I do not know how some people get rated over 2200 on Lichess ?

[Uri Blass]

I do not claim that Jorge Pichard improved in the last 2 years and I understand people who believe that he did not improve significantly in the last 2 years but basically it is possible for a person who did not take chess seriously to be many years at weak level and improve his playing strength significantly.

I believe that improveent from USCF rating 1100 to level of at least 2000 in 2 years is possible if somebody works seriously about chess but it is something that is very rare and you probably need to work some hours about chess every day to get it.

Usually players do not improve in one year by more than 200 elo.

[Uri Blass]

I can add that the best example that I know of a player who got a big improvement is sophie morris suzuki
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlRtgSupp.php?15542082

She had 1066 in june 2015 and
improved to 2160 in june 2017

I do not know about a case of bigger improvement but it may be interesting to know.
The interesting thing is that I read about sophie is that sophie morris suzuki even did not devote her life to chess at the time of the improvement and music is significant part of her life so I guess that better result is also possible.

[BrendanJNorman]

I do not claim that Jorge Pichard improved in the last 2 years and I understand people who believe that he did not improve significantly in the last 2 years but basically it is possible for a person who did not take chess seriously to be many years at weak level and improve his playing strength significantly.

I believe that improveent from USCF rating 1100 to level of at least 2000 in 2 years is possible if somebody works seriously about chess but it is something that is very rare and you probably need to work some hours about chess every day to get it.

Usually players do not improve in one year by more than 200 elo.

It is NOT possible for someone who plays in TOURNAMENTS for 28 years (and only achieves a maximum rating of 1434) to then magically gain 570 Elo points ONLINE and not have their OFFLINE (otb) rating reflect the improvement.

Anyone believing this is suspending disbelief to a tinfoil hat level.

Then add the other suspicious circumstances...

[BrendanJNorman]

I can add that the best example that I know of a player who got a big improvement is sophie morris suzuki
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlRtgSupp.php?15542082

She had 1066 in june 2015 and
improved to 2160 in june 2017

I do not know about a case of bigger improvement but it may be interesting to know.
The interesting thing is that I read about sophie is that sophie morris suzuki even did not devote her life to chess at the time of the improvement and music is significant part of her life so I guess that better result is also possible.

Terrible example.

Jorge already has 28 years of tournament experience, so we can assume this person to be quite mature aged. Probably 40-60 years old.

The truth is, most chessplayers reach a peak in their 30s, while Jorge has basically been playing COMPETITIVELY in tournaments that long.

Sophie Morris Suzuki on the other hand is just 19 years old and from an Asian background (where high IQ and studiousness are highly prevalent).

https://ratings.fide.com/profile/30922615

For a high IQ TEENAGER to improve overnight is not the same as err...Jorge.

One is expected almost, one is nonsense.

Find me another mature-aged player who shot from 1400-2000 in 2 years and I'll be more willing to believe it.

EDIT: I personally went from 1550 (first rating)-2000ish in just a few years when I was a teenager also. It's not unusual for young ppl.

[BrendanJNorman]

@Brendan

Yeah, nowadays we only play 3+0 and faster all above is ruined by cheaters.
Cheaters often have absurd increments or never have an adequate bullet rating.

Same here. I'm a bit slow on the mouse these days and my internet connection is also a bit slow behind my VPN, so I tend to play 3+2.

A cheater has to be what we call a "sophisticated" cheat to handle this time control since they need to either play a higher number of engine moves (to keep GUI position updated) or enter positions REALLY quickly.

Generally, when we used to catch these guys on chess.com we'd find that if we used less than 1 minute (of the 3 allotted) and did nothing special (keep the position closed, shuffle the queen to b1-d1-b1-d1 lol) in the position, we could make them lose on time in a decent amount of cases.

Then we'd pass this data (as well as other sample games where they played tactically PERFECT, even in razor-sharp positions) to the team and get them banned.

If I wanted to train for longer games (this is for Uri too), I'd play against engines with a lot of knowledge/tweaking at low depth. Gives a decent simulation and you can choose the openings/positions you want to train too.

It is very important to catch the cheaters. Feeling forced to play faster but mindless time controls where there's no time to think and plan can take all the fun out of playing chess, and is not a good solution for everyone.

I've reported and got many banned for stupidly cheating against Nezh-BOT.

I'm afraid there is no stopping it now. At the very least, someone can just keep a physical opening book by the computer. This allows them to play the opening perfectly by just quickly checking a line, and gain a big advantage.

At this points, its OTB or nothing but blitz.

[Chessqueen]

If Guenther house was closer to my house within 1 or 2 hours drive I would show him how I can beat any player that is less than 1975 FIDE in rapid TC...

