You have played a total of 7 games here. Give yourself a little more time, say at least 50 games before you start worrying about your rating.
You don't know where you will end up. You could have just run into some other up and comers. Look at this game against Computer Impossible. I would say your resignation was premature.
Those were real rating points you just blew off with your resignation.
You have played a total of 7 games here. Give yourself a little more time, say at least 50 games before you start worrying about your rating.
You don't know where you will end up. You could have just run into some other up and comers. Look at this game against Computer Impossible. I would say your resignation was premature.
Those were real rating points you just blew off with your resignation.
I had stuff to do, wasn't able to stay and complete this.
The thing is, it's not just here. I play regular OTB games at a chess club, and my performance against members with established ratings corresponds to about 1100. There's something I'm screwing up, and I think it's inability to calculate beyond one or two moves, but I'm not sure - maybe it's just lack of tactical motifs. I've narrowed the problem down to something to do with sharper positions, though.
Actual rating is a number that can be misleading at first, but the actual bad moves I must be playing really can't be, can they?
It's impossible to say what's your problem just based on what you tell but one potential reason I can suggest is that maybe you just haven't played lot/long enough. Reading about tactical motifs and basic strategy and doing exercises can help to pick up certain skills much more effectively than is possible by just playing but for some other skills there's simply no substitute for playing ton of games.
Becoming good at chess takes years of playing and practice so don't feel let down if you initially strugle.
I have a similar problem, pr0blem (lol, that username really suits the thread). My chess mentor rating is 2200+, and my positional understanding is not that bad. I have a tactics rating of (formerly) in the 1800s. Yet my games ratings, with the exception of Corrospondence Chess, are way under those two ratings. I'm still trying to sort out what the problem is.
My advice would be play slow time controls. Lay off the blitz. Try "online". Hit the tactics trainer hard and check out Chess Mentor. Keep playing and you will improve.
What you are missing is a good perspective on where you are now and a vision of where you want to be.
Rambling on about stuff is just stalling.
Tal recognized that strange smell in the air when a tactic was available.
VULPES, I have a similar problem. Long ago, I was told that I have a good grasp of theory (and I feel it's getting better), but that I don't see threats over the board. My tactics-seeking ability is pretty sharp, if I know there is a tactic lurking in the position (cue Mato Jelic saying, "And we have reached critical position of the game. You may wish to pause the video....").
Where is Mato when I need him?
This is me.
I know I'm missing something from my chess game. My low rating, on here and OTB, proves that. I'm just not sure what it is. I've learned the principles (develop, control the center, etc.), read Amateur's Mind to pick up positional concepts, done some puzzle books, played Tactics Trainer, etc. I don't want to act like I'm "entitled" to a higher rating after doing these things, but I feel like my playing strength should be higher than 1000-ish, especially when I see people with way higher ratings who don't know anything about positional play or openings. I'd like to get to 1500 level, but for some reason it just isn't happening. What gives?
What youre experiencing is nothing new. I had a student that read a couple of books, and was ready to take on the chess world. he crashed and burned at his first tournament. He was mad...upset...just didnt understand what happened?
I took him aside and told him that you can read a book on how to do brain surgery, but that doesnt mean you can actually do it.
Thats all it took for him to understand.
Oooh, I think I see what you're saying. Sort of like the same way that you only sort of grasp a math problem at first, but after going over the examples and problems, you begin to get an idea of how and why it works like it does.
What you are missing is a good perspective on where you are now and a vision of where you want to be.
Rambling on about stuff is just stalling.
My current goal is to make 1500-1600 area strength (average tournament player) and, only once I get there, to consider where I can aim for from there. I don't think I can give a good, objective idea of where I am now or why I am there, since how can a person who is flawed find their own faults? They can't, because they aren't aware of what those flaws are.
Let me tell you something. Something along the lines of 4 years ago I've played against a player who is rated 1100.
He would crush me, relentlessly. I stood no chance. He would fork my king and rooks with a knight - I wouldn't even see it coming. The only times I ever won against him was with napoleon opening.
I told him that I don't see his attacks - he said that this means that I'm stupid. And maybe that's the case for you (I don't know and don't want to instigate anything).
Although nowadays I will crush him 10 out of 10 games. Easily.
So you can analyse your games to see if you can trace back from where things were bad to where they went wrong, learn more and more from good authors or trainers. Basically learning new things you don't currently know, keep on an upward curve. Learning results in an improved rating.
