In my experience, it's about accepting the fact that effective chess study/gameplay will never be purely fun (if "pure" fun implies letting one's intuition lead the mental processes behind the training/gameplay unquestioned/unrestricted).
Agree. It's the same with science. A lot of people claim that they love science because they watch a lot of kurzgezagt, no they're not (it's also applied to me, lol). If you watch kurzgezagt, you only love the good/interesting part of science, not the whole science. If you really love science, you'll also enjoy the time when you're stuck at some equations, doing maths, and all of those boring and hard stuffs. If you really love something, you know that the grind won't be fun but somehow you enjoy it (or at least obsessed with it).
@Rubbinghandsschemingsomething its more accurate to say that they love the aesthetic of science aka the wonder and awe of it rather than the grit of it which is alot of tedium history is sort of going through that same loop where people are really only engaging with the parts that are 'fun, exciting' and/or anything to validate modern beliefs rather than approaching it with a real genuine attempt to learn something
Kind of a little fun story here but I had a friend who got hit rating to around the 1600-1800 range 4 years ago. He stopped playing a lot of tournaments and just solely focused on memorizing openings and certain lines. He did that for 2 years and I played him last weekend. It’s just crazy how good he got. His rating now is 2486. He’s hoping to get his IM title by the end of the year.
That's nuts. To some extent you do pick up a lot of other stuff depending on the way you work on your openings, so that could've played some role. Definitely goes against coventional wisdom though
That's interesting. Whenever I've tried to study openings I tend to lose my tactical sense. And as GM Huschenbeth says, "Tactics are the foundation of everything else." So your friend obviously has some natural talent for tactics along with a phenomenal memory. Some cats got it, most don't.
@@jonshive5482if you’re losing your tactical sense, then you aren’t actually learning your openings. Tactics don’t arise out of nowhere, they come out from specific board states that can be reached from specific openings or arrangement of pieces. For instance a key idea in some open Catalan lines, after Black plays some b5 to hold on to the pawn, is to play Ne5 and then sometimes Nxf7 and push d5 and dxe6 or d6, or to play Nc3 with hopes of Nxb5 due to the pin. You won’t see these tactics if you don’t study your openings and know what the point of them are.
@@psyarts8687 Yeah I know what you're talking about but somehow don't have a clear picture of what precisely to do coming out of most opening positions. "...and then we play chess" says NM RobRam, to which my reply is, the trouble with that is I'm simply not a very good player. Some players have an intuitive grasp of the game, most don't. Which is why chess is easy to learn but hard to master.
@@MartinZanichelliA highly respected GM Smirnov teaches gambits to his most nooby students. He says s "See? Chess is fun". The very next morning that 5 year old kid makes grown men cry. Chess is fun he says. We need to put a stop to this. Get Kramnik on the line!
There's no mystery here, improving at ANYTHING takes a huge amount of effort and most of the time we don't make that effort, the idea that improvement should just happen naturally is a silly bourgeois conceit
@@xmathmanx I look at someone like Hans and see a person who has had a blast playing chess. On top of that, he has an incredible amount of focus. Don't know where he got it but he got it.
@@walterbrownstone8017 his natural level is GM, which is very rare of course, mine seems to be around 1100 😁, now he has to do real work to be a champion, I doubt he'll manage that but I'll be happy if he does
Ok,I'm a 1570 fide,started playing 2 years ago I watched one of your main ideas in catalan vid and tried it against an 1856,he played the semi slav setup and I went for that nd2 idea and it worked! I squeezed his position so nicely and that idea really helped! Thanks ❤
It's a myth that you can always improve. People have ceilings that it's almost impossible to get beyond, especially if they've been playing chess for a long time. It's like saying you can run as fast as Usain Bolt, when we have a limit to how fast we can run. Chess creates this crazy hunger to constantly improve and people think they can be a grand master, when the reality is that our brains limit us. It's far better to enjoy chess than have this crazy lust to improve your chess and your rating. Enjoyment is more important.
Yeah for sure, I don't think I was trying to make that claim in the video, nor was it implied. Also I think its really up to the individual whether or not they really want to get better, or just enjoy the game. I don't think either is inherently right or wrong.
@@happyhornet1000 I agree. And I'm the perfect example.of this. And my fixation...and stubbornness.. on improvement and grinding for it...has destroyed my mental health slowly over years. :( my relationship with chess is at an all time low and worse...my relationship with myself is at an all time low
Of course, it's true that no matter how much we study chess, we are never going to become Magnus. It's also true that we must have a ceiling. The question is, "How many people reach that ceiling?"
