I did something very similar with an old strategy game called Age of empires II. Over the course of two years I went from a 1300 rating to 1850. I don't play chess, so it's hard for me to compare the scales, but I will say the highest players were rated around 2600. I think being 1850 put me around 90-95th percentile for active players-- there were less than 50 players over 2300, and only a few hundred over 2000.
My only real commentary is that trying to follow a progression like this can be profoundly, profoundly frustrating. You need to really make sure you're enjoying this hobby before you try to dedicate yourself to a trajectory like this. It can really make you feel like shit a lot of the time, as you find yourself continually repeating mistakes that other people breeze past without issue. It takes true love of the game and a great deal of patience and persistence to push through all the downspells.
Eventually I decided that I no longer wished to prioritize the game over other things. The enormous time investment was no longer a worthwhile trade-off for me, and I stopped playing almost all together. I haven't regretted it since. There's just so many things to do in life. I gave it thousands of hours of my time, and now the door is closed on that. Now I'm learning Ruby on rails!
Cool, to hear from some decent player. What time did you play? Around 2002?
Since I was a 2k player at the time, let me assure you, that the top dudes at the time (Koven, Sheriff for example) were already so called pro gamers who got payed/sponsored and they were exceptionally good.
The true story is, that many folks above 2k+ did what was called "points trading" back then. Koven once stated, that they got payed according to their rank in the official ladder.
So he also had to defend against cheaters, un-sync games etc. He was always top notch, but he had to adjust his rating accordingly, due to cheaters.
Almost all at the top did points trading. Smurf accounts, the system, some refusing to play against weaker players, or some playing DM to get points faster. Also some game "hacks", like the farming bug etc. that gave you the edge in early FLUSHing games.
So take this: 1850 is extremely good in RM 1vs1. 2k+ players are exceptionally good at micro-management. A skill to be learned.
I was part of CN, you might remember this clan from our most famous player, Lightning_CN. Greets to Force, Gwenny etc. where ever you are! :)
PS: There is a book from L_Clan_Chris at Amazon. Some knowledge bites to digest.
> Eventually I decided that I no longer wished to prioritize the game over other things
This is what I unfortunately found as well. I reached Legend in Hearthstone (The top rank, no clue what percentile it was) a while back and top 3-5% in StarCraft II a couple of years ago.
In both games I stopped playing shortly after reaching that level because the time investment just didn't seem worth it to me. I love games, but playing at a very high level requires a lot of practice and focus.
I don't really think it's possible to play competitively and do much else because of the time investment required just to stay at your current level, let alone improve. I love games, but it's hard to justify when I could be doing something more productive with my time.
If you're ever stuck on Rails stuff or want suggestions about where to go next, feel free to ping me, email in my profile. I've enjoyed tutoring/mentoring a lot over the last few years, would be a privilege to do more. That goes for any anonymous readers, as well. Anything from a one liner email all the way up to screensharing, helping people to learn is a gift.
As a chess player I could never get into RTS games though my friends were playing them alot, especially Warcraft 3, but even then they switched to mods like Dota). Instead, I'm pretty good at turn-based games like Civilization V and VI. It feels very cumbersome to control all these units in real time. I could never get used to it and I played many games in that RTS genre: Rise of Nations, C&C: Generals, AOE 2 and 3.
Nowadays, I'm not a PC gamer anymore, I have Chess.com, Hearthstone and Civilization on my iPad, it is amazing how a tablet can be a very good medium for turn-based gaming.
I got into AOE soon after it was released in 1997. Especially early on, when we didn’t know much, it provided a rich universe of interesting economic, tactical, and strategic problems to solve. I spent countless hours studying the game, practicing, competing, and hanging out on the MrFixit forum. I once played one AOE game after another nonstop for 33 hours. Like you and many others, I eventually concluded it was too much of a distraction and uninstalled it permanently in order to focus on other endeavors. That was about 18 years ago. It’s nice to see there are still plenty of people enjoying the game.
I don't know if you've ever played runescape but it has a very similar experience to the one you are describing.
It's interesting you compare your time spent in a game to time spent productively outside the game. One of the things driving the 'investments' in those style of games(MMO's) is that you get this feeling of progress and can compare your progress to your friends 'skills'. I've been writing alot in my personal journal on how to turn runescape skills into real life skills with achievements.
