I don't understand this obsession with absolute rating numbers. Chess ratings, like all other ratings, measure performance relative to the group of players. All it matters is your rating compared to the one of the player you're playing against: it's an indicator of who's being playing more successfully against the same pool of opponents and nothing more.
I think I should accept this offer of a Strong player offering just 15$ for lessons . What do you think Guys ? en.lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/christmas-lessons-offer#3
dont worry guys, no matter if your rating goes down in a stronger pool or not, play for fun and improve your chess. Its an whole life learning game.
By the way: The playing strength of a player is often higher than his rating. The rating is kind of an average performance over all played games. I mean: Lets say you play vs 3 2200 players and lose vs them all in a row because you blunder after perfect and strong play at the end without any foreign inaccuracys or mistakes. Your strength is definetly 2200, but according to moments of concentration issues, your rating will be much lower.
So the essence of my words is: Rating is not playing strength in same. Look always how you played your best and most accurate game vs higher level than you from time to time, then you will see what is your strength actually about.
NOTE: If the strongest player in the world would play on a matching 1200 FIDE player, he would also have 2850 rating, because the average player would have about 600 rating ^^. The more chess gets popular and known by more and more people, the more the accuracy level in all playing games will rise. It will be more difficult to win as many games as some years before.
Look at our human evolution. The world gets connected more and more over media and population. The kids getting provely smarter all 10 years according to average country based IQ tests.
What the generation reached before gets the next into comfort with it. This is what happens in intellectuall evolution aswell.
By the way: The playing strength of a player is often higher than his rating. The rating is kind of an average performance over all played games. I mean: Lets say you play vs 3 2200 players and lose vs them all in a row because you blunder after perfect and strong play at the end without any foreign inaccuracys or mistakes. Your strength is definetly 2200, but according to moments of concentration issues, your rating will be much lower.
So the essence of my words is: Rating is not playing strength in same. Look always how you played your best and most accurate game vs higher level than you from time to time, then you will see what is your strength actually about.
NOTE: If the strongest player in the world would play on a matching 1200 FIDE player, he would also have 2850 rating, because the average player would have about 600 rating ^^. The more chess gets popular and known by more and more people, the more the accuracy level in all playing games will rise. It will be more difficult to win as many games as some years before.
Look at our human evolution. The world gets connected more and more over media and population. The kids getting provely smarter all 10 years according to average country based IQ tests.
What the generation reached before gets the next into comfort with it. This is what happens in intellectuall evolution aswell.
I suspected the same thing. Rating deflation compared to just 2-3 months ago in blitz. I quit playing 15min games when I started school in August. Reached 1796 several times I wanna say. I quit classical, and started playing blitz/bullet for past 3 months and have noticed I've gotten much better at those time controls, I was once 1600+ in those, now I dip to 1400 and even 1300 sometimes. I'm always in the 1500's it seems in those two.
1800 level
en.lichess.org/zqlE8Qffq126
its usually my rating
its a level where u almost dont hang pieces and understand the basics of the game but in many positions u are clueless
plus still u need to increase the tactical ability and learn everything basically, the subtles of the game
more or less this or 2000-2200 but not more
its a gap where one is a strong patzer like almost need to start
studying no, I dont know lets say 1900 there is more or less
a level where one, where the game does not feel the same
its not professional but it starts to feel hard no,
I mean like starts to be chess like u gotta fight the subtles
of the game, like studying opening theory, or whatsoever endgames
maybe It could be said of another level but I think there is like
a big gap 1000-1700, 900-1900 where u are in the early early
stages of the game, u hang pieces I mean for no reason,
I mean of course its gradual no, but there are things like forks
double attack with pawn, I just think there is a level where the game begins so to speak, so u have to think a lot whether to develop the bishop to e2 or d3 and its important, or u are thinking of the pawn structure of the endgame in the opening,
that type of stuff no,
even I think I read somewhere this actually, that in the old days
1800 where the chess player started, started to get serious about the game, and read books, check databases follow the game
of course everyone is different but regarding rating points
usually, although each one has its bottlenecks, I think more or less its safe to say that the understanding of chess its similar
in the same gap, or more than understanding the application
of it the practise the results of the game no,
I dont know if I have explained well myself perhaps no
what Im trying to say its that there is like a time where the game feels like hobby, and then it starts to feel like work and study
so its not the same plus u cant play with ur opponents unsound
stuff no because they wont allow it, super unsound stuff,
so u start to play solid more or less u start to play solid its just the rules, well maybe there are strong players with initiative
and tactis that throw gambits I dont know,
I think I dont like the fact that there has been 5 draws in this championship and I think I have drunk a lot of beer as well
so even if there are no draws there is always the possibility of a boring game once u start to play "serious" chess.