I like the very simple analogy "the brain is a muscle". As much as I love the artistic side of chess, I've come to realize that improving at chess isn't so different from the gym. There's a ceiling somewhere, but you can improve a LOT through consistent training before you reach it.
The better you get, the harder it gets to improve yourself and your opponents get more difficult also. Or, another way to look at it is that the closer you get to perfection, the harder it is to see your faults.
Russian chess trainer Mark Dvoretsky wrote that most chessplayers reached a plateau from which they could never advance regardless of how diligently they trained, played or studied. Apparently there's a Peter Principle at work here; everyone has their own level of incompetence at anything and once you're there that's it. Also if you're not a GM by the time you're 30 years old you might as well forget it. (Just ask John Bartholomew.) Fabiano Caruana recently had something to say about people at that age who might consider other options if they've reached their limits playing chess, which is just a board game after all.
People say things like that but there are (apparently) hundreds of millions of active chess players and less than 2000 grandmasters, so that odds of becoming a grandmaster are vanishingly small no matter what. So it's strange to me that the idea of wanting to get better gets mixed up with wanting to be one of the world's best. It's like telling someone they shouldn't take swimming lessons because they are not going to get good enough to make the Olympic team. I would imagine that few chess players ever come close to hitting their maximum potential--that's probably not the practical limiting factor; it's more likely that most people are not going to work at it for hours a day for years and years and years.
Age doesn't have an absolute factor on perfecting Chess. Or anything at life. The difference is that when you were younger, your responsibility towards life were at its most minimum. By the time you are 30, you have a job, a life, a relationship, things to do and bills to pay. Focusing on Chess comes low in important things. Hence why people think "forget it" at becoming a Chess Grandmaster post 30. Question is, would the same rule apply if someone had a clear schedule and actually dedicated his life to Chess?
@@cobra8888 Heh-heh. Ask "Hanging Pawns." He's been stuck at around 2000 Elo for years despite devoting practically all his time on chess. Plenty of retirees do much the same with similar results.
@@cobra8888 Heh-heh. Sounds like psycho-babble to me. Reason I kept at it was precisely 'cuz I thought I COULD do it. Tried but failed. Must've been suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect, along with hundreds of millions of other people.
it requires a lot of hard work for a average person like myself. and we decide, this is only a game, and I don't have to be as good as magnus to enjoy the game.
These books help me improve (I have a lot of books but these helped) Chess by Lazlo Polgar, The Woodpecker Method, The Seven Deadly Sins. I also think Chess Advanced Tactics by Averbakh is good but I haven't finished it yet, also the book Move First, Think Later. Plus playing everyday and analyzing my games. I also believe that if you have time and motivation to improve you will. I think people don't improve because they stopped trying because it is too hard or they do not have the time. I know this person who became a GM at 38 years old and another guy became an IM at 66 years old. I think if you are motivated enough, have the time and are healthy you can improve at anything. Chess is just a game, that is why most people treat it only as a hobby so there is no motivation to get better. But what if your child got kidnapped and the only way to free him is to be a titled player? I bet you can be one.
sure, many players simply don't spend enough time & effort on the right things for their level. however, the harder question imo involves the larger group of adult improvers who get stuck between 1650-1850 FIDE despite working hard & smart for years.
I prefer to think of it like this: If the ability to play chess was tied to the ability to walk, we would all be better at chess. Chess is not hard, but chess is hard to make fun sometimes.
@@andrew_owens7680 Chess is hard for OTB. People spend alot of energy on one big game and when they lose they are crushed. I wasn't crushed yesterday when I was checkmated on move 4. I lost on move 4.
Age is a big factor here. A 13 year old has a room to get 1000-1500 ELO over the next 10 years. A 30 year old will be lucky to get 100 points. A 40 year old will be lucky not to lose his current rating.
For sure, no one is denying age plays a role. I'd also say though it differs between a 30 year old who has been playing for a while, and another 30 year old who is comparatively newer to chess and still has more room to grow. Obviously in the latter case more improvement can take place.
@@ThortheMerciless Yeah the system adjusted you to your actual chess strength after a number of games. Most chess websites have a default rating like 1000 and after you play a number of games they get a good idea of where you belong.