Ruby on rails would be a 'skill' and based on time spent doing pomodoros to earn xp for a 'Ruby on Rails' Skill, combined with certain projects awarding XP and achievements would turn real life into a game. Think like a self defined 'Khan Academy meets Facebook'.
You could see your friends skills and see what they are working on. Maybe a bulletin board/ social media style GUI that would say ' x just completed a pomodoro in Piano'. You could post to your linkedin account all the 'skills' you've obtained to show your various interests.
That's amazing. I love that game dearly and have been playing on/off for more than 15 years, so I get routinely obsessed with it, play a lot a few weeks, get good against the AI (usually using cheese like huskarl spam or massed mangudai), then get my ass handed to me online & ends up quitting. Then I don't play for a year or so.
At which point were you able to reliably not fail the boar lure ?
I can relate to this. I was briefly around 1800 in HD and DE, but found that if I didn't play for a while that I'd come back and find myself outclassed.
I uninstalled and reinstalled the game about five times over a couple of years because I found myself putting too much time into it to try to maintain a competitive skill level.
I actually tried to get into chess after quitting AoE2, to fill that strategic urge, but found the same thing - if I wasn't dedicating time and thought to it regularly I couldn't retain the advances I'd made in skill without going through a "warm up" period all over again (usually of losses).
I play AOE2 as well (the Definitive Edition is really great), but I never got that serious about it. I play with relatives and friends mostly. I've watched some videos about how to increase my efficiency and some basic strategies (killing the boar, fast castle, etc.) but never really dedicated myself to it. Really brilliant game. It just gets everything right and the graphics are timeless. I can't think of another game that still gets regular updates and has a big online following 21 years after it was released.
Hey, OP here - thanks for this wonderful comment. I'd like to hijack this thread to say that I respond to this comment and several other questions here - https://jacobbrazeal.wordpress.com/2020/11/17/the-touching-r.... Thank you all for such a warm reception.
Never got into aoe2 but used to play a good bit of aoe3 (and have started again since the DE released). I used to hang around people who played ot semi competitively though I was never on that level.
I understood the game for the most part, but my execution was never good enough. Too much semi precise timings required and I could never get my APM high enough.
You should use lichess.org instead. You would have unlimited tactics per day which come from real games played on the website, endless number of studies made by other players on opening theories, free analysis of your games, and all these statistics about your progress and more! Like "do I win more often or not when Queens are traded?".
I would recommend chess for kids/teens, because it's an interesting way to teach certain self-control and tactical/strategy concepts which can be applied in real life.
As an adult, chess is a time sink with very little upside if you want to be at least decent, especially at longer time controls. I've been playing chess for more than a couple of decades, but recently decided to stop partly because of the pandemic, but mainly because it just takes too much time.
Chess at its core is a battle of intellects. It's not a relaxing thing like watching a movie, or cooking or even kicking a ball. It's a competition and at the end of each match there will be a winner and a loser. Unlike other sports it only requires mental effort without the benefit of working out the body.
Cool that the author does this, and has found a method that works for them! However, to be able to spend 2 hours a day on this seems like an indescribable luxury to me. And the quote about netting about 1.5 ELO per day sounds like a linear growth is assumed, which I can assure will not be the case past the initial massive improvements one gets from "not knowing the rules" to "actually starting to get it".
I love solving the odd chess problem here and there, and I whole-heatedly recommend lichess.org for that. The website and app are both great and the problem database is huge and varied. All free, too.
Congratulations that's a great achievement. I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the years. Doing tactics puzzles is one of the most important factors for fast improvements.
> Some day, I want to become a titled player. A candidate master needs an ELO of 2200
2000 and 2200 are completely different skill levels. I have some friends who play chess for more than 10 years in a chess club, starting as a kid, but haven't reached titled skill level yet and probably never will.
My personal advice is: focus on the fun part of chess, there will always be a stronger player, but that doesn't matter.
It is said that if a child (teenager) follows the step course, which is a Dutch youth training method, you should be able to start from then on at a 1600 ELO rating. I would assume following the course is self-selecting, you only make it if it is fun and you are good at it, so take that for what it is worth.
> I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the years
I think you are massively underestimating the natural range of human intelligence.
