Played heavily from my teens into my early 20s.. i got to the point where I was a 1700-1800 standard player on ICC.. I understand most of the openings and the theories and with fairly decent tactical knowledge/strategy... I could recognize the weaknesses of my opponents and string the basic 3-5 move combos together and not make any blatant mistakes like hanging pieces. but then I just got bored with it and after I realized I was near my maximum potential and that I wasn't going to get much better, I shut down by ICC account and quit about 5 years ago.

I've been looking for another hobby to pass the time so I don't go on any horse racing gambling binge. I redownload ICC and get on. I can't even beat WimpE or any other 1050 rated piece of crap ****** on there It's pathetic. I have gotten so gdamn mad that I can't play this game anymore, I've just been slamming stuff on my desk, breaking pens, and throwing crap around. I even berated a few 1100 rated opponents, I feel like such an idiot. It's so incredibly frustration that I don't remember a stinking thing about a game that I used to be fairly good at.

Anyone else quit for a long period of time? How the hell do I get the magic back or is it gone forever?

Bobby is dead, computers stomp everyone, the magic is gone.

No fun in chess, everyone's solid.

But seriously, if you're not enjoying it at all, why play?

I'm a bit like you in that I think I reached my maximum potential years ago (was around 2000-2100) then slowly lost my passion for the game. Nowadays I love playing when I get the chance (which isn't often), but I know I've lost a lot of the skill, and I know I'm not really going to improve, so it's just for fun. These days I only get worked up about poker, heh.

I'm sure tons of people have the same experience. No point getting so mad about it - either you start getting serious about the game again, or you just play it casually, or you just don't play if you don't feel like it.

I'm similar. I played about 7 years ago got to around 1800 without any study then stopped playing. Nowadays decided to get back into it (and study), yet I struggle to beat 1500s (been playing again for about a month). It's normally accepted that players "lose their ability" after a time of not playing. I guess/hope it's just a case of being patient.

Look on the bright side - it's not like you're talking about pokerz here and you're losing money by losing games ;P

There's zero chance your 'max potential' is 1700-1800 ICC standard. That's just the point where you probably need to start putting in some decent effort to improve beyond. It's like if you go to the gym for a few months and can (ok - this analogy depends on your size but in general) bench reps of about 165, and then decide that's just about your max potential since it starts getting tough about then. Everybody, for the most part, can bench way more than that but it's the point where just casually visiting the gym for an hour or two every once in a while isn't usually going to help you get much beyond it at least not in a reasonable time frame.

That rant aside, the problem sounds like your ego could be getting in your way. Just slow down, respect your opponents even if they're 1100 rated, and play the game. It's so easy at all levels to just expect to win since your opponents are clearly inferior to you, but that's the best way to make sure you lose the game.

A piece of practical advise might even be to put a little piece of tape over your monitor where their rating (and yours as well!) is normally displayed. I think it would help you out a ton.

Actually this is very interesting (and probably deserves it's own thread. Sorry if it's already been discussed a lot, I haven't searched). Are you saying that anyone can improve past 1800 with decent effort? I know Lasker (I think) once made a similar claim, saying he could make a decent player out of anyone in a certain time frame.


EDIT: Is 1800 ICC the same as 1800 FIDE? I've been assuming FIDE ratings throughout.

100% on 1800.

Lasker made a much stronger claim. He claimed he could bring a complete amateur to a level that would be roughly 2000 in 200 hours of focused training.

One thing he was definitely very spot on is that only 5% of those 200 hours would be spent on openings and 2.5% on endings. Whereas I think the vast majority of players who find themselves struggling to improve end up devoting massively disproportionate amounts of time to those fields seriously hampering their own development.

Yeah I think endgame study isn't really that important beyond fundamental King and Pawn endings. There are maybe a few basic maneuvres in Rook and pawn endings that are good to remember. It's important to study your own games, including the endgame, to find places you could have improved. That way you build up a block of experience that you can draw on. It's like learning a language - if you read the dictionary you probably won't remember that many of the words, but if you have to use it in a real situation you will remember it 100%. Learning to play the endgame (and to some extent the middlegame) is a lot like that.

You CAN become a 2000+ player if you study just the opening and not much else. I know a couple of players like this. I might even put myself in that category to a certain extent. But yeah, it's not the optimal way to develop in chess.

No you can't and no you don't. That's simply 100% incorrect and you most likely have an incredibly distorted view of your own level of play since I'm 100% sure you're not saying that based on any actual official ratings. It's no less ridiculous than saying you can beat $400NL (.... full stacked) by memorizing a really good hand chart.