@@rajahzia My 1999 rating was a fixed rating; however current ratings are calculated from scratch if you've been off the radar as long as I have. And I know that they're calculated differently than they used to be, but still, that doesn't account for the change. Based on my old rating I was estimated to be 1600; my actual rating is currently 2046. I would note that back in the 70s my rating was around that level, but that's a long time ago, and I was playing a lot more regularly, studying openings, etc. as well as being 45-50 years younger.
I would say that rather, there is more potential for improvement to take place, because there is more uncertainty about the new player's ceiling. It is not certain that the new player can improve more than the one who has been playing for a while. I also think that with some players, even if they have been playing for a while, there can be a "Damascene" conversion, where something they experience (including something they read/view) causes a fundamental change in the way they understand chess.
Chess is weird. I started about a year and a half ago, at 40 years old. I'm up to about 1500 rapid. I want to keep improving. But, I'm not having any more fun than when I was 1300. Or 1100. My opponents are always rated roughly the same as me, and in general I'm always winning as much as I'm losing. It makes me wonder if I should stop studying chess, being a father and in my 40s,and just use that time to play more chess. Getting better is cool and has been cool, but what's the point? I mean, even if I realize there's none really, I still will sit down and study today or tomorrow or whenever lol.
@SoullessPolack It's cool if you can apply them to other games (including chess variants such as blindfold chess). Even cooler when you use those skills to connect with others (or yourself in new ways).
There are different brain “hacks” you can use. If someone needs to memorize a bunch of facts, they can use mnemonics for example. To see the different possibilities on a chess board, you can start practicing expanding your awareness. Close your eyes and imagine a random number (or a letter) in the darkness in front of your eyes. If you can easily “see” two, or three numbers/letters next to each other, then try to expand that to four or five. Don’t “count” them left to right. Visualize them all at once.
I've been playing for 5 years and I stopped improving completely last year. I'm not going to say my rating because it's honestly embarrassing. I'm not an idiot, I scored 1590 on my SAT and I won't flex IQ cause that's cringe... but I think some people just aren't wired for chess.
@@Thechesslad1 my max elo was a little over 1400, (now it's lower than that, around 1300). And yeah, you would think that, but ig chess is different intelligence from verbal/mathematic
There is a limit to improvement in such things, regardless of intelligence. The large majority of people even three standard deviations above average IQ, I'm talking at least 95 %, let alone less intelligent people- if they started chess really late (this means after 23-25), could not reach any FIDE title, even candidate master, no matter the dedication. Even something like 2000 is difficult. If you're really insistent on improving, you should set a manageable goal like 1500 elo, but it might still take tons more dedication than you've had now.
I tried one hour puzzle rush each day, but it was too much, so now I do half an hour the step method each weekday and then analyze a game during the weekend for a few hours.
What about someone that has a TON of time to study but rarely time to play a game? I frequently have down time at work (which I can do whatever with) but could get interrupted any second so games are impossible. I suppose I could do unrated but it's still really annoying to be winning & have to forfeit. I have multiple chessly courses & a few chessables. Do I need a more disciplined training plan?
A nice exercise you can do is "guess the move" of real games. Helps if you have a model player whose games you want to go through, and then go through games of theirs - and then try to actively ask yourself at as many (ideally every) moves as possible what you would do if you were in their shoes. Great for improving all areas of the game, and one of the closest things you'll get to the real playing experience.
No training = no improvement, simple as that. Same in every sport. I play golf. My handicap was dropping very fast as I learned how to play and was training a lot, then it stopped aroud 20 it was becaming more and more difficult to improve so I gave it up and started playing just for fun. There's always a plateu and law of diminishing returns, where each hour of training will yield less and less gains and it takes HUGE amount of time and systematic & organized effort to achieve the "holy grail" level in given discipline e.g. HCP 0 in golf or FM title in chess. And even this holy grail does not put you in the best, coz best golfers have even lower HCP and in chess there are IMs and GMs and super-GMs. At certain point individual talent also helps, but it just moves the plateu level a bit further.
I could, but honestly in Australia where I live, CM is pretty meaningless, since there are so many players who are 2000 (and some even lower rated) who have CM from scoring 50% at our regional zonal and getting the title. So for that reason I just don't really care for it.
What about someone who averaged 2 hours every single day for 10 years straight? Someone who has tried chess coaches, books, chessable, videos and every other resource under the sun? Someone who begun making their own videos in hopes it would help there chess(vocally talking about their ideas). What if that person regressed if anything?