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlRtgSupp.php?12537202

Dude, this link above shows a couple of things...

1. You have been playing *tournament* chess since at least 1992 and Rapid since 1993.

2. Your rating has *never* been above 1500.

This is your REAL WORLD rating and it has been reliably consistent over the decades.

In other words, it is an accurate representation of your playing strength.

I really didn't wanna wade into this swamp, but your excuses are so ridiculous that I couldn't resist. Just be honest dude, and stop using sockpuppet accounts to stick up for yourself.

Been playing for two decades and was stuck around 1300 was due to my laziness, that is why I got an online trainer; and then started studying chess puzzles on my own to improve tactics which I feel most important, and on top of that strategy . I bet someone could easily become a master or at least 2100 player with the right study methods with 3 hrs a week. It is much harder for any player who is an expert to reach 2500 within 20 months than it is for a beginner who just know basic chess principles to reach up to 2000. But really important is the in my opinion, openings are never an essential or even slightly important part of improvement: openings are rather useless to concrete chess improvement at all levels below 2100. Why? In my games against expert level opposition, I am constantly out of the opening by move 4 or 5. I’ve played a good number of games against expert level opposition recently, and the result of none of the games had a single thing to do with the opening. After the opening, someone had an advantage. Later on they lost it. later on the other player made a mistake, and finally it was a draw. If this happens at the expert level just about every time (openings not mattering) then I think only at a level 250 points or so higher would it even start to matter. Only the 2400+ need opening prep for serious improvement. Everyone else should ignore it for the most part. I wouldn’t say that players rated around 1800 have advanced tactical skills either. I have had a good experience playing against these guys in the last 8 months, and I can say that most of them still make tactical blunders pretty easily when their position gets slightly worse, or I get an attack. At the expert level, this almost never happens anymore even at class A it is pretty unusual unless it is a serious positional advantage. However, experts sometimes miss “rare” or “invisible” tactical tricks or ideas that could get an advantage or save a game etc. Their tactical skills are better, but only at intermediate level. I consider my tactical skills to be at the intermediate level currently as well. 1800s and below should mainly work on basic ideas in chess, and not study too many advanced ideas and can pretty much forget all about the openings if they want to improve. I’ve played against these players before a good number of times, and many of them play pretty terrible moves, making their game unstable and showing a lack of basic chess knowledge. Also, I would generally cut out endgame study but not totally. Endgame study is interesting, since many players do it wrong and at the wrong time in their chess development. The first problem seems to be that players only care about the useless theoretical endgames that almost never appear in real life. The only theoretical endgame knowledge that i believe are important are 2 key king and pawn endgame positions, and they have happened only once or twice each. It is much more important to study strategy in endgames. However, it is even more important to focus on how to get from the middlegame thru the ending , so that you won’t need to grind out an ending. Players at the skills levels of U1800 rarely can play a competitive middlegame against good play. Therefore, it is very important to gain good skills here and beat them in the middlegame than to hope to beat them at the endgame. I am not the only one ==>

[Chessqueen]

If Guenther house was closer to my house within 1 or 2 hours drive I would show him how I can beat any player that is less than 1975 FIDE in rapid TC...

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlRtgSupp.php?12537202

Dude, this link above shows a couple of things...

1. You have been playing *tournament* chess since at least 1992 and Rapid since 1993.

2. Your rating has *never* been above 1500.

This is your REAL WORLD rating and it has been reliably consistent over the decades.

In other words, it is an accurate representation of your playing strength.

I really didn't wanna wade into this swamp, but your excuses are so ridiculous that I couldn't resist. Just be honest dude, and stop using sockpuppet accounts to stick up for yourself.

