Any chess players here?

Post Reply New Topic

I am a casual chess player and you'll probably see me around lichess and occasionally chess.com. My elo is roughly 1650-1700 and I'm trying to study to break into 1900-2000 someday. What are your online chess usernames and elo's? Maybe we could organise a tournament!

lichess: pianoplayerjames
chess.com: jamespiano

I played online a bit for a while and then fell out of it. I don't have an account or know my skill level, but I would be open to playing sometime

whats your fav time control?

I also play chess, on chess.com and OTB competition level. We can play a few games sometime (daily or blitz format - I prefer daily format with friends, as it does not require planning), but note that my FIDE rating is somewhere in mid 2100s and my chess.com blitz rating hovers around 2250.

I think daily format would be the best. I'm currently pretty lazy to analyze my games, so it won't be so one-sided there.

I love to play higher rated players, would you like to help me improve? I'm stuck at the same rating

I'm about the same, rating-wise. On chess.com, I have played over 22,000 games. I'm talapia. I don't play on lichess, mainly because chess.com seems like home to me. I think it has a pretty good interface and don't mind their asking for subscriptions. I subscribed at one point, but let my subscription lapse.

I do not think it is possible to really improve that much once you get older and more experienced. The reason masters say you can improve is because they want to sell you lessons and make a living off the game. You can watch all the videos you want and you're still going to lose vs. someone with faster tactical calculating speed in blitz.

Of course you can improve, even when older. The problem is that the only sure way to improve is to increase your tactical skill by solving puzzles and improving positional aspects of your play by self-analyzing your own games. Those things are not fun, require a lot of thinking and tend to be a bit frustrating. So people tend not to do them and demand quick and easy ways to fulfill their desires, which are then supplied by those with business acumen in the form of all these cool videos and tools that will surely make GM in 5 years (sarcasm).

It's same with the fitness industry. Everyone wants to be lean and fit, but no one wants to put the effort into meal planning and heavy lifting (I'm of course overstating here). Instead, they rather buy 100+1 products that are guaranteed to burn your belly fat like mad and make you look like Schwarzenegger in 6 months.

Oh, I think puzzles are fun. As for self-analysis, I have done that too in the past. It is how I refined some of my openings. I guess I am referring to blitz chess. I will make mistakes at a much higher rate than a master, because the master has a faster cpu in his head. Given more time, I might be able to give him a run for his money.

I've been in the game a long time, since age four, and think most of it is natural ability. This is not a popular position but I think the true one. Hope sells, truth does not.

In my experience, blitz chess is primarily about recognizing tactical patterns, which has very little to do with fast cpu in your head. Even on my level (ca. 2200), vast majority of games is decided by missing 2-3 move tactical patterns. You either see them immediately or you don't. Those you can learn just by solving puzzles.

Btw, in terms of playing, long time control games (ideally 2 hours per side per game) are the most conducive for improvement. But I assume these are not very common among low rated players in Western countries.



In my experience as a player, coach and a person who has met a lot of competitive amateurs and semi-professionals the natural ability makes a huge difference, but I think almost anybody with an IQ in a normal range can reach the level of 2000. Perhaps 2200 even. The thing is, people who lack the natural ability will have to put a concentrated effort into achieving it (like having to practice, not just play, let's say, 1 hour per day for 10 years), whereas the talented ones (which includes me), will need to study very little and just play a lot. I've seen players who got to 2100 within one year of learning how to play. Of course, getting to GM level requires both significant talent and concentrated training effort. But seriously, how many people will spend 1 hour / day practicing something they suck at?

Yes, and there's the question of ROI. I mean what you are getting for dedicating a vast portion of your life? Is chess rating of 2200 a worthy goal? Does it pay a dividend other than in ego? And ego-wise, the 2200s spend most of their time in anguish about being beaten by the 2400s. I can imagine that because I don't care about being 1750 (*on chess.com in blitz). It does not make me feel good to beat a 1500, instead it annoys me to lose to a 1900.

