after days of playing in april, mine is currently 466 and it does not progress over time.
Typical rating progression pace?
Sort:
h4java wrote:
Making progress is nice, but now that my rating is creeping up I notice that I must calculate moves a lot more now to keep up with opponents. It is nice to find strong moves, but it can be exhausting and time consuming too. These games were a lot lighter when I was an 800-rated player.
Pfhahaha I remember that feeling. That's exactly how I felt at some point. The thing is, with practice you get better at calculation so a lot of things that require a lot of conscious effort now will be easy in the future (also, some things your brain will just instantly subconsciously calculate). You will also get better at knowing what to calculate and when to stop and look for winning blows a little more carefully.
wakaaaaaaaaaa192 wrote:
I started playing 3 weeks ago and i'm rated 950 blitz and my record is really good
If this is true, if you really started playing chess 3 weeks ago and you have the ratings and the stats that you have then you are very talented for this game. Your stats suggest that you are even better than your ratings suggest, that your ratings haven't stabilised yet.
edomage wrote:
dude0812 wrote:
That's about my rate of improvement. That's about how I improved when I started playing chess a couple of years ago. After almost 4 years I am 2016 rapid, 1819 blitz as of the moment of writing this comment. That's probably more or less what you can expect as well. There are people who are better than me and they reached 2200 after 3 years, maybe you are on their track, that is quite possible.
im not sure that i could climb that high, and i dont think i have perseverance like your.
honestly, i never expect to reach 1000 elo. couple months ago i dont even know castling rule or difference between pin with skewer
for now my target is stabilize my rating at 1100-ish, after that i will try to reach 1200 elo.
btw, did you have suggestion what daily exercise i should do and what chess knowledge i should learn to progress into next 100-200 elo?
because currently i arrange my chess train/learn plan for next month, any suggestion would be appreciated. my next month plan: do puzzle mate in 3-4, overloading, attraction, interference, and x-ray. have clear idea winning/draw condition on King-Pawn endgame
When I started playing chess as an adult I also thought that I would never be able to play on the level of a 1000 rated player on this website.
Your rating improvements are very similar to mine, I see no reason why you wouldn't reach 2000 rapid and 1800 blitz in 4 years, you may be more talented than me and have a much better improvement pace than me and reach it in 2 years. When I was your current 1100 rating I also thought that I could never reach ratings such as 2000 rapid, 1800 blitz and yet here I am.
I don't have any particular advice on how to improve. I watched a lot of Ben Finegold videos, Naroditsky's Speedrun videos and other titled players playing and/or explaining chess on YouTube. I played a lot of games and sometimes I would analyse my own games. I did puzzles, but I didn't do a lot of them.
mrOpenRuy wrote:
if i were to guess it takes a couple years to get to 2000, but if you have a good perk (i.e great/ strong memory, fast understanding, tactical spotting gift, never introduced to the london) you could get there in a year or less
If you get to 2000 in a year or less by casually playing games like most of us did to improve then you are a prodigy, you can seriously consider chess if you want to. Who knows what your chess limits are then. I am not sure whether strong memory plays a significant role here though. I doubt it. Chess is not a game of memory nor memorisation.
The London system is great. I played it all the time until I reached 1900 rapid, 1700 blitz. Now I play it less often. Playing the London can only help you get stronger as you get an easy way to get to playable middlegame positions. You don't study opening theory for the sake of studying opening theory, you study opening theory so that you get playable middlegames, which is possible with very little effort if you play the London. That makes London objectively a phenomenal opening. I am not a masochist to study opening for the sake of studying, I so it because it brings me benefit, opening which gives me more bang for the buck is objectively better. I now play less London than before because I found that 1.e4 gives me good results and because I got a little bored of the London after thousands of London games.
Hey..I just started a week ago and just broke the 900 rating. Listening to various openings on YouTube & sticking to the most theoretically sound ones is helping me a lot in these lower ratings. When I began, I knew the basics but didn't know openings or strategies. If you navigate the openings quite well, middle and endgames depends on limiting your blunders and you'll start climbing. I'll update after a month.
i have just started play chess for 6 months and I now mostly play in blitz. I use 5 months to reach 1600. So probably u gain 320 each month? (I didn't play everyday Have to deal with HW Bruh:((()
983hf98he4 wrote:
I've been playing casually for about 2 years (1-2 games at night), I was able to get to 1000 pretty quickly from what I remember, spent about a year getting to 1200 and another year getting to 1350 which is where I am currently.
update, have made it from 1350 - 1430 since march. not playing nearly as often any more.
