Free online Chess server. Play Chess now in a clean interface. No registration, no ads, no plugin required. Play Chess with the computer, friends or random opponents.
Sign in
Reconnecting
  1. Forum
  2. Game analysis
  3. What does it take to beat a 2000?

Hiya, I'm Noobbatter, average rated 1700 in bullet/blitz/rapid. Here's a game I played some while back, and I want to request some human analysis. (I'm black) In addition, my rating has been stagnate for quite a long time. Does anyone know how to improve? Thanks :D
lichess.org/7BC0iH6Y/black#0

You played this blitz game in 7 minutes. How long are we supposed to analyse it?

Play more classical/rapid games. Analyze them deeply (maybe with a trainer). Are you in a club? That helps defenitely. Youre in a advanced level, maybe work on some new openings, perhaps getting an opening book. Game seems to be well played exept the end.
Good luck.

@HannHagen meh I'm too lazy to get a book :D I'm not in any clubs, have no trainers and have none of that good stuff. i started playing seriously just a year ago, and WOW i've gotten far. I'll just stay on lichess :P

You're a good player.

You have beaten 2000's before. If you want to do it more regularly, practice.

In that particular game the interference tactic doesn't work. Practice tactics with puzzles here on lichess. Study some opening tricks. Practice the endgame. Check for checks, threats and captures before every move. And play longer time controls so you have enough time to think if you're doing the right thing.

Preamble:
First thing: Play longer games, you'll never get good quality play out of a blitz game. Try rapid and even classical time controls. It'll give you time to think a little more, and it makes it more worthwhile to analyze. Now on to the real points.

Here are a few things that I (and some people I know) did to improve my (our) rating:

1. Watched a lot of chess lectures, and actually practiced what I learned in them. This is something that doesn't work for everyone as often enough chess lectures can be boring and can go through one ear and out the other, but if you find a lecturer that you really enjoy (I really like Ben Finegold), it can be very instructive. I know a few people who really enjoy Seirawan lectures as well, though he has a very different teaching style than Finegold.

2. Tactics puzzles. And when I was done with that I did more tactics puzzles. I can't stress enough how important this is. It'll really help to see winning combinations, and when paired with a positional understanding of the game, it can be a very powerful tool to find a tactic that allows you to get a better position for a piece. My puzzle rating is pretty high for my rating I think, and that's sort of what got me to start playing 1. e4 instead of 1. c4 as white, and to start playing the Sicilian as black as I know those are tactical openings (usually). For a while, I really stuck closed and positional games, but the more I play the more I realize that isn't really my forte. As much as I do really well with 1. c4, I find myself far more comfortable in 1. e4 structures. That leads to my next point.

3. Try different openings. This doesn't always work, but it worked really well for me. Not only will this familiarize you with different positions, but it'll also get you to figure out what kinds of positions you like. I used to only play 1. d4 as white, then I moved to 1. c4 and did really well with that (just look at my win percentages with it in my insights). Recently I've been doing a lot of 1. e4 because I've found out that I do really well in the Ruy Lopez for some reason and because I found out that I'm a lot better at tactics than I thought I was. I found out about me liking the Ruy Lopez after getting the position while playing 1. Nf3. As black, I've not done as much experimenting, but I've really been enjoying the Sicilian. So yeah, try some different stuff, I found it helped me a lot.

4. Find a role model. This isn't super important compared to the other 3 points, but once you've done all the rest, find some player(s) that you really like, and just study some of their games. I haven't done this much at all, but I know some people who improved doing this. Not only is it instructive to study games played by people better than you, but if you're looking to learn some opening, if you can find some player that you like you played that certain opening, it can make it a little more enjoyable to do. This is quite a bit drier than the other points, but again, if you want to get to 2000, the road isn't always going to be soft and happy.

It's a lot of hard work to get past 2000. I found it starts to get significantly harder to improve once you make it to around 1700, as the games start to get a little more complicated, and you have to start understanding proper piece placement, which isn't a trivial thing to learn. Anyway, I hope these points help you as they did me and some of my friends. Good luck!

- A fellow 'road to 2000' player

well since my rapid is above 2000 and i prefer blitz over rapid i don't consider myself a part of the true above 2000.. In my experience to beat them make the game as complicated as you can.. it is a double edged sword, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I know I lose more games just by overlooking simple things when I'm calculating and have a knack for finding bad moves .

Thanks for all of your advice, it means a lot :)

As an OTB 2000+ player I'd suggest the following. Play slower games, use the computer after each game and take the quiz to examine your mistakes. As others have said, most of chess at the amateur level is tactics. Do lots and lots of puzzles and TAKE YOUR TIME. You're trying to improve your pattern recognition and your ability to calculate. Learn a few sensible opening systems with White and Black. And learn some basic endgames. Finally, when your opponent makes a move, ask yourself what is the point? Maybe there isn't one, but unless you're playing an idiot there probably is. Don't miss it.

lichess.org/team/i-want-to-be-2000

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.