Need some chess psychology help

[TexAg06]

2+2, I need some help. For a quick background, as many of you know I'm trying to go from ~1500 to 2200 in a period of about 3 to 3.5 years. So far I'm about 1.5 years in and am rated about 1980. Things were going really well at first but for the past 9 months I've been rated 19xx, unable to break 2000. It's perplexing to me because I've studied like crazy, played a lot, and feel like I know so much more than I did 9 months ago, but my rating isn't really showing it. I even feel like I'm playing better, but still, can't get over the hump.

This past weekend I lost to a lower rated player and was pretty upset with myself. I realized that lately I've begun to play for rating points instead of a love for the game, and I think that is negatively affecting my play. For the first time in the past 1.5 years, I haven't been enjoying chess as much as I used to. Has anyone else experienced a funk like this, where your results aren't where you'd like them to be and it's affecting your enjoyment of the game? Do y'all have some tips to forget about ratings, results, etc, and to just play the game because it's awesome? I really need some help clearing my head. I've always heard people say to just forget about ratings, to just play and let the points take care of themselves, but I've lost sight of that.

Anything at all would be appreciated. Much thanks.

[fezjones]

update your opening repitoire

[KyleJRM82]

Hang in there. Try to relax. You're just tilting because the 2000 is looming over your head.

It hasn't even been six months since you hit 1902 for the first time.

You are going to get to 2000. And it might be from getting to 1980, 1990 and 2000 by grinding out a few points out a time.

But more likely, you are going to bounce around a ton until one day you have a baller 4/4 tourney and go from like 1960 to 2040 in one shot, and the psychological wall will be broken.

[Do it Right]

Chess improvement is strange. My improvement has always come in spurts. It's as if one day I woke up and I was something crazy like 200 points better than I had ever been. Looking at rating graphs of other players I know I'm not the only one that has had this happen. And the patten tends to be something like study/study/study/gradual improvement/sudden decline/massive improvement.

There's no magic pill or there'd be no 1800s in this world. You just have to do what you can and see what tomorrow brings. Failing all that I know a great way to rejuvenate interest in chess is to not play the game for a few months. I've tried, and failed, at quitting chess several times. Invariably each time when I come back the pieces seem magical and infinitely interesting once again which is a sure fire to bring the game back to life for you.

[goldaxe]

Originally Posted by Do it Right

Chess improvement is strange. My improvement has always come in spurts. It's as if one day I woke up and I was something crazy like 200 points better than I had ever been. Looking at rating graphs of other players I know I'm not the only one that has had this happen. And the patten tends to be something like study/study/study/gradual improvement/sudden decline/massive improvement.

This exactly.

[PyramidScheme]

Have you been losing to lower rated players more, and beating higher rated players more during these 9 months?


Lately I have been trying to improve my own game. I have been watching videos to improve, trying to play more solid openings etc. It has been working, my 3 highest rated opponents defeated have all been in the last few months. Before this attempt to improve I had like a 36 game win streak vs players <1600 (I'm in the 1900s now, 1700s-1800s) when this streak started. Anyway I have suffered some losses to lower rated players now. Last week I took a loss to a 1400 which is the first time I lost to someone so low with >60mins on the clock in eight years. It was also the biggest rating gap upset in a long game I ever took in my life, by quite a wide margin.

Now I'm not implying I'm losing to these people a lot, I just seem to be now more at the standard 92% than the 100% I was maintaining before.


Most people theorized that I beat lower rated players so consistently and lost to higher rated players so consistently because it was (in my head) I always knew this was asinine, that's how it SHOULD be, if anything everyone else was the one with the psychological block.


After some thought on the manner I determined the reason. When you play more solid chess, your opponents responses are often more obvious. It's like you're playing a game of ice hockey instead of a game of basketball. In ice hockey the game is decided by 3-5 plays. In basketball many plays factor into the decision allowing the 'better' team to always prevail. If you're playing someone > 200 points lower than you always play ridiculous openings, and you should win all the time. This should help you 'gain more points'. Personally I don't care much about the points, but I just want to put up the 'W' anyway so I have decided I will employ this. Keep in mind this strategy will only work if you're a tactically minded player. If your strength is positional chess and/or openings don't go this route.

Also, everyone is going to reply to this telling me I'm wrong but I'm soooo right.

[wlrs]

Yea you sure have been doing some rationalization

[PyramidScheme]

Originally Posted by wlrs

Yea you sure have been doing some rationalization

I'll let you know my results over the next year. It's definitely not 'rationalization'. Having the biggest upsets of my life both the bad and good way both occurring in the same few months when I've played 100's of rated games is too big of a coincidence. It's possible I'm WRONG about the reason, but there def. is a reason.

[ohsnapzbrah]

That's mine. Be patient, sometimes you may be improving and just not seeing the results. This could be many reasons. Mine was a psychological factor because I was always playing the same people and always losing. Yours very well could be that, similar to that, or the fact that players around 2000 are also improving at the same rate as you. Hang in there though!

