Question: at what point do you think a relative absence of theory becomes an active hindrance?
My theoretical knowledge of openings is very sketchy and shallow, my blunders are frequent, my moves are conventional and predictable, my combination play is appalling, put me in an endgame a bishop and knight to the good and I really would have to think desperately hard to remember how to go about achieving mate - and yet I know players who are emphatically superior to me whose theoretical understanding I have envied for years who are rated in the 1400s (and who can tear me apart with ferocious opening play at times). My personal impression is that 1750-rated players are a bridge too far for me, that that is where the gulf in class really sets in - 1200-1700 is nothing, that 1750 is the point where ratings matter, where theoretical knowledge comes into its own. It's the glass ceiling that marinakatomb broke through recently, but which most of us who are simply too busy or idle to expend time on enlarging our tactical, opening and endgame vocabulary and are simply doomed to never reach...I feel like I'm stuck in the stagnant pool where material blunders are still the deciding factor in every worthwhile game I win (or lose), and there is no real pride in attaining those kinds of victories.
It's good of you to say that, Smiffy, but like I say, I emphatically believe that ratings do not matter a jot between 1200 and 1700 - I think an opportunistic, intuitive, theory-light player like myself can only go so far, and after that our materialism and passive style of play is simply blown apart by the combination play you meet at 1750. It's like a solid object, or a black hole, you feel almost humbled when you meet it. I know players on here whose theoretical game is brilliant but who lose points through mid-week tiredness and so on, but their game exudes class in the one-off games that they concentrate on. They can raise their game because their opening, middlegame and endgame theory is a resource for them to draw on which the opportunists amongst us lack.
I recently became so frustrated with my stagnant game that I started experimenting with the Sicilian Wing Gambit again. I don't think it's helping much right now, and it does appear to be unsound, but hopefully it will improve my woeful positional game.
looking at your graph, I don't see a plateau. I didn't really see one at the time marinakatomb posted about said glass ceiling. maybe you're just having a little moment of self-doubt? it's very easy to lose sight of how much you've really being improving and start to feel like you're going nowhere. on such moments it's usually good to review a bit your past success. more often than not, you've come a long way.
for me, a while ago it felt incredibly difficult to beat 1400-players no matter how hard I tried to concentrate. now it's a breeze, and it takes a serious coma-blunder to get into trouble. yet I don't feel like I'd gotten better. but if I take a look at those games which back then felt like ok, it's really astounding how bad I was. I'm sure my current 'good games' will seem as bad to the eye of stronger players.
and although ratings might tend to increase more punctually than gradually, there's no abrupt points in excellence nor a glass ceiling. it's all in your head. there is no spoon. 🙂
Amaurote, I believe you are correct, or nearly so. Within the rating group from 1200 to 1750, most games are lost through gross blunders, usually simply leaving a piece en prise. Gross blunders on my part were certainly in evidence in your recent victory in our game--I gave up a couple central pawns without demanding compensation, and the rest was elementary technique on your part. The critical difference between those of us in the 1600-1750 range and those 1200-1400 is not chess skill, but slightly more attention and consistency. Those above 1750, on the other hand, generally seem to have some understanding of the game.
Indeed, 1750 on RHP may well transfer to 1600 USCF, which many strong players have identified as a critical milestone in chess improvement. For good reason, the USCF sets the rating floor of everyone under 1600 at 100, but once a player achieves a rating of 1600, the floor becomes 1400, and thereafter remains 200 points below the highest published rating. Once a player cracks these barriers, he or she might begin to claim the title "chess player".
That sounds very convincing, Wulebgr: I'd also like to say that it isn't the rating itself that dejects me, but the fact that I feel so conventional and insipid at the moment. For me this isn't a new feeling, either - I hear what wormwood is saying, and I can remember a time when 1600 felt as far off as 1800, but the difference is that I simply followed a continuum of opportunism and passive chess to its logical conclusion, or as near as damn it. The difference between 1400 and 1750 is usually one of concentration and taking time out. All my fundamental weaknesses remain the same, and that's what I find so frustrating.
Incidentally, Wule, I realize that I fluked that last game, and I fully expect you to beat me in the remaining one - you're a good example of a theoretically-astute player (I'd read your posts months before I played you, so I knew I was up against a superior player) who can and should break out into the 1800s and beyond like Marina did, whereas I'll no doubt be hitting the same invisible barrier in a year or so because I lack that theoretical understanding. I'm also far too afraid of the possiblity of chess taking over my pitifully small reserves of leisure time...bang goes another Sunday.
Originally posted by AmauroteYou're too kind.
That sounds very convincing, Wulebgr: I'd also like to say that it isn't the rating itself that dejects me, but the fact that I feel so conventional and insipid at the moment. For me this isn't a new feeling, either - I hear what wormwood is saying, and I can remember a time when 1600 felt as far off as 1800, but the difference is that I simply followed ...[text shortened]... ity of chess taking over my pitifully small reserves of leisure time...bang goes another Sunday.
I lost two games Friday through sheer haste--one, against a player whose position was terrible until I hung my queen. This in my first RHP tournament.:'(
Originally posted by AmauroteI know how you feel Ama. Most of us have a limit beyond which we won't move. A few will. But your graph looks good and shows continuous improvement, so keep at it.
That sounds very convincing, Wulebgr: I'd also like to say that it isn't the rating itself that dejects me, but the fact that I feel so conventional and insipid at the moment. For me this isn't a new feeling, either - I hear what wormwood is saying, and I can remember a time when 1600 felt as far off as 1800, but the difference is that I simply followed ...[text shortened]... ity of chess taking over my pitifully small reserves of leisure time...bang goes another Sunday.