I think the Dojo has a great mix of ages and mindsets with Kostya, David and Jesse. It's like the three legs of a stool, you lose one and the whole thing doesn't work right.
I like this. Years ago I had my mentality about setting goals changed when I saw some talk somewhere (I wish I remembered what it was) say that focusing on the results can be ineffective and damaging because you can't always control results. What you can control is what effort you put into the goal and let the results follow. I've used that in my fitness endeavors as well as chess. It really does feel liberating.
This video came to me at the perfect time haha I hit a peak recently and stopped playing in fear of losing it, worst part is that it was an online rating of all things! Good thing I scheduled two upcoming over the board tournaments to hopefully deter myself from being overinvested in what my online ratings are! I'd much rather be invested in an over the board tournament rating because I know it wouldn't affect whether or not I play in them and would encourage me to play online and study more. Personally I like to think of OTB tournaments like some sort of marker of where I'm at strength wise, how I'm performing and everything. This probably isn't a healthy view of it to an extent either because it may change how I learn from my upcoming tournaments. We'll see!
Yes, this is definitely something I needed and wanted to hear about. I know that I want to improve, and to do so need to play more games. But I hate losing, and now I also know that I'm going to lose points making it even more clear to myself that I haven't been playing enough. It also feels like a personal reflection of my intelligence. So, rather than potentially lose points, I tend to study games, strategy, tactics, openings, anything but play games. The solution I thought of, though it might still not work, is to find people to play against IRL OTB. I can lose all I want to, and it won't affect my rating online. I can learn from my mistakes, and slowly recover from the need to win, and see every game as an opportunity to learn and not repeat the same mistakes I've made before. Not sure if this has to do with the fact that I didn't play chess as a child, where I imagine children playing many games for fun IRL without having any rating, and without having those wins/losses cemented into the annals of internet history.
David's point is spot on , "when you're 7 points away from a rating goal, but you have to go to bed, so you play 1 more game. But then you end up staying up for 2 hours" I agree most with Jesse, rating is a way to measure chess ability
David's first comment so savage lol: "Well Jesse, as usual, made up what Kostya would say about it and, as usual, had a terrific rant and, as usual, did answer Kostya's actual question."
Great video! I definitely agree with not driving yourself crazy with it but being humbled by it at the same time :) Important to have a positive relationship with chess & not be driven out by our own ambitions
A point and question.. 1. Ratings in the middle levels don't tell you why your rating is what it is. For example you might be better in the endgame, someone else with the same rating might be better tactically. 2. I once played in an Open Section as the lowest rated player with an odd number of players. I played an IM to a guy 300 points higher than me in the last round. Fantastic experience. I only drew two games, but I played some of my best chess. Do you think playing in Open Sections is a good way to improve?
@@ChessDojo Thanks. But doesn't it depend on your goal. For example, as an older player who is probably locked into my rating, I find it more enjoyable to play even stronger. Even though at some point I lose I feel like I'm playing "quality" chess until then. What Jesse describes - self-destruction - eventually happens.
@@ChessDojo I don't disagree and you clearly have more expertise than I do. Especially about today's chess landscape. But I wonder if there's data on this. Maybe Rowson?
I needed this video. I have been studying so hard and have hit a little bump in the road and am stuck between 850-900. I noticed that it makes me overthink now cus I don’t want to lose or I get extremely tilted after a loss to someone in the 700s when in reality I just made like 5 mistakes and a blunder overthinking. It made me not want to even play. It makes me not even want to study cus it felt like now Maube the study is ineffective. But yeah. Great video. Definitely motivated me to get back on the grind right when I needed it most.
I had a bad experience where I had a good tournament outside my isolated area, and then came back with my inflated rating. I said to a friend - "There's no reason I can't beat the better guys at the club now." Then i got smacked, like in a really dominant way. So that was a bit embarrassing. But hopefully I'll be more humble if I ever see some dramatic increase in rating again.
Realistically everyone has strengths and weaknesses that are innate. Ratings are an indication of where you stand relative to others. Statistics has meaning. You can learn a lot about your own strengths and weaknesses from ratings. Any competitive Pursuit generally involves knowing where you were strong and where you're weak informing a game plan that presents the strengths to the enemy while shielding the weaknesses. For example I have learnt that my puzzle strength is very strong, my rapid games are my strengths among I'm on what I play, my blitz is weak and my bullet is in between. It makes sense to me to study openings because like a tennis serve or return every point involves both of these. Tactical puzzles are like ground strokes - maybe 70 to 80% of games involve these too. Studying End Games exhaustively at this stage is a bit like working on the backhand smash. I'll get to it when my openings are well drilled and competent and my tactics and puzzles are plateauing. I think the key to tilt late night is to reserve Blitz or bullet for the sessions where you don't really care about ratings and just want to have a crack.
