About two weeks ago I hit a new personal high on ICC with a standard rating of 1912 (not like ICC ratings mean much, just using it for reference). Since then, my rating has done nothing but drop and it seems like whatever I do, I can hardly win a game. My rating as of tonight (just a few games later) is now down to 1777. Last weekend I played in an OTB tournament and played terribly, losing to someone rated more than 300 points less. My thought process doesn't feel different, but apparently it is, because my results are awful. I'm incorrectly evaluating seemingly every position and overlooking fairly simple tactics.

Does anyone here ever experience something similar? Is it like baseball or basketball in that no matter what you do, a slump is going to run its course? An old baseball player once said "A slump is like a common cold. No matter what you do, it's going to last two weeks". Pretty much sums up how I'm feeling right about now.

Not nearly the same as playing live chess on ICC or in person, or all that many games for that matter, but I've lost 6 out of 7 (The seventh being a win on time) on chess.com. Feels like I'm making stupid move after stupid move, and I can't seem to do anything right. Not that my tactics are all that good to begin with, but just like you mentioned, I feel like I'm overlooking things I would have seen a few weeks ago.

It's messed with my head so much I'm taking a short break for chess. I probably should have expected it though, I went 11 games without a loss (Only two draws) against mostly higher rated players right before it, and that was bound to flip around at some point.

You're certainly going to have variance and many non-chess things affect hwo well you play. If it doesn't turn around on its own, take a break for a week or two.

It's normal, don't worry.

I appreciate the replies, thank y'all very much.

Now that I think about it more, I think part of it might be trying to assimilate new ideas. I've been playing and studying quite a bit lately and am trying to put some of that new knowledge to use. Right now my games feel disjointed and I guess some of that is probably due to trying to mix old knowledge with new, but not quite being able to correctly apply the new stuff yet.

Or I'm just getting progressively worse at chess haha.

online I've taken a hell of a beating - but recently (last night) - I went 3 for 3 in live chess (30min with 5 sec increment) - beating a 1300, a 1640, and a 1724 player - (I was 1547 at the start) -

something about my live game just sucks me in 100% whereas the computer is like - meh, click, hang, resign - might be something to consider

RB

This happens to me all the time. Sometimes I think the cause is feeling too carefree when I'm playing. I don't get that annoyed when I lose, and I think that prevents me from playing my A game consistently.

Clearly it's rigged. The site doesn't want winning players to do well because that scares away the fish. You think it's a coincidence that this 'slump' happened just after you hit your peak rating?*

* Maybe you started playing a little different to hold that rating?

I definitely think you're onto something there. First part, not last.

Some of my biggest slumps come shortly after working alot on chess. So curious how the brain works. And everytime I improve it seems to come in occasional big leaps as opposed to a gradual climb with no clear correlation with how much I have been working on my game, well other than non-zero. I've had numerous experiences where I woke up one day and I was suddenly just 100 points stronger, permanently.

Though I think a number of those bursts were simply mentality; realizing that just because somebody is of a certain rating or title doesn't mean you cannot beat them - and often. Something every chess player has to overcome at some point. Which I think is why many stronger chess players can come off as haughty even though very few, in my experience, truly are.

Very good post. I think you're spot on talking about how important a good mentality is in chess. To be honest I think this aspect of chess is very underrated and not stressed enough. I've noticed certain authors like Silman preach exactly what you're saying. I can't remember the exact quote, but I remember reading one of Silman's books and he was saying how that mentality alone is worth a couple hundred points, no joke.

when I beat the 3 players I played monday night, I didn't know the ratings of the first two players - kinda wished I hadn't known the rating of the 1700 - (made me more eager to play for a draw, but that was more for the prize money of $20 than anything)

RB

Back in September I scored something like 4.5/9 at the U.S. Open which I already tripish reported here against an average rating of around 400 points higher than myself. The first game I saw my opponent was 20xx and promptly lost. After that I decided not to look at my opponents' ratings and obviously did quite well.