FYP

If you're good enough to get to 1800 with just playing, without any real studying at all (and there are definitely people who can do this, though it might take a while) then you can probably get to 2000 just by adding opening study (think of just the effect from not playing from behind after the opening a lot.) I don't think this is what John_Douglas meant, though.

1. c4 e5 2. e3 d5 3. d4 exd4 4. Qxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 c5 6. Qd1 d4 7. exd4 cxd4 8.
Nd5 Nxd5 9. cxd5 Qxd5 10. Nf3 Nc6 11. Be2 Bc5 12. O-O O-O 13. Bd3 Bg4 14.
Re1 Rfe8 15. Be2 Re6 16. Be3 Rae8 17. Rc1 Bxf3 18. Bxf3 dxe3 19. Bxd5 exf2+
20. Kf1 Rxe1+ {White resigns} 0-1


Starting to get my mojo back. Queen sac ftw.

Yes, that is basically what I meant. If you see tactics reasonably well, then having a good opening repertoire will take you a long way.

No!

1800 on ICC isn't even 1800 on ICC. Fact is that ICC is offering different formats like bullet, 3 min, 5 min, 15 min and so on and each format will produce unique relative numbers. You need to look up GMs and how they perform at the different formats. The very same GM may have 2900 at the 3 min level, but only 2500 at 5 min.

My own feeling was (when I was following ICC on daily basis like 4-5 years ago) that the true Elo ratings are about 500 pts lower than the 3 min ratings and about 100 points higher than the 5 min rating. This approximation is only valid for the GM level, as the gap shrinks the lower you get.

Well, I've been playing alot more lately and it's all coming back to me. I would say I'm back to 1600-1700 level right now.. Still missing some tactical combos but my positioning game (putting pieces in good spots) is back to where it was. Not quite all the way back but pretty close. But this has got me thinking after reading the Allen Cunningham/Howard Lederer prop bet. If Lederer were honest and didn't sharp up his game prior to this one off match (quick time controls I believe), then I think Allen C will be a huge favorite in it after training for a year. I couldn't believe how rusty I was. ESPECIALLY in 5-minute blitz matches. I had absolutely nothing for the first 10-15 blitz matches out of the gate, off the shelf after 5 years.

Ok thanks. You say the gap shrinks as one goes lower - what would you estimate an 1800 ICC at classical format to be on the FIDE scale?

Everyone is different. I feel to get much stronger past 1800 to 2200+, two factors are very important, tactics and understanding. Playing blitz chess is in my opinion a poor way to achieve this. Analyze games, study lots of tactics, and play slower games were you can implement some learned tactics into your game.

One thing that took a long long time for me was getting to positions were I had vast tactics at my disposal. I studied all Mikhail Tal's games and in a few of the games found the great sac. My problem was having the understanding to get to these positions. With lots of hard work, you can improve well beyond your current rating.

With any great book of elite GM play, most of the moves are foreign initially. Over time, you begin to understand them. After lots of study, you understand all of them eventually. Not that you'll find these moves OTB on a regular basis, but you'll find a lot of strong moves. Again, this requires a lot of work. You'll build a strong intuition over time that is always helpful in blitz.

The main things is to just have fun. Most people won't enjoy spending 200 hours of hard work to get a decent jump in rating points. For those that love chess, it never gets old, we just wish we had more time to play and study. With limited time, most choose to just play, not study.

Backgammon is a good alternative. A bit more luck(Pandora's box) involved.

OP, you appear to be getting your game back which is good

But I thought I would just briefly respond to the above. With a long enough gap you can sometimes get a permanent drop in potential but it should be possible to improve your game still.

What I would say is that there are a few new fun board games and a few other classics beyond chess. (I'm not going to be popular on a chess forum)

I think stratego, go or abalone are likely to appeal to you and they can be less time consuming. I know a few more obscure gems too. But in my experience there is more than one game for everyone.

Bridge is another game that can be played against players of any standard and still be challenging and fun.

Abalone is lame. On like the second or third game I played, I found the 3-4-5 defensive shell, and I spent like a day figuring out how to crack it and couldn't even come close.

Ah, yeah forgot...

There is a new and improved start position called belgian daisy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abalone_(board_game)

It is used for tournaments etc. Otherwise the game is very easily drawn.
ty for pointing this out

not into chess that much, but will play live instead of comp.