I don't think the average IQ 100 individual could ever reach an ELO of 2000 regardless of how much they practice, and half the population has IQs of less than 100.
I've been watching a lot of GM Daniel Naroditsky's "Speedrun" series, where he plays games and teaches you why he's making the moves he's making vs alternatives, starting at a very low rating, to get back to a 3000 rating. He's a great teacher, and I've gotten a lot out of watching that series.
He streams them live, and then edited videos of the games on stream are uploaded on his YouTube channel. Here's the YT playlist for the series:
Two small notes, this seems not to be an official rating. The 1750 is reached at chess.com it seems. I play at lichess, where I am around 1700. My official rating is currently 1437, my highest rating ever was 1583 two years ago. So there is definitely inflation at lichess, and I would assume there is inflation at chess.com. So claiming 1750 ELO when it is not an official rating seems somewhat risky.
Another note, he seems to be 21. I do understand you are an adult by then, but really, there is so much youth in you when you are 21. I see other players at the club get so much better at that age. I started at 31 at maybe 1100, and got to a max of 1583 only 12 years later. My brain is not so spongy anymore :)
I had a similar progression also in two years, from only knowing the rules to 1658 last week (my peak rating so far).
But this is rapid rating, not Blitz or bullet, and I only play 45 minutes matches with 45 seconds increment on chess.com (which I think is not actually classical and not rapid, but marked as rapid on chess.com).
I don't do puzzles, study cards or anything, I simply took a couple of opening video courses from Simon Williams on both white and black, and played those exclusively.
Initially I played 15 minutes/10 seconds increment games, several a day, until I felt that I was losing a lot of winning positions only due to time.
Then I increased to 30 minutes, and now 45/45 which is almost a classical format.
I don't think playing short time formats is ideal for learning, I like playing longer ones and really think the games through.
Then analyze each game thoroughly with chess.com post-game analysis.
I only play one game a day, almost every day. Most games end in well less than an hour, but some take close to almost two hours (due to the increment and long end games).
I think like in any game, if you continuously play with opponents of just about your skill level, and you analyze your games to make sure that you are not making the same mistakes again and again, you will improve over time just like with anything.
To minimize rating fluctuations and tilting, playing only one long and well thought out game a day works great and keeps it fun.
I think to keep it fun, it's important not to forget that rating fluctuations are normal and don't mean much. As long as you keep playing and analysing each game, improvement is possible.
I thought about learning chess and what it actually involes when i watched the new netflix show.
i came to the relisation that it actually involes becoming good in a very very big search space by having a lot of experience and being fast in calculating and remembering chess moves.
Especially when i see how many people read up on grand masters, i came up with the theory:
The normal person is running behind or trying to 'just' learn the fast pre found and pre tested moves from a handfull of people who actually played/thought those moves through.
Like being a musician and only doing covers for 30 years while never playing/creating something themselfs.
AI became a tool by 1. no longer needing Grand Masters to find the next level and 2. being accessable to everyone which could create new pockets discovered by AI/through AI (compute power) and being learned individual.
How much real strategy is there for two really good players? Or is it more of an 'he is going for this move, i know this kind of moves and i need to intervine through moves so the opponent gets forced to play my moves'?
> The normal person is running behind or trying to 'just' learn the fast pre found and pre tested moves from a handfull of people who actually played/thought those moves through.
Quite the opposite, amateur players play a few moves from a standard opening, and then deviate hugely from the book variations and go into uncharted territory really fast.
And while pro's certainly spend an insane amount of time memorizing openings, chess is far more than rote memorization which you kinda seem to apply.
I don’t think this take is quite right. In the early/late game, sure it can end up being memorization. But the game has so many states that the mid game tends to be quite complex and there is a lot of skill (calculation/tactics ect.) which is really not memorization
There is way more than a human can hold in their head, so games are interesting and not predetermined even at expert level. Try watching a game with commentary, such as a world championship tournament, and you'll see the kinds of thought processes that experts go through.
It feels like a golden age to be learning chess right now. There's just infinite good content on YouTube (St Louis Chess Club, Atlanta Chess Club, Chess24 etc) and various apps (lichess, Chessable, Chess Tempo etc). Plus you can get a decent sized database (e.g. http://caissabase.co.uk/) and cutting edge engine for your own study for absolutely free. Really hoping when the pandemic is over this leads to a boost for actual chess clubs and isn't just an online phenomenon.
