5 ms·

Congratulations that's a great achievement. I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the year

Congratulations that's a great achievement. I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the years. Doing tactics puzzles is one of the most important factors for fast improvements. > Some day, I want to become a titled player. A candidate master needs an ELO of 2200 2000 and 2200 are completely different skill levels. I have some friends who play chess for more than 10 years in a chess club, starting as a kid, but haven't reached titled skill level yet and probably never will. My personal advice is: focus on the fun part of chess, there will always be a stronger player, but that doesn't matter.

swyx 6y ago
ignorant question time: isn't ELO relative not absolute? if everyone gets better doesn't that just make it a lot harder to get to 2k?
- rlayton2 6y ago
  Lots of new players that join up, drop their ELO points into the "bag" and then leave (or if online, sign up new accounts). ELO "points" aren't a finite resource.
  - matsemann 6y ago
    That would quickly lead to hyperinflation of ratings. The rating lost by a new player is not won by an old player. If you join and is assigned a rating of 1900, but loose your 5 first games, you probably loose a 100 rating points each game. However, the player beating you at 1000 rating doesn't get 100 points, just a few points.
    - matsemann 6y ago
      The first "1900" was meant to be "1000" as well. Cannot longer edit.
    - stnmtn 6y ago
      It's generally understood that online chess ratings are inflated over what the FIDE/table rating is.
- toolslive 6y ago
  there is inflation (deflation too) and all kinds of fraudulent schemes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Ratings_inflation_and_deflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Ratings_infl...
- danielbarla 6y ago
  It's relative to the pool of individuals, and there are tons of caveats (as other posters mentioned). Despite this, due to the size of the pools of individuals and relative seriousness of players who belong to official tournament organisations, the ratings have been fairly stable. Yes, there's been some inflation, but I'd say it's somewhat been in line with the increase in knowledge and training methods. While the system has all kinds of minor issues, it's still "quite good", especially when we compare it to other sports or activities with a more variable pool and quality. In this sense, most people know what 1600, 1800, 2000, etc, mean to fairly precise degree.
nl 6y ago
> I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the years I went to check rating to prove how unlikely this is. Sure enough, that would put you just outside the top 100 players in Australia. But then I noticed the guy who played one board above me at school when we played is rated above 2000, and he wasn't really much better than me. So yeah maybe it is possible!
- goldenCeasar 6y ago
  I think consistency play a good factor in it.
hvdfhbj 6y ago
> I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the years I think you are massively underestimating the natural range of human intelligence. I don't think the average IQ 100 individual could ever reach an ELO of 2000 regardless of how much they practice, and half the population has IQs of less than 100.
- gautamcgoel 6y ago
  Don't you mean overestimating?
  - mroset 6y ago
    I think the parent comment does mean underestimating the _range_, but overestimating the IQ, as you point out.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- paulpauper 6y ago
  Garry Kasparov is smart but we're not talking Feynman levels of intelligence The correlation between chess ability and IQ is positive but not that high. not as high as it is with physics and math abiltiy.
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    That's because physics and maths ability is included in the IQ test. If you included lots of chess or chess-like problems than Kasparov would magically rank a lot higher.
  - mpol 6y ago
    Chess is mainly about memory and recognizing patterns and implementing those patterns at that exact moment at the chessboard. So I would definitely think there is correlation between chess and memory. There was a really good documentary about memory called How Does Your Memory Work. Highly recommended, you get to see a glimpse of the workings of Susan Polgar's brain. I might also confuse it with My Brilliant Brain from National Geographic :) I remember seeing a live post-mortem analysis by Anish Giri. It was just astonishing how fast he can see combinations, yet also how deep those combinations are. And then on top of that throw in a sentence like "Oh, it is not new, it was played in 2006 as well, in that game between him and him". So really, fast thinking, slow thinking, and picking deep into your memory, all at once, seemingly without any effort. That is 2760 ELO for you :)
mpol 6y ago
It is said that if a child (teenager) follows the step course, which is a Dutch youth training method, you should be able to start from then on at a 1600 ELO rating. I would assume following the course is self-selecting, you only make it if it is fun and you are good at it, so take that for what it is worth.