en.lichess.org/zqlE8Qffq126
its usually my rating
its a level where u almost dont hang pieces and understand the basics of the game but in many positions u are clueless
plus still u need to increase the tactical ability and learn everything basically, the subtles of the game
more or less this or 2000-2200 but not more
its a gap where one is a strong patzer like almost need to start
studying no, I dont know lets say 1900 there is more or less
a level where one, where the game does not feel the same
its not professional but it starts to feel hard no,
I mean like starts to be chess like u gotta fight the subtles
of the game, like studying opening theory, or whatsoever endgames
maybe It could be said of another level but I think there is like
a big gap 1000-1700, 900-1900 where u are in the early early
stages of the game, u hang pieces I mean for no reason,
I mean of course its gradual no, but there are things like forks
double attack with pawn, I just think there is a level where the game begins so to speak, so u have to think a lot whether to develop the bishop to e2 or d3 and its important, or u are thinking of the pawn structure of the endgame in the opening,
that type of stuff no,
even I think I read somewhere this actually, that in the old days
1800 where the chess player started, started to get serious about the game, and read books, check databases follow the game
of course everyone is different but regarding rating points
usually, although each one has its bottlenecks, I think more or less its safe to say that the understanding of chess its similar
in the same gap, or more than understanding the application
of it the practise the results of the game no,
I dont know if I have explained well myself perhaps no
what Im trying to say its that there is like a time where the game feels like hobby, and then it starts to feel like work and study
so its not the same plus u cant play with ur opponents unsound
stuff no because they wont allow it, super unsound stuff,
so u start to play solid more or less u start to play solid its just the rules, well maybe there are strong players with initiative
and tactis that throw gambits I dont know,
I think I dont like the fact that there has been 5 draws in this championship and I think I have drunk a lot of beer as well
so even if there are no draws there is always the possibility of a boring game once u start to play "serious" chess.
in case u like charts, I dont but they look cool here is one
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gz_Er0MVsn1_cEu2rkcb3D6TNJhjft6sXfYNxGm0S9A/edit#gid=0
so basically u need more accurate if u want to be more accurate
I glimpsed kotov book yesterday only the preface or so,
and he was complaining about this, u may forget the creative element if u focus a lot in rating points, but for sure there is no mystery u have to play good moves if u want a good rating there is no way around that, its just inacessible a high rating without playing good moves on a constant basis, because the rating
does not measure the skill level, or the top performance but the mean, so if u hang a queen after having played an awesome game before then its irrelevant regarding rating point,
also it does not matter losing by pawn promotion or cool checkmate stability no,
think about that if u want a high rating u only dont need to be good but to perform good, which is quite skill, although they
usually go one with each other because if u are good u usually
perform good, whereas, but for example Ivanchuck,
I heard since I dont know that guy, has an amazing rating
but does not have, its not at the top top, because u need to perform at a constant basics, in case u like ratings,
I mean u have to play for a win, and make ur decisions in that fact instead fo sacking pieces or whatever.
I dont play tournament chess but, in that regards ratings is sports performance, hence the championship that we are having
right now with Carlsen and karkajin can be understand in that respect, the draw is ok, its part of the game.
The competion in a match has draws as well.
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gz_Er0MVsn1_cEu2rkcb3D6TNJhjft6sXfYNxGm0S9A/edit#gid=0
so basically u need more accurate if u want to be more accurate
I glimpsed kotov book yesterday only the preface or so,
and he was complaining about this, u may forget the creative element if u focus a lot in rating points, but for sure there is no mystery u have to play good moves if u want a good rating there is no way around that, its just inacessible a high rating without playing good moves on a constant basis, because the rating
does not measure the skill level, or the top performance but the mean, so if u hang a queen after having played an awesome game before then its irrelevant regarding rating point,
also it does not matter losing by pawn promotion or cool checkmate stability no,
think about that if u want a high rating u only dont need to be good but to perform good, which is quite skill, although they
usually go one with each other because if u are good u usually
perform good, whereas, but for example Ivanchuck,
I heard since I dont know that guy, has an amazing rating
but does not have, its not at the top top, because u need to perform at a constant basics, in case u like ratings,
I mean u have to play for a win, and make ur decisions in that fact instead fo sacking pieces or whatever.
I dont play tournament chess but, in that regards ratings is sports performance, hence the championship that we are having
right now with Carlsen and karkajin can be understand in that respect, the draw is ok, its part of the game.