For the most beginner of beginners - I would say that the best advice is to control the center of the board, play aggressively / make an attacking move whenever possible, and DON'T be afraid to trade pieces.
If you don't have a move that attacks your opponent and forces them to play defense, develop your least active piece.
Also, learn the King's Indian opening. You can use it as black or white, and it's one of the easiest openings. I also think it's a good opening against beginners, because they make a lot of mistakes against this. So, 1) you'll be able to beat beginners - and winning is always more fun than losing; and 2) you'll learn to watch for your opponents to make mistakes - and that will help you learn to avoid making common mistakes.
These two videos got me from ~700 to ~1000 in about a week. And they got me to the point where Chess was actually fun instead of a being a frustrating minefield I tried to navigate until I inevitably made a blunder and self-imploded.
I've mentioned this before in other discussions about chess. I was a little over 2000 USCF when I went to college before I decided that girls were more important than getting to 2200, lol.
Anyways, if you're a newer player and want to improve your game fast, this is what I would focus on.
1. Tactics. The vast majority of games between newer players are decided by tactics...someone hanging a piece, falling into a trap, etc. Practice tactics by doing puzzles, reviewing games of strong players with tactical themes. Lichess and Chess.com both have decent collections of tactics puzzles.
2. Don't try to learn a ton of openings. Pick one or two openings for white and black, and focus on them. Don't try to memorize lines, but rather become more familiar with the structures that result out of the openings, what typical objectives for white and black are, etc.
3. Familiarize yourself with endgame play. This is less important than #1 as a newer player, because all the endgame knowledge in the world means nothing if you hang a rook in the first 15 moves. But, it IS still important though, because you will get into endgames with a small advantage (or disadvantage) so you need to be familiar with how to convert that into a win (or hold your position). Rook endgames are especially important since they are generally the most common type of endgame. Lev Alburt has a good book called "Just the Facts" which covers endgame play. There are also puzzles and excercises on lichess and chess.com
4. Probably the fastest way to improve is to actually play games against stronger players than you and have them analyzed or annotated. You can either do this with a computer program, or a stronger human player if youre fortunate enough to know a strong player or have a coach. Lichess and Chess.com both have tools which will analyze your game and point out mistakes, missed opportunities etc. These are very helpful, they will instantly point out key moments in the game so you can see where you (or your opponent) went wrong.
Improvement in chess is really a volume game. The strongest players have played thousands of games and have a good sense and understanding of different positions because they have seen so many of them. They're able to quickly recognize patterns in these positions and devise a plan based on strengths/weaknesses. The best way to sort of develop this sixth sense is to put in the volume and play!
Totally agree with all your points. I also have a rating little over 2000 USCF. New players tend to over-emphasize on openings. To this day I know only names of about 5 openings. I do not know more than a few moves in them. I have generic replies for most of them.
Majority of the games of new players are decided by some stupid blunder. Blitz games do not help improve this area much. Like you said game reviews and puzzles are best.
For complete cheers beginners who want to learn and understand the ideas of the game, I highly recommend buying an oldish engine, Chessmaster XI: Grandmaster Edition, as it contains a set of amazing, approachable tutorials by an IM Joshua Waitzkin. You might know him at the author of the Art of Learning book.
Some will say that the program is old. It is. Who cares, the engine is strong enough for you, of that I'm sure, and there isn't much else you'd want as a complete beginner.
Honestly his progress doesn't seem especially fast.
I think he's spending way too much time on opening theory positional chess, when he'd probably get more bang for his buck drilling more tactics or playing some games with longer time controls.
Online chess is currently facing a wave of cheating. Kids, stuck at home by covid, are playing chess at grandmaster levels. They are using software to suggest moves. Detecting it has become an interesting big data/machine learning problem. So i wouldn't get to obsessed with soecific rank-based rating schemes.
>> In one chess tournament, five of the top six were disqualified for cheating. In another, the doting parents of 10-year-old competitors furiously rejected evidence that their darlings were playing at the level of the world No 1. And in a third, an Armenian grandmaster booted out for suspicious play accused his opponent of “doing pipi in his Pampers”.
