I'm a nobody on here ; but I have come to the conclusion that elo is a fruitless pursuit of a temporary or imaginary object. It's like a fist full air. In real life or in the every day world in my home area. I can beat or compete with anyone I play. I have been as high as 1500 on this site a long while back. Now days I do good to stay above 1000 Mostly because really good players are constantly popping in with a 900 rating and just running through you until you lose interest. You probably won't want to play me but I'm figuring I could give ya a good game ; even with my low rating. And that's what I mean. And that's why the system won't put against someone 500 points above you. Although I wish it would. I wouldn't mind being beat by someone really good near as bad as a 900 playing like stockfish. But if you get like I was and stop playing every time you lose a game just to save losing points. Well you might get to 1700 ; but if those points can be taken from you in just a handful of games ; then what have you really accomplished?
Tips for Reaching 1700 Rapid
.
I'm a nobody on here ; but I have come to the conclusion that elo is a fruitless pursuit of a temporary or imaginary object. It's like a fist full air. In real life or in the every day world in my home area. I can beat or compete with anyone I play. I have been as high as 1500 on this site a long while back. Now days I do good to stay above 1000 Mostly because really good players are constantly popping in with a 900 rating and just running through you until you lose interest. You probably won't want to play me but I'm figuring I could give ya a good game ; even with my low rating. And that's what I mean. And that's why the system won't put against someone 500 points above you. Although I wish it would. I wouldn't mind being beat by someone really good near as bad as a 900 playing like stockfish. But if you get like I was and stop playing every time you lose a game just to save losing points. Well you might get to 1700 ; but if those points can be taken from you in just a handful of games ; then what have you really accomplished?
If you're actually 1700 strength you'll generally stick around that rating.
.
I am currently rated 1500-1550 on chess.com Rapid. I mostly play the 15|10 time control. My goal is to reach a rating of 1700 within a year. Does anyone who has achieved this rating already have any suggestions or recommendations on how to reach this goal? I am mainly looking for book recommendations or exercises that help to improve Elo, but any other suggestions would be good as well. Also, if anyone has any suggestions on which areas of study to focus on, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
What are you currently doing to improve?
I am mostly just solving puzzles and playing games. I am looking for any suggestions of books or methods that can help me improve quickly.
.
Learn some rook endgames
I got to 1800 rapid without having to read a book. I started reading a few chess books recently, but much of the information is too situational or conceptual to be useful for 1500 players. Your opponents will still be making one-move blunders and trivial mistakes; you must be attentive and focused enough to spot them; that is how you will win most of your games. At higher elos, your opponents will no longer make obvious mistakes like hanging pieces or allowing tactics. Instead, they will make subtle mistakes like weakening their pawn structure or trading down unfavorably. Books become more helpful in identifying these broad concepts in your games.
Also, consider switching from 15|10 to 10|0 for rapid. You can fit in more games daily while still having much time to think about your moves. The more games you play, the faster you should be able to climb if you are steadily improving. You will also be exposed to way more openings and positional situations the more games you play. That is the best way to learn.
As someone who's about the same level as you (finished like 50 rated rapids so my rapid is finally accurate-ish) and also hoping to push to somewhere 1700ish (I'd prefer something 1730ish in the next few weeks hopefully) I agree with a lot of what blackmore324 said. Definitely a lot is still decided by one move blunders and tactics at my level (1680 at the time of writing.) That said, it appears to me that now is when more general principles do start to matter. I remember two or so games I played today against pretty similarly rated opponents (I don't remember the exact rating.) I remember feeling like I was being hammered on positionally -- my opponents just always seemed to have a more active position and it felt like just a matter of time before I would blunder. So I feel that I would agree to work on those basics but at some point I feel it would be good to learn those more situational ideas too (which is what I plan to do)
@wolfordwv1968 I looked and it looks like 1500 was your peak rating when you made this account, which is provisional and doesn't mean much until you have played more games. I also peaked much higher than my true strength in all three time controls for live but I consider the rating provisional for the first 50 or so games.
