3

My bullet rating is currently 1400 and it's pretty much the only time format I play as it is quick. I figured that I wanted to think my moves more thoroughly so I played some rapid games in a Lichess tournament. My rapid rating was around 1100, still having the "?," so you can imagine I wasn't playing much rapid.

I was amazed that I was able to beat 1800 players if I did not rush the moves. I even berzerked and won having 5 minutes to think. As black, usual features of the games were play on the kingside, opposite side castling, me having a bishop queen battery aiming at h3, and a rook on g8. Usually there is a white knight on f3 and a pawn on h3 and I gain initiative by playing g4 to force him to take with the pawn. They usually never make space to run with the king. Here is an example game.

Additionally, here is a different type of game in which my opponent blundered. Another game is also interesting even though my opponent’s rating wasn't high. I would definitely like you to take a look at it.

Was this just luck or I would be able to climb up someowhere around 1600-1700 if I played longed time formats?

5

There is a game theory of why 1st round NFL drafts don't perform as well as expected. The reasoning is that the player had an above average couple of games and returned to his average performance. By the same logic, there are later round drafts who have stellar careers.

I'm not going to make a judgement based on three games, or even your archive on lichess.org, as this would be as effective as making a prediction based upon your avatar. I would say that guess that this tournament was lucky for you (assuming that your not a teenager who just improved naturally), but that, just by experience alone, you could achieve an 1800 rating on lichess.org at any time control.

EDIT: Stacia Pugh (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn2k14U03rNRHApDIloxOkA) is a chess example. She started off well and achieved a peak rating of 1791. This can be considered a fluke as she quickly dropped to her floor rating. She's still a good player and is trying to improve.

| improve this answer | |
4

Yes, it was luck or you are stronger in longer time controls. No one can really say which is the case for you personally, considering you only played a few longer games. To find out you just have to play more and see.

| improve this answer | |
3

In wild games with opposite side castling, etc anything is possible. Chances to win for the underdog increase. With your attacking style you are more likely to see much above average (but also much below average) performance than if you played quiet positional chess.

That being said, you have a decent understanding on where to put the pieces. Still plenty of things to learn, particularly when it comes to positional play. I don't see anything preventing you from reaching 1600-1700, I believe most people with enough determination could.

I would highly recommend to play longer time formats and to take the time to think in rapid games. In one game you could have taken a free knight at move 4 and in another you should have mated much earlier.

| improve this answer | |
  • I play backgammon at an amateur level. There is a mechanism by which weaker players can probably improve their chances against stronger players: Play high-risk moves which lead to quick, game-deciding events, even if they are technically not quite optimal. This improves their chances because a drawn-out, positional game (and here we come to the connection with your post) will lead to more accumulated errors over time by the weaker player. Question: From a purely win-driven point of view, would one not recommend all-out attacks in rapid games against stronger players instead of long games? – Peter - Reinstate Monica Apr 30 at 12:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.