That was an amazing read but, to me, the whole thing sounds to me more like a second job than a hobby, if I'm being honest. Obviously different people relate differently with those side activities but your dedication to learn chess puts it very much outside my personal definition of hobby or unwinding activity.
I have a analog story that ended up burning my up with my hobby: playing music. I played guitar (acoustic and electric) since I was a teenager, and sometime after I was an adult, I decided to double down to really learn it (as a hobby, since I already had my main career). I set up several hours a week for deliberate practice, started a classic guitar class, tried some Brazilian MPB class. The endgame for me was that I got completely burned out.
After doing that for about 2 years, playing became a big chore for me. One day I just stopped and didn't touch a guitar again for almost 5 years.
It was still very interesting to see how you approached it.
At an Elo level of around 2000 they converge. (I.e. both lichess and chesscom calibrate their algorithm to match on-the-board standards around that region.)
For various reasons, online Elos are inflated by 100+ points if you go above 2500+ or below 1500. A progression from zero to 1750 rating is just as instructive if you assume he went from zero to 1650...
I have been thinking about chess for a while now as an indicator of cognitive health. Not that a single number can define how smart a person is relative to another, but instead how my own cognitive ability is doing.
I had been using the game of 2048, but given the random element and how easy the game is, it's just not a great measure anymore. I have recently started a different diet and I want some measurable way of knowing how well my own brain is affected by it.
The only real problem with chess as a measurement is that if you do the online games for example you get cheaters, etc. Does this detriment your ranking or do people generally find this not to be a problem?
You can also gauge how well you solve chess puzzles. A great place for this is Lichess[0], where you are presented with situations from real games played on the platform, and you are trying to find the best series of moves for one side, playing against the computer. Those puzzles have difficulty ratings based on the ratings of players who have been able to solve them or not, and your rating goes up or down depending on if you solve it successfully. It's also great because there's no time commitment or pressure with the puzzles. You can jump in or out at any time.
Yeah, I think chess can give you cold hard feedback on how well your mind is working on a given day. As the author already mentioned, performance can vary a lot. When you're doing poorly, you often don't feel very different, but then you sit down to play chess and realize you're basically sleep walking. What you're looking for is a fully awake, high alert, high awareness state of mind. Factors like diet and regular exercise can make a huge difference in my experience.
A long while back, I dedicated my time to Tetris (on Gameboy). I surely spent less time on that than would have been necessary for chess, but it is amazing to see what progress is possible. I could play level 9[heart] without an end (in infinite play mode) or up to high 3 (6 rows of waste on bottom). When moving a brick to the left or right edge, the gameboy would make a long beep instead of individual blips. No idea how I could move my fingers that fast.
It is fun. For chess in contrast to Tetris, there is even a good chance for it to stay fun -- Tetris is a bit too simplistic for that, I think.
[+] [-] windowshopping|5 years ago|reply
My only real commentary is that trying to follow a progression like this can be profoundly, profoundly frustrating. You need to really make sure you're enjoying this hobby before you try to dedicate yourself to a trajectory like this. It can really make you feel like shit a lot of the time, as you find yourself continually repeating mistakes that other people breeze past without issue. It takes true love of the game and a great deal of patience and persistence to push through all the downspells.
Eventually I decided that I no longer wished to prioritize the game over other things. The enormous time investment was no longer a worthwhile trade-off for me, and I stopped playing almost all together. I haven't regretted it since. There's just so many things to do in life. I gave it thousands of hours of my time, and now the door is closed on that. Now I'm learning Ruby on rails!
[+] [-] _the_inflator|5 years ago|reply
Cool, to hear from some decent player. What time did you play? Around 2002?
Since I was a 2k player at the time, let me assure you, that the top dudes at the time (Koven, Sheriff for example) were already so called pro gamers who got payed/sponsored and they were exceptionally good.
The true story is, that many folks above 2k+ did what was called "points trading" back then. Koven once stated, that they got payed according to their rank in the official ladder.
So he also had to defend against cheaters, un-sync games etc. He was always top notch, but he had to adjust his rating accordingly, due to cheaters.
Almost all at the top did points trading. Smurf accounts, the system, some refusing to play against weaker players, or some playing DM to get points faster. Also some game "hacks", like the farming bug etc. that gave you the edge in early FLUSHing games.
