how many games a day?

Sort:
TheBazookaJoe
I’ve been reading about how one of the focal points of getting better in Chess is by playing more games. I’ve seen some higher level players say no more than 2 longish games a day (30 min games) while others are fine with multiple 15/10 games in a day.

Is there a sweet spot? I try to play 1-2 games a day but I go back and analyze each to try and understand where I played strong and where I can use improvement.

Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!
Habanababananero

I would say less games and more studying, analyzing and solving tactics puzzles will most likely be better.

So depending on how much time you have available, about 1-5 games a day and at least the same amount of time or more spent on puzzles, studying and analyzing.

So if you have about one hour, then do a couple puzzles to warm up, play one 15|10 game, analyze the game, do one lessons here on chess.com for example.

If you have 2 hours, maybe do a little more tactics, play two games, analyze, study some endgames.

If you have three hours, some tactics, 2-3 games, analyze, go through an annotated master game.

Something like that is what I try to do, but of course the study "program" I have is quite flexible and these are just examples.

Now I am going to try another method to improve my endgames. I'll start going back to the games where I had a winning or drawn endgame that I managed to lose. Get to a point in the endgame where I was still winning or drawing and try to play it out against the computer from that point on. There is that option under the analysis tab, when you go through the games. I am hoping it will help me improve my endgames and avoid unnecessary losses.

TheBazookaJoe
Habanababananero wrote:

I would say less games and more studying, analyzing and solving tactics puzzles will most likely be better.

So depending on how much time you have available, about 1-5 games a day and at least the same amount of time or more spent on puzzles, studying and analyzing.

So if you have about one hour, then do a couple puzzles to warm up, play one 15|10 game, analyze the game, do one lessons here on chess.com for example.

If you have 2 hours, maybe do a little more tactics, play two games, analyze, study some endgames.

If you have three hours, some tactics, 2-3 games, analyze, go through an annotated master game.

Something like that is what I try to do, but of course the study "program" I have is quite flexible and these are just examples.

Now I am going to try another method to improve my endgames. I'll start going back to the games where I had a winning or drawn endgame that I managed to lose. Get to a point in the endgame where I was still winning or drawing and try to play it out against the computer from that point on. There is that option under the analysis tab, when you go through the games. I am hoping it will help me improve my endgames and avoid unnecessary losses.

This is great! Thank you so much for the insight here. I really do appreciate it!

mongemaconha
AngelKawaIii wrote:

You join chess.com in 2012.You are an old player

So in your conception, if someone create a acc today but only play a game in 2030, they'll be an old player at their first game in 2030? Lol, an old acc and an old player are different things. He's not playing since 2012

Habanababananero
mongemaconha kirjoitti:
AngelKawaIii wrote:

You join chess.com in 2012.You are an old player

So in your conception, if someone create a acc today but only play a game in 2030, they'll be an old player at their first game in 2030? Lol, an old acc and an old player are different things. He's not playing since 2012

People don’t stop ageing, even if they don’t play chess.

(My attempt to make a joke.)

mongemaconha
Habanababananero wrote:
mongemaconha kirjoitti:
AngelKawaIii wrote:

You join chess.com in 2012.You are an old player

So in your conception, if someone create a acc today but only play a game in 2030, they'll be an old player at their first game in 2030? Lol, an old acc and an old player are different things. He's not playing since 2012

People don’t stop ageing, even if they don’t play chess.

(My attempt to make a joke.)

Solid point, the weirdest part is that you increase your chances of getting a-trophy just by being an old player, even if you don't play chess

Habanababananero
mongemaconha kirjoitti:
Habanababananero wrote:
mongemaconha kirjoitti:
AngelKawaIii wrote:

You join chess.com in 2012.You are an old player

So in your conception, if someone create a acc today but only play a game in 2030, they'll be an old player at their first game in 2030? Lol, an old acc and an old player are different things. He's not playing since 2012

People don’t stop ageing, even if they don’t play chess.

(My attempt to make a joke.)

Solid point, the weirdest part is that you increase your chances of getting a-trophy just by being an old player, even if you don't play chess

I never figured out why anyone would care about the trophies. I care about chess, not cartoonish images of trophies that much.

mongemaconha
Habanababananero wrote:
mongemaconha kirjoitti:
Habanababananero wrote:
mongemaconha kirjoitti:
AngelKawaIii wrote:

You join chess.com in 2012.You are an old player

So in your conception, if someone create a acc today but only play a game in 2030, they'll be an old player at their first game in 2030? Lol, an old acc and an old player are different things. He's not playing since 2012

People don’t stop ageing, even if they don’t play chess.

(My attempt to make a joke.)

