Hi all,
I suppose this question has been asked before but I would like to ask for your opinions.
From October 2018 (when my lichess account was opened) to March 2019 I was able to improve my Rapid Chess rating from 1650 to 1796. I've been studying chess for 3 hours every day (books, videos, lectures, tactics, games etc.) + weekly lessons with a great coach.
Then unexpectedly something strange happened and from March until today my rating dropped to 1585!!
Is this normal? I haven't stopped studying - I am not able to win a game. I feel like everyone that I am playing with is very strong. Is it that I overstudied? I am 36 years old.
Thanks!
Many different issues can account for rating drops:
- Trying to relearn an organized calculation method will drop your rating. "Growth pains."
- It could be health/diet/relationship/stress/sleep changes or issues.
- Periodically, you will face 10 people in a row that are playing their worst chess of the month, you will also face 10 people in a row that are playing at their very best.
-
Yes. It is normal to experience periodical flux.
-
If your study and learning is not enjoyable and transposing itself into a deep-seated understanding, then that, too, could tank your rating.
Even just worrying about your rating flux is enough to lock you "in your own head" where the kind of perspective that's needed in order to create and craft a good chess move, is impossible.
If you're sitting at the board trying to clinically assign all of the lessons that you've learned, that, in and of itself, will mash your rating.
*
Whatever you did to achieve that initial rating of 1800 was 100% from, and of, you.
Now. A few months later, after you have all of this new and "helpful" information of rules and laws to help you with your decision making, you're more lost than before.
*
*
**
Stop trying to apply everything that you've learned about while you're out there playing.
Instead, just get back to the basics and start arguing YOUR arguments, regarding what the best moves for your position are, as applies to YOUR best understanding.
This is the problem with making a patchwork "How To Play Chess" encyclopedia that's based on the understanding of other people.
Memorizing 2+2=4 is useless if it doesn't also help you decipher 2+3=5, 2-2=0, and so on.
Chess can't be strictly academic/mechanical/clinical.
Matters of intuition, informed opinion, cost-benefit analyses, vision, imagination, creation, are the actual crux of the game.
**
*
It's better to have YOUR OWN flawed understanding, A-Z, than to try to make some anecdotal patchwork process of the dozens of different masters whom you've tried to learn from.
When you practice your own understanding, it becomes something that you can operate on and improve.
-
It's possible that you're ignoring your own 'chess-voice' while in-game, and that you've redirected your attention from your own creative process to the words and works of titled masters.
The problem is, they are not there to play your game for you.
Everything needs to be learned in a way that sticks to YOUR ribs, so that YOU can produce and apply it whenever YOU understand that it's appropriate to do so.
-
Get back to YOUR OWN internal narrative when that clock starts.
There is a time to study and a time to play.
There is a time to listen to, and learn, from the ideas of others.
There is a time to listen to, and learn, from YOURSELF.
There is a time to listen to the arguments of others.
There is a time to craft YOUR OWN.
Make that separation very clear.
-
When I play my best chess, the LAST thing that I think about is, "I wonder if this is the book line?" or "I wonder what GM Soandso would say about this position?" or "I wonder what Stockfish will say is the best move here?" or "Oh no, there is a rule about trading bishops for knights...maybe I shouldn't do that...even though I can clearly see why it would benefit my position...but they told me not to...I'm so confused...I want to...put people said that I shouldn't."
-
*
**
***
Just get out there and start making YOUR OWN best arguments again.
When you do this, you will start to notice that much of the information in the lessons that you've learned and understand, will finally have a way to be applied within your games.
You'll find that bad arguments that you used to make now have better arguments in their stead. But again, this growth will only happen when it's YOU out there doing YOUR best as best as YOU can.
***
**
*
-
Also, sometimes, you might want multiple coaches.
Not everyone has an appropriate teaching/learning style.
It's my contention that the more seriously that people take chess, the harder it is for them to learn and understand and apply the deeper ideas in the game.
It's got something to do with habitually "over-listening" and making everything dogmatic, instead of being able to take things with a grain of salt, realizing that everything has an exception depending on the precise position, and that a GM discussing chess is merely making very generalized observations about a position that:
a) will win games when appropriately applied.
b) lose games when the idea doesn't take precedent.
c) lose games when we run our clock out trying to cross-check unclear and half-understood lessons with our live games.
d) lose games when the idea is attempted to be 'force-fit' into a position that it doesn't belong.
