All of my life I’ve been a terrible chess player at best. My chess(dot)com ELO consistently hovers in the 900-1000 range. I’ve decided to hire a chess coach and really start grinding chess in the next year,* and my life goal is 1500 ELO. I chose 1500 because a chess YouTuber that I watch said in one of his videos that, if you reach 1500, you’re better than 90% of the chess players out there. **
I’ve decided that 1500 is good enough for me. I harbor no delusions that I have enough talent, or enough years left on my life’s clock, to reach Master or even Expert. And that’s fine with me. I just want to beat the casual players, like the guy who routinely cleans my clock at the wine bar or the guy I went to college with, that I encounter in my daily life.
So is gaining 600 points of ELO (900 to 1500), for a 52-year-old man who’s played for decades with minimal study and with no particular innate chess talent (Josh Waitzkin I am not), doable within a year?
*One of the things that’s held me back is that I literally don’t even know where to begin in terms of study, so I decided that hiring a coach is the way to go.
**I’m not prepared to say that Levy Rozman’s assertion that 1500 ELO is the 90th percentile (or is it the 10th percentile?) of all chess players is true. Maybe it’s not even remotely true. Either way, it’s a nice, round number, and I’ve set it as my goal.
That said, Levy could be right that a FIDE rated 1500 would be in the 90th percentile. I don’t know. But since you’re on chess.com, that’s some relevant info for you.
1500 ELO is certainly a decent rating compared to the entire chess population.
(I couldn’t find the FIDE rating percentiles on their website - I presume chess.com has access to the full rating list.)
I’m certain that it’s easier to shoot up in strength when you are younger. My first ever rating (aged 13) was 1825 and a year later I reached 2050. (By 18 I was rated 2200.)
I think it would be very hard to jump from 900 - 1500 in one year aged 52.
But I’m confident you could get there in a few years!
I’m sure a chess coach would help.
Also playing a lot and analysing every game afterwards is essential.
Computers will be most useful (as available opponents / excellent analysts / opening repetoire.)
A good way to start is to practice endgames. There are far less pieces to consider and you can learn about the different strengths and weaknesses of each piece.
If you don’t know already, you could learn some basic checkmates (King +2 rooks v King; King + Queen v King; King and Rook v King: King and 2 bishops v King.)
For a follow-up, learn tactics (pin, fork, discovered check, skewer, overload etc.) These do come up regularly and it’s important you can both play them and avoid walking into them.
Note that all the above involves spotting patterns and that is a big part of chess.
By all means use computer databases / game collections to study openings. I recommend you only play a few, so you can understand what to do.
DO NOT MEMORISE OPENINGS! As soon as an opponent plays an unusual move, you are in a world of trouble. But with the aforementioned understanding, you can cope.
I think I’m currently ~1300 and been up to like ~1450 on chess.com 10 minute games. I would say you absolutely can get to 1500 in a year if you’re regularly practicing. Getting up to 1100 is basically just not hanging pieces every game. 1300 is basic principles like continuing to develop pieces, castle early, etc. You might not even need to know much opening theory to get to 1500.
I actually did go from a 900 to 1500 rating in Chess my freshman year of high school. But that was probably less about skill increase and more about playing enough ratable games to get my rating up to where it should be.
I would guess 500 points was catch-up and 100 points was actual improvement.
I can’t imagine how far back I’ve fallen in over 40 years. Probably closer to the 900. I believed I peaked at just over 1600 by the end of my senior year.
Without wishing to disagree with glee, I think you have a shot. My rating on chess.com is around 1500 and I’ve never studied the game seriously, let alone devoted a year of my life to it. I’ve done a fair bit of puzzle training, know how to develop my pieces effectively in the opening, and blunder a piece about 1 in every 3 games.
This is as good a place as any to comment that after not playing for decades, I got interested again by…of all things…the Magnus-Niemann controversy. YT chess videos started appearing on my feed. I looked at my old chess books and remembered how much fun I had just playing against a crappy 90’s computer BITD.
So I joined Chess.com. By coincidence they’ve recently put out a video saying how happy they are with the recent interest in chess. Brought on by the lockdowns and “The Queens Gambit” show.
Whereas chess used to make you think of stuffy Russians and insane Americans (well…American)…now with YT and chess.com, you can become familiar with all the chess personalities around today. You can find an online game instantly with someone of your equal talent…and personally I prefer the 30 minute timer variety. I prefer to be able to think. I don’t think i would ever enjopy speed or blitz chess.
Ironically, BITD I had a hard time visualizing pieces on overhead computer screen boards. And now thats what I’m used to, and have a harder time on a real board.
Just thought I’d share some encouragement from Cyrus Lakdawala, a FIDE International Master (peak rating of 2597 in the mid-90s) who published a “My Best Game” article in the October issue of Chess Life. Some excerpts that might encourage you:
I began as a promising not-prodigy, rated a sorry 1150 at age 13. By age 17, I achieved enormous not-progress, with a rating of 1795 — hardly the raw materials for a titled player. The dream was to one day earn a FIDE title…
I stumbled on to a “secret” formula: over-training
What I’m trying to convey: a genetic advantage of natural chess talent is overrated. Anyone can hugely surpass expectations — even your own — if you are willing to play the brutal price of outworking your opposition
I’m not going to copy is 3 methods of outworking the competition, but they tend to come down to being willing to put in long hours (6 hour, 8 hour, or longer sessions) in study, problem solving, and mastering combinations, endgames, and openings.
Not for everyone, I’m sure, but more encouraging than the great GM Bent Larsen who in an interview, remarked (paraphrasing from memory) - I was in no way remarkable; when I was 16 I won the Junior Championship of Denmark and the Danish Championship at 18, but was not awarded the Grandmaster title until I was 21.
Sadly, I’ve ignored this aspect of my life. I play rapid on Chess(dot)com every day for the sake of my streak, and I bought Levy Rozman’s book, but other than that I haven’t given any serious effort to improving my Elo.
Thats cool…I thought about getting his book, then heard someone named Silman passed recently, and was thinking about getting HIS book The Amateurs Mind.
I’m about a third of the way into Rozman’s book and so far I haven’t read anything that I didn’t already know. My biggest problem is that I’m lost in the middle game; as in, once the opening is over, what do I do now? I mean, I know the basics – look for checks, captures, and attacks; look for pins, forks, and skewers, etc. But I’m lost on general strategery. I’m hoping that Rozman will give me some solid advice as I get deeper into his book.
Yeah, I need a low-intermediate book too so if you find a good one, please post it. The only books I’ve read is the Fischer book, which was, IIRC, 100% mating attacks and mostly not too complicated.
I’m ~1300 on chess.com so take this with a grain of salt, but things I think about in the middle game that aren’t checks/captures/attacks:
Are my pieces developed / mobile?
Can I restrict the movement of their pieces?
Is my king safe?
Is there are opportunity to damage their pawn structure?