Originally posted by Proper Knobthis is my break. the fun part. 😕
Music has an immeasurable quality, whether it's good or bad depends on the person liestening to it. Chess is pure and simple, you win, lose or draw.
You may very well be new to chess, in terms of time frame, but in terms of playing standard, you aren't. It's as simple as that.
Most people who play on this site play many moves a day and have done ...[text shortened]... You are in the top 2-3% on this site.
Give yourself a break and have a Merry Christmas.
Originally posted by wormwoodI can understand high standards and strong determination so that is OK. I appreciate greatly that kind of people. But sometimes you have to give yourself the credit for your achievements and enjoy the results of your efforts. As a consequence you'll have even more stamina and reason to proceed further.
is the average person good at marathon? no. most of them would die of a heart attack within the first 2km. the fide average means nothing.
just because the vast majority of us are too lazy to put in the required effort & time, doesn't mean that doing it half-assedly is more than a beginning. -I don't know if you ever tried to coach anyone, but they simpl ...[text shortened]... o ever become good, but I put in quite a lot effort anyway, because I enjoy training.
Originally posted by ivan2908I'll give credit when credit is due. it isn't. fooling myself for new ageish feel good vibes doesn't satisfy me, just the opposite.
I can understand high standards and strong determination so that is OK. I appreciate greatly that kind of people. But sometimes you have to give yourself the credit for your achievements and enjoy the results of your efforts. As a consequence you'll have even more stamina and reason to proceed further.
if it ever does, I'll join TSM and start posting 'happy threads'.
Good or bad is matter of opinion. I consider myself decent, but compared to some I'm great and compared to others I'm terrible.
No one should get bent out of shape about another person's opinion of his own strength. After all, it only gives him attention which he may be looking for anyhow.
2000 Elo is hardly a beginner but it depends on how you look at it...
The reality is, if you're 2000 Elo, you would beat virtually any Joe off the street. Then again, so would a 1300 Elo player.
But you can't compare yourself to people who played a couple of games in their life, or to those who dabble a bit into chess then quit. I think wormword wants to compare himself to the type of player who is much more than a casual player who is actively seeking improvement.
Here's something that not all may realize. A 2000 player loses ALOT of games, and very often scores poorly in tourney's and gets absolutely embarrassed in some games. Why? He/she is generally playing in the open section of tournaments against CMs, FMs, IMs, and GMs! It really sucks to be "good" yet lose so many games. Having the consolation that you can beat a Class C player doesn't help at this point. Once you cross into open sections (~2000 is the starting Elo), yes you could be considered a beginner again.
Alternatively, 1500-1600 very often wins alot of games and even prize money by beating up on "Hey, chess looks interesting lets give it a try" people. You're generally at the top of the lowest section (i.e. under 1600).
Chess improvement happens in stages and it's not at all uncommon to feel like a beginner again when you hit the next wall.
Wormwood, I think a major sign that you're NOT a beginner is that you realize how "bad" you are.
It likely that pretty much every serious chess player goes through a "beginner phase" where they find they can beat just about everyone they face (these being family members, friends, the family pet etc). If you lost all the time to these opponents right from the start, you'd probably have abandoned chess for some other activity that isn't as frustrating.
But at some point, no matter how gifted you are, you will eventually find yourself playing people who are a lot better than you are - it gets really boring beating people who aren't as good, and those opponents get tired of losing to you -- and you suddenly become aware of all sorts of flaws in your game. You now realize that you're a "bad player"
I believe it is at this precise time that you have moved past the "beginner stage". You have been humbled, you now realize that you're not some super-prodigy and that you need to do lots of things to improve your game.
Originally posted by MelanerpesI think that may be different for those of us (like wormwood and myself) who started playing as adults and who have mostly played in chess communities where you have players of all levels available (be it online or in chess clubs) right from the start. I never went through such a "beginner phase". As an adult you are probably also more conscious about how stupid the mistakes you make are. I always knew I sucked. I know I still do. What changes is the number of people who suck even more than me...
Wormwood, I think a major sign that you're NOT a beginner is that you realize how "bad" you are.
It likely that pretty much every serious chess player goes through a "beginner phase" where they find they can beat just about everyone they face (these being family members, friends, the family pet etc). If you lost all the time to these opponents right f ot some super-prodigy and that you need to do lots of things to improve your game.
Originally posted by wormwoodThis proves how important knowing tactics are. He says his openings are weak, middlegame is crap, and endgame is abysmal but his rating is much higher than a lot of people's here. Tactics are one of the most important things to learn if you are going to become a tough/strong player. I'm not near wormwoods level but I also don't know much about openings, endgames, or middlegame but I think I am getting better and better at tactics. So I finally reached 1700 level. My highest on rhp was 1785, i think. And i'd like to say it's because my tactics have improved. I don't think my opening or endgame play has changed very much, to be honest. Focus on tactics and maybe learn to deal with opening traps and you're rating should go up. My major concern with myself is just studying more on tactics, learning ways to checkmate, solving chess puzzles and stuff like that.
I've played only 3½ years, so I have very little experience. and excluding tactics, I don't really know much anything. my openings are weak, my middlegame is crap and my endgame is abysmal. I still drop material all of the time, make opening blunders and generally get myself in nasty situations for no good reason. I'm far from covering the basics, let alone mastering them. there are nothing but flaws in my game.
that's why I'm a beginner.
Nordlys, I agree - if you first got into chess when you joined a chess club, you would probably not have the usual "beginner's experience" - you probably got your clock cleaned right away by certain players. This is probably the best approach since you don't learn a lot of bad habits.
I remember when I was in high school, I would repeatedly try to get the opponent into scholar's mate and use other foolish tactics - it worked so well in the beginning!! - let's just say our high school chess team didn't win any championships - but I eventually learned that it's bad to bring the queen out too early and I learned that "hoping my opponent doesn't see it" is a bad way to approach a game. Lots of stuff needed to be unlearned.