Anyone Played 1000 Games?

Wondering if a correlation to games played and rating. (It would make sense..)

I dont believe you. 

Thousands of games will get you to see threats w/e you dont have to analyze your games too deeply at that level.. . you know when you screwed up. 

Psychological studies in expertise and skill acquisition have shown that mere experience in a domain, however much, is not enough to eventuate high levels of performance. This is because mere experience does not require pushing oneself to the limits of performance, or to experience failures and dwell on them afterwards so as to find ways to avoid repeating them. The best way to make use of this knowledge is to play a game, and then before you play the next one, review the game you just played. Keep your eyes open for mistakes that you made, and then find a better move that you should have made. This will, in time, make you better, as you won't make the same mistakes again and again, which you might if you don't do this post-game analysis.

Mere Experience leads to a certain level, then higher levels require more in depth anaylsis.. The more you experience the more intuition and confidence you gain because fewer situations look foriegn.. . Assuming you play trying to win you'll go (Last time I...)
I was just trying to equate 1000 games with a base rating.

Harryz understood my question. He said "Ive played 1000 Games".

I have almost 7000 games (online)

woW

Have played over 5000 online.

Ive got almost 50!

First question : yes, me, I have played over 17.500 games since march 2010, or average 10 to 15 a day; sometimes none, sometimes over 40 a day and often more than say 5 to 10 with the same opponent in succession, blitz or bullet, I like it !

2. No, there is no correlation between number of games and rating.

3. I never analyze afterwards, just push the replay button.

4. Posts 5 and 6 are right.  I see the same situations on the board very often and become familiar with it, that makes playing easier, especially the openings, and is by far not boring, to the contrary !

5. My last clubrating in Holland was over 1650, my chess.com live chess standard is around 1500 now, and : blitz and bullet are around 1200-1250, and I am glad often above 1300, but not higher.  But :  PLEASURE !!!

6. Most important in this forum is the age of the player and the free time to play.      I am 79 and retired, have a lot of hobbies, still short of time !

If I count bullet, I have played approximately 70,000 games online since 1998. 3 0 accounts for the vast majority on ICC, FICS, Playchess, and Chess.com. 5 0 is close behind. My third most common time control is 1 0. My personal database, which contains 90+% of my blitz and correspondence, but very few, if any, bullet, now tops 57,000 games.

We debated deliberate practice in another thread. You would be welcome there.

I have played hundreds of thousands of games, blitz, standard, online, in parks, chess clubs and what have you. 

The " hundreds of thousands " by Frank remind me of Laszlo Szabo's book, called " 100.000 moves in 50 years " ( written in 1981, when he was 64 ).

Assume he played for 50 years, that should be approx. 60 games per year...

So we see again what computers and internet have made possible : far more games to play than in earlier days, compare my post number 11 ( about 17.500 games ) with the time of my weekly club-evening play !   I play since school time, but never had more than  that 60 per year.

By the way, Frank : hundreds of thousands of games ? 400.000 ? 700.000 ? Or is this just kidding ? Please explain ! 

@ quote 5, 6 and 13 : AYoung12, ImNotaFish and Ziryab : please have a look in the forum called : "Developing Intuition " by SniperClown, here on chess.com, about intuition and experience ! 

I easily play 10 online games a day , been doing it for 10 years, so that equates to 36,000 online games, probably a lot more. 

Most players have played many thousands of games.

It doesn't correlate well to rating.

Done. Thanks.

My rating would be higher if I had played fewer games.

+1 to that (unfortunately).