The competion in a match has draws as well.
another game
en.lichess.org/gYLRPUBJ/black#49
in chess u can play in different styles
I think the best way to improve the rating, although typical no
but its true, its to enjoy the game, u get obsessed with it
or if not obsessed its like a drug, its hard to spend several days
without chess no, so once u get that, if not motivation
I dont know, that feeling that u want to play because u want to play no, but besides that, I dont know about other players
but I can speak for myself, I also enjoy other players playing
the game that is watching the game, because for me its the position yeah I like the thrill but, I think that if u have a genuine
passion like u need to know whats the position about,
sooner or later u become good or at least reach a respectable level like a foundation, no, I dont know if I ll improve i guess
ill improve a little more but even I dont, I think its hard to not
improve because if u enjoy the game, u might improve in a slower
pace but u will eventually improve because u want to know whats
the position about like objectively, so as long, two requisites
are needed passion and playing because if u like the game dont
play it, neglect it, which can happen no sometimes u like sth
and neglect it because have other things in life,
but if u practise chess u will eventually improve because
u will analyze the game afterwards,
if u reach that point, which is not a rating level u can have it in the 1400s almost in the beginning, where u need to know
even if u cant because u dont have the experience,
the truth about the position, whats the position about
whats the deal, then u will eventually improve because u are
attached to the game and I think this is relevant in the long
time controls which I dont play,
I just watched two games of the championship, but its a serious
issue, because if u think about that, 6 hours tournament
not talking about the rating level, just that two guys spend
6 hours thinking no,
just a reminder because its very easy to get carried on by the
bullet fashion, where actually the big guys spend more than 6 hours thinking about the game, I mean do as u like
Im not ur coach but there does not seem to be another recipe
that hard work, now the deal is that if u have the passion
hard work comes easily or more or less easily,
because without passion then its a nightmare.
As for myself I will keep it on a casua level but always with passion and I think this advice even if I dont apply it myself
its the way to go to play long time controls and do some hard
analysis, and stretch the head a little until some pain
effort I mean.
So results will come, if u put the hard work which is easier said
than done, results will come.
u also need ambition because if u are happy with ur rating level
u might become stagnat, for example Im happy with my rating level, I will probably improve a little further for mere practise,
but not that much because Im happy already.
en.lichess.org/gYLRPUBJ/black#49
in chess u can play in different styles
I think the best way to improve the rating, although typical no
but its true, its to enjoy the game, u get obsessed with it
or if not obsessed its like a drug, its hard to spend several days
without chess no, so once u get that, if not motivation
I dont know, that feeling that u want to play because u want to play no, but besides that, I dont know about other players
but I can speak for myself, I also enjoy other players playing
the game that is watching the game, because for me its the position yeah I like the thrill but, I think that if u have a genuine
passion like u need to know whats the position about,
sooner or later u become good or at least reach a respectable level like a foundation, no, I dont know if I ll improve i guess
ill improve a little more but even I dont, I think its hard to not
improve because if u enjoy the game, u might improve in a slower
pace but u will eventually improve because u want to know whats
the position about like objectively, so as long, two requisites
are needed passion and playing because if u like the game dont
play it, neglect it, which can happen no sometimes u like sth
and neglect it because have other things in life,
but if u practise chess u will eventually improve because
u will analyze the game afterwards,
if u reach that point, which is not a rating level u can have it in the 1400s almost in the beginning, where u need to know
even if u cant because u dont have the experience,
the truth about the position, whats the position about
whats the deal, then u will eventually improve because u are
attached to the game and I think this is relevant in the long
time controls which I dont play,
I just watched two games of the championship, but its a serious
issue, because if u think about that, 6 hours tournament
not talking about the rating level, just that two guys spend
6 hours thinking no,
just a reminder because its very easy to get carried on by the
bullet fashion, where actually the big guys spend more than 6 hours thinking about the game, I mean do as u like
Im not ur coach but there does not seem to be another recipe
that hard work, now the deal is that if u have the passion
hard work comes easily or more or less easily,
because without passion then its a nightmare.
As for myself I will keep it on a casua level but always with passion and I think this advice even if I dont apply it myself
its the way to go to play long time controls and do some hard
analysis, and stretch the head a little until some pain
effort I mean.
So results will come, if u put the hard work which is easier said
than done, results will come.
u also need ambition because if u are happy with ur rating level
u might become stagnat, for example Im happy with my rating level, I will probably improve a little further for mere practise,
but not that much because Im happy already.
en.lichess.org/ptjDAFAo/black
and I dont want to post more games since I dont want to hijack the thread, but u get the idea a 1800 already has enough level to enjoy the game.
and I dont want to post more games since I dont want to hijack the thread, but u get the idea a 1800 already has enough level to enjoy the game.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.