Let me tell you something. Something along the lines of 4 years ago I've played against a player who is rated 1100.
He would crush me, relentlessly. I stood no chance. He would fork my king and rooks with a knight - I wouldn't even see it coming. The only times I ever won against him was with napoleon opening.
I told him that I don't see his attacks - he said that this means that I'm stupid. And maybe that's the case for you (I don't know and don't want to instigate anything).
Although nowadays I will crush him 10 out of 10 games. Easily.
Well, I'm not certainly not stupid in the conventional sense. I'd spend more time on that thought, but I wouldn't want to make you feel bad. ;)
Asimov, at one point, did say that he felt spoiled by the fact he was so intelligent that he never had to stop and think in most situations, getting him used to lazily coasting through life without properly stopping to learn. I feel like I might be the same way. (Or maybe it's just ADHD).
In any case, though, I'm mostly beyond that sort of stuff. Sometimes I do get a "nasty surprise," but it doesn't happen all the time to me like it used to. However, if we changed "basic fork" to "misplayed complicated, sharp position," that could be me.
Being too intelligent can be tough! Lol
You still have a lot to learn- you are missing very important things, both positionally, and tactically.
Have you tried analysing some of your games, e.g. this one?
I'm sure I am missing important things. Like others have said, I can gain as much book knowledge and play as much Tactics Trainer as I want, but until I actually start putting that knowledge into practice in standard time control games, I won't be able to get much out of it. I feel like that is the problem (or Pr0bl3m) that I created this thread to identify.
To answer that question: not yet, I'll try to get it done tonight. The urge to let Houdini look at it is strong, but I have to resist it, since even if it tells me the right moves, I won't get anything out of it. I'm guessing the loss had something to do with the weakening of the kingside by a3 and b4, which I felt like was a better alternative to b3, weakening the kingside dark squares (which could be indicative of another clear weakness - poor calculation), not to mention the fact there's probably some other, better move in that position I missed entirely - and now that I say that, Qd3 looks mighty attractive. Ahaha. Well, I sure do have a long ways to go.
[Edit: I said a3, b4 and b3 up there... haha, I'm an idiot, ahahaha. I meant h6, g5 and g6.]
I know I'm missing something from my chess game. My low rating, on here and OTB, proves that. I'm just not sure what it is. I've learned the principles (develop, control the center, etc.), read Amateur's Mind to pick up positional concepts, done some puzzle books, played Tactics Trainer, etc. I don't want to act like I'm "entitled" to a higher rating after doing these things, but I feel like my playing strength should be higher than 1000-ish, especially when I see people with way higher ratings who don't know anything about positional play or openings. I'd like to get to 1500 level, but for some reason it just isn't happening. What gives?
You simply don't get better by just reading books. You get better when you anlyze your mistakes and make sure you try not to do them again.
My little brother heard these words for me and ever since he's been on a steady way to become an high rated player.
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=929724656
Well, right off the bat I see that you don't understand some of the basics of the opening you played. One main theoretical aim (perhaps the most important) of the Caro-Kann is gaining freedom for the queen's bishop. When you played 5...e6 you made a serious theoretical mistake. The bishop needed to come out.
Oh, well, that makes sense. Never knew this, ahaha. It did keep giving me Pr0bl3ms trying to get it developed, but I never played for it (with a thought process along the lines of, "well, I'll just fianchetto it later," followed by the bishop never getting fianchettoed). I'm curious now, though. Where was the bishop supposed to go, f5 or e6? I'm thinking e6 because it looks safer there and adds more support to the d5 pawn, since it can get kicked back if I play it to f5* [not f4 as originally posted, because I'm stupid and can't get my squares right].
Maybe sometimes your losing from silly mistakes because material makes your vision blur, pr08l3ms? No offenaw.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
I know I'm missing something from my chess game. My low rating, on here and OTB, proves that. I'm just not sure what it is. I've learned the principles (develop, control the center, etc.), read Amateur's Mind to pick up positional concepts, done some puzzle books, played Tactics Trainer, etc. I don't want to act like I'm "entitled" to a higher rating after doing these things, but I feel like my playing strength should be higher than 1000-ish, especially when I see people with way higher ratings who don't know anything about positional play or openings. I'd like to get to 1500 level, but for some reason it just isn't happening. What gives?