"And they go on playing for 2 hours!" Only 2 hours? What about playing the whole night? (I heard that some people do this, not me, of course, wink-wink).
I'm just a bit younger than Jesse, and I have to say that, especially considering his training as a philosopher, the whole "I know what millennials will say about this" is getting old. I think David and Kostya made the best points in this discussion. As for me (currently rated 1880 OTB), I understand now that I want to see chess as a 2000-rated player would see and understand it, even if my rating doesn't reflect that. That's the next step in my ladder, and so my point remains to do the work, not to get the numbers.
You are higher-rated than I am, but I've hung out with friends who are masters, FMs and IMs. I prefer to watch them analyze their games more than playing myself. Occasionally I'll see an idea they've overlooked and often they'll ask me who I think is better and why. I've found that having a certain level of chess culture and good questions is a entry ticket to observing this world. It's definitely fascinating. *** One of the guys has a saying: "Proficient in your own mediocrity." I've found that many players around your level are unaware of what they don't know. There are lots of ways to get to your level - higher than I'll ever be - and still have major gaps in your game. I once played the Queens Gambit Declined as white for the first time in my life against a 1800+ club player who played it all the time. He moved the same piece about 6 times in the first 12 moves. Clearly he was lost. I got a better position and offered him a draw. I learned nothing from the game. Good luck on your quest.
From a game theoretical standpoint, when playing against a lower rated player, you should keep the game simple, and complicate things against a higher rated player, regardless of the game involved. Because chess has draws, the strategy is somewhat more complex, as you want to add enough complexity to improve the chance of winning over drawing, but no more than necessary. This can be counterintuitive, but the logic is if the game becomes too complex, neither player understands what’s going on, which adds variance, which the weaker player wants.
The rating system is the best metric that we have. It's not absolute, and that's good. Two people of APPROXIMATELY equal ratings have to fight tooth and nail to procure a win.. And the underdog CAN prevail.
Rating would be more meaningful if it was shown along with its standard deviation. A 1200 who always plays like a 1200 is quite different from one who sometimes plays like a 1500 and sometimes plays like a 900. If it was allowed to be a range, which every kind of average measurement really is in essence, then people wouldn’t fixate on the number with such spurious precision.
I don't particularly care about my rating. The value of having a rating on Lichess is that it matches me with people that are about as good (or bad ) as me. If I meet a random person and ask them if they play chess and we play a game I might be playing someone who is an outstanding player that I have no chance against or they could be someone who I can mate in under 10 moves. That doesn't happen Lichess --- I don't play against great players or horrible players, I play folks at my level and those are fun games.
The main agency talented people have in the corporate world is to just change jobs often. This completely takes away the main problem of lack of internal promotions if not interested in weird corporate politics.
Many enployers are going to look at a promiscuously job hopping employee's resumè and consider do I really want to invest a year training someone up to be barely adequate only for them to discount that investment and then find another job? Nope, we'll shred that one
@@executivelifehacks6747 this dynamic is great for me too because cultures like yours self select out. I have never had a problem finding new jobs and usually with huge jumps in pay rate each change.
What about not checking your opponent's rating? I recently started it and it kind of lifted the pressure of the thought of "oh I have to beat this guy" or "oh she's only slightly higher rated so if I want to improve my rating this is the match I definitely need to win." What do you guys think?
Hard to achieve as most tournaments will show the rating, or once you become similar with certain players you will know their rating anyway. But agreed that it's better not to focus on it!
Someone did an analysis of lichess ratings, and it was "jagged" at the even hundreds, ie many many people stop playing entirely when they hit a goal like 1600,1700 etc. So that problem is endemic.