So take this: 1850 is extremely good in RM 1vs1. 2k+ players are exceptionally good at micro-management. A skill to be learned.
I was part of CN, you might remember this clan from our most famous player, Lightning_CN. Greets to Force, Gwenny etc. where ever you are! :)
PS: There is a book from L_Clan_Chris at Amazon. Some knowledge bites to digest.
[+] [-] ZephyrBlu|5 years ago|reply
This is what I unfortunately found as well. I reached Legend in Hearthstone (The top rank, no clue what percentile it was) a while back and top 3-5% in StarCraft II a couple of years ago.
In both games I stopped playing shortly after reaching that level because the time investment just didn't seem worth it to me. I love games, but playing at a very high level requires a lot of practice and focus.
I don't really think it's possible to play competitively and do much else because of the time investment required just to stay at your current level, let alone improve. I love games, but it's hard to justify when I could be doing something more productive with my time.
[+] [-] jaggederest|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnnycerberus|5 years ago|reply
Nowadays, I'm not a PC gamer anymore, I have Chess.com, Hearthstone and Civilization on my iPad, it is amazing how a tablet can be a very good medium for turn-based gaming.
[+] [-] gutter_rat|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RhodoYolo|5 years ago|reply
It's interesting you compare your time spent in a game to time spent productively outside the game. One of the things driving the 'investments' in those style of games(MMO's) is that you get this feeling of progress and can compare your progress to your friends 'skills'. I've been writing alot in my personal journal on how to turn runescape skills into real life skills with achievements.
Ruby on rails would be a 'skill' and based on time spent doing pomodoros to earn xp for a 'Ruby on Rails' Skill, combined with certain projects awarding XP and achievements would turn real life into a game. Think like a self defined 'Khan Academy meets Facebook'.
You could see your friends skills and see what they are working on. Maybe a bulletin board/ social media style GUI that would say ' x just completed a pomodoro in Piano'. You could post to your linkedin account all the 'skills' you've obtained to show your various interests.
[+] [-] Pelic4n|5 years ago|reply
At which point were you able to reliably not fail the boar lure ?
[+] [-] castaweh|5 years ago|reply
I actually tried to get into chess after quitting AoE2, to fill that strategic urge, but found the same thing - if I wasn't dedicating time and thought to it regularly I couldn't retain the advances I'd made in skill without going through a "warm up" period all over again (usually of losses).
[+] [-] dcist|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tibbar|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the_only_law|5 years ago|reply
I understood the game for the most part, but my execution was never good enough. Too much semi precise timings required and I could never get my APM high enough.
[+] [-] baxtr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nurettin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prune2000|5 years ago|reply
Good luck!
[+] [-] blub|5 years ago|reply
As an adult, chess is a time sink with very little upside if you want to be at least decent, especially at longer time controls. I've been playing chess for more than a couple of decades, but recently decided to stop partly because of the pandemic, but mainly because it just takes too much time.
Chess at its core is a battle of intellects. It's not a relaxing thing like watching a movie, or cooking or even kicking a ball. It's a competition and at the end of each match there will be a winner and a loser. Unlike other sports it only requires mental effort without the benefit of working out the body.
[+] [-] llarsson|5 years ago|reply
I love solving the odd chess problem here and there, and I whole-heatedly recommend lichess.org for that. The website and app are both great and the problem database is huge and varied. All free, too.
[+] [-] tutfbhuf|5 years ago|reply
> Some day, I want to become a titled player. A candidate master needs an ELO of 2200
2000 and 2200 are completely different skill levels. I have some friends who play chess for more than 10 years in a chess club, starting as a kid, but haven't reached titled skill level yet and probably never will.
My personal advice is: focus on the fun part of chess, there will always be a stronger player, but that doesn't matter.
[+] [-] nl|5 years ago|reply
I went to check rating to prove how unlikely this is. Sure enough, that would put you just outside the top 100 players in Australia.
But then I noticed the guy who played one board above me at school when we played is rated above 2000, and he wasn't really much better than me.
So yeah maybe it is possible!
[+] [-] swyx|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mpol|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hvdfhbj|5 years ago|reply
I think you are massively underestimating the natural range of human intelligence.
I don't think the average IQ 100 individual could ever reach an ELO of 2000 regardless of how much they practice, and half the population has IQs of less than 100.
