Gent, if you saw players dare to enter complications in blitz, it is normal (I think). It might not be sound, yet the success rate of unsound attacks in blitz are relatively high. Once I (as White) was attacking the black King, with pawn on e5, Qh5, Bd3, and the f-file was open. I played Rf6?!? like a boss, and I win on time because he was too busy calculating.
You should try it Gent, but on blitz.
I watch their games online sometimes, and I notice that they can play blitz better than me playing a long time control game.
They make moves I wouldn't normally consider like complicating the game tactically in a way I would lose a piece even if I would think 5 min per move.
All this style looks so natural for them. I know the best way to learn something is to try it, but do you know any training method to become like them?
I'm not sure if they know too much theory and patterns or they just calculate all these variations on their own. Is anybody on that level here to tell me what is going on?
Yes, there is a specific method for getting to 2400, and I just figured it out myself, after twenty-five years of knowing how to improve, but not knowing WHY I couldn't break 2000. I now know why.
From 1600-2000, you're dealing with pretty much the same skill level of player, and the ratings there will trade a lot. Why? I call them "bottom-feeders," players who are 3000+ strength at ONE part of the game, enough to drag your rating down, but not enough to keep it down since they give you back your rating points.
In fact, I took a break from my 16+ hours a day of training because it is almost driving me *insane* now that I know exactly how to get to 2400, because it's like knowing you can become a classical pianist, but still having to practice scales and basics for hours a day, so that you internalize it.
The difference between a 2400 and a 2000 is depth of opening repertoire. The 2000 is booked up in his favorite line, but will get ambushed by all the sideline crap *until* he masters *all* of it. Example: you're an "expert" on the Ruy Lopez but then some bottom-feeder 1575 hits you with a Latvian, beats you in 15 moves, and just like that thirty rating points are gone. Then another does the Petroff, another plays 2...d5, another a Philidor, etc.
Once you get over 2000, your pool of opponents shrinks, their openings get sounder, so depth of understanding becomes the key rather than breadth of repertoire. To cross this line, you literally have to book up in EVERYTHING someone might throw at you. It's like training in a garbage dump. Here's an example of some of my training games in the opening:
*Bottom-feeder deviation
Rating Opening
1721 1. b3*
1808 1. e4 e5 2. d4*
1624: 1. d4 e5*
1772: 1. e3*
1725: 1. g3*
1694: 1. e4 b6*
1700: 1. d4 d5 2. b3*
etc. etc. etc.
These players have a horrible overall understanding of chess, but in that ONE line they've played forever, they are very tough to beat. Eventually, you'll see all these garbage lines, figure out coping strategies, and crush these players with superior tactics and technique, at which point you'll be over 2000, and your natural chess ability will determine how far you get.
Fischer read MCO cover to cover, which allowed him to cross the barrier, and once he got past 2000 he was 2600 in the blink of an eye.
Think of it as "latent heat," which is stored in water that becomes ice or steam. Water at 32 degrees is not the same temperature as ice at 32 degrees, nor is water at 212 degrees the same as steam at 212 degrees. From 1600-2000, players are adding tons of latent strength, but to move past that, that's where they need the theoretical understanding.
Those who have the theoretical understanding without the opening repertoire to match it tend to land in the lower end of the top ranks, while those who book up with the best wind up playing with the best.
Took me only thirty years to figure this out!
I watch their games online sometimes, and I notice that they can play blitz better than me playing a long time control game.
They make moves I wouldn't normally consider like complicating the game tactically in a way I would lose a piece even if I would think 5 min per move.
All this style looks so natural for them. I know the best way to learn something is to try it, but do you know any training method to become like them?
I'm not sure if they know too much theory and patterns or they just calculate all these variations on their own. Is anybody on that level here to tell me what is going on?