Solid point, the weirdest part is that you increase your chances of getting a-trophy just by being an old player, even if you don't play chess

I never figured out why anyone would care about the trophies. I care about chess, not cartoonish images of trophies that much.

i don't care as well, it was a joke (i tried, a-trophy/atrophy lol). but thinking again it doesn't seems right at all, sorry everyone who has atrophy

TheBazookaJoe
mongemaconha wrote:
Habanababananero wrote:
mongemaconha kirjoitti:
Habanababananero wrote:
mongemaconha kirjoitti:
AngelKawaIii wrote:

You join chess.com in 2012.You are an old player

So in your conception, if someone create a acc today but only play a game in 2030, they'll be an old player at their first game in 2030? Lol, an old acc and an old player are different things. He's not playing since 2012

People don’t stop ageing, even if they don’t play chess.

(My attempt to make a joke.)

Solid point, the weirdest part is that you increase your chances of getting a-trophy just by being an old player, even if you don't play chess

I never figured out why anyone would care about the trophies. I care about chess, not cartoonish images of trophies that much.

i don't care as well, it was a joke (i tried, a-trophy/atrophy lol). but thinking again it doesn't seems right at all, sorry everyone who has atrophy

I came back to this thinking there was more insight, and all I saw were jokes being made lol! I love it!

aryaman_bha

Hi everyone

EndgameEnthusiast2357

Anywhere from 0 to 80. Whatever I feel like. No pattern.

GooseChess

Playing a lot of chess will make you improve quicker, however you'll lose rating points compared to when you put all your energy into 1 or 2 games a day. So if training, play for a few hours or all day if you really want. But when rating climbing, less is more, and often the faster way to climb the later.

TheBazookaJoe
GooseChess wrote:

Playing a lot of chess will make you improve quicker, however you'll lose rating points compared to when you put all your energy into 1 or 2 games a day. So if training, play for a few hours or all day if you really want. But when rating climbing, less is more, and often the faster way to climb the later.

Good point. That's why I like to stick to maybe 2 games a day at most and try to analyze them after. It's been working so far, but I know I have a long way to go lol.

744826shivam

Okk

KeSetoKaiba
TheBazookaJoe wrote:
I’ve been reading about how one of the focal points of getting better in Chess is by playing more games. I’ve seen some higher level players say no more than 2 longish games a day (30 min games) while others are fine with multiple 15/10 games in a day.
Is there a sweet spot? I try to play 1-2 games a day but I go back and analyze each to try and understand where I played strong and where I can use improvement.
Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!

It depends on what your chess goals are, your stamina for playing good chess for your level and your personal tolerance for variance. There is no "sweet spot" for everyone; there is only an amount which works well for you at a certain point in time.

The more chess you play, then the more experience you'll gain and the more patterns you'll be exposed to. However, play too much and you risk burnout, or playing suboptimal chess due to mental fatigue.

If you answer your preferences to the questions above, then perhaps I could estimate a better amount of time for your chess based on your answers.

TheBazookaJoe
KeSetoKaiba wrote:
TheBazookaJoe wrote:
I’ve been reading about how one of the focal points of getting better in Chess is by playing more games. I’ve seen some higher level players say no more than 2 longish games a day (30 min games) while others are fine with multiple 15/10 games in a day.
Is there a sweet spot? I try to play 1-2 games a day but I go back and analyze each to try and understand where I played strong and where I can use improvement.
Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!

It depends on what your chess goals are, your stamina for playing good chess for your level and your personal tolerance for variance. There is no "sweet spot" for everyone; there is only an amount which works well for you at a certain point in time.

The more chess you play, then the more experience you'll gain and the more patterns you'll be exposed to. However, play too much and you risk burnout, or playing suboptimal chess due to mental fatigue.

If you answer your preferences to the questions above, then perhaps I could estimate a better amount of time for your chess based on your answers.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I really appreciate it. My goals are to reach 1000 in rapid. Once I reach that goal I would really like to increase that to 1500. I try to avoid burnout by playing 1-2 15/10 matches per day. After I do that, I’ll review each game. As of now, I am noticing a pattern with my blunders. I tend to focus more so on offense than defense, and I am noticing that I am moving too quickly.

I have a limited amount to play per day, so I’ve began to play daily chess throughout the day but really focus on the live games towards the evening when I have spare time to allocate towards it. I also try to get in my puzzles during the day as well and since I’m free, I will focus on puzzles and lessons until I’m “capped”.

SnowDae

My goal is OTB and since those are 4 hours per game i practice by training/studying 5 hours per day, i don’t know how i will survive a 4 hours game if i play 1-2 rapids per day

KeSetoKaiba
TheBazookaJoe wrote:

...My goals are to reach 1000 in rapid. Once I reach that goal I would really like to increase that to 1500. I try to avoid burnout by playing 1-2 15/10 matches per day. After I do that, I’ll review each game...

I have a limited amount to play per day...