Bump thread
Hello! Well I just barely scraped 1700 on my last rated run (stopped after the 1700 lol). But I think that analyzing some of my losses (or mistakes) did help, which I mention in case you're not doing that already.... I'm still working on trying to have better positional sense and understanding the ideas of openings and endgames, as a more long-term thing. I think my point in the message prior is that I do think at our level it is important to work on those ideas in order to improve, though I agree with blackmore that it is true that much progress can be made by simply avoiding blunders.
p. s. given that you are already like 1550 now I think 1700 by the end of the year is quite doable
I also think that analyzing others' games can help too, especially if they are a bit stronger than you. I don't know about others, but personally I'm not very good at puzzles (though they have been helpful for me tactically), and don't consistently apply principles from puzzles to games. Analyzing a game though I feel helps with contextualizing the tactic within the thought process of a game and seeing what would motivate the move, so it appears to me that game analysis + puzzles is noticeably better than puzzles + playing alone. Anyway that is just my (limited) experience.
Hello! Well I just barely scraped 1700 on my last rated run (stopped after the 1700 lol). But I think that analyzing some of my losses (or mistakes) did help, which I mention in case you're not doing that already.... I'm still working on trying to have better positional sense and understanding the ideas of openings and endgames, as a more long-term thing. I think my point in the message prior is that I do think at our level it is important to work on those ideas in order to improve, though I agree with blackmore that it is true that much progress can be made by simply avoiding blunders.
p. s. given that you are already like 1550 now I think 1700 by the end of the year is quite doable
I also think that analyzing others' games can help too, especially if they are a bit stronger than you. I don't know about others, but personally I'm not very good at puzzles (though they have been helpful for me tactically), and don't consistently apply principles from puzzles to games. Analyzing a game though I feel helps with contextualizing the tactic within the thought process of a game and seeing what would motivate the move, so it appears to me that game analysis + puzzles is noticeably better than puzzles + playing alone. Anyway that is just my (limited) experience.
Thanks for your input. Which areas would you say are most important to study for someone at my level? (ex: endgame, middlegame, etc.)
I'm a nobody on here ; but I have come to the conclusion that elo is a fruitless pursuit of a temporary or imaginary object. It's like a fist full air. In real life or in the every day world in my home area. I can beat or compete with anyone I play. I have been as high as 1500 on this site a long while back. Now days I do good to stay above 1000 Mostly because really good players are constantly popping in with a 900 rating and just running through you until you lose interest. You probably won't want to play me but I'm figuring I could give ya a good game ; even with my low rating. And that's what I mean. And that's why the system won't put against someone 500 points above you. Although I wish it would. I wouldn't mind being beat by someone really good near as bad as a 900 playing like stockfish. But if you get like I was and stop playing every time you lose a game just to save losing points. Well you might get to 1700 ; but if those points can be taken from you in just a handful of games ; then what have you really accomplished?
You can change the ratings that you play on live.
Hello! Well I just barely scraped 1700 on my last rated run (stopped after the 1700 lol). But I think that analyzing some of my losses (or mistakes) did help, which I mention in case you're not doing that already.... I'm still working on trying to have better positional sense and understanding the ideas of openings and endgames, as a more long-term thing. I think my point in the message prior is that I do think at our level it is important to work on those ideas in order to improve, though I agree with blackmore that it is true that much progress can be made by simply avoiding blunders.
p. s. given that you are already like 1550 now I think 1700 by the end of the year is quite doable
I also think that analyzing others' games can help too, especially if they are a bit stronger than you. I don't know about others, but personally I'm not very good at puzzles (though they have been helpful for me tactically), and don't consistently apply principles from puzzles to games. Analyzing a game though I feel helps with contextualizing the tactic within the thought process of a game and seeing what would motivate the move, so it appears to me that game analysis + puzzles is noticeably better than puzzles + playing alone. Anyway that is just my (limited) experience.
Thanks for your input. Which areas would you say are most important to study for someone at my level? (ex: endgame, middlegame, etc.)
Kind of feel like I'm not the most qualified to answer (any higher rated players wanna chime in?) My instinct though: depends on the person and maybe look through your games to figure out what your weaknesses are?
It does seem to me that a lot at this level is still determined by middlegame skills. That being said, I'm a horrible opening/endgame player, and at my level I do feel I get punished for that, so I think nothing can be neglected.
I did have a friend tell me that he observed that many players rated in the 1600s still lack endgame skills, so in that sense maybe it is not the absolute worst to put that off? but i do think that nothing should just be ignored.
I am currently rated 1500-1550 on chess.com Rapid. I mostly play the 15|10 time control. My goal is to reach a rating of 1700 within a year. Does anyone who has achieved this rating already have any suggestions or recommendations on how to reach this goal? I am mainly looking for book recommendations or exercises that help to improve Elo, but any other suggestions would be good as well. Also, if anyone has any suggestions on which areas of study to focus on, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.