[+] [-] will_pseudonym|5 years ago|reply
He streams them live, and then edited videos of the games on stream are uploaded on his YouTube channel. Here's the YT playlist for the series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytkf3qZTj74&list=PLT1F2nOxLH...
[+] [-] SubiculumCode|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] voxl|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mpol|5 years ago|reply
Another note, he seems to be 21. I do understand you are an adult by then, but really, there is so much youth in you when you are 21. I see other players at the club get so much better at that age. I started at 31 at maybe 1100, and got to a max of 1583 only 12 years later. My brain is not so spongy anymore :)
[+] [-] vfc1|5 years ago|reply
But this is rapid rating, not Blitz or bullet, and I only play 45 minutes matches with 45 seconds increment on chess.com (which I think is not actually classical and not rapid, but marked as rapid on chess.com).
I don't do puzzles, study cards or anything, I simply took a couple of opening video courses from Simon Williams on both white and black, and played those exclusively.
Initially I played 15 minutes/10 seconds increment games, several a day, until I felt that I was losing a lot of winning positions only due to time.
Then I increased to 30 minutes, and now 45/45 which is almost a classical format.
I don't think playing short time formats is ideal for learning, I like playing longer ones and really think the games through.
Then analyze each game thoroughly with chess.com post-game analysis.
I only play one game a day, almost every day. Most games end in well less than an hour, but some take close to almost two hours (due to the increment and long end games).
I think like in any game, if you continuously play with opponents of just about your skill level, and you analyze your games to make sure that you are not making the same mistakes again and again, you will improve over time just like with anything.
To minimize rating fluctuations and tilting, playing only one long and well thought out game a day works great and keeps it fun.
I think to keep it fun, it's important not to forget that rating fluctuations are normal and don't mean much. As long as you keep playing and analysing each game, improvement is possible.
[+] [-] Fumtumi|5 years ago|reply
i came to the relisation that it actually involes becoming good in a very very big search space by having a lot of experience and being fast in calculating and remembering chess moves.
Especially when i see how many people read up on grand masters, i came up with the theory:
The normal person is running behind or trying to 'just' learn the fast pre found and pre tested moves from a handfull of people who actually played/thought those moves through.
Like being a musician and only doing covers for 30 years while never playing/creating something themselfs.
AI became a tool by 1. no longer needing Grand Masters to find the next level and 2. being accessable to everyone which could create new pockets discovered by AI/through AI (compute power) and being learned individual.
How much real strategy is there for two really good players? Or is it more of an 'he is going for this move, i know this kind of moves and i need to intervine through moves so the opponent gets forced to play my moves'?
Also: Quite impressive the dedication, respect!
[+] [-] matsemann|5 years ago|reply
Quite the opposite, amateur players play a few moves from a standard opening, and then deviate hugely from the book variations and go into uncharted territory really fast.
And while pro's certainly spend an insane amount of time memorizing openings, chess is far more than rote memorization which you kinda seem to apply.
[+] [-] Others|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j4yav|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thom|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nandreev|5 years ago|reply
- Castle very early
- Resist taking pieces for no reason. To take is a mistake
- Use your opponent's time to plan your next move
- If you stop hanging pieces you will automatically be >1200
- Save your bishops, bishops > knights in most endgames
- For every hour you spend analyzing your past games your rating will go up by 10
- You won't improve by playing blitz. Go for 15 + 10 time controls
[+] [-] onlyrealcuzzo|5 years ago|reply
If you don't have a move that attacks your opponent and forces them to play defense, develop your least active piece.
Also, learn the King's Indian opening. You can use it as black or white, and it's one of the easiest openings. I also think it's a good opening against beginners, because they make a lot of mistakes against this. So, 1) you'll be able to beat beginners - and winning is always more fun than losing; and 2) you'll learn to watch for your opponents to make mistakes - and that will help you learn to avoid making common mistakes.
[1] Controlling the center of the board and making attacking moves - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5jTMqdYXWM&t=1100s
[2] King's Indian opening - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK0cq6UBt1Y
These two videos got me from ~700 to ~1000 in about a week. And they got me to the point where Chess was actually fun instead of a being a frustrating minefield I tried to navigate until I inevitably made a blunder and self-imploded.
