Forums

From a 500 ELO Beginner to a 2000 ELO Expert

Sort:
ponz111

The very first USCF game I ever played [US Open in Omaha in 1959] I was paired against an expert in the first round. I had Black and he played The Ruy Lopez. I was unrated of course.

After I won-someone told me "You just beat the Champion of Puerto Rico!"

The 2nd USCF tournament I played  I won.

surviviogod
ponz111 wrote:

Jack Roach I have never played blitz in my life. The rating on chess.com is  bogus as my son played some games on  my account and I did not know it. chess.com would not fix my rating.

Have an old USCF rating of 2188--back in 1973. After I got that rating in 1973 I played 2 more tournaments and won every game--8 in a row.

Have written 3 books on chess.  Also I do have a rating of over 2500 in correspondence chess 

my record vs GMs is better than you can imagine.

You actually owe me a big apology.

Just curious, what did you write your chess books on? Openings, strategy, endgames, etc. 

ponz111

Play the Ponziani IM Keith Hayward co author, Also wrote another Ponziani Opening book but it did not get published, 

Also wrote a book on this Opening   Center Counter/Scandinavian Am proud of that book as it started the interest in the Scandinavian and have won at levels expert up to GM with this Opening as Black.

 

surviviogod

Nice! The Ponziani has always intrigued me, and if it weren't for the existence of the Italian opening, it would probably be the opening I play. Would you have any tips if I wanted to write a book on chess openings? I have a few openings that I really like and are rather unexplored in terms of theory, and I really would like to share at least one with other people in the form of a book. 

ponz111

It can be very easy or very difficult to write a chess book. Play The Ponziani took  ten years of study. Center Counter Uprising took a day. 

Writing a book on Chess is usually very difficult.

surviviogod

Yeah, I have kind of figured that out lol. Did you have a specific process of writing for Play the Ponziani or did you just add on as you gained more knowledge and understanding of the opening?

ponz111

I added as I gained more knowledge.

ponz111

Problem guy  yes. I did have a 99% win rate,  I do  not state things which are not true,

Jack Roach  just about everything you said about me was completely untrue and you owe me an apology,  Be a man and  make your apology  If you are a moral person and made a bunch of accusations which were not true--you will apologize.

ponz111

Jack Roach all you had to do was to do a little checking and  would  begin to understand that what you were saying about me was untrue.

eXoF

ponz111 sure he might have been wrong but look at your self-importance demanding an apology. Who cares if he talked wrongly about you or not, it doesn't matter... 

ponz111

GMeXoF  If you had someone posting several vicious lies about yourself--wouldn't you ask him to retract his lies?  

Tjhe problem is people like him cause problems. For example a few years back I offered free lessons but got little response as people believed lies like  that.

So a lot of players missed out on free lessons from a former USA  Correspondence champ.

He likes to go around trying to destroy others

tyler0300
bishbash1님이 썼습니다:
Funny if you analyse your game via the site analysis littlelizz it doesn’t show 7 blunders, you made a couple of mistakes true but only 2 blunders in the game and not by you. Be careful who you listen to a lot of chancers on here.

i know this is an old thread, but the definition of a "blunder" is a bit subjective. For example, if a super GM hung a pawn, it would be a big blunder, but if a 150 rated player did that, it wouldn't be. Also, a couple of times, I (or my opponent) hung a queen, but the analysis said it is just a "mistake" because the evaluation bar only went up by like 4 points.

dude0812
Mind_o_Reader wrote:
drmrboss wrote:

How did you achieve 1830? Online (which site), or OTB

All I see about your strength is 1600+, and ur best win was vs 1600+ only

.

How do u know the strength/and weakness of 2000 player when you haven't ever achieved and haven't ever played against them.

 

 

 

I play chess otb and online but I play on and off as you can tell from my stats. So my rating fluctuates. I have been rated in the 1800 to 1900 rating range when I was playing a lot and when I don't play for a long period of time it drops down. Here is a screen shot of one of my old closed accounts on chess.com from two years ago.

 

 

Also I don't claim to know the strength and weaknesses of 2000 players or even 1900+ players for that matter. The last section I kept pretty close to what beginchess originally wrote in his post: http://beginchess.com/2009/08/02/anatomy-of-a-chess-player-from-beginner-to-expert/

He left it at "approximately 2 more years" to reach 2000s which is where I left it as well.

If your interested, feel free to fill in that section.

 

You posted the rating of an account called grand-commander https://www.chess.com/member/grand-commander

Also, this account has been banned for violating fair play policy i.e. cheating.

