
How I Finally Hit 2000 on Lichess and Improved My Rating - PeidiWu
https://www.trapezemobile.com/2019/01/10/how-i-finally-hit-2000-on-lichess-and-improved-my-chess-rating-by-200-points-in-16-days/
======
jbuss
Lichess is an excellent website. Open source[0], truly free[1] and provides an
amazing UX. Lichess is a true gift to the chess community.

[0] [https://github.com/ornicar/lila](https://github.com/ornicar/lila) [1]
[https://lichess.org/features](https://lichess.org/features)

~~~
joelfolksy
Indeed. Pity the culture is so... unfriendly? Rematches are basically non-
existent - even in bullet! It's bizarre, and I have to assume it's going to
limit the site's growth.

~~~
reefoctopus
I rematch with people all the time. I literally rematched with someone in my
last game just a second ago playing 10/0\. Are you the sort who refuses to
resign even when you have a hopeless material disadvantage?

~~~
ajfint
It is good etiquette to request a resignation in chat?

Lichess matches people by rating, so on average, if I blunder my way into a
large deficit, my opponent may just as well blunder me out of it.

~~~
Simon_says
> It is good etiquette to request a resignation in chat?

Not a chance. People at lower ratings screw up what should be wins all the
time. Your opponent may be hoping for a stalemate or to run out the clock or
waiting for you to blunder.

------
adamisom
I like the points about studying in this article but its overall point is
trash. Ratings across different websites are not the same thing!

2000 lichess is actually more like 1800 chess.com. I would know because that
is my playing strength on both and because reddit.com/r/chess has literally
dozens of posts of people comparing their lichess and chess.com ratings (my
impression is the average difference is ~200). That subreddit also has dozens
of posts of people 'reaching 2000' on lichess. It corresponds to about 95th
percentile on lichess blitz, just as 1800 corresponds to about 95th percentile
on chess.com blitz. So literally anyone switching platforms would 'improve
their rating'.

~~~
bluGill
The headline was 2000 lichess, how can that not be more clear? It is not hard
to find out lichess uses a different method of calculating ratings and thus
their numbers will my nature be different. 2000 is still impressive even if it
isn't nearly as good FIDE 2000.

~~~
soared
The entire article is about the author having stalled at 1800 before lichess
but then breaking 2000 when switching to lichess. So if chess.com 1800 =
lichess 200, then the author did not improve and all his notes about learning
are useless.

~~~
ajkjk
I read it as: Lichess came out with a good engine for analyzing games, which
helped get to 2000. They were on Lichess the whole time.

~~~
adamisom
Nobody reads. The dude had a 10 year hiatus. Lichess didn't exist at the time.
Most chess websites have had ratings roughly analogous to either USCF or to
FIDE but lichess is the notorious exception.

------
register
A rating difference of 100 points means that the stronger player will collect
3 out of 4 points over 4 games. A difference of 200 points is a full category
jump: Candidate Master to Master, Master to Internation Master and
International Master to strong Grandmaster. This is not something that can be
achieved in just 16 days of playing/training. As already pointed out by other
posts there is a lot of randomness especially when playing blitz and rapid
chess. All the improvement suggestions are valid ones ( and mostly common
sense for anybody that has read some chess books ) but attributing a 200 Elo
point increase to 16 days of training to me tells that this player is probably
not worth 2000 yet.

~~~
rgossiaux
Indeed, the idea of 200 points in 16 days is more or less absurd, at least
beyond beginner levels. In fact, looking at the author's Lichess profile I see
no evidence of any improvement at all, to be blunt.

Improvement takes really a lot of work, far more than I think the author
appreciates. Going from 1800 to 2000 in a _year_ would be an excellent outcome
and would require hundreds of hours of work on chess.

The author dismisses the one method that is arguably most recommended by
strong players: studying GM games. Chess is about playing good moves, and
studying the games of the world champions helps you learn what good moves look
like. Studying GM games is hard work with little tangible reward (no dopamine
rush from finishing a puzzle or playing a quick game) but it seems highly
effective.

Another thing that stuck out to me: the author dismissed tactics puzzles based
on what looks like 30 puzzles done on Lichess. That's nothing. I've done 7500
tactics on Chesstempo standard mode alone and it did a lot for my chess. It
was basically the only thing I did to go from 1300 to 1600 or 1700 or so (over
the board). Tactics aren't a panacea for chess improvement, but neither is
anything else.

I have some smaller comments (for example: re: "If I want to get difficult
puzzles correct, I don’t rely on any pattern recognition. I just spend a lot
of time and mental energy explicitly calculating out every combination of
moves. I’m really not learning much, most people can get the same puzzle
correct if they just thought as hard as I." \-- pattern recognition is the
basis for calculation skill so it doesn't make sense to say you don't rely on
it when calculating) but the main point is that chess is hard and improving
takes a lot of hard work, far more than the author makes it seem.

