200 pts. In between i had never read a book about chess or even played a single game. Maybe just maturation make you better, but then everyone says the younger you are the better you are. After i retired and starting up chess again, i played at an 1800 plus level and continued to play on RHP and blitz sites, but quit over the board because it took too much time out of the day. My rating has not increased since playing lots of games and reading lots of books. In fact, it has declined slightly. How you get better is certainly an enigma. I wish that someone in the chessworld would do a serious study on chess improvement, but i am afraid how it would affect budding players. Say, they discovered that drilling on opening traps would be the best way to increase your strength. suddenly, there would be a million blogs, cd's, videos by Roman on chess traps and kids would be doing chess trap study ten hours a day. If you think that's ridiculous, take a look at how many people do the de la Maza thing until their head bursts and they have to get a divorce. I recall reading an interview by Nakamura, the U.S. champ (he's eighteen). Nope, he said. I don't read any chess books. I've only read fischer's 60 games a long time ago. I don't study, but i play lots of blitz because i like it. Go figure.
Originally posted by WulebgrI'm curious. you clearly have a firm grasp on theory, and loads of experience. I take it you analyse your games thoroughly to pinpoint your weaknesses. you mentioned bad habits as one of your shortcomings, and I'm sure you work against all your weaknesses. why do you think the situation doesn't change? what kind of errors do you find in your lost games. -I drop pieces and I don't play aggressively enough, those are easy ones to battle against. you probably don't drop much anything after all those years. what kind of errors are typical for you?
...These wins have rewarded my bad habits, and reinforced my unsound ideas.
Originally posted by wormwoodDropping pieces can't help that. Think longer and make sure you don't drop them.
I'm curious. you clearly have a firm grasp on theory, and loads of experience. I take it you analyse your games thoroughly to pinpoint your weaknesses. you mentioned bad habits as one of your shortcomings, and I'm sure you work against all your weaknesses. why do you think the situation doesn't change? what kind of errors do you find in your lost games. -I ...[text shortened]... ly don't drop much anything after all those years. what kind of errors are typical for you?
However, the aggressive part. I think it will just come to you as you get better. If your playing someone the same strength as you, the game will be equal and you'll think your not playing aggressive.
However, if he is 300 points below and you crush him, you'll think, O i played aggressively.
I got the same problem also, but I think it will just come naturally.
Art of Attack might help faciliate it though a bit 🙂
I would say if you really try and take chess seriously you can get to 1800 eventually by yourself. Take your chess seriously, not those people who play 100's of games and don't go over them, don't study by reading etc...
But beyond that, 1800 mark I think you need some sort of help, paid instruction maybe for the normal people to get over 1800. I'm talking about people in general. Someone mention that normal people can get to 2000. I think they can get there with help but by themselves i would say 1800 at most for these NORMAL people.
Originally posted by stevetoddSteve, my friend, I have a few things to say about this if I may. First, why the hell do you define "cutting it" as reaching IM status? There are plenty of professional chess players who play brilliantly and yet never get to IM status. True, they probably don't make much money but that wouldn't worry you since you say you would give it all up to play really well.
I am contemplating leaving chess because I know I cannot cut it it, in fact very short of that mark, but my mark of 'cutting it' would be to reach the status of IM or at least have prospects of that. Saddly I have known for a while that I am well below that mark and therefore always going to be dissapointed.
Second, your rating here is still going up. You haven't hit any ceiling yet and you're approaching 1900. So how do you know your limit?
Third, I reckon a lot of chess is about sheer hard work. There are those who assimilate ideas and patterns more easily than others. But most people could improve wildly if they studied, say, six or eight hours a day for several years. In your case, there is no telling how a work rate like that could improve your game. But I can almost guarantee that it would get you to the low 2000s and even, perhaps, beyond that.
Last, there is one thing that would certainly prevent you "cutting it": your attitude. Nobody gets anywhere by giving up, my friend. If you would really give everything up to attain those levels, then just work hard at it with a positive attitude. Good luck.
Originally posted by wormwoodI'm not certain that my grasp upon theory is nearly firm enough for the next level (the top of class players). It may be that I'll get there, or even to expert before the mental decline of age takes its toll, but there is still much work ahead.
I'm curious. you clearly have a firm grasp on theory, and loads of experience. I take it you analyse your games thoroughly to pinpoint your weaknesses. you mentioned bad habits as one of your shortcomings, and I'm sure you work against all your weaknesses. why do you think the situation doesn't change? what kind of errors do you find in your lost games. -I ...[text shortened]... ly don't drop much anything after all those years. what kind of errors are typical for you?
I analyze a few games quite thoroughly, but no where near all my games (probably because I play too many).
I drop pieces, and even threw away an elementary king and pawn endgame last week with a hasty move. I had traded my rook for my opponent's bishop (the last pieces) to go into a finish where I had one more pawn, and the possibilities of passers on both a- and h-files, while my king could easily stop his passer on the d-file.
White to move.
Inexplicably, I played 35.g3??, and after the simple 35...g4, resigned. After 35.Kd3 or 35.a4 or even 35.g4, as well as several other possibilities, black is hopeless.
As for the bad habits. I think the most deeply rooted is my tendency to be too aggressive. The first chess book I read was Irving Chernev's 1000 Best Short Games of Chess. Learning the openings and tactics that led to these quick knockouts gave me immediate advantage over most of my rivals, and thirty years of play since then have reinforced these lessons. Learning to beat weaker players in 67 moves with the result never in doubt, instead of seeking a dramatic 20 move knockout, requires a different mind-set. Although I still spend time working on tactics (I am no where near good enough), the bulk of my chess study now is focused on positional play, and on endgames. I'm also doing more to prepare for the emotions of competition because old aggressive habits rise up every time I think I've gained an advantage. There are times, of course, for a wild king hunt, but there is no need to try to force such play from every position.
Originally posted by RahimKGood advice.
I would say if you really try and take chess seriously you can get to 1800 eventually by yourself. Take your chess seriously, not those people who play 100's of games and don't go over them, don't study by reading etc...
But beyond that, 1800 mark I think you need some sort of help, paid instruction maybe for the normal people to get over 1800. Someone men ...[text shortened]... y can get there with help but by themselves i would say 1800 at most for these NORMAL people.
I think a rating of 2000 or even 2200 is attainable for most people. Not easy, but attainable. It would take good board vision, pattern recognition and tactical play. One's goal should be improve his or her chess. Then, the rating will come.
I believe that the value of an IQ is zilch and that normal people are totally capable of performing at an 1800+ standard on their own. The resources are available; if one takes the time and effort to review tactics, master games, especially their own games, and chess openings, one can become a very good chess player.
It is true that some people have a greater gift for chess. This just means one may have to work harder to become a better chess player. Einstein, a great chess enthusiast, never reached 1800. However, there are plenty of people of normal intelligence that play at a 2000+ level.
Simply: analyze your games and learn from your mistakes.
Diligent, efficient work does wonders.
Originally posted by buddy2Average intelligence means nothing in the understanding of chess statistics... I have know people of below average intelligence who have an unusually strong grasp of chess.
oh, by the way, im of below average intelligence, which can be verified by many iq tests.