Forums

Stuck at your rating? Do this.

Sort:
NTCM214212
IbnAbubacker wrote:

Are you below 1800 elo? Are you stuck at your rating?

If you want to go from zero to 1800 elo. Then this is for you:

• If you are a complete beginner, I will take you to 1000 - 1200 rating.

• From there I will tell you how to get to 1200 to 1400/1600 rating.

• From there I will teach you how to get to 1800 rating.

Note: My rating is 1800+. My highest rating is 1900+. I have defeated 2000+ rated opponents.

Second option:

• There are grandmasters, national masters, international masters, candidate masters, 2000+ rated players, etc on chess.com who are offering coaching services too.

If you want a traditional way of improving at chess. Then learn from them.

Why choose me?

• My method is not to spend years and learn too much like the traditional route.

• My method involves only learning the essentials and gaining 1800 rating fast.

• This is my personal method. And I have never found a method easier and faster than this.

Features:

• No million opening lines

• No million middlegame position studies

• No million advanced endgame theories

• No hours of puzzles.

If you want to gain 1800 rating fast, DM me.

Only first five will be taken.

Stuck at your rating? Get ripped. Succes guaranteed 🙃

sleepyzenith

I’m hardstruck give me advice uwu

Sadlone

Don't even try, let the enjoyment of being able to play the game and move the pieces be your priority, trying to improve is a road full of obstacles and steep slopes

BigChessplayer665
Sadlone wrote:

Don't even try, let the enjoyment of being able to play the game and move the pieces be your priority, trying to improve is a road full of obstacles and steep slopes

Why not do both then happy.png

SwordofSouls2023

the problem with learning from 1800s is that even if you get to 1800 from this coach, once you start learning from someone better, you might have to unlearn some of the stuff the 1800 taught you

BigChessplayer665
SwordofSouls2023 wrote:

the problem with learning from 1800s is that even if you get to 1800 from this coach, once you start learning from someone better, you might have to unlearn some of the stuff the 1800 taught you

I think thats the same for all coaches even higher rates ones

leankata
BigChessplayer665 hat geschrieben:
SwordofSouls2023 wrote:

the problem with learning from 1800s is that even if you get to 1800 from this coach, once you start learning from someone better, you might have to unlearn some of the stuff the 1800 taught you

I think thats the same for all coaches even higher rates ones

Any titled player will tell you about the two forms of analysis: tactical analysis and strategical analysis. Intuition and knowledge is only important in strategic analysis. However, in a tactical position all strategic analysis goes out the window. In a strategic position the main issue isn't knowledge but intuition. You can know plans and positional motives all you want, intuition will tell you what to play or what seems like a good move.

However having said that, none of this matters up to 2000 because players below that threshold rarely lose in a long positional grind. They usually lose because they made a tactical mistake with no knowledge involved. This also makes sense because what use is a deep understanding of rook endgames when you blunder a very basic attack against your king:

 

This even happens at 2100.

BigChessplayer665
leankata wrote:
BigChessplayer665 hat geschrieben:
SwordofSouls2023 wrote:

the problem with learning from 1800s is that even if you get to 1800 from this coach, once you start learning from someone better, you might have to unlearn some of the stuff the 1800 taught you

I think thats the same for all coaches even higher rates ones

Any titled player will tell you about the two forms of analysis: tactical analysis and strategical analysis. Intuition and knowledge is only important in strategic analysis. However, in a tactical position all strategic analysis goes out the In a strategic position the main issue isn't knowledge but intuition. You can know plans and positional motives all you want, intuition will tell you what to play or what seems like a good move.

However having said that, none of this matters up to 2000 because players below that threshold rarely lose in a long positional grind. They usually lose because they made a tactical mistake with no knowledge involved. This also makes sense because what use is a deep understanding of rook endgames when you blunder a very basic attack against your king:

 

This even happens at 2100.

Probably though there are some cases (below 2000) where it isn't 2000 I have seen 600s play 10000 games yet are still stuck at the same rating it's probably more of f fifty fifty whileome of it is intuition while some of it is how you actually deal with the position 

I think it probably happens at all levels lol probably why you have to be careful who you listen to and not blindly listen to them (even if they are really good ) you should try their advice and see if it works to test out but if it doesn't work for you (let's say after a months amount work ) you probably shouldnt listen to all their advice 

I do agree a lot of positional knowledge is intuition though sometimes building up intuition is not always playing games (even if it helps a lot of people ) cause even if you study 10+ hours a day sometimes it's the really bad habits that's slowing you down even if your doing everything else "right "

BigChessplayer665

Simple blunders like that isn't always intuition sometimes it's tunnel vision online and your opponent just forgets those pieces exist and other times it's pretty much intuition

IbnAbubacker
leankata wrote:
BigChessplayer665 hat geschrieben:
SwordofSouls2023 wrote:

the problem with learning from 1800s is that even if you get to 1800 from this coach, once you start learning from someone better, you might have to unlearn some of the stuff the 1800 taught you

I think thats the same for all coaches even higher rates ones

Any titled player will tell you about the two forms of analysis: tactical analysis and strategical analysis. Intuition and knowledge is only important in strategic analysis. However, in a tactical position all strategic analysis goes out the In a strategic position the main issue isn't knowledge but intuition. You can know plans and positional motives all you want, intuition will tell you what to play or what seems like a good move.

However having said that, none of this matters up to 2000 because players below that threshold rarely lose in a long positional grind. They usually lose because they made a tactical mistake with no knowledge involved. This also makes sense because what use is a deep understanding of rook endgames when you blunder a very basic attack against your king:

 

This even happens at 2100.

Why you block? Don't run. Your arguments are disproved. And then your final claim when you have no reply about love and self reflection is another claim without explanation. I can also make claims without explanation. I can call you a theif. That doesn't make you one.

Sorry your reasoning are totally garbage.

I told the truth.

Now if you give me consent, let us copy paste the conversation here. And just like Elon musk said, let the earth decide. Meaning let the people decide who is right or wrong?

In chess forums.

Do you dare to do it?

And don't forget that how tried to look like you started chess late as your account is new.

And it turns out that you started chess at age 16 and when you made an offer, you have already spend 3 years to learn chess. Why hide the truth and show a single sided story?

SwordofSouls2023

A great coach here guys...

Not willing to listen to people who are 500+ points higher than him

IbnAbubacker
SwordofSouls2023 wrote:

A great coach here guys...

Not willing to listen to people who are 500+ points higher than him

Sorry for the misunderstanding. We are talking about a personal conversation we was having. Have you seen it? Then how you judge?

IbnAbubacker
SwordofSouls2023 wrote:

A great coach here guys...

Not willing to listen to people who are 500+ points higher than him

And on top of that, the conversation was not on how to play chess. It was about an offer. So if she has 3000+ rating, that doesn't count. Because her rating is in chess. Meanwhile the discussion was about validity of an offer.

IbnAbubacker
SwordofSouls2023 wrote:

the problem with learning from 1800s is that even if you get to 1800 from this coach, once you start learning from someone better, you might have to unlearn some of the stuff the 1800 taught you

That can be true. But that's an assumption. Not a fact. But there's a true probability what you said can be true.

But all what I intend to show is my way, whether you have to unlearn, you just get my ideas. Which if you are smart enough, you may take that ideas from that if not completely, in your future as well. But no guarantees for both sides.

But what I see is that most people don't even want to get 1700. Some of them just want to cross 500 rating! So helpful for the right people. But if you want to become a grandmaster in the future. My way is not a guarantee. Rather it will serve as a point of view or perspective apart from the traditional route.