Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 24 May '13 17:22
    If, after 100 games one has not improved his/her rating, would you say it is a good idea to change the approach to studying chess?
  2. 24 May '13 17:24
    I think playing is an important part of learning, but studying your games afterwords is better learning. For me, at least...
  3. 24 May '13 17:26
    Originally posted by imbalances
    I think playing is an important part of learning, but studying your games afterwords is better learning. For me, at least...
    What about practicing chess technique?
  4. 25 May '13 20:22 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by hamworld
    If, after 100 games one has not improved his/her rating, would you say it is a good idea to change the approach to studying chess?
    I worry if my rating drops - it usually means i'm stressed, I've seen that with other players stress or a diversion wrecking there play. but i just reach my limit.

    It might mean to change your opening? I try to undermine openings i loose to often and find tactics that just i know...
    not sure what to suggest i see a few players on here who have fairly static ratings.
  5. 26 May '13 01:50
    Originally posted by e4chris
    I worry if my rating drops - it usually means i'm stressed, I've seen that with other players stress or a diversion wrecking there play. but i just reach my limit.

    It might mean to change your opening? I try to undermine openings i loose to often and find tactics that just i know...
    not sure what to suggest i see a few players on here who have fairly static ratings.
    When I say not making any progress, I mean in blitz chess.
  6. 26 May '13 01:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by hamworld
    When I say not making any progress, I mean in blitz chess.
    play on here then it will deepen your tactics or play vs a computer to iron out blunders, blitz makes your play shallow after a while and full of errors
  7. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    26 May '13 08:49
    Originally posted by hamworld
    If, after 100 games one has not improved his/her rating, would you say it is a good idea to change the approach to studying chess?
    Who are you playing? Are they generally stronger players than you are, or weaker, or about the same?
  8. 26 May '13 12:40
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Who are you playing? Are they generally stronger players than you are, or weaker, or about the same?
    Stronger.
  9. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    26 May '13 21:23
    Originally posted by hamworld
    Stronger.
    Does Hamworld refer to amateur radio? My call is AI3N if that means anything to you. BTW, if you are interested in improving your chess, why have you only made 14 moves total since October 2005?
  10. Standard member ChessPraxis
    Cowboy From Hell
    26 May '13 21:29
    Originally posted by hamworld
    If, after 100 games one has not improved his/her rating, would you say it is a good idea to change the approach to studying chess?
    If you're not sure of your gender, you have bigger issues than poor chess play to work out. 😕
  11. 26 May '13 21:44
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Does Hamworld refer to amateur radio? My call is AI3N if that means anything to you. BTW, if you are interested in improving your chess, why have you only made 14 moves total since October 2005?
    Is that a joke?

    Anyway, I do prefer blitz chess over correspondence chess.
  12. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    26 May '13 23:45 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by hamworld
    Is that a joke?

    Anyway, I do prefer blitz chess over correspondence chess.
    I think the post was serious from start to finish. My first thought of "hamworld" was that you might be a ham radio operator. And when you say "100 games" in this forum, most readers are going to assume that you played them here, and in the regular format.

    If that is not the case, then it would help if you provided some kind of context for the games. For instance, 100 blitz games is almost meaningless as a measure of progress, but other formats would probably yield a different opinion.
  13. 27 May '13 00:15
    Originally posted by Paul Leggett
    I think the post was serious from start to finish. My first thought of "hamworld" was that you might be a ham radio operator. And when you say "100 games" in this forum, most readers are going to assume that you played them here, and in the regular format.

    If that is not the case, then it would help if you provided some kind of context for the game ...[text shortened]... ngless as a measure of progress, but other formats would probably yield a different opinion.
    hamworld is short for Hamze's world. 05 was because hamworld was already taken

    Fair enough, though I don't have the patience and mental fortitude for correspondence chess.

    What if it were say, 1000 blitz games? Or pick any arbitrary number and say "after this long, if you are not improving there must be something wrong with your studying".
  14. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    27 May '13 00:36
    Originally posted by hamworld
    Stronger.
    In general, that's what you want if you're trying to improve. Just not so much stronger that you can't win 2-3 games out of 10.

    That covers strength of opposition. When you study chess, what specifically do you study?
  15. 27 May '13 01:05
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    In general, that's what you want if you're trying to improve. Just not so much stronger that you can't win 2-3 games out of 10.

    That covers strength of opposition. When you study chess, what specifically do you study?
    I guess I try to learn from my mistakes. "next time, don't make that move, or play this move to avoid getting into that bad position"

    If I'm studying chess, it's probably either openings or endgames...