lichess.org
Donate

How should we get more elo

I dint understand the 100 elo gm and im players. should we play more games or what??

I dint understand the 100 elo gm and im players. should we play more games or what??

WE SHOULD PLAY MORE GAMES AND THAT IS ALSO GOOD RECCEMANDATION J.RONALDO

WE SHOULD PLAY MORE GAMES AND THAT IS ALSO GOOD RECCEMANDATION J.RONALDO

@Advaithnethi said in #1:

100 elo gm and im players.

Statistical probability: 0%.

@Advaithnethi said in #1: > 100 elo gm and im players. Statistical probability: 0%.

Focus on progress and improving your skills by practising, elo will automatically increase. The less you care about, the easier you’ll get it, trust me. I used to always focus on hitting 2100 rapid. Whenever I’ll get close, I’d panic and lose everything and then give up for a few days, the cycle repeats. One fine day, my dad told me to focus on the progress and where I’m going wrong, instead of my rating. Now I’m happily sitting at 2341 :D

Focus on progress and improving your skills by practising, elo will automatically increase. The less you care about, the easier you’ll get it, trust me. I used to always focus on hitting 2100 rapid. Whenever I’ll get close, I’d panic and lose everything and then give up for a few days, the cycle repeats. One fine day, my dad told me to focus on the progress and where I’m going wrong, instead of my rating. Now I’m happily sitting at 2341 :D

Take a look at this 10+5 game, https[colon]//lichess.org/4JSb7xL3 , from ~4 days ago. After 1 e4 e5 2 d3 Bc5 3 Nc3 Qf6 4 Nh3 Ne7 5 Be2 O-O 6 O-O d6 7 Be3 Bxe3 8 fxe3 Qe6 9 Bg4 Qg6 10 Bxc8 Rxc8 11 Nd5 Nxd5 12 exd5 h6 13 d4 exd4 14 exd4 Re8 15 Re1 Rxe1+ 16 Qxe1 Qxc2 17 Qe8+ Kh7 18 Re1 Qd2 19 Re7 Qc1+ 20. Kf2, you thought for ~3 seconds and chose 20...Qxb2+, missing the opportunity to significantly improve your situation with 20...Nc6.
I have to confess that I myself might have overlooked the 20...Nc6 possibility, but it is somewhat concerning that you played your first 20 moves at an average rate that would have made sense if you had expected the game to last for 130 moves. In a 10+5 game, you could average 13 seconds per move and have time for 75 moves.
7...Bxe3 was another rushed decision (~2 seconds) when you might have gone for 7...Bxh6 8 gxh3 Bxe3 9 fxe3 Qg5+ 10 Kh1 Qxe3.
That particular possibility would have worked out well for you, but it was available because of mistakes by Gorlarikki who might have chosen 7 Bg5 instead of 7 Be3.
Your choice of 3...Qf6 suggests that you need to learn some basics.
"... the further advanced the queen becomes, the more prone it is to attack from enemy pieces, and this is particularly the case in the opening when there have been no piece trades and the board is cluttered. If you're not careful with your queen handling in the opening then you could easily lose time as it gets pushed from pillar to post. And losing time is not a good idea because you are likely to fall behind in development. ..." - Discovering Chess Openings (2006) by GM John Emms
It has to be wondered if 10+5 games are too fast for you right now. You thought for ~11 seconds after 9 Bg4 and nevertheless overlooked the opportunity to react with 9...Qxg4. 15+10 games would allow you to average over 20 seconds per move.
After 15 Re1, 15...Nd7 would have been better than 15...Rxe1+.
"... Logical Chess [(Batsford edition by Chernev)] ... a collection of 33 games ... is definitely for beginners and players who are just starting to learn about development, weak squares, the centre, standard attacking ideas, and the like. In many ways, it would [be] a wonderful 'first' book (or first 'serious' book, after the ones which teach the rules and elementary mates, for example), and a nice gift for a young player just taking up chess. ..." - IM John Watson (1999)
https://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/assorted-recent-books
https://www.amazon.com/Logical-Chess-Every-Explained-Algebraic/dp/0713484640?asin=0713484640&revisi&format=4&depth=1

Take a look at this 10+5 game, https[colon]//lichess.org/4JSb7xL3 , from ~4 days ago. After 1 e4 e5 2 d3 Bc5 3 Nc3 Qf6 4 Nh3 Ne7 5 Be2 O-O 6 O-O d6 7 Be3 Bxe3 8 fxe3 Qe6 9 Bg4 Qg6 10 Bxc8 Rxc8 11 Nd5 Nxd5 12 exd5 h6 13 d4 exd4 14 exd4 Re8 15 Re1 Rxe1+ 16 Qxe1 Qxc2 17 Qe8+ Kh7 18 Re1 Qd2 19 Re7 Qc1+ 20. Kf2, you thought for ~3 seconds and chose 20...Qxb2+, missing the opportunity to significantly improve your situation with 20...Nc6. I have to confess that I myself might have overlooked the 20...Nc6 possibility, but it is somewhat concerning that you played your first 20 moves at an average rate that would have made sense if you had expected the game to last for 130 moves. In a 10+5 game, you could average 13 seconds per move and have time for 75 moves. 7...Bxe3 was another rushed decision (~2 seconds) when you might have gone for 7...Bxh6 8 gxh3 Bxe3 9 fxe3 Qg5+ 10 Kh1 Qxe3. That particular possibility would have worked out well for you, but it was available because of mistakes by Gorlarikki who might have chosen 7 Bg5 instead of 7 Be3. Your choice of 3...Qf6 suggests that you need to learn some basics. "... the further advanced the queen becomes, the more prone it is to attack from enemy pieces, and this is particularly the case in the opening when there have been no piece trades and the board is cluttered. If you're not careful with your queen handling in the opening then you could easily lose time as it gets pushed from pillar to post. And losing time is not a good idea because you are likely to fall behind in development. ..." - Discovering Chess Openings (2006) by GM John Emms It has to be wondered if 10+5 games are too fast for you right now. You thought for ~11 seconds after 9 Bg4 and nevertheless overlooked the opportunity to react with 9...Qxg4. 15+10 games would allow you to average over 20 seconds per move. After 15 Re1, 15...Nd7 would have been better than 15...Rxe1+. "... Logical Chess [(Batsford edition by Chernev)] ... a collection of 33 games ... is definitely for beginners and players who are just starting to learn about development, weak squares, the centre, standard attacking ideas, and the like. In many ways, it would [be] a wonderful 'first' book (or first 'serious' book, after the ones which teach the rules and elementary mates, for example), and a nice gift for a young player just taking up chess. ..." - IM John Watson (1999) https://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/assorted-recent-books https://www.amazon.com/Logical-Chess-Every-Explained-Algebraic/dp/0713484640?asin=0713484640&revisi&format=4&depth=1

xöööööööööööööööööööööööööööö

xöööööööööööööööööööööööööööö

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.