Basically I think it's just wise to enjoy the game, take it for what it is, a game, and if you get a kick out of puzzles like I do, then do them. Beyond that I don't fret over rating.

Sometimes my rating goes up 100 - 200 points, sometimes down, depending on the health of my brain.

Yes, in chess (as in any other free time activity) the question of ROI makes sense. However, there is a question of using an activity as means of satisfying your immediate desire vs. getting a sense of a purpose and accomplishment. Indeed, spending an hour every evening at your chess set pouring over Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual will not give you nearly as much immediate kick as playing a dozen of fast blitz chess games, or watching your favorite chess channel on YouTube.

However, it will give you a sense of purpose and a long term accomplishment from learning something that you haven't known before, which is a very nice feeling, though not nearly as exciting as the sense of pleasure or fun. Also, such feeling tends to be long lasting, unlike the sense of 'fun' which usually peters out shortly after the activity is over. This, I think, is the reason why so many people develop a substance abuse (alcohol, drugs, screen addiction, etc.), because they search for a source of immediate pleasure, instead of searching for purpose and accomplishment.

I have a personal experience with this in the area of sports. I always despised sports, because I'm poorly coordinated, and naturally very stiff and thus tended to be worse than my peers in every kind of physical activity I tried, especially the team ones. Couple of years ago, on the insistence of my wife I started weightlifting, with the aim of getting healthier and improving my physique. There's nothing remotely pleasurable or fun about weightlifting; in fact doing deadlifts, for instance, is exactly the opposite of a physical pleasure - it makes you feel like your spine is gonna break, your head is gonna explode from all the increased blood pressure and that your palms are gonna be shredded to bloody bits by the barbell knurling.

Yet, the sense of purpose and accomplishment from the improvement in weightlifting is such that when gyms got closed due to coronavirus, I developed moderate withdrawal symptoms and my psychological health deteriorated. I eventually replaced weightlifting by learning how to ride an unicycle, which is probably even less fun than weightlifting, since apart from physical discomfort it's also an extremely frustrating activity (you flail around and fall all the time). However, the little improvements and sense of purpose are also very addictive and on the weekends I must exercise a great deal of self-restraint in not going to practice and let my poor legs rest (in order not to risk problems with knees), since I practice Monday-Friday every day.

I think for that purpose it makes sense to try improve your chess game, instead of just playing and enjoy it for fun's sake.

Why are we talking about weightlifting in a thread about chess?

!	magz wrote:
	The off-topic weight lifting discussion has been moved here: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=395614 Please, stay on topic.

Yeah, sorry about that pianoplayerjames. I compared the methods and effects of chess training to weightlifting training and it sort of went off-topic after that.

Thanks magz for splitting up the thread.

Chess coach here. Was intending to return to tournament play in pursuit of the FM title in 2020. From roughly the years 2007-2017 my FIDE rating hovered in the range 2125-2175 at about 25 games per year. I ended 2017 at a personal highest local rating and around the top of my usual FIDE range, and after 25 games in 2018 I fell to the lowest FIDE rating of my career around 2030ish. At the time I didn't understand the cause of my burnout / emotional meltdown. Now I can name a few factors which may have played a role from my personal life. It leaves me with some distance to climb to those title goals.

During the last decade I was mostly acting in the role of coach and self-educating from lots of books. I've filled the gap of the chess education which was not received during the junior years. Raised my weak area above what was my strength. Am starting to bring my old strength back into shape. At least in the comfort of the study environment, I have regained the confidence and flair of my bright junior years. I'm hungry to enter the tournament arena again with a fighting spirit.

However, my long-term goal is to be a successful chess coach. I'm still constantly learning, reassessing and trying various things. In recent months a coaching philosophy has started to form, drawing influence from various places and integrating them into something of my own. Excitedly working on putting it together into what will hopefully become my personal coaching files and a kind of legacy. That is assuming I have something of quality to offer! Time will tell.

Happy to see chess players here. Was just checking in after several years of inactivity.

I used to play chess with my grandfather when I was a kid. Unfortunately, I don't have anyone to play with now. Thanks for sharing the sources, I'll check them out.