The Stockfish "guess the ELO" is an absolute mental sledgehammer. I know that I'm a 1200 novice, but I played a game that SF rated at 1900 and one hour later, after I settled down from my delusions of grandeur, I bought a Chessly course. (NY e4, because in high school I was a diehard King's Gambiteer)
@@altrfryd5859 Ik, most people play like a bunch of Really high rated games and then blunder all of their pieces the next game. i guess still 800 since the skill beginners need to know is board vision.
my performance rating was consistently 1600-2200 when I was only 1400 2 months later and I'm 1700 now, I think consistently having a higher performance than your own rating is a sign that you have the potential to be higher rated
@@Dmgx32 preformance rating means nothing tho if u win in the opening. Thats just memorizing lines. It only has value when its higher than your real rating consistently, meaning that your probably playing better. Ive gotten 2300 a few times, but I’m not deviating much from 1500 rapid
Also it's very easy to get a high predicted rating at very low ELO. I'm only 1100 but have had some games 2000+ just because my opponent blunders every other move and the position plays itself
I love how he explained the games with bots, i felt that anxiety for a while and played only with bots, and i can say that main solution to not be afraid of rated chess is to play it for fun. Way too many people who don't play chess think that chess is a sign of an intelligence and high IQ, and losing one game make you feel like you're stupid, when in reality you were stupid even before losing, lmao.
Going from gentle instruction (explaining the point of bots) to harsh instruction (explaining to the triple-digit elo know-it-alls in chat that they know nothing) in a moment is one of the things I love about Levy's streams.
One of the things I have to keep telling myself is that rating measures consistency, not always playing strength. I'm mid 13's and when playing well I can win against 16's and put 17's on the backfoot. But an honest appraisal of myself is that until I'm consistently playing like that, 1300 is where I belong. Because we all have confirmation bias. I'm likely to point to a game where I absolutely smoke a 1500 and say "See? I beat that guy like it was nothing." But when I blunder a two move tactic on move 12 against an 1100 I'm more likely to say "Oh man, I was just playing too fast... the opponent knew this trick and I just didn't." But the 1500 I beat is thinking the same thing about their loss to me, and telling themselves that they're really 1900 because of how easily they beat a 1700 yesterday. And the 1100 I lost to is thinking he's at least 1400 because he beat me. I do think I'm stronger than my rating when I'm playing well. But we all are. Rating measures consistency.
2:10 as someone who does suffer from anxiety. I stopped playing chess because of the anxiety because I started panicking about it. I have fully beat 1600 rated friends but was stuck at 1300. Still doesn't go towards bots though because they're just not humans.
Does it help to try play longer games? Or shorter ones. Or use burner accounts. Once you’ve played thousands of games you realise you can always recover your elo
yeah, bots reward you for solid defense against an engine. Humans dont just play perfect opennings and then make clear blunders or ????????? intentionally bad bot moves
@@KnightNave bots work the exact same way as engine cheaters try to avoid detection. a 1700 bot doesn't make 1700 level moves throughout the game- they just play a mixture of 3200 best moves and inaccuracies/blunders so that the average performance seems like a 1700 human
As he says at 7:08, "so long as you can tolerate a bit of sarcasm on this channel, I think you'll enjoy it quite a bit." He's a good guy, and typically pretty chill. But he's happy to clown for content.
The sarcasm with chat was initially a turn off, but I'm garnering an appreciation for it as flair on top of fun and educational chess. Whipped cream on top of the dessert, if you will. Not the main course.
hey Levi im no pro in chess but I think I found a good fork (kinda) after he moves f4, you can go Ng4, then he goes xg5, then you can fork the king, rook on f1, and their queen after Nxe3
@@Gurb-cr3wl nah his ego is part of his character u the one with the ego for being bothered by it. And nobody meatriding him d1ckhead that man went crazy
I agree with your insight on bots, but I think playing against the highest bots is very good so you can make mistakes and get tummeled without losing rating. Also of course, the highest bots play the best moves and you can learn what the best stuff is and maybe try to stall the game to like 60 moves or even draw it.
idk why but whenever i play online chess i play horribly so im stuck at around 300 elo. on the other hand, when i play against bots , i generally take the same time between moves but i tend to play anywhere between 1200-1700 elo depending if i play better or not. ive beaten multiple bots 1300+ elo with difficulty youd expect when going against someone the same skill level as you. (considering what he said at around 2:20 ive also beaten people at my school rated ~1100 or better.)
The boys are programmed to make bad moves at a percentage. So if you okay solid and pick the mistake you ca capitalise. Humans are completely inconsistent, so it is impossible to replicate
it's not really easy to see lmao. if I was Gotham i would have to tell myself the opponent just forgot the pawn was pinned and was expecting a queen trade
Rating is just an average of all your games, meaning that you can play sometimes better and sometimes worse. Had an absolute mad fight, even though I am 400 elo in 5 min the stockfish said I played as 1000.
good point about bots, when i started playing I beat like 1000 up to 1300 rated bots in the first 3 weeks of playing, having to madly struggle to reach 600 elo against humans lmao
It's because compared to bots people on low elo are really unpredictable, unlike in like 1000+ elo where some people usually only plays like 2-4 different openings, the low elo ppl just do some weird shits that throws you off
What about brilliant moves tho? I got 2 in 1 game almost back to back and won quickly after but still got 1100 performance because me and my opponent were drunk in the opening
Gotham is a tactical saavant but imo he makes a lot of positional blunders in the middle game, not fully comprehending who has the upper hand in a zone. I have high opinions because im a chess genius rated just about half his elo
600 rapid, 1500 puzzles, beating 1300 bots (13 out of 19; 1 draw) interestingly 4 losses in a row were the first times i played against Jade instead of Vinh or Junior, but then adjusted to her playstyle and now i can consistently beat her. my average accuracy against bots is also higher than it is against human players. also, i'm not playing that regularly. started in january this year and have only played 106 games against humans. beating bots doesn't mean much and while puzzles are really nice to train pattern recognition, you still have to reach those positions in real games.
2:29 I don't think this is a good move if he took your knight and you took his pawn and gave him a check at the same time you attack his knight but he can block the check in the knight
Ive recently gotten my daily(24 hours per move) ranking to 960! for my current skill level thats kinda of my limit right now and im only at 550 in rapid I Know im not actually at 960 because my oppenents have been playing much worse then their elo suggests because mine and my oppenents accuracy is barely higher then when i play rapid at 550 elo maybe im just lucky
