Highly Effective Strategy To Increase Chess Ratings

Would you like to quickly increase your chess rating?  I have discovered an effective way how to double rating in a short span of time. Of course, chess knowledge and experience play an important role in your every game but coupled with a clever strategy it quickly increases your rating.

How do I do it?  Simple, I challenge those players with superior chess ratings (say 300 to 500 points above) and play a kind of game like I have never played before. However, this is applicable only for those who already developed great confidence in their games by having gone through a lot of battle experience.

My guiding principle is the fact that not all players in the higher levels can sustain good form of play all the time --weak players are also present even in higher bracket and those are the viable targets in this exercise. There's nothing wrong in doing it and nothing illegal involved --just a clever innovation by an ambitious low ranking player. There's nothing to lose either but you have everything to gain should you prevail even for a few games. You would be amazed to see how huge chunk of points are chopped off from your opponents' rating and added to yours --that is, if you have what it takes to stand your ground against much superior players. Try it!

Alright, but... wouldn't that just transform the person following the strategy into one of those "weak players  in the higher category"? Seems better to use the rating as it is supposed to be used: finding players of roughly equal strength.

I'm sure your strategy works fine otherwise, I just played two games each against two players of some 2100-2200 strength, against one of them I lost both games which gave me -5 rating. The other player timed out both of our games after 10 moves giving me +27 points.

Personally I prefer to play players of different strengths but good luck with you rating hunt

I'll wait for you to hit 2000, seeing is believing. My own  experience with  new openings vs. players +200 pts higher than myself has been mostly dismal. BTW even at 1600 you can't double your rating (unless you're the latest and greatest chess engine I suppose) but even going up a few hundred pts would be more convincing than just taking your word for it.

Playing skilled players is long known as a major way to improve your game. If you actually get rating point by beating good players it's very legitimate. If you increase your rating by playing 50 lower rated players then your rating is inflated, and frankly you're wasting everyone's time. It's poor sportsmanship.

Over and over, I believe, two things improve your game more than anything else.

1) Tactics, tactics, tactics

2) Play players slightly better than yourself and analyze your games carefully, preferably with that better player.

Behavior change is key.

An analogy to this would be a fat person on a weight-loss program.  Typically => the ones who succeed are those who

- Push well beyond the boundaries of their current ability ( controlled muscle tearing, cardio till you feel you are dying! => maps to playing slow (> 60 min) games against STRONGER players... where you use up ALL of your time, calculating HARD even when you may tempted to hand-wave your way through tough positions...)

- have "a never say die" attitude and follow a strict daily routine. (practice with no "goof off days" or "rest days")

- Not succumb to temptation/bad habits ( eating forbidden foods => bullet chess, repeating the same stupid mistakes over and over again ...)

- get critiqued (personal trainers => chess coaches ) with constant feedback on technique and how to make your (thought) process more efficient.

All of these take serious attitude adjustment ... if you're the complacent type, you will continue to play chess in a mediocre manner ... or do anything that you are doing in life in a "not bad, but not good either" fashion. (unless you are already naturally gifted to do things well! :) ) 

Have you ever thought of drastically doubling your chess rating?

If I did, I'd be over 3,000...others would be over 4,000...some even over 5,000.

The bigger point, I think, is that online ratings are by definition suspect. I find it particularly hilarious those who have low live ratings but spectacular turn-based ratings.

Live ratings are almost quick time controls. Lots of tactical errors. Hopefully one makes fewer tactical errors when the time control is a day or longer.

And...with the help of a database, to be sure.

There are cheaters to be sure, but I don't think that's why there is a differnce overall in live and turn-based ratings for most players.

I didn't say cheating. I said database...which is allowed. You are naive if you don't think using a database for opening lines is the same as playing without.

It's not even databases -- it's just the difference in the games. In real life, I'll often play a few rounds of 5 minute chess to "warm up" before a real game. But I almost never win even playing against my kid. And while my son is a pretty decent player, I can still normally beat him OTB giving up a rook. But I can't take him in blitz, I just don't see things that fast anymore.

Do you use an opening book database when you play turn based chess here?

Can I just double my rating without it being drastic?

My opening knowledge is basic. If someone pulls out the Bird's, I read an article on the Bird's and then come back and play. I don't go look up specific lines on a database. Sometimes I'll read an article or see a game in a more familiar opening and decide to steer an opening in a way I haven't done 100 times before. I'm never letting the book play my game for me. 

Doesn't it bother you that your turn based rating is about 400 points higher than your USCF rating?

Just wondering. There are those with perhaps a 700 point (or more) delta. Seems a bit odd, doesn't it?

 From the last issue of Chess Life, Lev Alburt analysis of a 600 rated player playing really well against an FM who blundered a bishop late.  This comment is after move 50:

"The game is over.  In fact, Black should have realized this and resigned now (he was mated on move 56).  Understanding when there is no practical chance (say, less than one in ten thousand) and resigning--for your own sake, not your opponent's--is one of the signs of chess maturity."

Doesn't it bother you that your age in Mars years is about 38 years more than your age in Earth years?

Just wondering. There are those with perhaps a 70 year (or more) delta. Seems a bit odd, doesn't it?

On this point, I'm an example of someone with a higher turn-based rating than USCF, by quite a bit. In my case, I'm sure its because I use the game explorer to find better moves through the openings, and because I can tickle the pieces using the analysis board for middle game and end game decisions. Clearly, weak points in my OTB game are opening knowledge and calculation skills. Maybe the insinuation is that the rating difference is evidence of cheating, but not in my case. Maybe it happens, but it seems silly to take it that seriously, to me.

Nobody said anything about cheating. Just curious as to what the value of a turn based rating of 540 points above your USCF means?

Don't you feel queasy about that?

What are you on about?

Why would that make him feel queasy?

They're two different games.