My answer used to be that it is never enough and then I realized that all the expert and master level players are just so stressed out at all these tournaments because even a draw against a pretty good player ruins their tournament. It honestly seems like something I really would not enjoy at all. I am a class A player and that is good enough for me.
I don’t think I will ever be satisfied. No matter what level I’m at I’m going to be fixated on eradicating my mistakes and poor decision making. I really relate to that Polgar quote where she says something along the lines of “The hardest thing in chess is living up to our own expectations about ourselves.” Oh well, if I shoot for the stars I might just land on the moon. So that’s good
I remember seeing some Q&A session with Kasparov like 10 years ago (I think it was at Google), where some employee was asking him something like "I'm not trying to be best in the world or anything, but what are some steps I can take to improve at chess", and Kasparov just snapped at him "Why? If you're not trying to be world champion, why do you need to improve at chess? To impress your friends?". And that was the whole answer. That answer has been haunting my mind for like 10 years and I think about it at least every time someone talks about improving. And really... why? I get that from the perspective of the world champion, you're either a contender for the title, or you're just mid - and there is no glory really, it's probably even a little embarrassing to be spending your time trying to be better than some other guy who is also mid - so just play and enjoy yourself and don't worry about "improving". Other people may have their own goals, but often we just default to: "I'm playing to improve at chess" or "I'm doing art to improve at art", etc. without really thinking about why. I'm a jack of all trades, and go in for a ton of hobbies, and this is pretty much everyone's default attitude in everything - I think they just say it because they think they're supposed to say it - "I'm working on improving". It reminds me of what Alan Watts used to say about meditation - if you're meditating in order to improve your focus or personality or something, then you're not really meditating - it has to be an end in itself. Anyway, it's probably more important to ask "why" and that might answer the "how much" for you. I really wish I could find that Kasparov Q&A but it seems to be buried in the internet somewhere... Has anyone else seen it?
Why I for many years wanted to improve: I felt I hadnt reached my potential, and I just needed to feel I had done my best. Now I am overrated and not as interested in playing and improving as before.
What's more embarrassing is getting old and finding out that, family and friends aside, we have lived empty lives surrounded my meaningless material things instead of pursuing things that give us true happiness. Hobbies are important. I could ask Kasparov also why does he need to be world champion? We don't need to do anything. Our lives are meaningless in the grand scheme of the universe. My only responsibility is to me and my loved ones. So Kasparov can suck it.
@@MrSupernova111 Money, glory, fame, respect, women... I think it's pretty clear why someone wants to be world champion. There's something telling about a criticism of improvement being taken as a criticism of the hobby itself, as if those things are so closely intertwined that it's hard to tell them apart. That's sort of the point. Don't get me wrong, I think chess is only fun when you take it seriously, but if a player's entire experience of it is mediated by an arbitrary need to improve, then they're really never just playing the game, it's annoying. Imagine having a conversation with someone who is only talking to you because they want to improve their conversation skills.
@@radioforthebirds . Let's take it a step further. What happens when you have all the material things and fame in the world that you wished for? Then what do you do with your time? Plenty of rich and famous people have fallen into depression and taken their own lives. Maybe riches and fame should be a by product of doing things that we love and enjoy. Just a thought!
I guess I'd want to keep pushing until I hit some wall, some real plateau. And then I'd have to come to terms with that. But I've really surprised myself as an adult improver going from 1200 to 1800 in a few years. Maybe 2000 Fide by age 40 would be really cool. I'm not in a hurry.
You can see in the rating data that lots of players have rating levels they are striving for, there are peaks at all the round hundred numbers where players ran well, hit a goal, and quit. It’s dramatic around 2000 which also makes sense. IMO though, better to set goals around daily improvement, I want to practice this much, I want to focus on endgames, whatever, and let the rating take care of itself. ❤
I used to think 1800 USCF, but after kids I truly do not give a shit, it is not important. I hope that I can show my kid chess in a few years, and have fun playing some games. I wont ever be satisfied with the quality of the depth of my thinking and the selection process behind my moves. Any improvements in that over the years are welcome.
I'm like David in that even if I achieve my rating goal, I know it won't be enough. I expect I'll stop caring, though, when it's clear I've hit an impassable barrier. I might stop playing at that point. I have other interests to explore that don't eat your soul. On Neal Bruce, what did you guys expect? You told the world he's going to fail. It was mortifying to listen to even as someone uninvolved. (Sorry, but I had to say something. I've been publicly humiliated, and I totally sympathize with Neal.) Criticism aside, you made a topic that sounded boring interesting and fun. Good talk.
Kosta nailed it your content is aimed at the top 1% of players. Adding a creator at the 600 to 1400 level intros would create larger appeal. Exclusive is not bad.
I recently learned chess and have just broken the 1000 barrier on Lichess! I’m super excited and think I can be an FM in 2 years, if I work hard enough! I’ll let you know my progress!!
2300 (2100 for women) is high enough ELO for FIDE to call someone a master at OTB play. The various grades of mastership are kind of just splitting hairs.
I'm satisfied with my rating - if anything it's too high for my ability because I prepare for opponents religiously. What I would really like is not to forget old things so quickly (openings, endgame technique, and strategic ideas) once I lean them. There is so much width to chess I can't seem to keep it all in my mind. There are so many concepts that if I just want to repeat and practice each one, one week is not enough. If it appears on the board a month or two after a lesson... it's gone already. My brain is too old.
It was just me or did Jesse Kraai just said something in the line of "work 3 hours by heart and 1 for the exercises"? Maybe comrade Kraai is the most truthful to communism when considering the three of you, after all
how many hours a day would you recommend for a student. obviously life gets in the way and do what you can. but is there an amount you would recommend to a student?
Not that Kostya won't make GM, but adding a fourth titled player who is younger would be interesting. It could 1000x the value of your company and conversations.
If GM title would come with a granted one million dollars, do you think people would still become GM after age 40 or 50? So is it possible just not practical? Or impossible at all?
It feels unfair that too deep and smart content is limited to above 1200 players (or higher) and gets small percentage of views compared to easy entertainment. But at least in chess you can measure it by elo and say it out loud. The same propably applyes to many fields, like music, where you can't measure it. When I was more into music I could not believe the charts and how terrible music was regularly at the Top 10, just because of a pretty face and obvious autotune and because it was marketed heavily by the big corporations. Those artists had music-ELO belove 1200 and the buyers had music-ELO of 600.
