Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

jacobbrazeal.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 342 posts

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#71

Post by imtringued »

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #40
windowshopping wrote: post #28

I 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…

It's the nature of competition and it's the same with physical sports. Lots of effort to gain minor benefits over the others.

Browser games tend to respect your time more by making you login every day but limit how much you can do. You won't see players who play the game 24/7 because the game tells you to stop after you ran out of action points or scheduled your base, etc.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#72

Post by C19is20 »

nurettin wrote: post #53
windowshopping wrote: post #28

I 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…

There is not even a modicum of similarity other than both of them being called games.

Once I explained the similarities, my kids got into chess.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#73

Post by mpol »

tutfbhuf wrote: post #5

Congratulations 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…

It is said that if a child (teenager) follows the step course, which is a Dutch youth training method, you should be able to start from then on at a 1600 ELO rating. I would assume following the course is self-selecting, you only make it if it is fun and you are good at it, so take that for what it is worth.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#74

Post by mpol »

Two small notes, this seems not to be an official rating. The 1750 is reached at chess.com it seems. I play at lichess, where I am around 1700. My official rating is currently 1437, my highest rating ever was 1583 two years ago. So there is definitely inflation at lichess, and I would assume there is inflation at chess.com. So claiming 1750 ELO when it is not an official rating seems somewhat risky.

Another note, he seems to be 21. I do understand you are an adult by then, but really, there is so much youth in you when you are 21. I see other players at the club get so much better at that age. I started at 31 at maybe 1100, and got to a max of 1583 only 12 years later. My brain is not so spongy anymore :)

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#75

Post by fabian2k »

mrslave wrote: post #64
prune2000 wrote: post #10

You should use lichess.org instead. You would have unlimited tactics per day which come from real games played on the website, endless number of studies made by other players on opening theories, free analysis of your games, and all these statistics about your progress and more! Like "do I win more often or not when Queens are traded?". Good luck!

A quick second endorsement for this absolute gem of a website: lichess.org. I've gone from a player who can't beat the computer on level 1 (estimated ELO 800 LOL) to winning 50% of matches on level 3 (est. ELO 1400). Still pretty poor, but so is my study effort. And I'm OK with it. My colleague from another time zone struggled to recommend a book for my level and kinda laughed (albeit politely). But now we can play a…

I would strongly recommend to play against real humans, not the computer. The computer with a handicap just plays in very weird ways, and that is not really helpful for learning. I also played the computer at first, and level 3 is the first level where it actually puts up a fight. But it plays very weird combinations of strong moves and then completely blunders at times. The problem is that it blunders in a very non-human way, so it doesn't help you that much to learn how to take advantage of the kind of errors a human tends to make.

The rating of the computer on Lichess is also kinda weird, you can't really rely on those. I'm a pretty weak player (I have only played a bit online recently), I did beat the level 3 computer on Lichess when I concentrated well enough on a game, but I'm certainly not 1400 against real humans.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#76

Post by globular-toast »

jen729w wrote: post #65
globular-toast wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, to be able to spend 2 hours a day on this seems like an indescribable luxury to me. Is this how far we've regressed? I'm sure most humans through history have had more free time than you.

While agreeing with your general principle, I think you're being unfair. Two hours a day, every day, is a lot of time. I barely watch television and still, if you asked me to find two more hours every day I'd tell you that you were crazy. I already have hobbies. I relax. I spend time with my partner. I sleep, I cook, I work, I walk. I do not find myself with two hours that I don't know what to do with, and I'd challe…

Wait, do you think the OP has somehow discovered a 26 hour day? Everyone gets 24 hours. Take off about 8 hours for sleeping. That's what you have to play with. How you choose to divide that up is up to you but it's always used in full, no matter how you choose to use it. In this day and age the amount of time you need to dedicate to just surviving is close to zero. It's your choice to work more and not have enough time to play chess.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#77

Post by pea »

mpol wrote: post #74

Two small notes, this seems not to be an official rating. The 1750 is reached at chess.com it seems. I play at lichess, where I am around 1700. My official rating is currently 1437, my highest rating ever was 1583 two years ago. So there is definitely inflation at lichess, and I would assume there is inflation at chess.com. So claiming 1750 ELO when it is not an official rating seems somewhat risky. Another note, he…

I also found with lichess that blitz players are a lot stronger than rapid - I'm 200 points higher on rapid than blitz and it seems that's pretty common, which has always confused me (and not hugely different time controls - 5+3 vs. 10+0)

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#78

Post by tartoran »

mpol wrote: post #74

Two small notes, this seems not to be an official rating. The 1750 is reached at chess.com it seems. I play at lichess, where I am around 1700. My official rating is currently 1437, my highest rating ever was 1583 two years ago. So there is definitely inflation at lichess, and I would assume there is inflation at chess.com. So claiming 1750 ELO when it is not an official rating seems somewhat risky. Another note, he…

Good point. I reached a similar outcome at about 31 but the obsession was getting so much in my way of life that I stopped. I was basically opening the now instant defunct instantchess.com at any idle moment I had. At this point was more like an addiction

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#79

Post by mpol »

mrslave wrote: post #64
prune2000 wrote: post #10

You should use lichess.org instead. You would have unlimited tactics per day which come from real games played on the website, endless number of studies made by other players on opening theories, free analysis of your games, and all these statistics about your progress and more! Like "do I win more often or not when Queens are traded?". Good luck!

A quick second endorsement for this absolute gem of a website: lichess.org. I've gone from a player who can't beat the computer on level 1 (estimated ELO 800 LOL) to winning 50% of matches on level 3 (est. ELO 1400). Still pretty poor, but so is my study effort. And I'm OK with it. My colleague from another time zone struggled to recommend a book for my level and kinda laughed (albeit politely). But now we can play a…

I would like to recommend Willy Hendriks - Move First, Think Later, if it is okay with you to recommend something. It was my first real chess book and it was a very fun read. I am often intimidated by too many diagrams and endless variations in books, and he has a great way to tell a story about the psychology at the board. You do need an interest in psychology in chess to be able to enjoy the book, if it is just about the moves for you it might not be that great (there are diagrams ofcourse).

Some subjects in the 20 or 25 chapters are: Time management, the more time you spend at a move, the less merit there is, while that time might be important in the endgame. There is a chapter about chess as a game of chance, like, you play a tournament and make 5 out of 9. Next year at the same tournament, you make 4 out of 9. Did you play worse? You might think so and rationalize that thought to become some truth to you, but really, it is just one game that might have been decided by one move. The same for winning or losing rating points, which can be a plus or a minus based on just 1 game difference, that doesn't make your last 3 months bad or good.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#80

Post by fakedang »

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #66
MperorM wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's something to be argued that reaching a high level in any competitive game or sport has merit. I've learned more valuable lessons from competing in Starcraft than I can count. Without knowing the exact opportunity cost, I think trading my highschool grades for the competitive experience was worth it. The biggest mistake I think I made was not cutting games out completely after having learned those less…

I definitely agree and also feel like I've learned valuable lessons from SC2. It sucks to give a game up though :/.

I play Starcraft for the story only, and I loved it. Still play the campaign from time to time. I feel like a savage amongst civilized men on this thread.
Post reply on HN