Been playing for two decades and was stuck around 1300 was due to my laziness, that is why I got an online trainer; and then started studying chess puzzles on my own to improve tactics which I feel most important, and on top of that strategy . I bet someone could easily become a master or at least 2100 player with the right study methods with 3 hrs a week. It is much harder for any player who is an expert to reach 2500 within 20 months than it is for a beginner who just know basic chess principles to reach up to 2000. But really important is the in my opinion, openings are never an essential or even slightly important part of improvement: openings are rather useless to concrete chess improvement at all levels below 2100. Why? In my games against expert level opposition, I am constantly out of the opening by move 4 or 5. I’ve played a good number of games against expert level opposition recently, and the result of none of the games had a single thing to do with the opening. After the opening, someone had an advantage. Later on they lost it. later on the other player made a mistake, and finally it was a draw. If this happens at the expert level just about every time (openings not mattering) then I think only at a level 250 points or so higher would it even start to matter. Only the 2400+ need opening prep for serious improvement. Everyone else should ignore it for the most part. I wouldn’t say that players rated around 1800 have advanced tactical skills either. I have had a good experience playing against these guys in the last 8 months, and I can say that most of them still make tactical blunders pretty easily when their position gets slightly worse, or I get an attack. At the expert level, this almost never happens anymore even at class A it is pretty unusual unless it is a serious positional advantage. However, experts sometimes miss “rare” or “invisible” tactical tricks or ideas that could get an advantage or save a game etc. Their tactical skills are better, but only at intermediate level. I consider my tactical skills to be at the intermediate level currently as well. 1800s and below should mainly work on basic ideas in chess, and not study too many advanced ideas and can pretty much forget all about the openings if they want to improve. I’ve played against these players before a good number of times, and many of them play pretty terrible moves, making their game unstable and showing a lack of basic chess knowledge. Also, I would generally cut out endgame study but not totally. Endgame study is interesting, since many players do it wrong and at the wrong time in their chess development. The first problem seems to be that players only care about the useless theoretical endgames that almost never appear in real life. The only theoretical endgame knowledge that i believe are important are 2 key king and pawn endgame positions, and they have happened only once or twice each. It is much more important to study strategy in endgames. However, it is even more important to focus on how to get from the middlegame thru the ending , so that you won’t need to grind out an ending. Players at the skills levels of U1800 rarely can play a competitive middlegame against good play. Therefore, it is very important to gain good skills here and beat them in the middlegame than to hope to beat them at the endgame. I am not the only one ==>

Like I said in my opening statement on this post, laziness is the main reason why many low skills chess players get stuck, that was the first thing that my online instructor told me. I remembered him saying I will not get you to the desire level that you want to be I will probably meet with you once or twice, but just like in the university the instructor or professor will only give you some guidance of not more than 15 to 20 minutes than he assign you homework and pretty much you will have to absorb and teach yourself the remaining of the chapter. Therefore the 2 hours that I paid him to meet with me twice a week is basically guidance, the rest is on us, to get good middlegame and tactical books to get better.

[Uri Blass]

If Guenther house was closer to my house within 1 or 2 hours drive I would show him how I can beat any player that is less than 1975 FIDE in rapid TC...

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlRtgSupp.php?12537202

Dude, this link above shows a couple of things...

1. You have been playing *tournament* chess since at least 1992 and Rapid since 1993.

2. Your rating has *never* been above 1500.

This is your REAL WORLD rating and it has been reliably consistent over the decades.

In other words, it is an accurate representation of your playing strength.

I really didn't wanna wade into this swamp, but your excuses are so ridiculous that I couldn't resist. Just be honest dude, and stop using sockpuppet accounts to stick up for yourself.

Been playing for two decades and was stuck around 1300 was due to my laziness, that is why I got an online trainer; and then started studying chess puzzles on my own to improve tactics which I feel most important, and on top of that strategy . I bet someone could easily become a master or at least 2100 player with the right study methods with 3 hrs a week. It is much harder for any player who is an expert to reach 2500 within 20 months than it is for a beginner who just know basic chess principles to reach up to 2000. But really important is the in my opinion, openings are never an essential or even slightly important part of improvement: openings are rather useless to concrete chess improvement at all levels below 2100. Why? In my games against expert level opposition, I am constantly out of the opening by move 4 or 5. I’ve played a good number of games against expert level opposition recently, and the result of none of the games had a single thing to do with the opening. After the opening, someone had an advantage. Later on they lost it. later on the other player made a mistake, and finally it was a draw. If this happens at the expert level just about every time (openings not mattering) then I think only at a level 250 points or so higher would it even start to matter. Only the 2400+ need opening prep for serious improvement. Everyone else should ignore it for the most part. I wouldn’t say that players rated around 1800 have advanced tactical skills either. I have had a good experience playing against these guys in the last 8 months, and I can say that most of them still make tactical blunders pretty easily when their position gets slightly worse, or I get an attack. At the expert level, this almost never happens anymore even at class A it is pretty unusual unless it is a serious positional advantage. However, experts sometimes miss “rare” or “invisible” tactical tricks or ideas that could get an advantage or save a game etc. Their tactical skills are better, but only at intermediate level. I consider my tactical skills to be at the intermediate level currently as well. 1800s and below should mainly work on basic ideas in chess, and not study too many advanced ideas and can pretty much forget all about the openings if they want to improve. I’ve played against these players before a good number of times, and many of them play pretty terrible moves, making their game unstable and showing a lack of basic chess knowledge. Also, I would generally cut out endgame study but not totally. Endgame study is interesting, since many players do it wrong and at the wrong time in their chess development. The first problem seems to be that players only care about the useless theoretical endgames that almost never appear in real life. The only theoretical endgame knowledge that i believe are important are 2 key king and pawn endgame positions, and they have happened only once or twice each. It is much more important to study strategy in endgames. However, it is even more important to focus on how to get from the middlegame thru the ending , so that you won’t need to grind out an ending. Players at the skills levels of U1800 rarely can play a competitive middlegame against good play. Therefore, it is very important to gain good skills here and beat them in the middlegame than to hope to beat them at the endgame. I am not the only one ==>

