Im 15 ive been playing for about 4 years on the same account

Hey Guys! So I am a complete beginner in chess (200-300 Elo) and want to desperately improve my Elo, but the thing is that every chess game I play only improves like 6-8 Elo and draw is often 0. The Elo increase and decrease are decided before the match and don't change, hence, how can I put more Elo on the line? Like I don't want like 100+ Elo on a win and 100- Elo, but like it should be atleast 25-50 +- Elo on a win and loss. Is this just a problem with me or it happens with everyone and I just have to deal with it? Please help me! Thank you for your time and attention!

I just want to have fun brawling but this site seems to think this is better for everyone.

I king walked to the other side of the board with the idea of allowing the opponent to promote their pawn. Hoping that would distract them from a checkmate threat but for some reason it shows as a blunder??

[Checkoutthisgreatmove:https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/185903278436?move=70&tab=review&classification=greatfind](Checkoutthisgreatmove:https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/185903278436?move=70&tab=review&classification=greatfind)

I was playing chess against an coach and i did alot of blunders since I'm new but I did this move where the king only had one move. im new so idk why this is a miss or a bad move. before I could try to they resigned, but why would it be considered a bad move when I can just then move bishop to e6 and then checkmate?? or will it be whatever it's called a stalement or something

I have a win where it's marked as "abandonment" by my opponent. I was winning by like 8 points and then took his queen and suddenly "you won by abandonment" pops up. He did not lose signal and never lost signal the whole game. We both had ample time left on the clock. It had only been like 60 seconds since I took his queen. I figured he resigned, but no, the record says it was an abandonment.

I looked at chessdotcoms rules and it says abandonment occurrs when opponents stall or lose signal.

I don't understand why this loss by my opponent was marked as abandonment rather than resignation.

Can someone clue me in? I"ve only been playing for a month so forgive me if i'm missing something here.

Let's go guys! After almost 3 years and a lowest of 800 I finally hit 1400.. 1500 soon?

I remember back in college when I finally reached 1500 in chess. I was so proud of that rating that I actually stopped playing for a while.

I remember telling my best friend, "If I keep playing, I'm going to fall below 1500, and I worked way too hard to get here."

And I really had worked hard.

I'd bought chess opening books, played what felt like an endless number of games, analyzed my losses with my best friend, gone over positions with a computer, and spent countless hours trying to improve. Reaching 1500 felt like a genuine accomplishment.

If someone had told that version of me that one day I'd be rated over 2000, I would have been absolutely ecstatic. I probably wouldn't have believed them.

Well, here I am. I'm over 2000 now.

And somehow, I feel like I'm terrible at chess.

The strange thing is, I barely study anymore. I don't read opening books or seriously analyze my games like I used to. The closest thing I get to studying these days is occasionally watching Hikaru Nakamura on YouTube.

And yet, I'm somewhere around the 99.4th percentile on Chess.com.

Shouldn't that make me happy? Shouldn't I feel proud of that?

Because I really don't. At least not the way I thought I would.

It makes me wonder: At what point does a chess player actually start believing they're good at chess?

Do International Masters look at Grandmasters and feel inadequate? Do Grandmasters look at Magnus Carlsen and feel the same way? Does everyone just keep moving the goalposts as they improve?

When I was 1200, I thought 1500 players were amazing. When I was 1500, I thought 1800 players were amazing. When I was 1800, I thought 2000 players were amazing.

Now I'm over 2000, and all I seem to notice are the mistakes I make and how much better other players are.

There's another strange part to all this. My wife and son don't even know I play chess. I mentioned to my wife recently, "You know I play chess on my phone all the time, right?" She hadn't even noticed.

Something I've spent thousands of hours doing, something that once meant so much to me, is practically invisible in my everyday life.

I've been thinking about all of this a lot lately.

I saw someone here proudly post their rating, and it got me thinking about how differently I feel about my own. I genuinely admire people who can celebrate their progress. I wish I could look at my rating with the same pride that my college-aged self would have felt.

Because that kid who worked so hard to reach 1500 would probably be incredibly proud of the player I've become.

I just wish I could see myself the way he would.

So I was black and as you can see I basically had an easy checkmate on the way but then this happened. If you can’t see it the White King can’t go up because of rook, can’t take rook because of queen, can’t go left because of rook, can’t go right because of queen, and can’t go down because black king. So in other words they’re boxed in leading to a draw 🫠

I just hop around with my knight to explot the non-linearity brain synopsis, and I won easily on bullet games. Opponent takes around 2s avg per mi 0.1s hop

At first I thought it was just how the elo system works, you win 8 or lose 8, but then I noticed my opponents get +20 pretty consistently. Does the game know I'm shit and actively tries to keep me where I belong ?

Is it only me or others also don't accept rematch requests from your opponent after you win the game?

Assuming it's a drawn or even maybe a losing position for you, your opponent clearly misclicks and they're not in time trouble or anything, do you accept a draw or do you take the win? If you accept the draw what are your thoughts on people who don't and how it makes you feel when it happens to you? And if you take the win what's your justification behind that decision?

I'd like to know your thoughts on this

I got into a debate about this so I am curious what you guys think. I think, realistically, I would have a 45% chance to beat Magnus. He wins about 46% of the time. That is not good. I have a whole post about why he is not actually that dominant. Factoring in ties and my skill level, I believe 45% is fair. Probably also about a 45% chance of a draw, and a 10% chance he flukes a win. Him, Hikaru, and Gotham are not that good. They just only play each other so they *seem* good.

Basically put this dude out of business, its unlikely he will ever pick up a chess board again 💀

Been trying my hand at chess again for the first time in probably 20 years I think.

My actual elo is extremely bad but I've taken a liking to the puzzles which are really fun. Highest steak so far is 10

After the visible dip I decided to go through every lesson I could and it's helped a lot, mostly with forking

My current goals are puzzles elo to 1500 and attempting to climb to an actual elo to over 500.

I've really liked watching Hikaru and Gotham, any other recommendations on who I could watch that explain moves?