How good do I have to be these days?

@sausage4mash said in #20:
> move 7 where he gives up his dark squared bishop and has loads of weak dark squares
> i scratched my head there , although the computer did not flag it as bad
Maybe the computers are that much better with the knights or something but yeah one should not give a bishop for a knight in the opening unless there is some other advantage in doing that.

Ahhh typical MrPushover. First to come and say something... yet at the same time, nothing at all :)

The short answer is that when you blunder, it's easy for your opponent to make good moves.

Engines also don't evaluate moves as poor unless they lead to material loss - meaning even if your opponent makes a move that isn't the best move, if you've already blundered, the engine doesn't care.

The engine will only care if your opponent makes a mistake in return.

Yes, it is VERY frustrating when you see what appears to be "perfect play" from your opponent. 2 inaccuracies... but it's because you have 2 blunders.

Get rid of your "blunders" and "mistakes" and your opponent will have a much tougher time :)

How good do you have to be? I've formed the opinion that one needs to have a 2500 plus Lichess rating to be genuinely good and to really enjoy chess. Below that, it is a world of pain. To keep coming back (as an adult improver anyway) one has to be a masochist, unrealistically optimistic or extremely stubborn. If you are under 2000 and over 16 years of age (both of which describe me), chess will always be painful if you can't philosophically accept losing... a lot. If you are not truly good by age 16, you almost certainly will never be truly good at chess.

People need to be realistic. It's about "wiring" (really synapse networking) the developing, plastic brain. Adult improvers will always be seriously limited. Plus you need an excellent general IQ to start with and an excellent natural aptitude for spatial visualisation and mental calculation,

I am still playing on after my relatively recent start in online chess but I question every day whether I should keep going or quit. I haven't quite given up hope of ever improving above 1700 (genuine) for rapid but my chances feel very low at the moment. I got an early rating that was flattering and unrealistic probably by some very lucky early wins against other question mark ratings. I've been smashed down and down ever since, often by players with 5,000 to 10,000 rapid games experience. It's a hard school for the average newcomer.

@xDoubledragon said in #5:
> 1900 beat you because he had a easy possition to play against you, more difficult possition = more blunders
> You simply couldn't challenge him after losing a pawn no counterplay and easy moves for him
Let me give a good example for this
this was a complex game he opponent played well I had a pawn advantage but opponent made sure I wouldn't have a easy win
he tried to create a counterplay to make my play more difficult until he successed I though this endgame was winning for me but boy I was wrong
this is example of good counter play because my opponent could escape form bad possition

it's not a textbook example but I still think you can learn from that game
and this is a bad counter play opponent couldn't make my game more complex and for me it was easy to play
so you can see I played nearly like a engine and yes it will happen if opponet have a easy possition against you