I believe like 95% of people can surpass that below 1200 elo range Trust me I was at the same elo as you last year I was so close to 1200 then I went back to 1000 and quit chess for 5 months Once I got back in january I focused on puzzles almost everyday I didn't surpass 3 games per day I analysed them just to see where I missed tactics and where my blunders were By April I was at 1400 elo And now I'm at 1500 Trust me the right plan with consistency is the key always
At, the end of the day, there is no trick to improvement, just studying and practicing chess a lot, if you aren't studying and practicing enough, you will not improve.
Meh. I'd wager basic value plays a pivotal role here. It's even like your experience in highschool right, there were tournaments going on, you probably had some friends where chess was a huge part of the relationship; there were so many emotional factors working if your favor to develop good habits. Of course basic effort and attention is important, but I'd wager for a lot of the cases you're describing, these people don't actually want to get better, and oftentimes they aren't even aware of that.
Yeah, definitely I think in some of my younger years played a role. The period I described in this video I though there was actually very little I had in my local environment in terms of friends that played chess, or a chess scene in general, as my family moved from Australia to Japan - and Japan is not exactly known for having many strong players, or tournaments for that matter. So I would say I kind of improved in spite of those circumstances. But yeah that's an interesting point you say about people not actually wanting to get better (and being unaware of it), I would say there are certainly cases where thats true.
Nobody is willing to just state plainly that innate IQ largely determines your ceiling. Chess is all abstraction, working memory, it’s straight up IQ. Plain and simple. Crystallized knowledge or lack thereof creates play in the joints, but the parameters of individual potential are set.
Very definitely. I'm sure it's not applicable at the top of the pyramid, but lower down people are not as good at playing endgames as they used to be at similar ratings. I also find that when they reach complex positions, they are not prepared to do 10-15 minutes hard analysis of concrete lines. Both of these I ascribe to largely playing blitz/bullet.
@@paulgoogol2652 They’re quite literally playing chess when playing the London System, though? The analogy especially falls through considering it’s been played at the highest level
Because most people have "normal" memory ability, the best chess players got incredible memory and just gets better and better the more they play and use computer programs to analyze.
In my experience, it's about accepting the fact that effective chess study/gameplay will never be purely fun (if "pure" fun implies letting one's intuition lead the mental processes behind the training/gameplay unquestioned/unrestricted).
without study or natural talent it seems most people top out at like 1200-1400
Agree. It's the same with science. A lot of people claim that they love science because they watch a lot of kurzgezagt, no they're not (it's also applied to me, lol). If you watch kurzgezagt, you only love the good/interesting part of science, not the whole science.
If you really love science, you'll also enjoy the time when you're stuck at some equations, doing maths, and all of those boring and hard stuffs. If you really love something, you know that the grind won't be fun but somehow you enjoy it (or at least obsessed with it).
@Rubbinghandsschemingsomething its more accurate to say that they love the aesthetic of science aka the wonder and awe of it rather than the grit of it which is alot of tedium
history is sort of going through that same loop where people are really only engaging with the parts that are 'fun, exciting' and/or anything to validate modern beliefs rather than approaching it with a real genuine attempt to learn something
Kind of a little fun story here but I had a friend who got hit rating to around the 1600-1800 range 4 years ago. He stopped playing a lot of tournaments and just solely focused on memorizing openings and certain lines. He did that for 2 years and I played him last weekend. It’s just crazy how good he got. His rating now is 2486. He’s hoping to get his IM title by the end of the year.
That's nuts. To some extent you do pick up a lot of other stuff depending on the way you work on your openings, so that could've played some role. Definitely goes against coventional wisdom though
That's interesting. Whenever I've tried to study openings I tend to lose my tactical sense. And as GM Huschenbeth says, "Tactics are the foundation of everything else." So your friend obviously has some natural talent for tactics along with a phenomenal memory. Some cats got it, most don't.
What openings did he learn
@@jonshive5482if you’re losing your tactical sense, then you aren’t actually learning your openings. Tactics don’t arise out of nowhere, they come out from specific board states that can be reached from specific openings or arrangement of pieces. For instance a key idea in some open Catalan lines, after Black plays some b5 to hold on to the pawn, is to play Ne5 and then sometimes Nxf7 and push d5 and dxe6 or d6, or to play Nc3 with hopes of Nxb5 due to the pin. You won’t see these tactics if you don’t study your openings and know what the point of them are.