~~~
zodiac
This is unrelated to your main point but I've always been confused why people
cited an "over the board" ELO. Is your 1600 rating FIDE, USCF or something
else? Aren't they not calibrated against each other?

------
kadabra9
Maybe I missed it reading the article, but did the OP mention the time limits
he was playing at?

In blitz (5 minutes or less), time management is absolutely _critical_. When I
went back and reviewed games I lost, it was frequently due to tactical
opportunities or poor moves I made while short on time. You simply don't have
the luxury of time to find the _best_ move in a 3 or 5 minute game. If you can
quickly find a move that improves your position in some way and doesn't hang
material or create opportunities for your opponent, make it, and don't think
twice, unless you already have a large time advantage over your opponent. My
rating improved dramatically once I focused more on managing my time better.

Largely agree with most of the other advice offered in the article though. It
cannot be overstated how much playing with strong players and reviewing your
past games (wins and losses) will help you improve and develop a sense for
tactical opportunities.

~~~
cristoperb
The screenshot at the top of the article shows it is classical time control.
On lichess that means games are expected to last 25 minutes or longer[1] (the
shortest classical controls are 25+0 and 15+15).

It's also worth noting that on lichess (and online chess in general) the fast
time control pools are more competitive, so reaching 2000 in Blitz is much
more difficult (for most people) than reaching 2000 in Classical.

1: [https://lichess.org/blog/Wh9KWiQAAI5JrKVn/introducing-
rapid-...](https://lichess.org/blog/Wh9KWiQAAI5JrKVn/introducing-rapid-
ratings)

~~~
vertline3
Im 1800 classical on lichess but bullet I'm like 1300, so for me bullet is
real strength. It's obvious I'm not great at chess

~~~
ganeshkrishnan
I am around 1700 in bullet (1 minute or 2+1) and I had to claw myself from
1400 as I am 1900+ in Rapid.

I played in anonymous mode for a long time experimenting and I realized that I
was losing most of my games in bullet to time not to tactics.

For bullet: Just play average move each turn based on long term goals (I want
to castle king side and pawn storm queen side etc), dont bother about tactics
or traps or any other short term strategies.

~~~
vertline3
Good advice

------
nikisweeting
My cofounder and I were originally inspired by Lichess to make something
similar for Poker (clean UI, simple, no ads, fast, etc). It's not ready for
real money just yet, but if people are interested, you're welcome to play for
free here: [https://oddslingers.com](https://oddslingers.com)

We tried to do it in Mithril like Lichess but eventually gave up and wrote our
own animation framework for react-redux that uses a similar declarative, pure
functional style: [https://github.com/Monadical-SAS/redux-
time/](https://github.com/Monadical-SAS/redux-time/)

~~~
dmarlow
You should allow people to play without having to sign up; you know, like
lichess.

~~~
nikisweeting
We'd love to, but I think it would be too much engineering work to do properly
to put on our short term priority list, since it would require reworking a lot
of the auth + websocket system and would likely be buggy for a while.

For now you're welcome to sign up with a fake email, we don't require email
verification.

------
komali2
Ok, I've been fiending for something intellectually engaging outside work that
isn't just more programming, and also for competition (that isn't smash bros),
chess seems like an attractive choice, but I have no idea how to "get into it"
decently. Is there the equivalent of like, smash wiki, for chess? Or similar
to Sonicfox's YouTube videos? Or any good books for total beginners to get
into the strategy of it?

~~~
ydnaclementine
For youtube, I recommend ChessNetwork. He's a self taught GM that explains his
thoughts as he plays. He also has a beginners series to get you in the proper
mindset. Really good guy, but a bit mysterious...

For actual playing I recommend something fast like 3min/0increment or 2/1\. It
kinda of resembles a video game at that point, where your knowledge and speed
is helpful, you get to play a lot of games since they're short, and you don't
have to live with your mistakes for very long if you mess up

~~~
phry
blitz/bullet is absolutely atrocious for improving, 15+10 is the shortest time
control you should be playing if you're seriously trying to get better.

~~~
rmdashrfstar
I think that's a bit limiting as a minimum, 10+2 sounds more reasonable for a
new player's introduction to a faster pace chess where they still have an
opportunity to calculate lines; 15+* is certainly a great time control to play
though.

~~~
phry
that's fair, anything over 10 minutes with increment is good enough while
you're figuring out if you actually enjoy the game or not

------
LandR
Lichess ratings are quite a lot higher than your equivalent Elo or FIDE rating
by a good few hundred points at least, I reckon. Although I reckon this
disparity reduces the higher the rating but is still there.

