25 ( +1 | -1 ) how to increase 1500 ratinghey guys, my current rating is looming around 1500's.. what are the methods to increase my rating dramatically to like 1800-2000 and how long would it take? ive been hanging around 1500 long enough.. its time to move on
-Get yourself a bunch of mastergames, by former and todays great masters. -And take a real chessboard with pieces, (not computer) play thru these games and see how these great players reach the combimations, endgames and mating. -By yourself a good chessbook with endgames and study.
106 ( +1 | -1 ) I also notice......that your most recent games (and all your current games) are still with players with ratings below yours. From a purely practical "boost-the-rating" standpoint, you will get the most bang by defeating higher-rated players (though it should be said that, once your "provisional" period is over, you can play many games with low-rated players and move up by 1 pt for each win).
But as the notes above attest, this is not really the point. In this vein, I would recommend that you seek games against the most challenging opponents available. Your mini-tournament entry therefore makes sense, though I would have recommended a tournament where your rating falls at the low end of the range, rather than the upper end. Higher-rated players will challenge your imagination and force you to stare at that analysis board until your eyes fall out. But this will lead to the kind of improvement that matters.
28 ( +1 | -1 ) actuallyactually.. ive been in 1500 rating before joining gameknot, well experts estimate my rating between 1400-1700, and yes i am playing harder opponents atm, particularly around 1500 ratings as well.. but i am still new to this site, hey how do your get the analysis board?
37 ( +1 | -1 ) bunta, after you've opened up a game (yours or others), you'll see a list of menu items beneath the board. "Analyze the board" will open a separate screen with the current board position, and options such as backtracking moves, looking at the game from start to finish, etc.. It also allows you to move pieces to see how positions might evolve.
217 ( +1 | -1 ) Games are not helpful......unless their annotated. If you look at a bunch of master games, whether they're played by Kasparov, Anand, Tal, Capablanca, or Morphy, they won't help a 1500-player if you just print them from a database with no annotation as games at such a high level contain so many intricacies involved in setting up combinations, mating nets, positional binds, etc. that you will probably not recognize all or even most of the scope of the planning undertaken in those games. If you want to get a game collection, there are several that have been recently published and are done by the player whose games have been compiled. In addition to giving you better insight into the thoughts that went through the players mind during the game, these books often are more critical of the play of both sides than collections written by a third party (which often serve only to praise the games of the player whose games have been compiled). Two excellent collections published quite recently are "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal" by Mikhail Tal and "John Nunn's Best Games" by John Nunn. Also, Pal Benko recently published a collection of his games and problem compositions with IM Jeremy Silman which, though I have not seen it, I have heard is excellent.
In addition, two books that I found invaluable in breaking past that 1300-1500 wall were "The Amateur's Mind" and "How to Reassess Your Chess" both by IM Jeremy Silman. The thing I loved about "The Amateur's Mind" was that Silman would take positions from master games and give them to players ranging from 800 all the way up to 1800 and have them play the positions and discuss their ideas aloud so that they could be included with the moves. Silman then annotates these situations and explains what about the players thinking was good or bad and what needed to be changed. In addition, Silman points out what specific characteristic of the position should have been identified by the players.
117 ( +1 | -1 ) Improving ratingWhat are the components of a rating? One must be skill and at least one other the ratings of your opponents. I wonder if on average if people play opponents with higher ratings than theirs their rating will be artificially low. Bunta, you seem to play people of a wide range of ratings:).
I don't know enough to comment on skills.
But my rating was 1187 and I had played for over a year and thought I had improved but was disappointed that my rating had decreased. So I decided to set up a 5 player mini-tournament with a 50 point range around my rating. I thought if the majority of my games were against people of similar rating then my resultant rating would be more accurate. (I very much also want to keep playing with the people I usually play). I couldn't get enough players for the mt so I had to make the rating range wider. My rating is now 1240 so i think I have increased my rating without increasing my skills.
I think if i continue to set up mts with a rating 50 points around my rating then my rating will eventually stabilise at a more accurate level. But i really dont know if this is correct, it is just an experiment.
52 ( +1 | -1 ) alice02's thoughts about ratingsTheoretically it should not matter too much how much stronger/weaker your opponents are, although games against players in a similar region of ratings (+-50 points is quite a narrow range, I'd say - +-150 or even 200 should still be quite okay) should increase the accuracy of the rating faster than games with huge rating differences. Of course games with stronger players might be more instructive, particularly if one gets some comments from the opponent after the game.
50 ( +1 | -1 ) bonsaiI see you are a mathematician. Good.
I am not.
So I was laughingly struggling with the idea that if the sum of the difference in ratings of all my games = 0 then my rating will be accurate. But i gave up thinking mathematically when I tried to work out how i would practically apply that.
I agree about playing with stronger players. As a beginner I find it is much more fun and a better learning experience to be skilfully checkmated than to stumblingly discover that I have won a game against a much lower ranked player
49 ( +1 | -1 ) alice02The point I was making is relatively simple: if one plays games against people that are e.g. stronger by about 677 Elo points, then one is supposed to score about 1% of the possible points, this is however likely to take a while - this one win/these two draws in 100 games will take ages to materialise. On the other hand when playing people of similar strength there will be "useful" results (i.e. wins, draws, losses for both sides) somewhat sooner.
63 ( +1 | -1 ) bonsai - thanks for clear communicationYou see i was in a position where i had just dropped a rook - totally unnecessary. O how could I have missed that, I thought making my next move very carefyully - and my opponent responded by immediately taking the other rook without any kind of sacrifice.
I was laughing at myself - its an Aussie kind of humour - because if i can lose two rooks one after the other - how could i possibly be able to formulate any kind of mathematical idea about chess:)
I was thinking whether such mistakes are poor overall strategy or whether for a beginner checking is a separate skill that can be worked on separately. And so one's rating would increase.
I'm around 1500-1520 in GK. Here is my method of evaluating the rating. It is quite subjective, but works for me.
1. I try to keep rating, average opponent's rating and average rating of mine in close range. For example, if my rating is 1550, but my average opponent's rating is 1450, then it is too much boosted.
2. When reading potential opponent's rating, I do :
- If less than 50 games in total, ignore rating, but check recent games. - Take average of the three ratings mentioned earlier, give a slight weight to the average rating. - If the three ratings are too much different, say 100+, check recent games.
By following the above method, I was able to meet players around my strength level. I'm not good at methematics, and it is simpler than using some formula.