@blunder_and_lose said in #7:
> im blitz rating better than you :D
And there are tons of people better than us :)
> im blitz rating better than you :D
And there are tons of people better than us :)
@P7formula said in #6:
> Well to get to 2500 you will need plenty of openings so best start at them, rapid is made for openings. Progress in rating is directly win/loss so that all depends on who you play. If you only play people less than you you will grind upward and get to your level. Thus ratings are being falsely seen as power ratings but they are not. If I only play those high then me my rating my be low but my power would be higher, so ratings are for pros only; they are signs of who wins more.
> You need a good tutor to judge your real growth all the great have many helping them.
I know, I will study opening eventually. Just a bit scared of them now since it tends to get overwhelming really fast.
Yeah, I understand what you mean about the rating. I tend to play from the lobby to get higher rated players every now and then.
As for the tutor, I can't afford one for now but if I do in the future, I would definitely consider.
Also, I think I can get to 2500 on my own. I know for sure people do.
> Well to get to 2500 you will need plenty of openings so best start at them, rapid is made for openings. Progress in rating is directly win/loss so that all depends on who you play. If you only play people less than you you will grind upward and get to your level. Thus ratings are being falsely seen as power ratings but they are not. If I only play those high then me my rating my be low but my power would be higher, so ratings are for pros only; they are signs of who wins more.
> You need a good tutor to judge your real growth all the great have many helping them.
I know, I will study opening eventually. Just a bit scared of them now since it tends to get overwhelming really fast.
Yeah, I understand what you mean about the rating. I tend to play from the lobby to get higher rated players every now and then.
As for the tutor, I can't afford one for now but if I do in the future, I would definitely consider.
Also, I think I can get to 2500 on my own. I know for sure people do.
Just for information, I have played chess for the past 2 years, so I am not sure that I am right. But I ensure you that after a period of four years, your rating should be (if not then don't be upset) 2000-2050. IDK this is the right suggestion or right answer but from my pov, it's should be the same.
@ultimatechesslover said in #13:
> Just for information, I have played chess for the past 2 years, so I am not sure that I am right. But I ensure you that after a period of four years, your rating should be (if not then don't be upset) 2000-2050. IDK this is the right suggestion or right answer but from my pov, it's should be the same.
Just for context yeah. At least it shows one can get that rating in four years or even more if you study better.(2300+ possibly)
> Just for information, I have played chess for the past 2 years, so I am not sure that I am right. But I ensure you that after a period of four years, your rating should be (if not then don't be upset) 2000-2050. IDK this is the right suggestion or right answer but from my pov, it's should be the same.
Just for context yeah. At least it shows one can get that rating in four years or even more if you study better.(2300+ possibly)
<Comment deleted by user>
@Blundered_the_queen said in #15:
> All of this stuff about how much improvement the average person should expect just puts into perspective how slowly I've been improving. And the implications are terrifying.
>
> I've been playing chess for over 2 years now. I've had over 3000 games here - well over 5000 if you count my games on other websites, against computers, and in real life. I've never improved beyond my first year, and right now I'm still stuck making the exact same mistakes and I'm still stuck at the exact same rating I was a year ago. Hell, sometimes I even get delusions in the middle of a game. I'd look at a position and I'd think: "hey, I've been here before, I remember losing a game exactly like this! I know it's a losing position, so how did I get here? What do I do from here?" And I'll sit and think for a while and then I'll make the exact same losing move from the game I've got saved, and then I'll analyze it afterwards and the right move will be obvious.
>
> I think all this means I've genuinely plateau'd at 1100 . That's as much chess that I can stuff into my almond-sized brain, and I have no clue what to do about this, because it probably means I'm a retard.
>
> To be honest, I always suspected I was sub-100 IQ but to have this sort of thing staring me in the face like this is just depressing. I've tried all sorts of resources - Chess with Dr Wolf, chess puzzles, My Great Predecessors, watched lots of chess streams, agadmator, and so on, but I just never improve. At this point it's obvious, even to me, that I'm a fucking retard and I'll always be a retard.
>
> I guess if I'm stupid it's probably for the best that I'm at least aware of it.
Your name and opinions of yourself are the real problem. Listen to some positive affirmations, making the same mistakes is from not having the fundamentals down and having gaps in your education. Watching games etc is no good; you practice tactics and playing the "count" look into the chess channel on YouTube (chessfactor) they have a orderly and progressive program thus as you learn you get better just jumping around is just for kicks and winning is much more serious.
> All of this stuff about how much improvement the average person should expect just puts into perspective how slowly I've been improving. And the implications are terrifying.
>
> I've been playing chess for over 2 years now. I've had over 3000 games here - well over 5000 if you count my games on other websites, against computers, and in real life. I've never improved beyond my first year, and right now I'm still stuck making the exact same mistakes and I'm still stuck at the exact same rating I was a year ago. Hell, sometimes I even get delusions in the middle of a game. I'd look at a position and I'd think: "hey, I've been here before, I remember losing a game exactly like this! I know it's a losing position, so how did I get here? What do I do from here?" And I'll sit and think for a while and then I'll make the exact same losing move from the game I've got saved, and then I'll analyze it afterwards and the right move will be obvious.
>
> I think all this means I've genuinely plateau'd at 1100 . That's as much chess that I can stuff into my almond-sized brain, and I have no clue what to do about this, because it probably means I'm a retard.
>
> To be honest, I always suspected I was sub-100 IQ but to have this sort of thing staring me in the face like this is just depressing. I've tried all sorts of resources - Chess with Dr Wolf, chess puzzles, My Great Predecessors, watched lots of chess streams, agadmator, and so on, but I just never improve. At this point it's obvious, even to me, that I'm a fucking retard and I'll always be a retard.
>
> I guess if I'm stupid it's probably for the best that I'm at least aware of it.
Your name and opinions of yourself are the real problem. Listen to some positive affirmations, making the same mistakes is from not having the fundamentals down and having gaps in your education. Watching games etc is no good; you practice tactics and playing the "count" look into the chess channel on YouTube (chessfactor) they have a orderly and progressive program thus as you learn you get better just jumping around is just for kicks and winning is much more serious.
Rapid scoring is less growth perhaps, I just won a 30 min match over an opponent about 10 pt higher than me and got +29, so if you win plus three games and then break even etc.; so gaining 100 per year is easy if you ask me all depending on managing risk and being dedicated.
It seems to me "visualization" is what separates the top tier from the rest, so train blindfold.
It seems to me "visualization" is what separates the top tier from the rest, so train blindfold.
@Jaiyehhh said in #11:
> And there are tons of people better than us :)
your rapid rating better than me :D
> And there are tons of people better than us :)
your rapid rating better than me :D
Learned chess when i was a kid. More than 2 decades later, got hook by chess one again because Eric Rosen.
When i created a Lichess account, i thought i'm gonna hit 1700 - 1800 very soon, even afraid that i may get accused a cheater. And here i am, stuck in 1000.
Yes, chess is butal, even for a noob like me. But i love it.
When i created a Lichess account, i thought i'm gonna hit 1700 - 1800 very soon, even afraid that i may get accused a cheater. And here i am, stuck in 1000.
Yes, chess is butal, even for a noob like me. But i love it.
Appreciate the input. 2000 seems like a very hard goal to reach. Though I have beaten a 2000 player here and there. Definitely inspirational to see that someone can do it.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.