-
*
**
***
****
Long story short, perform an exorcism before playing.
When you're out there, YOU are to be arguing the best move in YOUR position.
Period. Full stop.
Your arguments must be for reasons that YOU fully understand and that YOU fully recognize and that YOU fully appreciate and can therefore apply appropriately with good effect.
****
***
**
*
As much as chess is science and math...
Arguments must first be created in order to be argued to good effect.
This can't happen at the same time that we're busy imagining the misunderstood arguments of others.
-
While in-game, exorcise every single idea/voice that's not your own...including mine.
-
Test:
If I'm incorrect, you're enjoying chess now more than ever. It's as rewarding as it is challenging, and you can't wait to get back at it. If this is the case, disregard everything I've said.
As long as you're enjoying what you're doing out there, you'll be A-OK and it will sort itself out.
If I'm possibly correct, chess has become a little bit of a chore. Those 64 squares used to feel like 640 squares, possibilities were endless, your imagination and the sky were the limit, and now there is a "claustrophobic" atmosphere every time that you sit down to play/study chess.
If this is the case, re-read this one more time.
When you're finished, practice an exorcism, and then play your next game...it will be the first game of chess that YOU'VE played in a while.
If you still have 10 pseudo-Grandmasters in your head warning you about this and that, and creating only doubt, and saying things like, "Nah uh uh, what did I say about this?"
Tell them, "Hands off my pieces! If I need your advice, I'll ask you for it. Here's a hint: It won't be in the middle of a game. If I see you again while my game-clock is running, it's going to be about 5 straight shots of J&B until you learn your lesson."
Thank you for this detailed feedback. Even though I started losing literally every game, I still enjoy chess very much and I can't wait to get back and play another game
A number of things can lead to a rating drop.
-Change in average opponent strength
-Advancing age
-Health problems
-Stress
-Change in sleeping habits
-Playing too many games
-Playing too few games
-Change in the environment (Example moving from a nice quiet townhouse to a noisy city)
-Someone pokes you with a sharp stick as you play (Scientifically proven to lower your rating)
-You gained a lot of weight and your fingers are too big for the mouse now.
Then all joking aside there is a thing called a "sweet spot"... This is where you see only part of a tactic, but not all of a tactic. You are just "Good enough to play badly." A lesser player sees none of the tactic, and doesn't go for it. This is fine. A greater player sees the whole tactic and doesn't go for it. This is also fine. You in the "Sweet spot." like the one-eyed man only see part of it. So you go for it and fall for it. It passes eventually but with increasingly difficult tactics the sweet spots just go up another level.
Great post both
@Onyx_Chess and
@lurarose.
By the looks of it, you are taking chess too seriously. Studying 3 hours a day, lectures, etc.?
You aren't enjoying chess and you are trying too hard to LEARN it instead.
I would recommend just having fun for a bit and just play some quick chess: blitz and bullet.
Enjoy chess, it's not a class you have to take, it's a hobby
You have to find a balance between study, play and analysis. Especially analysis of your own lost games is important for improvement. Whenever you lose a game, do not play another game, thoroughly analyse your lost game first. Alphazero got grandmaster strenght just from knowledge of the Laws of Chess and then playing many games (against itself), analysis of these and then learning from its mistakes. Fischer gained most of his strength in 1969, when he did not play any game, but instead analysed his own games for his book 'My Sixty Memorable Games'.
I think you make some good points. As a 47 year old beginning chess player I feel its more work then fun lately. It seems the more I study the more confused I get when I'm playing. For me studying doesn't pay off and this is a new thing for me. Normally the more you study about a subject the more knowledge you gain and the better you get at it. With chess this is not always the case and the rules and principles are so contradicting often that its hard to see some results. Very good post you hit the nail on the head on multiple points I think.
This is officially one of my favorite threads. :D.
I think what
@tpr said is the most important thing: balance. You can't improve if you just play and don't study, but you can't improve if you only study without applying what you are learning. It is a lot different looking for a tactic in a position from the book, where you already know there is one, and looking for a tactic in your own games. In the last case it's you has to decide if there is a tactic and it's worth looking for (eg if there are unprotected pieces, exposed king etc) or if you should play strategically (eg take control of an open file, activate your pieces etc).
So trying to find that sweet spot between analysis, playing and studying is the solution to your problem. Good luck and keep up the good work :)