Sleepsz
Mind_o_Reader wrote:

How a Chess Player Improves from a 500 ELO Beginner to a 2000 ELO Expert
Originally Posted on August 2, 2009 on beginchess

Everyone is different; each person is going to reach a certain level at a different rate. Some people can jump sever hundred rating points in a matter of months, other people will stay at a particular rating level for a lifetime. There is no secret to improving in chess, but there are different things that a person can work on at each rating level.

Throughout my life, I have personally held ratings at each rating level. I believe I can relate better to players at each ELO since I am not a prodigy. I remember spending years at a 650 rating and I have had a peak rating of 1830 in 2016. I’ve spent significant time battling many players at each level as I climbed my way up (and falling back down) the ladder.

As of 2019, I will have played chess for 15+ years on and off. Currently, I believe I’m probably rated around the 1650s. Like most of you reading this I’m not trying to become a professional and I didn’t do any special training regimen. I just play for fun.

The following is based a combination of what I have learned and observed at each level and the post that was written in beninchess which a lot of things I agree with and adopted here. As stated originally, the idea is to show the estimated chess rating, the required knowledge and skill. Then show a rough timeframe of what it would take an average person with a modest amount of commitment to attain a specific ELO rating.

0-500 (less than 3 months of experience) Bright Learner. The realm of the beginning chess player. Player at this stage has just learned the game, he will constantly leave pieces en prise, and make many blunders. Player has no tactical, endgame, or positional knowledge. Player does not know about chess strategy and has no evaluation or analysis skills. A player at this level should just focus on playing more games and learn a little bit of basic theory, tactics, and combinations.

500-1000 (3-6 months of experience) Near Beginner. Player now has several games under his belt. He is able do some calculations and make a few combinations. He misses most of the tactics though, he make a lot of blunders, and leave pieces en prise. He plays without a plan. A player at this level should continue learning the basic theory. Focus on how to develop your pieces, castling early, and controlling the center. Also, start learning tactical motifs; focus on pins, forks, discovered attacks.

1000-1100 (6-14 months of experience) Beginner. Player begins to understand that chess is a two player game, and begins to ask what the opponent’s last move is threatening. He have very basic positional and tactical knowledge. He continue to make many blunders and leave pieces en prise, but less than before. Misses many tactics. He plays without a plan or plays with the wrong plan. Players at this level need to work on finding the right plan as well as review games to see the tactics and blunders missed. A player at this level typically struggle still with blunders and missing winning combinations. Blunders will lessen as you play more games. Work on mating in 1s and mating in 2s.

1100-1200 (1-2 years of experience) Astute Beginner. Player looks for checks, captures, and basic tactics. Has developed an understanding of the threats after opponent’s moves. At this level the player can probably beat the majority of his friends. He continue to blunder and occasionally leaves pieces en prise, but this is not a common occurrence. Sometimes plays with a plan, but the plan is usually incorrect. Since players at this level are starting to realize they are better than all their friends, they start playing unsoundly and breaking chess principles. Instead, you should re-double your efforts on the fundamentals. Focus on developing pieces properly, castling early, avoid traps, and most importantly force yourself NOT to move a piece twice until move 12 (unless you absolutely have no choice because your opponent is threatening to take a piece). This will force you to think really carefully about which squares you move a piece to because you cannot move them again for a while.

1200-1300 (2-3 years of experience) Intermediate Beginner. Players at this level have developed a decent thought process. Player has much better calculation ability and is able to better understand positional strengths and weaknesses. Blunders occasionally and improving in not leaving pieces en prise. It’s at this level that they typically struggle with making a lot of inaccurate moves and failing to see all the opponent’s threats when faced with multiple threats or less obvious threats. It’s a good idea here to focus on reviewing your own games to see better moves you could have made in critical points in the game. Also, in reviewing games, put yourself in your opponent’s shoes to try to understand why he made each move he made and what was he trying to do.

1300-1400 (3-5 years of experience) Advanced Beginner. Blunders still occur but less frequently. One major reason for their rating increase, is that player stops leaving pieces en prise. Player has stronger tactical skills but still misses many tactical shots. Starts to build an opening repertoire, which gets them into the middlegame with a better position. Very limited endgame skills and improving positional play. Starts making better plans due to limited endgame and positional knowledge. Players at this level often have glaring issues with their game and a lot of that revolves around blunders. The best way to clean that up is to focus on avoidance tactics and defensive tactics where your goal is to see and avoid or neutralize your opponent’s combinations.

1400-1500 (4-6 years of experience) Near Intermediate. Players at this level have reached a near intermediate thought process. Player has become pretty good at creating combinations and is able to calculate much better. Doesn't often leave pieces en prise and blunders less frequently. Very good with basic offensive tactics and improving on the defensive tactics side, but still misses a lot. Still building opening repertoire. Starts learning basic endgame and middlegame strategy, but knowledge is still very basic. This level is an important milestone for the beginning chess player because they are on the verge of being an intermediate player. Players at this level typically have trouble implementing plans. Focus on learning how to coordinate pieces to setting up for combination moves or to create weaknesses for the opponent.