swyx 6y ago

ignorant question time: isn't ELO relative not absolute? if everyone gets better doesn't that just make it a lot harder to get to 2k?

rlayton2 6y ago
Lots of new players that join up, drop their ELO points into the "bag" and then leave (or if online, sign up new accounts). ELO "points" aren't a finite resource.
- matsemann 6y ago
  That would quickly lead to hyperinflation of ratings. The rating lost by a new player is not won by an old player. If you join and is assigned a rating of 1900, but loose your 5 first games, you probably loose a 100 rating points each game. However, the player beating you at 1000 rating doesn't get 100 points, just a few points.
  - matsemann 6y ago
    The first "1900" was meant to be "1000" as well. Cannot longer edit.
  - stnmtn 6y ago
    It's generally understood that online chess ratings are inflated over what the FIDE/table rating is.
toolslive 6y ago
there is inflation (deflation too) and all kinds of fraudulent schemes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Ratings_inflation_and_deflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Ratings_infl...
danielbarla 6y ago
It's relative to the pool of individuals, and there are tons of caveats (as other posters mentioned). Despite this, due to the size of the pools of individuals and relative seriousness of players who belong to official tournament organisations, the ratings have been fairly stable. Yes, there's been some inflation, but I'd say it's somewhat been in line with the increase in knowledge and training methods. While the system has all kinds of minor issues, it's still "quite good", especially when we compare it to other sports or activities with a more variable pool and quality. In this sense, most people know what 1600, 1800, 2000, etc, mean to fairly precise degree.

nl 6y ago

> I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the years I went to check rating to prove how unlikely this is. Sure enough, that would put you just outside the top 100 players in Australia. But then I noticed the guy who played one board above me at school when we played is rated above 2000, and he wasn't really much better than me. So yeah maybe it is possible!

goldenCeasar 6y ago
I think consistency play a good factor in it.

hvdfhbj 6y ago

> I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the years I think you are massively underestimating the natural range of human intelligence. I don't think the average IQ 100 individual could ever reach an ELO of 2000 regardless of how much they practice, and half the population has IQs of less than 100.

gautamcgoel 6y ago
Don't you mean overestimating?
- mroset 6y ago
  I think the parent comment does mean underestimating the _range_, but overestimating the IQ, as you point out.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
paulpauper 6y ago
Garry Kasparov is smart but we're not talking Feynman levels of intelligence The correlation between chess ability and IQ is positive but not that high. not as high as it is with physics and math abiltiy.
- globular-toast 6y ago
  That's because physics and maths ability is included in the IQ test. If you included lots of chess or chess-like problems than Kasparov would magically rank a lot higher.
- mpol 6y ago
  Chess is mainly about memory and recognizing patterns and implementing those patterns at that exact moment at the chessboard. So I would definitely think there is correlation between chess and memory. There was a really good documentary about memory called How Does Your Memory Work. Highly recommended, you get to see a glimpse of the workings of Susan Polgar's brain. I might also confuse it with My Brilliant Brain from National Geographic :) I remember seeing a live post-mortem analysis by Anish Giri. It was just astonishing how fast he can see combinations, yet also how deep those combinations are. And then on top of that throw in a sentence like "Oh, it is not new, it was played in 2006 as well, in that game between him and him". So really, fast thinking, slow thinking, and picking deep into your memory, all at once, seemingly without any effort. That is 2760 ELO for you :)

mpol 6y ago

It is said that if a child (teenager) follows the step course, which is a Dutch youth training method, you should be able to start from then on at a 1600 ELO rating. I would assume following the course is self-selecting, you only make it if it is fun and you are good at it, so take that for what it is worth.