@@psyarts8687 Yeah I know what you're talking about but somehow don't have a clear picture of what precisely to do coming out of most opening positions. "...and then we play chess" says NM RobRam, to which my reply is, the trouble with that is I'm simply not a very good player. Some players have an intuitive grasp of the game, most don't. Which is why chess is easy to learn but hard to master.
They watch chess channels that only teach you tricks. That is another reason. They lose a lot of time with that.
@@MartinZanichelliA highly respected GM Smirnov teaches gambits to his most nooby students. He says s "See? Chess is fun". The very next morning that 5 year old kid makes grown men cry. Chess is fun he says. We need to put a stop to this. Get Kramnik on the line!
@@walterbrownstone8017 The good thing about him is that he usually shows the “bad” position you get when the enemy know the correct response.
There's no mystery here, improving at ANYTHING takes a huge amount of effort and most of the time we don't make that effort, the idea that improvement should just happen naturally is a silly bourgeois conceit
@@xmathmanx I look at someone like Hans and see a person who has had a blast playing chess. On top of that, he has an incredible amount of focus. Don't know where he got it but he got it.
@@walterbrownstone8017 his natural level is GM, which is very rare of course, mine seems to be around 1100 😁, now he has to do real work to be a champion, I doubt he'll manage that but I'll be happy if he does
Ok,I'm a 1570 fide,started playing 2 years ago
I watched one of your main ideas in catalan vid and tried it against an 1856,he played the semi slav setup and I went for that nd2 idea and it worked! I squeezed his position so nicely and that idea really helped! Thanks ❤
Awesome man, glad it worked out well
It's a myth that you can always improve. People have ceilings that it's almost impossible to get beyond, especially if they've been playing chess for a long time. It's like saying you can run as fast as Usain Bolt, when we have a limit to how fast we can run. Chess creates this crazy hunger to constantly improve and people think they can be a grand master, when the reality is that our brains limit us. It's far better to enjoy chess than have this crazy lust to improve your chess and your rating. Enjoyment is more important.
Yeah for sure, I don't think I was trying to make that claim in the video, nor was it implied. Also I think its really up to the individual whether or not they really want to get better, or just enjoy the game. I don't think either is inherently right or wrong.
@@happyhornet1000 I agree. And I'm the perfect example.of this. And my fixation...and stubbornness.. on improvement and grinding for it...has destroyed my mental health slowly over years. :( my relationship with chess is at an all time low and worse...my relationship with myself is at an all time low
Also you need to have taken it up real young to reach your potential. Then you can wire your brain to play. I'm not sure this is a great idea though.
Of course, it's true that no matter how much we study chess, we are never going to become Magnus. It's also true that we must have a ceiling. The question is, "How many people reach that ceiling?"
The "ceilings" for most regular players are far beyond what they imagine... Unless people train and study properly they would never kmpw their limit.
I like the very simple analogy "the brain is a muscle". As much as I love the artistic side of chess, I've come to realize that improving at chess isn't so different from the gym. There's a ceiling somewhere, but you can improve a LOT through consistent training before you reach it.
"Theres a celing somewhere " i like dat 👍
The better you get, the harder it gets to improve yourself and your opponents get more difficult also. Or, another way to look at it is that the closer you get to perfection, the harder it is to see your faults.
Russian chess trainer Mark Dvoretsky wrote that most chessplayers reached a plateau from which they could never advance regardless of how diligently they trained, played or studied. Apparently there's a Peter Principle at work here; everyone has their own level of incompetence at anything and once you're there that's it. Also if you're not a GM by the time you're 30 years old you might as well forget it. (Just ask John Bartholomew.) Fabiano Caruana recently had something to say about people at that age who might consider other options if they've reached their limits playing chess, which is just a board game after all.
People say things like that but there are (apparently) hundreds of millions of active chess players and less than 2000 grandmasters, so that odds of becoming a grandmaster are vanishingly small no matter what. So it's strange to me that the idea of wanting to get better gets mixed up with wanting to be one of the world's best. It's like telling someone they shouldn't take swimming lessons because they are not going to get good enough to make the Olympic team. I would imagine that few chess players ever come close to hitting their maximum potential--that's probably not the practical limiting factor; it's more likely that most people are not going to work at it for hours a day for years and years and years.