Jul 2, 2023
0
#192
I have a total play time of 5.5 months (because I took a break for 2.5 months) and now I'm at 1000.
Jul 2, 2023
0
#193
dude0812 wrote:
mrOpenRuy wrote:
if i were to guess it takes a couple years to get to 2000, but if you have a good perk (i.e great/ strong memory, fast understanding, tactical spotting gift, never introduced to the london) you could get there in a year or less
If you get to 2000 in a year or less by casually playing games like most of us did to improve then you are a prodigy, you can seriously consider chess if you want to. Who knows what your chess limits are then. I am not sure whether strong memory plays a significant role here though. I doubt it. Chess is not a game of memory nor memorisation.
The London system is great. I played it all the time until I reached 1900 rapid, 1700 blitz. Now I play it less often. Playing the London can only help you get stronger as you get an easy way to get to playable middlegame positions. You don't study opening theory for the sake of studying opening theory, you study opening theory so that you get playable middlegames, which is possible with very little effort if you play the London. That makes London objectively a phenomenal opening. I am not a masochist to study opening for the sake of studying, I so it because it brings me benefit, opening which gives me more bang for the buck is objectively better. I now play less London than before because I found that 1.e4 gives me good results and because I got a little bored of the London after thousands of London games.
no one improves 2000 elo in their first year, thats inhuman. Not even Fischer or Carlsen got to 2000 elo that quickly. Fischer was like at around 2250 elo after around 7 years of playing chess, and Carlsen gained 1300 elo in a year max.
Jul 9, 2023
0
#195
3 months from 0 to 1000. difficult to find time to leard due to busy schedule and 3 kids.
Aug 15, 2023
0
#196
IT TOOK ME 3 MONTH'S TO GET TO 1471 CAUSE I WAS PLAYING 4 PLAYER CHESS FOR 1 MONTH SO IT'S 4-1=3
Aug 15, 2023
0
#197
disneypl wrote:
IT TOOK ME 3 MONTH'S TO GET TO 1471 CAUSE I WAS PLAYING 4 PLAYER CHESS FOR 1 MONTH SO IT'S 4-1=3
Aug 15, 2023
0
#198
To answer the Q, I don't think there really is a typical speed. There are some statistics out there about the proportion of players who gain X amount of rating in X time, but as with Fide and any other system, people often start out underrated, which skews things.
The only study I've seen which attempts to answer this question objectively is old and quite limited, but here it is: https://lichess.org/blog/YXgv5xMAAMxG4VeC/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-good
Anecdotal reports are going to vary based on how much of a beginner, a 'beginner' actually is. A start-from scratch player who just learned the basic rules and nothing else will be 100-200. Somebody who learned the basic rules as a kid plus knows about castling and how to ladder mate, and played a few (<30) casual OTB games over the course of their life might be 500-600, yet is still without question a beginner.
I was in that category and when I joined the site, my rating adjusted down to 550 within a few days. It took me 9 weeks to reach 1000, then 7 more weeks to reach 1200, then 5 more months (including a 2 month break) to reach 1500. My goal is 1700 by my 1 year anniversary which is in 10 weeks time.
@smalltowngoose has a YouTube video about her climb from 0 to 1400 in 1 year, and from 1400 to 2000 over the following year: https://youtu.be/nQ9gkF840Vk
I've seen people start off slow, get the hang of it and then SHOOT up in rating, especially kids. I've also seen rating charts suggesting some players are able to improve even after a long period of stagnation.
Since I was a fast improver and it's only 9 months since I was a 550, I'm considering offering affordable coaching online to other beginners, since I still remember exactly what my issues were at different ratings and what helped me. I'll make a proper posting about it in the next week or two but feel free to DM me if you might be interested.
983hf98he4 wrote:
983hf98he4 wrote:
I've been playing casually for about 2 years (1-2 games at night), I was able to get to 1000 pretty quickly from what I remember, spent about a year getting to 1200 and another year getting to 1350 which is where I am currently.
update, have made it from 1350 - 1430 since march. not playing nearly as often any more.
update, made it to the 1490s. starting to feel like this is about as far as i can get playing 1-2 games a week, and not actually learning anything.
After 3 months of serious play I have improved from 550 to over 1000 and hope that in the next 6 months I can improve to 1500.