@Sarg0n said in #21:
> I think 2000 on lichess can tell N from B.
The N moves in a L shape I think? And the B is the box that my chessboard came in. Got it. I’m all set for a push to 2400 classical and rapid.
> I think 2000 on lichess can tell N from B.
The N moves in a L shape I think? And the B is the box that my chessboard came in. Got it. I’m all set for a push to 2400 classical and rapid.
+300 if you are seeing a glass of water half full, -300 if you are seeing a glass of water half empty.
The difference is big. In the middlegame, the endgame, in the ability to calculate, in positional understanding. It's like another level.
@pointlesswindows said in #24:
>
Exactly, and it is actually very difficult to explain to people. I remember being 1400-1700 here some years ago, yet i would be unable to communicate what exactly changed but "tactic, positional play etc". I guess it is just about building a model of comprehension you use to play, and then changing for another one. But i don't see how to exprimate it in a way that everyone can identify with since we all started with different knowledges and thoughts process for a same given rating.
>
Exactly, and it is actually very difficult to explain to people. I remember being 1400-1700 here some years ago, yet i would be unable to communicate what exactly changed but "tactic, positional play etc". I guess it is just about building a model of comprehension you use to play, and then changing for another one. But i don't see how to exprimate it in a way that everyone can identify with since we all started with different knowledges and thoughts process for a same given rating.
@Le_Patzer83 Bro, in all kindness, OP wanted some advice how to improve their positional play and you told them how to get to Expert Level. If I would have studied and know all that stuff you have mentioned in your exhaustive reply I would be 2300 blitz (thanks for the roadmap, btw). Probably they can't work with your advice, because it's both too extensive and not specific enough at the same time. One advice heard, taken to heart and followed is worth much more than twenty that were given in vain (but you know that of course).
@xiaoban In order to improve positional play you need to challenge how you see and think about the game. An accessible and fun way of doing that is by watching the instructive and principled speedruns of GM Naroditsky (you can find them on youtube). He is an extremely strong player and excellent teacher, and when he plays against weaker opponents and highlights all of the flaws in their play it can massively influence the way you see the game.
@xiaoban In order to improve positional play you need to challenge how you see and think about the game. An accessible and fun way of doing that is by watching the instructive and principled speedruns of GM Naroditsky (you can find them on youtube). He is an extremely strong player and excellent teacher, and when he plays against weaker opponents and highlights all of the flaws in their play it can massively influence the way you see the game.
@Das-49-Euro-Ticket when you ask for free advice, you have to live with what people are willing to give to you. @Le_Patzer83 is a strong player and what he says is not mocking when he is talking about Santa and Grinch, it's actually good advice, just said in a funny, seemlingly mocking way. He is telling the truth. The higher rated people get, the more they watch their pieces very carefully and not give anything away without thought. I think the comparison is very on point. Now if someone really wants to improve, they can hire a chess coach and not ask a question like "what is the main difference between" - as clearly there isn't one main difference. A 2000 player is simply a better player than a 1700 player in many areas of chess. I am absolutely guilty of asking the same question too back in the days when I've been 1700. Advice can be good, but in the end it will always simply mainly be about blundering less and if someone really wants to get there they need to put in the work, do analysis, solve tactics, read books or get a chess coach. Someone like @Le_Patzer83 or myself could of course analyse what it is that is holding @xiaoban back, but there isn't really one advice to give overall about the difference between 1700s and 2000s that can really help him long-term. He would need someone to look into his games and find out the bad patterns. Now in my opinion what @Le_Patzer83 wrote is just the best you can expect as a generalized answer when asking a generalized question.
@CheerUpChess-Youtube Was I attacking him in your opinion? Because then you have got a wrong impression completely.
