I've noticed some people are playing about five games at a time and others are playing in the hundreds. I wonder if it speeds up the learning process playing a lot of games, if one has the time, of course. The people playing in the hundreds are probably spending only seconds on each one, while the people playing, say, twenty are spending a few minutes, especially in difficult positions. I myself spend on the average about a minute a move, tho sometimes i'll stop and set a position up on by board and try out several lines, but that's the exception. Also, I personally could never play over a hundred games at a time without getting a little dizzy. I just wondered if those who do so, do it for learning reasons or just because it's fun, which is ok too.
Originally posted by buddy2Over 100 games? I did it because it was possible, but mainly due to a severe addiction to RHP.
I've noticed some people are playing about five games at a time and others are playing in the hundreds. I wonder if it speeds up the learning process playing a lot of games, if one has the time, of course. The people playing in the hundreds are probably spending only seconds on each one, while the people playing, say, twenty are spending a few minutes, esp ...[text shortened]... dered if those who do so, do it for learning reasons or just because it's fun, which is ok too.
I'm not a fast mover, except in known openings and endgames. On average I play 20-30 moves a day - some are forced moves and combinations, and take only a second or two, others take several minutes, complex positions can take more than an hour to analyse.
I used to have a large number of 0/1 day timeout games, and it was very tough to cope, but lately I've only been opting for 7-21 day timeouts, in which I will try to move at least once or twice a week.
I would like to reduce the number of games I play - but just can't seem to resist the next challenge/tourney/clan fight, etc that comes along.
When I first started playing so many games, I could only remember one or two standout games, but over time, I've found that my memory for games and positions has improved (if not my chess playing ability). So now when I bring up a game, I usually recognise it, and all the main elements, straight away - which is useful for avoiding blunders.
I don't know whether playing so many games will improve my ability. But I would like to get to the point where I feel each move is "optimal" rather than "pressured" by time restraints.
I checked your stats, Gatecrasher. Glad to hear from one of the higher rated player. I noticed you were all the way up to the 1800's at one point, then dropped a little. Maybe because you were playing too many games at once. I don't know. You said you were addicted. I think an "enthusiast" would be a b etter choice of words, since playing a lot of chess isn't like taking drugs or gambling away your life savings. And I notice you also were not sure playing so many games was helping improvement. Which is my main point: Nobody has done any measurable testing to find the best way to improve. Some say tactics, some say the endgame, some say just play, some say study half your time, etc. Some say it depends on your native intelligence or memory or a combination of all these. Like you, i didn't play chess for over twenty years. When I came back I discovered I was playing over 200 points higher than I was when I quit. (USCF rating). In other words, I got better by not playing!
I am a working stiff, and I find that one or two games is optimal. I have time to goof around with the Analyze board and maybe even jot down some ideas about how the next few moves might go. If I were retired, I would have more time for chess and would likely want to have about five games going.
A massive amount of games won't improve your skills,IMO.You wouldn't have the time to learn anything from them.Keep the gameload somewhere between 15-25.That way you always have a move to make-->keeping it fun.And you have time to think about your moves--> improving your skills.Use the analyse board function,or your own board at home.Actually think about your move.How does it change the current position?Why is that better for me?What can my opponent do?Write these thoughts down.Then,and this is very important,after the game analyse it.Get your notes out and compare what you thought with what actually happened.If you lost,where did you go wrong?If you won,where did your opponent go wrong?Did you miss any tactics?Did your opponent?Etc...
Certified way to improve your chess skills: study tactics,that's most important.Study endgames,second most important.Then study the ideas behind the openings you play and only after that study some variations.You need to know the 'why' before you can learn the 'how'.When you're reasonably good at all that(or you're sick and tired of it all),it's time to take a closer look at middlegames.Things like how the pawnstructure tells you how to conduct the middlegame,bishops vs knights,that stuff.
When you've done all that,send me a message.Just so I won't challenge you by mistake,I have no desire to get destroyed on the board 😉
Sir Lot.
I'm retired so my optimum load might be around twenty. Who knows? Sir Losealot is of the in-depth opinion. Also, the tactics, endgame, ideas behind the openings, then lines opinion. But that's what he does and (according to him) what makes him good. Some other people out there might have a slightly different agenda on what makes THEM good or not so good. Maybe playing five games and studying them in depth might be the best of all--but not so much fun. Strange how no chess federation has actually sponsored a test with roughly equal players to find out the best way to improve. I've found that the one thing all chessplayers have in common is a thirst for improvement. They know that winning is more fun than losing and they want to win as much as possible.