------
thope
It's worth noting that lichess rating system is glicko2[0], while FIDE rating
system is Elo.

[0][https://lichess.org/qa/6/how-does-the-rating-system-work-
on-...](https://lichess.org/qa/6/how-does-the-rating-system-work-on-here)

------
wgj
1.b4 is a really strange idea to have, and even stranger to stick with it. It
is very disadvantageous for white. He even acknowledges this:

> I looked at my win rates by opening and I won far more as black than white.

Normally he should have been winning more as white, not less.

------
TulliusCicero
I've been reading so many fantasy novels that I initially parsed "Lichess" as
"Lich-ess", as in, a female lich.

~~~
komali2
Huh, this makes me realize I've never actually encountered a female lich in
any games or fiction.

~~~
Guthur
Check the wiki page plenty of examples including divinity original sin

~~~
komali2
The wiki page for what?

Also, ah, guess I hadn't gotten that far in divinity!

------
cyberferret
> because we would en passant to capture any piece that was left or right of a
> pawn. I still remember my first non-dad opponent’s very weird face when I en
> passant captured his knight.

I remember as a kid, learning chess, I never heard of the 'en passant' rule
and thus never used it. When I played my cousin one day and he used that
capture, I actually leapt up in livid outrage and scattered the board pieces
at this 'cheating' move he played. When I learned it was actually a legitimate
move, I was totally red faced and humbled.

------
eruci
Liches is awesome. I found it when I was researching on alphazero. Used to
play on other chess websites, but have been using nothing but lichess since.

------
limbotheworld
Lichess classical (long time control) most likely has a weaker smaller pool
than the blitz most strong players that are playing online usually are in
blitz. Good for him in excelling but I noticed he didn't mention the time
control in the article. If he plays overboard and gets a rating using those
openings (i.e. Orangutane)I'm guessing around 1700 maybe a little less

------
russellbeattie
I've been playing chess all my life and I still suck (for someone who knows
more than the basics). Up until just a few years ago, this definitely limited
my enjoyment of the game. But now I use Shredder and it's fantastic at
figuring out my exact skill level and giving me challenging games that I can
actually win if I focus. It's made chess my go-to casual game.

It's so good in fact, I can tell the difference between playing late at night
or during the day, after an expresso, or a large meal. It remains super
consistent while my concentration and skill wavers.

I highly recommend it - I'm having fun and slowly improving my game without
that horrible frustration that comes from an opponent that's just too good.

(I think it would be interesting to learn how it makes itself less skilled -
it's not just about search time, as that's what older programs did and they
were either trivial to beat, or impossible.)

~~~
fernandopj
What feature allows it to "guess" your rating? Is it automatic (after a number
of games it guesses your rating), or do you just set one manually and upgrade
it yourself over time? I did not find any mention of such feature on
[https://www.shredderchess.com/](https://www.shredderchess.com/)

------
rjf72
I think this article has an important lesson. Here is his graph now:
[https://lichess.org/@/peidi](https://lichess.org/@/peidi)

He quickly dropped those 200 points right back. In chess there is luck. Not
luck like you hit a 9:1 longshot on the draw from a deck, but in other ways.
Ratings don't account for personal differences. There are plenty of
situations, all the way to the world champion, where you will have 3 players
A,B,C of about the same rating. But A crushes B who crushes C who crushes A.
One of the most famous here was Kasparov > Shirov > Kramnik > Kasparov. Keep
getting paired as 'A' to your 'B' and you can hit a major hot streak.

There are also simple practical things. It's not uncommon to run into a player
that's drunk, exhausted, on tilt, or whatever else that's just completely
throwing them off their game. Which probably leads to maybe the most important
point. In chess there is a huge element of variance in your own mental
ability. It can be short term - did you sleep well, do you have anything
grinding in your head, etc. It can also be longterm for a countless array of
reasons.

Current world champion Magnus Carlsen was recently asked who his favorite
player from the past is. He responded it was himself from 3-4 years ago. His
game has undoubtedly deteriorated over the years for no great reason. He's
probably just started to lose the motivation he once had. Nobody would argue
against him being the best player alive, and few would argue against him being
the best player of all time. Where's his motivation supposed to come from now?

And while those examples are negative, they have perfectly equal opposites on
the other end. Sleeping extremely well, very clear headed, highly motivated?
Things like this don't necessarily last, but when they're there - they can
give you a very substantial boost.

