Ovyron wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:52 am
Because once a chess player thinks of a plan, on the next moves 0% of their time will be used thinking about a plan, because they already have a plan, the only time they have to think about formulating a plan again is when the opponent does something that makes the old plan unattainable or they already achieved their goal and have to formulate a new plan.
That's what I meant with 1% of the time being used for planning, something like "I will transfer my knight to f5, trade off my bad bishop and then try to play ...f6 and after the pawn exchange, dominate the open file" can be thought of as fast as you can type it, the rest of the time is used
CALCULATING how to carry it out.
No. You are confusing two words: Calculating and
Analyzing. Maybe more of your time would be spent ANALYZING the position and refining your plan and so on, but not calculating unless the position requires it.
Also, a plan cannot be thought of "as fast as you type it out" - that's not true. Planning takes time.
If you'd studied any works by Kotov or Nimzowitsch (or other great teachers of strategy) you'd know this, but instead, you analyze with engines and so you think chess is as easy as engines make it *appear* to be.
In fast games, there is often not much time for long-range planning, and so that's when
intuition is relied upon (ever heard a strong player say "Hmm this move looks good" - that's intuition at work!).
Ovyron wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:52 am
I've beaten and reached winning positions against people of your strength, so I know what it takes and how to do it.
Nonsense. This really is appearing like some Dunning–Kruger effect going on.
If you knew how to beat 2300 players, you wouldn't be 1500. Period.
Anything else is delusion bro.
Ovyron wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:52 am
And my main problem is that I find boring doing the things that I'd need to do to get good at them.
Is this a variation of "I could be strong If I wanted to, but I don't want to"?
Ovyron wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:52 am
But who knows if with proper training I'd get stronger than you, at least I'm quicker to point out strategical mistakes of the GMs that I watch before them, sometimes several moves in advance, so I have unexploited potential, while
it seems you have reached your peak for a while.
I reached my peak for a while now? What data are you using to make this assumption?
Or it is just speculation?
I have some data...let's see.
Let's see how recently each of us was scoring against higher rated players. This is a good way to see 1. potential and 2. whether one has peaked in strength.
Oly's Rating and Best Wins:
Where are these wins against guys of my strength? The top guy you've beaten is 1997 and that was back in 2018 (your peak?
)
Now let's compare...
Brendan's Rating and Best Wins:
So what do we see? 760 Elo difference and
my best wins were pretty recent....In fact, two of them were this month!
And I don't even have time to study chess, train or play tournaments...so imagine where I'd be if I did.
Ovyron wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:52 am
I wonder how a game between us would look like, it's possible I'd manage to reach a winning position and blew it up after missing some easy tactic, but at least it'd show I was better on the strategical department to reach it on the first place.
Delusion again bro. I don't mean to sound nasty, but you really are not being realistic. 700 Elo (or even 200) is not easy to overcome, even if you got MUCH better at tactics.