Each person has a comfort zone. When you can't handle the pressure of expectations and failure, you stop trying. For example, street marathons and trail running are popular among the casuals because more participants means less eyes on you, because you can improve your PB by half an hour without much training, and because the expectations aren't as strict - you can wander around, slack at some parts of the race, and none will be the wiser. On the opposite end of the spectrum are track runners. The field usually consists of only eight to ten runners. All eyes are on you, you work your ass off to shave half a second off your PB, and every meter of your race is judged, every tactical and technical mistake you make that costs you the better time or placement. When you train with people, you can quickly identify who will handle the pressure and to what extent. The casual half-marathon and marathon runners don't quit because they hit a "target PB," they quit because they reach a point when they need to work hard to gain little, it's no fun to train and only improve PB by a little or work two years and patiently wait for it to pay off. The same applies to chess - we reach a level we can based on our affinity. But once the time comes to put in the work...
I had trouble posting here as well and thought it was the channel, and then it started to happen in other channels. I've posted a number of times here and elsewhere in the past without a problem, so this is new for me. Googling tells me it's not new to YT.
![[Part 1] รักมาไม่ทันตั้งตัว❤ หนุ่มสาวโสดถูกจับมาแต่งงานกันกะทันหัน แถมเธอยังเป็นหัวหน้าของเขา?!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/y2pOOMkuFI0/mqdefault.jpg)
I think the Dojo has a great mix of ages and mindsets with Kostya, David and Jesse. It's like the three legs of a stool, you lose one and the whole thing doesn't work right.
The rational, the senile, and the looney.
@@ChessJourneymanwhos who lmao
I love ratings. They make people play seriously, they allow clear goals, they are reasonable way to track progress...
Jessie is so passionate about his opinions and I LOVE IT
Me too!
Rating isn’t a destination - it’s a compass.
Well said!
Obsessing about rating is like trying to lose weight and stepping on the scale after every meal. It's a recipe for frustration and discouragement.
Good analogy!
I like this. Years ago I had my mentality about setting goals changed when I saw some talk somewhere (I wish I remembered what it was) say that focusing on the results can be ineffective and damaging because you can't always control results. What you can control is what effort you put into the goal and let the results follow. I've used that in my fitness endeavors as well as chess. It really does feel liberating.
This video came to me at the perfect time haha I hit a peak recently and stopped playing in fear of losing it, worst part is that it was an online rating of all things! Good thing I scheduled two upcoming over the board tournaments to hopefully deter myself from being overinvested in what my online ratings are! I'd much rather be invested in an over the board tournament rating because I know it wouldn't affect whether or not I play in them and would encourage me to play online and study more. Personally I like to think of OTB tournaments like some sort of marker of where I'm at strength wise, how I'm performing and everything. This probably isn't a healthy view of it to an extent either because it may change how I learn from my upcoming tournaments. We'll see!
Jesse is sooooo right about the real/outside world! :)
Amen
This was a great talk. It started out with such a sharp rant, and then it just went on from view to view with high level of accuracy.
Yes, this is definitely something I needed and wanted to hear about.
I know that I want to improve, and to do so need to play more games. But I hate losing, and now I also know that I'm going to lose points making it even more clear to myself that I haven't been playing enough. It also feels like a personal reflection of my intelligence.
So, rather than potentially lose points, I tend to study games, strategy, tactics, openings, anything but play games.
The solution I thought of, though it might still not work, is to find people to play against IRL OTB. I can lose all I want to, and it won't affect my rating online. I can learn from my mistakes, and slowly recover from the need to win, and see every game as an opportunity to learn and not repeat the same mistakes I've made before.
Not sure if this has to do with the fact that I didn't play chess as a child, where I imagine children playing many games for fun IRL without having any rating, and without having those wins/losses cemented into the annals of internet history.
David's point is spot on , "when you're 7 points away from a rating goal, but you have to go to bed, so you play 1 more game. But then you end up staying up for 2 hours"
I agree most with Jesse, rating is a way to measure chess ability
Yeah, I agree. They can both be right, but for the most part, I agree with Jesse.
David's first comment so savage lol: "Well Jesse, as usual, made up what Kostya would say about it and, as usual, had a terrific rant and, as usual, did answer Kostya's actual question."
Great video! I definitely agree with not driving yourself crazy with it but being humbled by it at the same time :) Important to have a positive relationship with chess & not be driven out by our own ambitions
Ratings is a great tool. The problems is when people define themselves by their rating.
A point and question..
1. Ratings in the middle levels don't tell you why your rating is what it is. For example you might be better in the endgame, someone else with the same rating might be better tactically.
2. I once played in an Open Section as the lowest rated player with an odd number of players. I played an IM to a guy 300 points higher than me in the last round. Fantastic experience. I only drew two games, but I played some of my best chess. Do you think playing in Open Sections is a good way to improve?
