Thoughts on chess improvement, after gaining 600 points in 6 months

Post by prionassembly » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 6:09 PM UTC

anandoza wrote: post #27

kthejoker2 wrote: post #15

Pedantry alert: As ELO ratings follow a logarithmic curve, "gaining 600 points" is a dimensionless metric. These are good tips for beginner to intermediate growth. The things that definitely help the most are: * Pattern recognition - the best courses for this level are things like "Common traps in ", applied with Woodpecker method. Once you've memorized all the mistakes in the Scandi or London system, you can really…

Doesn't gaining 600 points mean that you are able to beat the "old you" (or more precisely, people who you used to be even with) with 99% probability? (Or perhaps more meaningfully, you can now beat someone who could beat someone who could beat someone who could beat someone who can beat the old you, all with 80% probability?) (I made up the exact numbers, but the idea is there.) That seems like a meaningful interpre…

Post by CaptainNegative » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

Kranar wrote: post #69

sillysaurusx wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love that HN hyper-focused on your 600 points observation. However, 600 points means you went from 1500 (the start) to at least 2100, which is almost universally recognized as "pro" or at least semi-pro for chess. So yes, logarithmic curve and dimensionless pedantry and all that, I'll grant you; but that's missing the trees for the squirrels in the forest, since 600 points means "I went from noob to pro." No one ex…

Unfortunately OP was right to be pedantic. Consider that you assumed the author went from 1500 to 2100 in 6 months, which would be an absolutely monumental achievement, and yet the actual article says the author went from 1200 to 1800, which is nice, certainly nothing to complain about, but nothing even remotely as impressive as going from 1500 to 2100. 600 points, in and of itself, is almost meaningless.

Post by whimsicalism » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 6:21 PM UTC

kthejoker2 wrote: post #17

Mizza wrote: post #9

"The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life." - Paul Morphy. I started playing anonymous games on LiChess, and playing without ELO anxiety is way, way more fun. It's a game, this is all I need out of it.

My only problem with anonymous is you have no idea if the person on the other side is 1100 or 2200 ... I just use Zen mode in Lichess, I know the other person is about my level, but I don't care what the numbers area .....

Post by whimsicalism » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 6:26 PM UTC

jstx1 wrote: post #6

At 1700-1800 I hit a point where I had to study more seriously in order to improve so I lost interest and pretty much stopped playing. Up to that point I could improve just by playing more (with the occasional youtube video but that was more for entertaintment).

Post by webnrrd2k » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 6:32 PM UTC

nescioquid wrote: post #77

dragon96 wrote: post #49

One piece of advice I hear a lot is "review your games", but how do you actually do that without a stronger player? I'd sometimes use an engine and it'll point out moves I hadn't considered before, but without understanding the plan or positional ideas behind them, I often find this pretty opaque.

I found that bit of advice similarly daunting. However, in trying to understand where things go wrong in a game, you might notice patterns emerging after you've analyzed several of your own games, which should give you something concrete to work on for improvement. At my level, that basically amounted to identifying blind spots I'm a prey to (at one point it was discovered attacks along a particular diagonal). A mast…