Since there isn't one key difference between weaker and stronger players, no matter how you define them, but always a multitude, Le_Patzer83 is completely right in saying that. I propose a different way of dealing with that though, because I deem it not practical proposing a study regime to a 1400 blitz player without further guidance that contains all the aspects mentioned by Le_Patzer83. It's too much and they will get lost in the woods. Instead the OP could carefully watch GM Naroditsky's speedrun videos, where the GM plays actual games that contain all the aspects OP would ever need for their own game.
Now I care more for helping people than to not hurt the feelings of others. But let me take the liberty to quote a psychologist's advice and the Dude itself that helps me dealing with other people behaviour and opinions: "When you realize nothing about other people’s behavior is personal, it frees you from taking it personally." + "Yeah? Well. You know. That's just like your opinion, man." So, now in my opinion what Le_Patzer83 wrote was okay, since it's just like his opinion, man, but I would have liked a different answer better as beginner, so I crafted one now that I almost hold the authoritative strength as a chess player you own, kind sir.
Since there isn't one key difference between weaker and stronger players, no matter how you define them, but always a multitude, Le_Patzer83 is completely right in saying that. I propose a different way of dealing with that though, because I deem it not practical proposing a study regime to a 1400 blitz player without further guidance that contains all the aspects mentioned by Le_Patzer83. It's too much and they will get lost in the woods. Instead the OP could carefully watch GM Naroditsky's speedrun videos, where the GM plays actual games that contain all the aspects OP would ever need for their own game.
Now I care more for helping people than to not hurt the feelings of others. But let me take the liberty to quote a psychologist's advice and the Dude itself that helps me dealing with other people behaviour and opinions: "When you realize nothing about other people’s behavior is personal, it frees you from taking it personally." + "Yeah? Well. You know. That's just like your opinion, man." So, now in my opinion what Le_Patzer83 wrote was okay, since it's just like his opinion, man, but I would have liked a different answer better as beginner, so I crafted one now that I almost hold the authoritative strength as a chess player you own, kind sir.
@Das-49-Euro-Ticket said in #28:
> Was I attacking him in your opinion? Because then you have got a wrong impression completely.
Critizising his answer in some way.
> Instead the OP could carefully watch GM Naroditsky's speedrun videos, where the GM plays actual games that contain all the aspects OP would ever need for their own game.
No, that's bad advice.
> Now I care more for helping people than to not hurt the feelings of others.
I figured that out by myself already. We should however get out of the misconception that a low rated player is some kind of poor victim. He simply studied less, that's all. What he needs is diligence, hard work, a coach, that could be literally anybody above 2000, even you would be good enough for it...
> but I would have liked a different answer better as beginner
... and not another type of answer on a generalized question. Now I am under the impression that you are much more offended by my critizism about your comment than I am about yours.
> Was I attacking him in your opinion? Because then you have got a wrong impression completely.
Critizising his answer in some way.
> Instead the OP could carefully watch GM Naroditsky's speedrun videos, where the GM plays actual games that contain all the aspects OP would ever need for their own game.
No, that's bad advice.
> Now I care more for helping people than to not hurt the feelings of others.
I figured that out by myself already. We should however get out of the misconception that a low rated player is some kind of poor victim. He simply studied less, that's all. What he needs is diligence, hard work, a coach, that could be literally anybody above 2000, even you would be good enough for it...
> but I would have liked a different answer better as beginner
... and not another type of answer on a generalized question. Now I am under the impression that you are much more offended by my critizism about your comment than I am about yours.
@CheerUpChess-Youtube I was indeed surprised by your answer and got the impression of you being quite defensive and defending a fellow forum poster who I have not the slightest problem with for no good reason. What I did was criticizing him, yes, obviously. That is not to be mistaken with an attack, though. Now, you calling my advice straight out bad without giving any reason for that and then promoting the idea of getting a coach, which, conveniently enough, you are one, that is some questionable conduct. The OP is not a poor victim, that is not a misconception I share, however I am surprised by you knowing exactly what they need, when I was just proposing a different approach than the one mentioned by Le_Patzer83 and now you. You know, I find your attitude both towards me and the OP quite condescending, but you do you.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.