Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
On 2+1 bullet I hover around 1900-2100 depending on the week. 10+0 I'm consistently 2100~
When I started playing chess I was like 600. I quickly made it up to around ~1200 and then got stuck for a while. Then it was like 6 or 7 years or so playing chess on and off. Would go up 100 or 200 points and then plateau for 6 months.
Also yeah most of the games are bullet. But I do have >1000 10+0 games
Damn. That’s a very solid rating. I feel that improve and plateau as well. Did you do any study or really just through playing games?
I study my 5 min and longer games. There's an open source chess game database where I input the games. I set it up so it runs stockfish and I can write annotations and notes.
I will go over each game and write notes on what I was thinking, potential things I could have done better, mistakes I made, tactics I missed, mistakes my opponents made, etc. That type of thing
Then after going through and writing a sort of summary of the game with a couple takeaway points I turn on the engine and go through a second time to see if my analysis was correct and see things I missed. One thing I learned very quickly that the engine makes you look like a dumbass 😅
Although from what I've read even people like Carlsen experience that.
Saving all my games in the database is useful because I can see my win rate in specific openings. So for example I'll play an opening like let's say French defense on White's side. I play the Tarrasch variation.
Here the typical response, and one I have a good win rate against, is 3 ... Nf6 which leads to the mainline. However, through looking at the opening statistics I saw I had a 30% win rate against 3 ... c5 (terrible compared to the 65% win rate against 3 ... Nf6)
So seeing this, I do some research on that specific line of the opening and I now have a response. Through this type of trial and error after game analysis you start to learn many sidelines of openings and you better understand the ideas and themes prevelant in those types of positions.
In addition to all that, I study openings using books. I play the same openings every opportunity I can. I always start with e4 and for example I have a response against the three most common moves.
Here I play the Danish Gambit
I have read a book about this opening, as well as studied it through engine and of course the post game statistics.
Against the Sicilian I have the Smith Morra (excellent book out there called "Mayhem in the Morra" I highly recommend)
And of course against the French I have the Tarrasch Variation which I outlined earlier in this comment. I try to stick to the same openings every game and I try to learn more about those openings. This way over time I've picked up many many sidelines of openings and I know the best move to strange or unusual sidelines.
So... to finally answer your question.
It's both. I study and I play. At the end of the day, you need to play otherwise you will never improve. However, you also cannot just play. You can play mindlessly for years and you will never get any better.
There are people online with tens of thousands of bullet games and they are rated 1000 still.
You need to study and analyze your games, as well as outside material, in order to be able to take that practice and internalize the lessons.
Dang dude, that’s some dedication. I’ve started playing a year ago and just reaching around 1000 now. Mainly blitz and bullet as with kids it’s hard to focus on longer games. I really enjoy puzzles though - not sure if that helps me much. Apparently my puzzle rating is 1750 for whatever that’s worth.
I find it really satisfying when I improve again though as I’ve definitely plateaued or taken breaks a few times. Any advice for someone at my level?