[NajdorfDefense]

Originally Posted by Do it Right

Chess improvement is strange. My improvement has always come in spurts. It's as if one day I woke up and I was something crazy like 200 points better than I had ever been. Looking at rating graphs of other players I know I'm not the only one that has had this happen. And the patten tends to be something like study/study/study/gradual improvement/sudden decline/massive improvement.

There's no magic pill or there'd be no 1800s in this world. You just have to do what you can and see what tomorrow brings. Failing all that I know a great way to rejuvenate interest in chess is to not play the game for a few months. I've tried, and failed, at quitting chess several times. Invariably each time when I come back the pieces seem magical and infinitely interesting once again which is a sure fire to bring the game back to life for you.

This.

And don't play for rating points, play for fun. Take some breaks when you feel burned out.

Everyone loses to weaker and lower-rated players. Even Fischer at his peak lost to an IM. It happens.

You'll get there. I'm going to try to go from ~1500 to 2000 in 4 years. Guaranteed there'll be some bad losses and tourneys in there.

[KyleJRM82]

One thing to consider in the "beat higher-rateds, lose to lower-rateds" issue is time control.

I know Tex plays mostly G/30 OTB, which is really high variance.

[TexAg06]

All, thanks very much for the replies, there is some really good stuff in this thread. A lot of y'all touched on different things I was thinking.

Do it Right, you pretty much nailed chess improvement by saying "study/study/study/gradual improvement/sudden decline/massive improvement". Sometimes when you're in the middle of a sudden decline it's tough to remember there is light at the end of the tunnel.

PyramidScheme, it's funny that you mentioned that. I was thinking the same thing and actually talking to a friend about that exact thing the other day. The conclusion we came to, which is related to what you were saying, is that my (and it sounds like yours as well) general understanding of chess is improving but has currently grown quicker than the ability to execute. Meaning that we probably know the game better, e.g. which plan to select in a given position, but the tactics and technique involved in carrying it out are still improving. And like you said, sometimes playing better chess means playing more tactically, which leads to double-edged play that can bring more losses if the execution isn't there.

Kyle, what you said about the G/30 stuff is right on the money. I've lost to countless people I shouldn't have and beat several people I shouldn't have. I also think the variance would be much less in only longer time controls.

[John_Douglas]

I think you said it in your last post.

You're getting near 2000 and that's a level where (in my opinion) general study becomes less revelant. You and your opponents will usually have a pretty good idea of what to do in most positions (at least in the positions that you reach from your typical openings). Or even if what you're doing is not what Kramnik would do, it will probably have some degree of logic to it.

You won't be able to win as many games on pure understanding, the results will hinge on who is able to make the best chess decisions during the game, in other words your "execution," or the quality of your decision making algorithm. And how do you improve that? I wish I knew the answer myself. It's not really talked about too much in chess literature. I think the Dvoretsky books are maybe the best in this area.

[PyramidScheme]

Originally Posted by TexAg06

All, thanks very much for the replies, there is some really good stuff in this thread. A lot of y'all touched on different things I was thinking.

Do it Right, you pretty much nailed chess improvement by saying "study/study/study/gradual improvement/sudden decline/massive improvement". Sometimes when you're in the middle of a sudden decline it's tough to remember there is light at the end of the tunnel.

PyramidScheme, it's funny that you mentioned that. I was thinking the same thing and actually talking to a friend about that exact thing the other day. The conclusion we came to, which is related to what you were saying, is that my (and it sounds like yours as well) general understanding of chess is improving but has currently grown quicker than the ability to execute. Meaning that we probably know the game better, e.g. which plan to select in a given position, but the tactics and technique involved in carrying it out are still improving. And like you said, sometimes playing better chess means playing more tactically, which leads to double-edged play that can bring more losses if the execution isn't there.

Kyle, what you said about the G/30 stuff is right on the money. I've lost to countless people I shouldn't have and beat several people I shouldn't have. I also think the variance would be much less in only longer time controls.

lol, its all a matter of perception perhaps. For me playing better chess met playing more POSITIONALLY. In the past I have made 'bad' moves, moves that I know are bad just to create chaos and play. Such play allowed me to really ALWAYS beat weaker opponents who always become overwhelmed, and always lose to stronger opponents, who take advantage of the bad moves in the first place. Now that I have tried to cool it down, the wins against stronger opposition are coming but losses vs weaker opposition are sprinkled in as well.

I know people will say it's 'bad for my improvement' blah blahblah, but I think I'm going to make the cutoff 150-200 pts below me where i will always play like a psychotic wackjob against... so 'ensure' the victories. I don't really care about rating, I feel like your rating will always settle around to what you are... I just want to win the games. Entry fees are expensive, haha.

[All-inMcLovin]

I've always heard people say to just forget about ratings, to just play and let the points take care of themselves, but I've lost sight of that.

I'd focus on the bold.