I patrly agree but mainly disagree.
I agree that tactics is important and not memorization of opening lines.
I do not agree that someone can easily become a master or at least 2100 player with the right study methods with only 3 hours a week because in this case I could expect to see significant number of weak players at the level of less than 1500 who improve in 2 years to the level of 2100.

With the exception of sophie morris suzuki I do not know of a single person who improved from a beginner level to 2100 in 2 years and I believe that sophie devoted more than 3 hours a week for chess(inspite of the fact she was never a professional chess player).

There are many players who improved to a level of fide rating 2100 in israel but nobody of them got to this level or even only to level of 2000 fide rating after less than 2 years of experience in chess(or to be more accurate less than 2 years of experience from a level of 1100-1200 uscf rating).

[Chessqueen]

I do not claim that Jorge Pichard improved in the last 2 years and I understand people who believe that he did not improve significantly in the last 2 years but basically it is possible for a person who did not take chess seriously to be many years at weak level and improve his playing strength significantly.

I believe that improveent from USCF rating 1100 to level of at least 2000 in 2 years is possible if somebody works seriously about chess but it is something that is very rare and you probably need to work some hours about chess every day to get it.

Usually players do not improve in one year by more than 200 elo.

I m not claiming that i improved to more than 1950, it is my online trainer that keep telling me that I have improved in his Eyes up to 1975. Anyway I only take two sections of 1 hour each with my online trainer per week, but accumulative I study probably another 3 hours per day by my own, according to my wife, she has been complaining to me and telling me that I am addicted to chess. So total I believe that between my two hour training per week, plus 15 + 2 = 17 hours per week for the last 20 months and reading chess books that my online trainer assigned to me like How to reassess your Chess Expanded 3rd edition by Jeremy Silman, Emanuel Lasker Chess manual, Chess Tactics from Scratch by Martin Weteschnick. Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations and Games by Laszlo Polgar, Understanding Chess Middlegames by Nunn, Pawn Structure Chess by Soltis and more. Also I spend a lot of time on youtube looking at video like ==> ==> and many many other videos about the middlegame. and all these winning plan lessons ==>
Here is another player that was close to 1500 and advanced to close to 2000 ==>

[Uri Blass]

I do not claim that Jorge Pichard improved in the last 2 years and I understand people who believe that he did not improve significantly in the last 2 years but basically it is possible for a person who did not take chess seriously to be many years at weak level and improve his playing strength significantly.

I believe that improveent from USCF rating 1100 to level of at least 2000 in 2 years is possible if somebody works seriously about chess but it is something that is very rare and you probably need to work some hours about chess every day to get it.

Usually players do not improve in one year by more than 200 elo.

I m not claiming that i improved to more than 1950, it is my online trainer that keep telling me that I have improved in his Eyes up to 1975. Anyway I only take two sections of 1 hour each with my online trainer per week, but accumulative I study probably another 3 hours per day by my own, according to my wife, she has been complaining to me and telling me that I am addicted to chess. So total I believe that between my two hour training per week, plus 15 + 2 = 17 hours per week for the last 20 months and reading chess books that my online trainer assigned to me like How to reassess your Chess Expanded 3rd edition by Jeremy Silman, Emanuel Lasker Chess manual, Chess Tactics from Scratch by Martin Weteschnick. Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations and Games by Laszlo Polgar, Understanding Chess Middlegames by Nunn, Pawn Structure Chess by Soltis and more. Also I spent a lot of time on youtube looking at video like ==> ==> and many many other videos about the middlegame. and all these winning plan lessons ==>
Here is another player that was close to 1500 and advanced to close to 2000 ==>

3 hours per day is clearly different than what you posted:

"I bet someone could easily become a master or at least 2100 player with the right study methods with 3 hrs a week."

I believe that there are adults who can improve significantly if they train 3 hours per day with the right training methods and improve from 1100 to 1950 in 2 years but I do not believe everybody can do it.