Okay, let's work on the 1000 rating goal first. 1500 might be a good goal for longer-term, but there is a huge difference between a 1000 rated player and a 1500 rated player. As rating goes up, the amount of knowledge increased dramatically, so I'd say the amount of chess information a 500 rated player knows is less than a 1000 rated player, but not a massive gap; 1500 to 1000 knows much more and then of course a 2000 knows a ton more than a 1500 and a 2500 likely knows a crazy ton more than the 2000. I'll say that 1500 is still a reachable goal, but it will take a long time to reach and you'll probably need a plan with goals of intervals of 100 or 200 rating points at a time, so work towards 1000, then 1100, then 1200 and so on until you eventually reach 1500.

As for your time control and number of games, I like your time control; this seems reasonable. The number of games might also be good, but seems a bit low if you want to reach 1500 (or even 1000) rating anytime soon. Think of it this way, without rating numbers, becoming a much better player requires much more experience and much more pattern recognition. You are likely to increase these the more you play and 1-2 games per day isn't a ton.

1-2 games of that time control per day is unlikely to cause burnout. If you have limited time, then that is different. Maybe you'll have to stick with 1-2 games per day (or mix in Daily games like you have), but huge progress isn't likely to come quickly.

Even if you win both of your games for the day (and your rating is stabilized, so you gain roughly 8 points per win), then this is only a rating increase of 16 points for the day. If you go undefeated for 5 days in a row at this pace, then you still won't have enough to gain 100 rating points. Worse is that this example is extremely unlikely as you are more likely to get something like a win and a loss and the rating will barely change at all for the day. If you don't mind progress being slow, then stick with this pace of 2 games per day, but if you want a chance at reaching your rating goals relatively quickly (few months or few years), then you'll probably need to be playing more often. Even just playing 3 or 4 games could theoretically cut your time in half if it helps you reach your goals twice as fast.

TheBazookaJoe
KeSetoKaiba wrote:
TheBazookaJoe wrote:

...My goals are to reach 1000 in rapid. Once I reach that goal I would really like to increase that to 1500. I try to avoid burnout by playing 1-2 15/10 matches per day. After I do that, I’ll review each game...

I have a limited amount to play per day...

Okay, let's work on the 1000 rating goal first. 1500 might be a good goal for longer-term, but there is a huge difference between a 1000 rated player and a 1500 rated player. As rating goes up, the amount of knowledge increased dramatically, so I'd say the amount of chess information a 500 rated player knows is less than a 1000 rated player, but not a massive gap; 1500 to 1000 knows much more and then of course a 2000 knows a ton more than a 1500 and a 2500 likely knows a crazy ton more than the 2000. I'll say that 1500 is still a reachable goal, but it will take a long time to reach and you'll probably need a plan with goals of intervals of 100 or 200 rating points at a time, so work towards 1000, then 1100, then 1200 and so on until you eventually reach 1500.

As for your time control and number of games, I like your time control; this seems reasonable. The number of games might also be good, but seems a bit low if you want to reach 1500 (or even 1000) rating anytime soon. Think of it this way, without rating numbers, becoming a much better player requires much more experience and much more pattern recognition. You are likely to increase these the more you play and 1-2 games per day isn't a ton.

1-2 games of that time control per day is unlikely to cause burnout. If you have limited time, then that is different. Maybe you'll have to stick with 1-2 games per day (or mix in Daily games like you have), but huge progress isn't likely to come quickly.

Even if you win both of your games for the day (and your rating is stabilized, so you gain roughly 8 points per win), then this is only a rating increase of 16 points for the day. If you go undefeated for 5 days in a row at this pace, then you still won't have enough to gain 100 rating points. Worse is that this example is extremely unlikely as you are more likely to get something like a win and a loss and the rating will barely change at all for the day. If you don't mind progress being slow, then stick with this pace of 2 games per day, but if you want a chance at reaching your rating goals relatively quickly (few months or few years), then you'll probably need to be playing more often. Even just playing 3 or 4 games could theoretically cut your time in half if it helps you reach your goals twice as fast.

Thank you so much for this. I do try to mix in daily games with the time constraints I have outside of Chess and it does seem to help me as I have more time to focus on each move and why I'm making that move.

I have been comfortable playing 1-2 games per day, but I do feel part of the reason why I play only 1-2 is to allow myself to analyze my games after to see where I go wrong. Which is a ton when it comes to narrowing my focus more so on attacking and not paying attention to what moves my opponent is making. I'd like to double that if I could. Same time control and get 4 games in a day if possible. Would you suggest I focus on making this my goal? I would like to improve quicker and I feel as though I could make some changes to match the added games each day.

Eventually, I'd like to get back to OTB as I used to play on my chess team in high school and found it extremely satisfying, and by playing online, I'm hoping it'll only help with my OTB play as well.

arosbishop

In OTB it is mostly long reflektion times. Go for two 30 min÷30 a day and analyze and study what went wrong. Go through commentated modern players games.