[+] [-] david927|5 years ago|reply
That's funny because I found the opposite to be true if it's a single bishop / knight endgame.
> You won't improve by playing blitz.
It will just take longer. A single five minute game a day over coffee will work, if that's all the time you have for.
[+] [-] sedivy94|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kadabra9|5 years ago|reply
Anyways, if you're a newer player and want to improve your game fast, this is what I would focus on.
1. Tactics. The vast majority of games between newer players are decided by tactics...someone hanging a piece, falling into a trap, etc. Practice tactics by doing puzzles, reviewing games of strong players with tactical themes. Lichess and Chess.com both have decent collections of tactics puzzles.
2. Don't try to learn a ton of openings. Pick one or two openings for white and black, and focus on them. Don't try to memorize lines, but rather become more familiar with the structures that result out of the openings, what typical objectives for white and black are, etc.
3. Familiarize yourself with endgame play. This is less important than #1 as a newer player, because all the endgame knowledge in the world means nothing if you hang a rook in the first 15 moves. But, it IS still important though, because you will get into endgames with a small advantage (or disadvantage) so you need to be familiar with how to convert that into a win (or hold your position). Rook endgames are especially important since they are generally the most common type of endgame. Lev Alburt has a good book called "Just the Facts" which covers endgame play. There are also puzzles and excercises on lichess and chess.com
4. Probably the fastest way to improve is to actually play games against stronger players than you and have them analyzed or annotated. You can either do this with a computer program, or a stronger human player if youre fortunate enough to know a strong player or have a coach. Lichess and Chess.com both have tools which will analyze your game and point out mistakes, missed opportunities etc. These are very helpful, they will instantly point out key moments in the game so you can see where you (or your opponent) went wrong.
Improvement in chess is really a volume game. The strongest players have played thousands of games and have a good sense and understanding of different positions because they have seen so many of them. They're able to quickly recognize patterns in these positions and devise a plan based on strengths/weaknesses. The best way to sort of develop this sixth sense is to put in the volume and play!
[+] [-] navan|5 years ago|reply
Majority of the games of new players are decided by some stupid blunder. Blitz games do not help improve this area much. Like you said game reviews and puzzles are best.
[+] [-] JanecekPetr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JamesBarney|5 years ago|reply
I think he's spending way too much time on opening theory positional chess, when he'd probably get more bang for his buck drilling more tactics or playing some games with longer time controls.
[+] [-] sandworm101|5 years ago|reply
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-e...
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/oct/16/chesss-cheatin...
>> In one chess tournament, five of the top six were disqualified for cheating. In another, the doting parents of 10-year-old competitors furiously rejected evidence that their darlings were playing at the level of the world No 1. And in a third, an Armenian grandmaster booted out for suspicious play accused his opponent of “doing pipi in his Pampers”.
[+] [-] hugocbp|5 years ago|reply
I have a analog story that ended up burning my up with my hobby: playing music. I played guitar (acoustic and electric) since I was a teenager, and sometime after I was an adult, I decided to double down to really learn it (as a hobby, since I already had my main career). I set up several hours a week for deliberate practice, started a classic guitar class, tried some Brazilian MPB class. The endgame for me was that I got completely burned out.
After doing that for about 2 years, playing became a big chore for me. One day I just stopped and didn't touch a guitar again for almost 5 years.
It was still very interesting to see how you approached it.
[+] [-] nitendoraku|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MagnumOpus|5 years ago|reply
For various reasons, online Elos are inflated by 100+ points if you go above 2500+ or below 1500. A progression from zero to 1750 rating is just as instructive if you assume he went from zero to 1650...
[+] [-] burnthrow|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bArray|5 years ago|reply
I had been using the game of 2048, but given the random element and how easy the game is, it's just not a great measure anymore. I have recently started a different diet and I want some measurable way of knowing how well my own brain is affected by it.
The only real problem with chess as a measurement is that if you do the online games for example you get cheaters, etc. Does this detriment your ranking or do people generally find this not to be a problem?
[+] [-] will_pseudonym|5 years ago|reply
[0] https://lichess.org/training/
[+] [-] tabs_masterrace|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivnubinas|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beeforpork|5 years ago|reply
It is fun. For chess in contrast to Tetris, there is even a good chance for it to stay fun -- Tetris is a bit too simplistic for that, I think.