1500-1600 (5-7 years of experience) Intermediate. Player has intermediate positional and tactical understanding. Able to calculate many levels deep and will see tactics quickly. Rarely leaves pieces en prise. The player still misses more advanced tactics and does not understand subtleties in positions. Has learned the type of player he is and developed pet openings. Still has basic knowledge of endgame and middle game strategies. Inaccuracies are still fairly common. Blunders are rarer, but still happen especially when time is an issue. Because players at this stage don’t make a lot of blunders, and more importantly know how to spot and punish blunders, making one single blunder will decide games. Hence, this is the main thing preventing players from going to the next level. Eliminating blunders and playing several games in a row blunder free games is the goal. Change up your time controls to work on visualization and calculating with time pressures. Try doing visualization exercises and other gaming types, switching things up often helps the brain.

1600-1700 (6-8 years of experience) Astute Intermediate. Player has better thought process, does not leave pieces en prise. A blunder only happens about one in ten games. Strong tactically, both on offense and defense (might occasionally miss a defensive tactic). Has an opening repertoire and plays pet openings. Starting to understand endgame, positional ideas, and developing good analysis skills. Players at this level often have poor positional evaluation abilities and need to develop more advanced planning and positional skills. The best thing to do is to review your games with a higher level player or a chess coach. Compare your thoughts make sure you are understanding the position properly.

1700-1800 (7-9 years of experience) Advanced intermediate. Player has stronger tactical skills and thought process. Player has developed decent endgame and positional skills at this stage. Good positional evaluation and analysis skills. Inaccuracies still happen, but are more under control due to stronger evaluation abilities. Players at this level are much better at exploiting inaccuracies which means that is often the difference between winning and losing. In order to advance further, the player must clean up inaccuracies in their game. The best way is to get a chess trainer to help clean that up. Also, join a local club to play against strong opposition then analyze the game with them.

1800-1900 (8-10 years of experience) Near Expert. Player is strong tactical skills and thought process. Intermediate endgame and positional skills. Intermediate evaluation skills. Very good analyst. Player needs to continue focusing on evaluation and analysis skills. Players at this level typically struggle with seeing and capitalizing on subtle weaknesses in a position. Hence, opening theory knowledge becomes an important component for further improvement. Player has a good database of structures that that can help them when they reach unfamiliar positions in OTB play. Player should reach expert level in approximately 2 more years, which falls in line with expert theory which claims that it takes 10 years to become an expert in any field.

this is amazing all my confidence is restored because now I know im on the right track. I played since a child but only understood how to move pieces and would lose a lot. now the past 3 months (in my 20s) I have risen from 200-to a solid 630 and I feel great knowing thats how its supposed to be after a bit of study. thank you I can't wait to rise the ranks In the future with a humble goal of 1400 Elo. its going to be a bumpy journey but full of learning. I never thought I was gunner break 500 til a couple days ago in a tournament the light shined on me and it just made sense now im trying to tackle 700. if anything I can add to your journey is do aim chess if you don't want to pay for a diamond membership on chess.com I only use gold since it still has unlimited analysis.- Joe (Los Angeles, California)

ThunderstormChess

Is 1900 elo good rating?

Anti-Communication

I'm late to the game here, but I've gone from 1200 to 1550 rapid in recent months, and find the descriptions of each rating range up to 'intermediate' to describe all my stages of improvement very accurately.

vaccyy

Welp I got to 400 in a couple weeks and getting better by the day, but like I agree with the post because I have higher level (1500+) friends that play like the post says happy.png

MakeMeChortle

An interesting and helpful read, but I do have issue with how long up the ladder climb the word "beginner" is used in its categorical description. If one is able to beat most of their friends at chess when at 1100-1200 range, and yet that player is still an astute beginner, it just seems a bit out of place. In other contexts in life that may use "beginner" to describe a person's skillset (e.g. basketball, skiing, polo) I would only generally use beginner for the first few experiences a person has with such activity. You know?

CrystalChandeliers

An interesting post, OP, though I (as a player who years ago peaked OTB at about 1850) suspect that these portraits of players at different rating levels represent generalizations and the reality is that players in each band vary quite considerably with some players having strengths you've given the higher rating bands and weaknesses from lower rating bands, while other similarly rated players have the opposite strengths and weaknesses. In other words, I believe that 'on the ground' there is much more variation within those rating bands than your interesting summation of players in each band allows for. That said, thanks for some genuinely interesting food for thought.

lifehealer7777
I hate this forum