Age doesn't have an absolute factor on perfecting Chess. Or anything at life. The difference is that when you were younger, your responsibility towards life were at its most minimum. By the time you are 30, you have a job, a life, a relationship, things to do and bills to pay. Focusing on Chess comes low in important things. Hence why people think "forget it" at becoming a Chess Grandmaster post 30. Question is, would the same rule apply if someone had a clear schedule and actually dedicated his life to Chess?
@@cobra8888 Heh-heh. Ask "Hanging Pawns." He's been stuck at around 2000 Elo for years despite devoting practically all his time on chess. Plenty of retirees do much the same with similar results.
@@jonshive5482 In his case, some mental block is occurring which happens if someone is constantly doubting himself.
@@cobra8888 Heh-heh. Sounds like psycho-babble to me. Reason I kept at it was precisely 'cuz I thought I COULD do it. Tried but failed. Must've been suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect, along with hundreds of millions of other people.
it requires a lot of hard work for a average person like myself. and we decide, this is only a game, and I don't have to be as good as magnus to enjoy the game.
Feel u
Once you plateau, you either stay there or hire a respected coach.
These books help me improve (I have a lot of books but these helped) Chess by Lazlo Polgar, The Woodpecker Method, The Seven Deadly Sins. I also think Chess Advanced Tactics by Averbakh is good but I haven't finished it yet, also the book Move First, Think Later. Plus playing everyday and analyzing my games. I also believe that if you have time and motivation to improve you will. I think people don't improve because they stopped trying because it is too hard or they do not have the time. I know this person who became a GM at 38 years old and another guy became an IM at 66 years old. I think if you are motivated enough, have the time and are healthy you can improve at anything. Chess is just a game, that is why most people treat it only as a hobby so there is no motivation to get better. But what if your child got kidnapped and the only way to free him is to be a titled player? I bet you can be one.
sure, many players simply don't spend enough time & effort on the right things for their level. however, the harder question imo involves the larger group of adult improvers who get stuck between 1650-1850 FIDE despite working hard & smart for years.
True, but at some point your just going to get hard stuck no matter what you do, there isn't a solution
@@sam2725 what if there is
I'm not going to deny there are people like that, but I would really question if they are the "larger group".
They've probably reached their Dvoretskian "plateau" from which they can hardly advance.
@@SamAsakaChess okay, "smaller group." but the more interesting question remains.
Great topic to discuss, a very relevant one for all the club players out there. Thanks Sam.
I prefer to think of it like this: If the ability to play chess was tied to the ability to walk, we would all be better at chess. Chess is not hard, but chess is hard to make fun sometimes.
think again because thats not it
@@MMAengineer You're right it's not it. I just prefer to think that it is it.
Chess is hard for me. You do you.
@@andrew_owens7680 Chess is hard for OTB. People spend alot of energy on one big game and when they lose they are crushed. I wasn't crushed yesterday when I was checkmated on move 4. I lost on move 4.
That's why I prefer making fun of the funny things in chess
Age is a big factor here. A 13 year old has a room to get 1000-1500 ELO over the next 10 years. A 30 year old will be lucky to get 100 points. A 40 year old will be lucky not to lose his current rating.
I'm 72 and having not played for 25 years, I started playing again in January. My rating is now c.400 points higher than it was in 1999.
For sure, no one is denying age plays a role. I'd also say though it differs between a 30 year old who has been playing for a while, and another 30 year old who is comparatively newer to chess and still has more room to grow. Obviously in the latter case more improvement can take place.
@@ThortheMerciless Yeah the system adjusted you to your actual chess strength after a number of games. Most chess websites have a default rating like 1000 and after you play a number of games they get a good idea of where you belong.
@@rajahzia My 1999 rating was a fixed rating; however current ratings are calculated from scratch if you've been off the radar as long as I have. And I know that they're calculated differently than they used to be, but still, that doesn't account for the change. Based on my old rating I was estimated to be 1600; my actual rating is currently 2046.
I would note that back in the 70s my rating was around that level, but that's a long time ago, and I was playing a lot more regularly, studying openings, etc. as well as being 45-50 years younger.
I would say that rather, there is more potential for improvement to take place, because there is more uncertainty about the new player's ceiling. It is not certain that the new player can improve more than the one who has been playing for a while.
I also think that with some players, even if they have been playing for a while, there can be a "Damascene" conversion, where something they experience (including something they read/view) causes a fundamental change in the way they understand chess.
