Highly, highly recommend "The Queen's Gambit" on Netflix. Like wow.
On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years
31–40 of 342 posts
Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years
#32Congratulations that's a great achievement. I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the years. Doing tactics puzzles is one of the most important factors for fast improvements. > Some day, I want to become a titled player. A candidate master needs an ELO of 2200 2000 and 2200 are completely different skill levels. I have some friends who play chess f…
> I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the years
I think you are massively underestimating the natural range of human intelligence.
I don't think the average IQ 100 individual could ever reach an ELO of 2000 regardless of how much they practice, and half the population has IQs of less than 100.
Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years
#33Congratulations that's a great achievement. I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the years. Doing tactics puzzles is one of the most important factors for fast improvements. > Some day, I want to become a titled player. A candidate master needs an ELO of 2200 2000 and 2200 are completely different skill levels. I have some friends who play chess f…
ignorant question time: isn't ELO relative not absolute? if everyone gets better doesn't that just make it a lot harder to get to 2k?
It's relative to the pool of individuals, and there are tons of caveats (as other posters mentioned).
Despite this, due to the size of the pools of individuals and relative seriousness of players who belong to official tournament organisations, the ratings have been fairly stable. Yes, there's been some inflation, but I'd say it's somewhat been in line with the increase in knowledge and training methods. While the system has all kinds of minor issues, it's still "quite good", especially when we compare it to other sports or activities with a more variable pool and quality.
In this sense, most people know what 1600, 1800, 2000, etc, mean to fairly precise degree.
Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years
#34I've noticed a big time day-to-day correlation between my chess performance and the amount of sleep I had. Also, coming back refreshed from a 1 or 2-week vacation (with plenty of sleep) leads to an immediate boost as well.
Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years
#35I did something very similar with an old strategy game called Age of empires II. Over the course of two years I went from a 1300 rating to 1850. I don't play chess, so it's hard for me to compare the scales, but I will say the highest players were rated around 2600. I think being 1850 put me around 90-95th percentile for active players-- there were less than 50 players over 2300, and only a few hundred over 2000. My…
That's amazing. I love that game dearly and have been playing on/off for more than 15 years, so I get routinely obsessed with it, play a lot a few weeks, get good against the AI (usually using cheese like huskarl spam or massed mangudai), then get my ass handed to me online & ends up quitting. Then I don't play for a year or so.
At which point were you able to reliably not fail the boar lure ?
Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years
#36I did something very similar with an old strategy game called Age of empires II. Over the course of two years I went from a 1300 rating to 1850. I don't play chess, so it's hard for me to compare the scales, but I will say the highest players were rated around 2600. I think being 1850 put me around 90-95th percentile for active players-- there were less than 50 players over 2300, and only a few hundred over 2000. My…
Hey there fellow AoE II player!
Cool, to hear from some decent player. What time did you play? Around 2002?
Since I was a 2k player at the time, let me assure you, that the top dudes at the time (Koven, Sheriff for example) were already so called pro gamers who got payed/sponsored and they were exceptionally good.
The true story is, that many folks above 2k+ did what was called "points trading" back then. Koven once stated, that they got payed according to their rank in the official ladder.
So he also had to defend against cheaters, un-sync games etc. He was always top notch, but he had to adjust his rating accordingly, due to cheaters.
Almost all at the top did points trading. Smurf accounts, the system, some refusing to play against weaker players, or some playing DM to get points faster. Also some game "hacks", like the farming bug etc. that gave you the edge in early FLUSHing games.
So take this: 1850 is extremely good in RM 1vs1. 2k+ players are exceptionally good at micro-management. A skill to be learned.
I was part of CN, you might remember this clan from our most famous player, Lightning_CN. Greets to Force, Gwenny etc. where ever you are! :)
PS: There is a book from L_Clan_Chris at Amazon. Some knowledge bites to digest.
Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years
#37I've set out on a similar journey in the past couple of years, but been very much doing it 'in the dark' by focusing on learning and watching a lot of tactical videos on Youtube (mainly agadmator's and GothamChess's channels) which have given me a new insight into various chess theories.
I have a paid Chess.com account (same username as my HN handle), but still lack the confidence to really engage a human opponent 1 on 1. Maybe next year, once I have really got opening books and endgame theory down pat. I still make too many blunders in those parts.
Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years
#38A long while back, I dedicated my time to Tetris (on Gameboy). I surely spent less time on that than would have been necessary for chess, but it is amazing to see what progress is possible. I could play level 9[heart] without an end (in infinite play mode) or up to high 3 (6 rows of waste on bottom). When moving a brick to the left or right edge, the gameboy would make a long beep instead of individual blips. No idea how I could move my fingers that fast.
It is fun. For chess in contrast to Tetris, there is even a good chance for it to stay fun -- Tetris is a bit too simplistic for that, I think.
Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years
#39I thought about learning chess and what it actually involes when i watched the new netflix show.
i came to the relisation that it actually involes becoming good in a very very big search space by having a lot of experience and being fast in calculating and remembering chess moves.
Especially when i see how many people read up on grand masters, i came up with the theory:
The normal person is running behind or trying to 'just' learn the fast pre found and pre tested moves from a handfull of people who actually played/thought those moves through.
Like being a musician and only doing covers for 30 years while never playing/creating something themselfs.
AI became a tool by 1. no longer needing Grand Masters to find the next level and 2. being accessable to everyone which could create new pockets discovered by AI/through AI (compute power) and being learned individual.
How much real strategy is there for two really good players? Or is it more of an 'he is going for this move, i know this kind of moves and i need to intervine through moves so the opponent gets forced to play my moves'?
Also: Quite impressive the dedication, respect!
Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years
#40I did something very similar with an old strategy game called Age of empires II. Over the course of two years I went from a 1300 rating to 1850. I don't play chess, so it's hard for me to compare the scales, but I will say the highest players were rated around 2600. I think being 1850 put me around 90-95th percentile for active players-- there were less than 50 players over 2300, and only a few hundred over 2000. My…
> Eventually I decided that I no longer wished to prioritize the game over other things
This is what I unfortunately found as well. I reached Legend in Hearthstone (The top rank, no clue what percentile it was) a while back and top 3-5% in StarCraft II a couple of years ago.
In both games I stopped playing shortly after reaching that level because the time investment just didn't seem worth it to me. I love games, but playing at a very high level requires a lot of practice and focus.
I don't really think it's possible to play competitively and do much else because of the time investment required just to stay at your current level, let alone improve. I love games, but it's hard to justify when I could be doing something more productive with my time.