Each game I thought, "Hm, this guy's terrible. Couldn't be over 1600." Nope, 2050. "Well this guy's a little better, maybe 1800-1900." 2220. And so on, giving me a plus score after the first game while I was rated 1570 something. The last game I accidentally peeked again and saw his rating was 18xx and thought, "Oh my god, Patzer. I'm going to clean his clock. (250 points higher than me, haha.)" Of course I ended up loosing that one.

The other day I won a game against a women that I later found out is the 4th highest rated women in the country, she is only 2000ish because Chile is a small southamerican country but I still managed to impress my buddies with the anecdote.

She played a line that I didnt know it existed so it gave me confidence that I was going to win.

Haha, great last story. I do like the advice and need to start doing that too. I've heard several people with similar stories and good results. It's amazing how much you can psych yourself out if you see someone with a rating higher than yours.

I made a comment like this a while back, and surprisingly, most people said that they play better against people with higher ratings and worse against people with lower ratings.

In terms of rating performance I suppose

I think I remember reading that thread actually. I vaguely recall a few 2200-2300s talking about + or = scores against GMs but comparitively worse against 2000-2200s. They must be mentally tougher than us haha.

Doubt it's mental toughness. But yea, nowadays facing a tougher player is exciting whereas somewhere a long time ago it was more like terrifying.

yah, when I draw a 15 minute player that's 300 points lower than me (happens sometimes in that pool) - I'm usually more disappointed - like beating up a grade schooler - and if I lose I REALLY loathe myself -

I lose to a player 300 points higher than me and it's like I got a real fight going on and a shot to learn something and stretch beyond my boundaries -

having said that, sometimes I'm still glad I don't know their ratings when I play

RB

Anyone ever come out of a slump? I've been on this downswing for roughly 20 years.

I could imagine that this could easily be connected to the idea that the majority of chess players believe that they are underrated. If you think you're 200 points "better" than your allegedly lagging rating, and you play someone rated 200 points higher than you, then in your mind it's an equal game, and you've got a 50/50 chance to score an upset (contradictory, but that doesn't mean people don't think this way). In such a situation, most players are likely to focus very hard, and will probably play relatively close to their "best" chess.

On the other hand, if that same player goes up against an opponent of the same rating, he will assume that he's "actually" better, and may not concentrate as hard against the "inferior" equal-rated opponent. Since of course we're much more likely to assume that we're underrated than to assume that our opponent is. Playing your 'A' game against opponents who are stronger than you may lead to a very similar score against those opponents as you get against equally rated opponents against whom you only play your 'C' game.

All just speculation, of course. Seems like a relatively believable psychological explanation to me, though.

Sort of hit on it, BJJ. Nothing to do with under/over rated ime, but simply the fact that it's a LOT easier to really focus and take the game seriously when you're playing a better player. How often do I find myself wandering around looking at other games, daydreaming, etc when I play lower players or occasionally even players around my rating? A lot. Which is obv not optimal. How often do I do that when I'm playing someone quite a bit stronger? Very rarely. I look at those games as awesome opportunities both to get an upset and to get an interesting game that will almost certainly be instructive.

wow. you guys are really taking these fakeratings on ICC (Which is hopelessly flawed.) seriously.

In my experience I have I found online ratings more reliable than live ratings. I've run into so many guys that are "national masters" which translates to them being floored at 2200 which they somehow mysteriously reached however long ago but play at like 1800 at best level today. Or similarly you play somebody who played a handful of events when when he was younger and picked up a rating of 1100 or whatever but now plays 1800+. Even for rating differences that aren't hundreds of points, it takes substantially longer for live ratings to converge on a player whose skill level has changed since few people have the time to play tons of tournaments. If you play somebody online who is 2200, you know he's going to be more or less 2200. That's definitely not true of live ratings.

I think getting rid of the floor system would be a huge first step for live ratings, but I guess then you'd have to create some sort of strange system to deal with the sandbagging potential. Maybe increasing the K factor is a possibility but then though ratings would more rapidly approach skill, a random hot streak paired with rating floors would create even more comical live rating silliness.

Wait, I thought we were talking about live tournaments and ratings ...

Anyway, I agree iwth dir that we should drop the floors altogether. You'd probably have to use highest rating or highest rating in the last x years to determine sections.