Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexYou need to have targets in life if you want to achieve everything. Each 100 point gap in chess is a reasonable target. I have had a target of 2100 for some time now but have never succeeded in getting there.
Milestones are always good, and 1300 is what I would consider the first step towards playing the game a little bit seriously.
Of course getting there is one thing, staying there is another entirely.
Originally posted by Dragon Firelol guess now would be a bad time to say i'm approaching 2000 😉
You need to have targets in life if you want to achieve everything. Each 100 point gap in chess is a reasonable target. I have had a target of 2100 for some time now but have never succeeded in getting there.
Of course getting there is one thing, staying there is another entirely.
no way I'll stay there... just waiting for the drop to 1800 😛.
Good job by the way mr. thread creator 🙂.
Oh man... you've played almost 1000 games and still are stucked on the 1200s.... study the game a little bit, read some books (I recomend my Chess fundamentals) or stuffs in the net. Learn the opening principles and than start to study endings. If you are too laizy or dont have time for books, search for videos on youtube or buy a pc software like chessmaster or something (wich is better than internet videos). You will improve fast.
lol "if you're too lazy"
I am 😀
Well honestly my problem is I play way too fast and while I'm distracted (at work). If I'd be more patient and take more time studying the board, I'd probably be somewhere in the 1400-1450 range....
With that being said, I appreciate all the advice I've been given and appreciate any further advice/training I'm offered.
P.S. THANK YOU PETROVITCH! Petrovitch is a top 100 rated player who was nice enough to set up an endgame training for me, which is already helping.
Originally posted by stockton1984don't get me wrong, but that argument is just so lame. I don't know why every beginner just claims he'd be a lot stronger if he'd play seriously, yet none of them just doesn't do that.
Well honestly my problem is I play way too fast and while I'm distracted (at work). If I'd be more patient and take more time studying the board, I'd probably be somewhere in the 1400-1450 range....
there was something I've read in a forum like this, it was like "I'd be the best chess player in the world, only if I didn't blunder that much."
this and what you have told have very small difference. chess strength is so much about mental discipline and taking the game seriously, lacking those skills is a component of your weakness, it's not something external. so stop hiding behind those arguments.
Originally posted by stockton1984Don't get hung up on the ratings though. I have seen players blow an excellent position against a high rated player for no other discernible reason than their opponent had a high rating. I think the rating has become a psychological weapon in the chess player's arsenal.
..........until I get to 1300. lol
Ok ok I know it's not that big a deal to many of you, but I plan on advancing respectably far beyond that. This is the first step on my serious path to chess success!
I guess what I'm trying to say is yay, go me 😀
Personally, I would base accomplishment around looking at a position and finally understanding why a master player made a particular move and understanding how it fitted in with their overall plan.
Originally posted by diskamylI know a weak 1100 player who clams he can play a lot better in real life. He clams playing on the internet is diffrent from playing in real life.
don't get me wrong, but that argument is just so lame. I don't know why every beginner just claims he'd be a lot stronger [b]if he'd play seriously, yet none of them just doesn't do that.
there was something I've read in a forum like this, it was like "I'd be the best chess player in the world, only if I didn't blunder that much."
this and what yo ...[text shortened]... of your weakness, it's not something external. so stop hiding behind those arguments.[/b]
While he is correct to a point he plays such weak openings is clear that he lacks chess knowledge.
Anyway good post.