Chess is weird. I started about a year and a half ago, at 40 years old. I'm up to about 1500 rapid. I want to keep improving.
But, I'm not having any more fun than when I was 1300. Or 1100. My opponents are always rated roughly the same as me, and in general I'm always winning as much as I'm losing. It makes me wonder if I should stop studying chess, being a father and in my 40s,and just use that time to play more chess.
Getting better is cool and has been cool, but what's the point? I mean, even if I realize there's none really, I still will sit down and study today or tomorrow or whenever lol.
@SoullessPolack It's cool if you can apply them to other games (including chess variants such as blindfold chess). Even cooler when you use those skills to connect with others (or yourself in new ways).
That Bob example lowkey cracked me up 💀
What if I don't want to improve?
There are different brain “hacks” you can use. If someone needs to memorize a bunch of facts, they can use mnemonics for example.
To see the different possibilities on a chess board, you can start practicing expanding your awareness. Close your eyes and imagine a random number (or a letter) in the darkness in front of your eyes. If you can easily “see” two, or three numbers/letters next to each other, then try to expand that to four or five. Don’t “count” them left to right. Visualize them all at once.
A year ago I actually told my girlfriend to dump me if I ever played the London System again LMAOOOO
lmao thats pretty based man
The London System is amazing
I've been playing for 5 years and I stopped improving completely last year. I'm not going to say my rating because it's honestly embarrassing. I'm not an idiot, I scored 1590 on my SAT and I won't flex IQ cause that's cringe... but I think some people just aren't wired for chess.
Elo btw?
What's the elo ?
If it's 5 years you should atleast be 1700
@@Thechesslad1 my max elo was a little over 1400, (now it's lower than that, around 1300). And yeah, you would think that, but ig chess is different intelligence from verbal/mathematic
@taneridle6299 I spent only one year in chess and now in 1500 elo
Don't give up bro
There is a limit to improvement in such things, regardless of intelligence. The large majority of people even three standard deviations above average IQ, I'm talking at least 95 %, let alone less intelligent people- if they started chess really late (this means after 23-25), could not reach any FIDE title, even candidate master, no matter the dedication. Even something like 2000 is difficult. If you're really insistent on improving, you should set a manageable goal like 1500 elo, but it might still take tons more dedication than you've had now.
Sumation: dont be lazy and expect some magic potion to improve. Just like with anything, EFFORT is key. Stop looking for the easy way out.
I tried one hour puzzle rush each day, but it was too much, so now I do half an hour the step method each weekday and then analyze a game during the weekend for a few hours.
Only do 1 puzzle rush, going as far as you can. Chesstempo is the superior way for learning tactics and calculation.
What about someone that has a TON of time to study but rarely time to play a game? I frequently have down time at work (which I can do whatever with) but could get interrupted any second so games are impossible. I suppose I could do unrated but it's still really annoying to be winning & have to forfeit. I have multiple chessly courses & a few chessables. Do I need a more disciplined training plan?
Play bots
A nice exercise you can do is "guess the move" of real games. Helps if you have a model player whose games you want to go through, and then go through games of theirs - and then try to actively ask yourself at as many (ideally every) moves as possible what you would do if you were in their shoes. Great for improving all areas of the game, and one of the closest things you'll get to the real playing experience.
Why Does the London system receive so much hate?
Maybe 'cuz it's kinda like a Reverse French in which White gets the QB on a neat diagonal.
Cause it's cringe/braindead
Because its just chess and people can't accept it..too lazy to study how to counter it and call it cringe or whatever
It's a meme and it is funny
@@lukeanthony2992 Or maybe they just don't have enough time. There are significant opportunity costs in studying chess.
No training = no improvement, simple as that. Same in every sport. I play golf. My handicap was dropping very fast as I learned how to play and was training a lot, then it stopped aroud 20 it was becaming more and more difficult to improve so I gave it up and started playing just for fun. There's always a plateu and law of diminishing returns, where each hour of training will yield less and less gains and it takes HUGE amount of time and systematic & organized effort to achieve the "holy grail" level in given discipline e.g. HCP 0 in golf or FM title in chess. And even this holy grail does not put you in the best, coz best golfers have even lower HCP and in chess there are IMs and GMs and super-GMs. At certain point individual talent also helps, but it just moves the plateu level a bit further.