In general it's considered optimal to play opponents at your level or a bit stronger/weaker, +/- 200 rating points
@@ChessDojo Thanks. But doesn't it depend on your goal. For example, as an older player who is probably locked into my rating, I find it more enjoyable to play even stronger. Even though at some point I lose I feel like I'm playing "quality" chess until then. What Jesse describes - self-destruction - eventually happens.
If it's more enjoyable then who are we to judge 🙂
But if the question is about improvement then the +/- 200 difference seems pretty ideal
@@ChessDojo I don't disagree and you clearly have more expertise than I do. Especially about today's chess landscape. But I wonder if there's data on this. Maybe Rowson?
Whatever David says on this one will be right. I will confirm this after watching the rest of the video.
And after two minutes, I am proven right in that David is right.
XD
I needed this video. I have been studying so hard and have hit a little bump in the road and am stuck between 850-900. I noticed that it makes me overthink now cus I don’t want to lose or I get extremely tilted after a loss to someone in the 700s when in reality I just made like 5 mistakes and a blunder overthinking. It made me not want to even play. It makes me not even want to study cus it felt like now Maube the study is ineffective. But yeah. Great video. Definitely motivated me to get back on the grind right when I needed it most.
lichess has a feature where you can turn off ratings display in the interface. highly recommend!
Excellent points made by everyone here!!
Guys, you are the best chess online resource. Thank you for providing such great and honest content.
Thanks!
I had a bad experience where I had a good tournament outside my isolated area, and then came back with my inflated rating. I said to a friend - "There's no reason I can't beat the better guys at the club now." Then i got smacked, like in a really dominant way.
So that was a bit embarrassing. But hopefully I'll be more humble if I ever see some dramatic increase in rating again.
Realistically everyone has strengths and weaknesses that are innate. Ratings are an indication of where you stand relative to others. Statistics has meaning. You can learn a lot about your own strengths and weaknesses from ratings.
Any competitive Pursuit generally involves knowing where you were strong and where you're weak informing a game plan that presents the strengths to the enemy while shielding the weaknesses.
For example I have learnt that my puzzle strength is very strong, my rapid games are my strengths among I'm on what I play, my blitz is weak and my bullet is in between.
It makes sense to me to study openings because like a tennis serve or return every point involves both of these. Tactical puzzles are like ground strokes - maybe 70 to 80% of games involve these too.
Studying End Games exhaustively at this stage is a bit like working on the backhand smash. I'll get to it when my openings are well drilled and competent and my tactics and puzzles are plateauing.
I think the key to tilt late night is to reserve Blitz or bullet for the sessions where you don't really care about ratings and just want to have a crack.
I've been stuck at 1900-2000 my whole life. Not sure it will change so I've just learnt to accept it.
"And they go on playing for 2 hours!" Only 2 hours? What about playing the whole night? (I heard that some people do this, not me, of course, wink-wink).
Dudes are trading punchs mid talk, it's funny as hell
I'm just a bit younger than Jesse, and I have to say that, especially considering his training as a philosopher, the whole "I know what millennials will say about this" is getting old. I think David and Kostya made the best points in this discussion. As for me (currently rated 1880 OTB), I understand now that I want to see chess as a 2000-rated player would see and understand it, even if my rating doesn't reflect that. That's the next step in my ladder, and so my point remains to do the work, not to get the numbers.
I'm a millennial and i think the "millennials will say" shtick is great and hope to see more of it.
I liked his pov, at least my interpretation of it. That said it was a tangent.
Millennials=Likely grew up doing more computer chess than otb. Its a major shift.. gotta be able to reference players on either side somehow
You are higher-rated than I am, but I've hung out with friends who are masters, FMs and IMs. I prefer to watch them analyze their games more than playing myself. Occasionally I'll see an idea they've overlooked and often they'll ask me who I think is better and why. I've found that having a certain level of chess culture and good questions is a entry ticket to observing this world. It's definitely fascinating.
***
One of the guys has a saying: "Proficient in your own mediocrity." I've found that many players around your level are unaware of what they don't know. There are lots of ways to get to your level - higher than I'll ever be - and still have major gaps in your game. I once played the Queens Gambit Declined as white for the first time in my life against a 1800+ club player who played it all the time. He moved the same piece about 6 times in the first 12 moves. Clearly he was lost. I got a better position and offered him a draw. I learned nothing from the game.
Good luck on your quest.
I've played IM David Pruess! This guy even has a rap song.
