Have you been stuck 1350 rating for 2 years? You need to study a lot
Have you been stuck 1350 rating for 2 years? You need to study a lot
@MrBeast_1100 said in #11:
Have you been stuck 1350 rating for 2 years? You need to study a lot
No, you don’t. He needs to focus on seeing 2-move tactics. Sure, some positional practise would help, but it’s not that beneficial if your opponents blunder a lot of tactics.
@MrBeast_1100 said in #11:
> Have you been stuck 1350 rating for 2 years? You need to study a lot
No, you don’t. He needs to focus on seeing 2-move tactics. Sure, some positional practise would help, but it’s not that beneficial if your opponents blunder a lot of tactics.
@WildTiger said in #9:
I would recommend starting with some small, but ambitious goals.
Get your Puzzle Streak to 20 and then I will tell you the next step. ;c)
Just done that :)
@WildTiger said in #9:
> I would recommend starting with some small, but ambitious goals.
>
> Get your Puzzle Streak to 20 and then I will tell you the next step. ;c)
Just done that :)
@myocarditis said in #1:
Everyone is better than me help... Been studying and playing 2 years now.
The answer is obvious isn't it? Your studying method is wrong/flawed.
Playing a lot doesn't make anyone better. It just gives you more experience over what you know. You should consider studying over a real board with a real book (in case you weren't)
@myocarditis said in #1:
> Everyone is better than me help... Been studying and playing 2 years now.
The answer is obvious isn't it? Your studying method is wrong/flawed.
Playing a lot doesn't make anyone better. It just gives you more experience over what you know. You should consider studying over a real board with a real book (in case you weren't)
@myocarditis said in #4:
...everyone under 1350 is real easy, everyone over 1350 seems to be a chess genius.
I know this feeling but it depends on your level. I don't see a big difference between 1350 and 1500 opponents.
"I don't often lose to blunders or obvious tactics I just get outplayed like with them thinking 5 or 6 moves ahead of me."
Let's see.
@myocarditis said in #4:
> ...everyone under 1350 is real easy, everyone over 1350 seems to be a chess genius.
I know this feeling but it depends on your level. I don't see a big difference between 1350 and 1500 opponents.
"I don't often lose to blunders or obvious tactics I just get outplayed like with them thinking 5 or 6 moves ahead of me."
Let's see.
For example take a look at this game:
https://lichess.org/EtGkTs8B#18
I am not a very good player but at my level it's the first thought that white needs to take the pawn. 10 dxe5 simply looks good tactically. You need to see, that if you play as you did 10. Re1 (maybe not a bad move from the first look) but black has 10...e4! This suddenly makes the position get closed and black is OK. You need to take that pawn just to get rid of this possibility. I know this is maybe not so obvious but to beat a 1500 lichess player you should play such moves. Another blunder this time of higher caliber was 13. Bxd5. When I see such moves I don't need to look any further into your games. All is clear.
Diagnosis:
Tactical blunders leading to losing games.
Solution:
Improve your tactics by solving plenty of puzzles, and play a lot of games.
For example take a look at this game:
https://lichess.org/EtGkTs8B#18
I am not a very good player but at my level it's the first thought that white needs to take the pawn. 10 dxe5 simply looks good tactically. You need to see, that if you play as you did 10. Re1 (maybe not a bad move from the first look) but black has 10...e4! This suddenly makes the position get closed and black is OK. You need to take that pawn just to get rid of this possibility. I know this is maybe not so obvious but to beat a 1500 lichess player you should play such moves. Another blunder this time of higher caliber was 13. Bxd5. When I see such moves I don't need to look any further into your games. All is clear.
Diagnosis:
Tactical blunders leading to losing games.
Solution:
Improve your tactics by solving plenty of puzzles, and play a lot of games.
@pointlesswindows said in #16:
For example take a look at this game:
I am not a very good player but at my level it's the first thought that white needs to take the pawn. 10 dxe5 simply looks good tactically. You need to see, that if you play as you did 10. Re1 (maybe not a bad move from the first look) but black has 10...e4! This suddenly makes the position get closed and black is OK. You need to take that pawn just to get rid of this possibility. I know this is maybe not so obvious but to beat a 1500 lichess player you should play such moves. Another blunder this time of higher caliber was 13. Bxd5. When I see such moves I don't need to look any further into your games. All is clear.
Diagnosis:
Tactical blunders leading to losing games.
Solution:
Improve your tactics by solving plenty of puzzles, and play a lot of games.
What is wrong with move 13?
@pointlesswindows said in #16:
> For example take a look at this game:
>
>
> I am not a very good player but at my level it's the first thought that white needs to take the pawn. 10 dxe5 simply looks good tactically. You need to see, that if you play as you did 10. Re1 (maybe not a bad move from the first look) but black has 10...e4! This suddenly makes the position get closed and black is OK. You need to take that pawn just to get rid of this possibility. I know this is maybe not so obvious but to beat a 1500 lichess player you should play such moves. Another blunder this time of higher caliber was 13. Bxd5. When I see such moves I don't need to look any further into your games. All is clear.
>
> Diagnosis:
> Tactical blunders leading to losing games.
>
> Solution:
> Improve your tactics by solving plenty of puzzles, and play a lot of games.
What is wrong with move 13?
It's bad. What is this move doing?
It's bad. What is this move doing?
@myocarditis said in #1:
Everyone is better than me help... Been studying and playing 2 years now.
I am not in a great position to help, but you have so many defeats without a computer analysis. You have to see what went wrong.
@myocarditis said in #1:
> Everyone is better than me help... Been studying and playing 2 years now.
I am not in a great position to help, but you have so many defeats without a computer analysis. You have to see what went wrong.
@myocarditis said in #1:
Everyone is better than me help... Been studying and playing 2 years now.
No you are not. You may have been playing chess for 2 years, but you you cant have that rating after studying for 2 years.
@myocarditis said in #1:
> Everyone is better than me help... Been studying and playing 2 years now.
No you are not. You may have been playing chess for 2 years, but you you cant have that rating after studying for 2 years.