I'm speechless
Any tips for improving???
Sort:
A facepalm emote and a "speechlesshappy" response isn't really going to disprove the very concrete example that I gave.
21 hrs ago
0
#44
I'm speechless because
1. I didn't mock your name. I just made a mistake, for which I'm sorry. Your nick makes me think of the bird name: "magpie". It was unintentional.
2. You can't give M. Carlsen's case to prove a rule because he is more of an exception than a repetitive pattern. I was trying to discern a pattern, a principle that could be applied to the majority of people, but not to geniuses and prodigies.
jon-paul-the87 wrote:
You can't give M. Carlsen's case to prove a rule because he is more of an exception than a repetitive pattern. I was trying to discern a pattern, a principle that could be applied to the majority of people, but not to geniuses and prodigies.
Well okay then. Take any other GM or IM or FM or even CM. There are tens of thousands of those, and probably not all of them are "geniuses and prodigies". But what they do share in common is that they were all rated 1000 (or under) after 3-6 months, and improved more than 1200 points from that level. It took them years and years of hard work.
I think the truth is brutal:
You can only improve by about 200-maximum 300 rating points in relation to your starting "peak".
I think if you start as a total beginner rated 500, there is much room for improvement. I think everyone can get to 1600 with the right training.
The point is that "your starting peak" is incredibly vague. What does that even mean? The guy can define it any way he wants, just so it fits that crazy rule he invented.
1. First, I didn't "invent" anything. I'm just paraphrasing IM Dawid Czerw's words.
2. By "starting peak" I mean your rating after 3-6 months everyday practice on chess.com, the time varies depending on the player, of course, the moment when after a steady progress you first time get to the point where your rating stops going up.
So, in my and IM D. Czerw's opinion, from that moment on, you can only progress roughly 300 points.
And Magipie, please don't be disrespectful just because you have a higher rating. That's unreasonable.
If this is the case, that's obviously untrue.
Magnus Carlsen started playing chess at the age of 5, started going to kids' tournaments at the age of 8. Whatever was his rating after 3-6 months, it must have been quite low. It took him 7 years (!) to reach 2000 at the age of 12, and then in the next 6 years he improved by a further 700+ points. All in all, from his "first peak" he certainly improved by at least 1500+ points, not 200 or 300.
I don't think any IM would say something that's so blatantly false. The only possible explanation is that you misunderstood something.
And please, don't mock my name. It's not "Magipie".