I love the friendly banter 😂
From a game theoretical standpoint, when playing against a lower rated player, you should keep the game simple, and complicate things against a higher rated player, regardless of the game involved. Because chess has draws, the strategy is somewhat more complex, as you want to add enough complexity to improve the chance of winning over drawing, but no more than necessary.
This can be counterintuitive, but the logic is if the game becomes too complex, neither player understands what’s going on, which adds variance, which the weaker player wants.
Interesting and unloved comment
Haha, David sipped the Thug juice right at the start! 😎🤣
The rating system is the best metric that we have. It's not absolute, and that's good. Two people of APPROXIMATELY equal ratings have to fight tooth and nail to procure a win.. And the underdog CAN prevail.
Rating would be more meaningful if it was shown along with its standard deviation. A 1200 who always plays like a 1200 is quite different from one who sometimes plays like a 1500 and sometimes plays like a 900. If it was allowed to be a range, which every kind of average measurement really is in essence, then people wouldn’t fixate on the number with such spurious precision.
Does anyone know how ratings on different sites have inflated/deflated over time?
The problem with fixating on your rating is that it impairs your improvement.
Play as a Guest and you'll never worry about rating again.
I don't particularly care about my rating. The value of having a rating on Lichess is that it matches me with people that are about as good (or bad ) as me. If I meet a random person and ask them if they play chess and we play a game I might be playing someone who is an outstanding player that I have no chance against or they could be someone who I can mate in under 10 moves. That doesn't happen Lichess --- I don't play against great players or horrible players, I play folks at my level and those are fun games.
8:43 Shows maybe he cares too much about his OTB rating? ("as long as it doesn't affect my OTB rating!") Like most people? 🤓
I just wanna know why David has a picture of Jesse behind him
The main agency talented people have in the corporate world is to just change jobs often. This completely takes away the main problem of lack of internal promotions if not interested in weird corporate politics.
Many enployers are going to look at a promiscuously job hopping employee's resumè and consider do I really want to invest a year training someone up to be barely adequate only for them to discount that investment and then find another job? Nope, we'll shred that one
@@executivelifehacks6747 this dynamic is great for me too because cultures like yours self select out. I have never had a problem finding new jobs and usually with huge jumps in pay rate each change.
This 1700 rated player enjoyed your rant about ratings 😁
What about not checking your opponent's rating? I recently started it and it kind of lifted the pressure of the thought of "oh I have to beat this guy" or "oh she's only slightly higher rated so if I want to improve my rating this is the match I definitely need to win." What do you guys think?
Hard to achieve as most tournaments will show the rating, or once you become similar with certain players you will know their rating anyway. But agreed that it's better not to focus on it!
Someone did an analysis of lichess ratings, and it was "jagged" at the even hundreds, ie many many people stop playing entirely when they hit a goal like 1600,1700 etc. So that problem is endemic.
Yep so true!
Each person has a comfort zone. When you can't handle the pressure of expectations and failure, you stop trying.
For example, street marathons and trail running are popular among the casuals because more participants means less eyes on you, because you can improve your PB by half an hour without much training, and because the expectations aren't as strict - you can wander around, slack at some parts of the race, and none will be the wiser.
On the opposite end of the spectrum are track runners. The field usually consists of only eight to ten runners. All eyes are on you, you work your ass off to shave half a second off your PB, and every meter of your race is judged, every tactical and technical mistake you make that costs you the better time or placement.
When you train with people, you can quickly identify who will handle the pressure and to what extent.
The casual half-marathon and marathon runners don't quit because they hit a "target PB," they quit because they reach a point when they need to work hard to gain little, it's no fun to train and only improve PB by a little or work two years and patiently wait for it to pay off.
The same applies to chess - we reach a level we can based on our affinity. But once the time comes to put in the work...
Dojo Talks: All About Your Rating - According to Karjakin you should, if you are a professional and don't want to be seen as silly or funny. 😜
Jesse: lichess
Subtitles: leech ass.
I don't care about ratings at all, but I do think that people who are lower rated than me are inferior human beings.
Ratings are overrated. Higher your rating more difficult it is to win class prizes at larger tournaments. 😀
why are you deleting my comments?
We're not! Maybe it's TH-cam?
I had trouble posting here as well and thought it was the channel, and then it started to happen in other channels. I've posted a number of times here and elsewhere in the past without a problem, so this is new for me. Googling tells me it's not new to YT.
@@bluefin.64 thanks
Lol what pandemic