Works with any goals, actually
Have you considered applying for the candidate master title? Since your peak rating is well over 2200, I’m sure it’ll be approved!
I could, but honestly in Australia where I live, CM is pretty meaningless, since there are so many players who are 2000 (and some even lower rated) who have CM from scoring 50% at our regional zonal and getting the title. So for that reason I just don't really care for it.
@@SamAsakaChessI think CM title doesn’t make much sense. there is one CM titled guy in my club , but he is only 1800 ish.
What about someone who averaged 2 hours every single day for 10 years straight? Someone who has tried chess coaches, books, chessable, videos and every other resource under the sun? Someone who begun making their own videos in hopes it would help there chess(vocally talking about their ideas). What if that person regressed if anything?
Is this something you've experienced yourself?
@@SamAsakaChess yes. Though, it deserves a little more explanation and nuance then I can give in the comment section.
How much is you're elo
If you're above 2000
That's 99% you're maximum potential @sporegazm
@@Thechesslad1 1800 elo
@@sporegazm well you're still in the top 1%
But I suggest try tp Fond you're biggest weakness and fix it
If you are watching this video (or any other of course) you are not improving 🙂
this is the harsh reality of chess improvment
I just go after my opponent's king when I play. I'm hardstuck 1100 but at least I enjoy it
I believe like 95% of people can surpass that below 1200 elo range
Trust me I was at the same elo as you last year
I was so close to 1200 then I went back to 1000 and quit chess for 5 months
Once I got back in january I focused on puzzles almost everyday I didn't surpass 3 games per day
I analysed them just to see where I missed tactics and where my blunders were
By April I was at 1400 elo
And now I'm at 1500
Trust me the right plan with consistency is the key always
At, the end of the day, there is no trick to improvement, just studying and practicing chess a lot, if you aren't studying and practicing enough, you will not improve.
Meh. I'd wager basic value plays a pivotal role here. It's even like your experience in highschool right, there were tournaments going on, you probably had some friends where chess was a huge part of the relationship; there were so many emotional factors working if your favor to develop good habits. Of course basic effort and attention is important, but I'd wager for a lot of the cases you're describing, these people don't actually want to get better, and oftentimes they aren't even aware of that.
Yeah, definitely I think in some of my younger years played a role. The period I described in this video I though there was actually very little I had in my local environment in terms of friends that played chess, or a chess scene in general, as my family moved from Australia to Japan - and Japan is not exactly known for having many strong players, or tournaments for that matter. So I would say I kind of improved in spite of those circumstances. But yeah that's an interesting point you say about people not actually wanting to get better (and being unaware of it), I would say there are certainly cases where thats true.
THAT LONDON SYSTEM SLANDER😂😂😂
RUclips can make you 1600 elo fide. After that it's only yourself.
His girlfriend left him because he plays the London. That's freaking hilarious.
Solid advice. Regular habits trump grandios plans. Subscribed :)
Nobody is willing to just state plainly that innate IQ largely determines your ceiling. Chess is all abstraction, working memory, it’s straight up IQ. Plain and simple. Crystallized knowledge or lack thereof creates play in the joints, but the parameters of individual potential are set.
Plenty of people with high IQ suck at chess
IQ certainly helps but it’s not enough in and of itself
😂 Girlfriend dumped him after she found out he plays the London!
People don't improve because they play blitz. That's all there is to it
Definitely a piece of the puzzle
Very definitely. I'm sure it's not applicable at the top of the pyramid, but lower down people are not as good at playing endgames as they used to be at similar ratings. I also find that when they reach complex positions, they are not prepared to do 10-15 minutes hard analysis of concrete lines. Both of these I ascribe to largely playing blitz/bullet.
play against computer 2500+ for a month or two. you lose every game. then go back to playing humans, see how you improved.
facts
when you play the London system with white and caro-cann or semi-slav with black, you're not a chess player but a checkers player in disguise.
Isn't that the best strategy for a low rated player though? To play something simple and focus on fundamentals?
Magnus and Alireza play the London System
@@consciousmassofatoms so what? when you play chess often and checkers occasionally you are still a chess player.
@@paulgoogol2652 They’re quite literally playing chess when playing the London System, though? The analogy especially falls through considering it’s been played at the highest level
I am 1900
Because most people have "normal" memory ability, the best chess players got incredible memory and just gets better and better the more they play and use computer programs to analyze.
fact: stop watching chess videos, oh wait... 🥲