So the lesson? There's variance and randomness in places you'd never expect to
find it. In order to find genuine improvement it's important to be able to
appreciate the difference between randomness and legitimate change. It's not
easy, but I find there is a pretty simple clue for it. When you find yourself
not wanting to play as much because you might screw up your rating - you have
already subconsciously (and consciously really) accepted that you're
overrated. This is a really common phenomena that I think we're all guilty of
at some point or another. As the author of the article states, _" As you can
see in the chart, I played far fewer games in all of March to November than
those sixteen days in February."_ That's a red flag for _cognitive acute
overratitus._ Fortunately the cure is simple and fun - play more!

~~~
pcmaffey
The fluctuations are fun to notice. My relative lichess rating is a good
indicator for how I am feeling.

Also, when I've been doing lots of coding (systematic thinking), my score goes
up vs. when I'm doing non-engineering tasks.

------
gravy
Step zero for me: stop playing one minute bullet chess

~~~
imperialdrive
For real! I'm almost a thousand games in already... So addictive!

------
usuallymatt
I recently discovered lichess in the past couple of weeks and LOVE it. I've
even gone as far as to donate to them. I played a lot of chess as a kid and
I've been getting back into it. Hit me up for a game - usuallymatt

------
pmontra
For what it's worth, I read the post with the eyes of a Go player and
everything makes sense in Go as well (adapting concepts to the Go equivalent).
Possibly it makes sense in any other game of this kind.

~~~
pasbesoin
I was resisting posting my OT question on this thread, but I will, briefly: Is
there something like Lichess for Go (the board game)? Similar quality and
openness.

A couple of years ago, I spent a good little chunk of time searching something
out, and I think I recall seeing a few interesting candidates, but I didn't
follow through and don't have those results at hand.

~~~
coryfklein
Can't vouch for it myself, but it was linked elsewhere in this discussion:
[https://online-go.com/](https://online-go.com/)

~~~
pasbesoin
I missed that reference elsewhere in this thread. Thank you -- at a first
glance, this looks promising!

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18876042](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18876042)

[https://online-go.com/docs/about](https://online-go.com/docs/about)

 _Online-go.com is made possible by the generous financial support from
hundreds of individual site supporters, the guidance and welcome friendly
attitudes of the Go community at large, and by a large collection of
volunteers that have helped translate Online-Go.com into a multitude of
different languages from all over the world._

[https://github.com/online-go/online-go.com/](https://github.com/online-
go/online-go.com/)

[https://github.com/online-go/online-go.com/wiki](https://github.com/online-
go/online-go.com/wiki)

------
conistonwater
For what it's worth, I stopped training on lichess after they implemented a
spaced repetition system for their tactics puzzles. I think it's a shame, it
meant that if you wanted to follow any other system at all (even something
simple, like doing lots of simple puzzles quickly) you no longer could. There
are something like half a dozen different systems you can use for selecting
puzzle difficulty/type automatically, so it's kind of disappointing that a
single one gets hardcoded in an otherwise very feature-packed site.

------
winrid
Unrelated - Lichess android app sent credentials in plain text last I checked.
I'll have to check up on that again...

------
Papirola
brazen plug: [https://slack.com/apps/ACY93NUCV-
chessboard](https://slack.com/apps/ACY93NUCV-chessboard) chess for Slack -
also free.

------
albertk1988
I found the data from Microsoft really interesting. Great article

------
fractalf
Thanks for sharing! :)

------
mlevental
sorry don't know much about lichess but i'm curious how much of an ELO bump
does this correspond to?

~~~
cepth
This is a pretty substantial achievement, if you look at an estimated
percentile breakdown:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/54c1nv/player_rating...](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/54c1nv/player_rating_percentiles_chesscom/).

FWIW, I’ve found that on Lichess I’m rated at least 100 points higher than
what I would be on Chess.com (the most popular chess site), and maybe 150
points higher than what I’m rated by the US chess federation, which mainly
rates live, not online, games.

A player with a rating of 2000 by the US federation would be called an
“expert”, just below the 2200 rating that earns you the title of “master”.

------
alkibiades
what prevents me from playing chess is i know i’ll never be as good as people
that started when they were 7, so what’s the point? i know it’s not a good
attitude

~~~
yesenadam
Wouldn't that prevent you starting to learn anything?

I remember when I was about 9, reading that Mozart started composing at 7, and
thinking it was too late. So I didn't compose much until in my mid-30s, and
_really_ wished I'd started when I was 9!

Anyway, when you play online, you don't play the best in the world. You play
people about as good as you are. And it's super-easy to find them online. I
mostly played on FICS, which is very friendly, and I played and chatted with
people from (what must be) nearly every country in the world. Most people play
for fun, not to be the best in the world.

~~~
notatcomputer68
Not everything is competitive

------
phlakaton
Came here to discover what amazing things female liches have been up to in the
exciting world of the undead.

Walked away somewhat disappointed. :-)

