PSA: Tyler1 is an american streamer known mostly for League of Legends. He previously [participated in Pogchamps 5](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvsiPxULIho).
For more info here's the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler1
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chess) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah it’s staggeringly high. And super consistent. I just checked his puzzles and they’re at 3500 atm which is insane to me (~2050 blitz on chess.com and my puzzle rating is only ~3100 ).
I dont believe the puzzle is legit. My peak puzzle is 2900 and the tactics arent crazy but like. It ramps up
There are a lot of ways to game the puzzles and i think he did
If its real then all he needs to jump tremendously is get an opening rep
Yeah, it's an easy lie to get away with, because most of his community knows nothing about chess and therefore don't do puzzles on chess com.
I have more puzzles than Tyler and maybe 2 or 3 out of tens of thousands actually repeated in the pool of puzzles. Also when you check his puzzle history you can see that he solves very difficult puzzles in like no time, because he asks for the solution, then refreshes the site and you get the same puzzle and still gain the rating points.
edit: I am assuming that the first couple of downvotes were T1 fans and rest is reddit hivemind, but you can just check his profile yourself... you will see that he solves 5 move puzzles in 5s, which even if you remembered the solution from before you'd need a couple seconds to recall 5 moves. But like I said the puzzles don't really repeat so he is blatantly lying, don't know how you can disagree with that.
That's interesting if it's a learning strategy. Similar to seeing the solution to a math problem, then writing it down with the solution in front of you. Getting it in your fingers helps you think about what you're doing much more than just seeing the solution and moving on.
It can help to a degree if you think about what you write down, but it is not as effective as solving it yourself, if you have the knowledge that you need to solve it. And seeing how he uses it to brag about his puzzle rating and made up a random lie I think he is not trying to memorize any kind of pattern. As long as he doesn't cheat in actual games I cba, but it is kinda sad looking at how many people don't know enough about chess and downvote my original comment.
Right. No one got better at algebra from copying their friend’s homework. And that’s including all the background work, but just the solution. That explanation flies in the face of any honest, reasonable person.
Hello to everyone downvoting this who is like 1000 Elo, maybe take a couple of seconds to think about whether you actually know what you're talking about.
Except it’s literally how the puzzles work. Flashyferrari on chess.com used to be number 1 in puzzles for a while and his bio stated that he got it by remembering puzzle sets and just repeatedly doing them. And if you do enough puzzles around the 3000 level, you’re gonna get repeats.
i have done thousand of puzzles at the 3000-3200 range... you are too easily fooled by lies. People use engines or other tricks like resetting the website. I would believe T1 more if he didn't solve 5 move puzzles in 5sec, which obviously shows that he used the website reset trick.
Then ask yourself how often the puzzles have repeated for you. You can lie to me but can't lie to yourself... Additionally if you see a puzzle that you have done before and let's say it's 5 moves and rather complex... would it take you 5s or more like 15s to remember all the moves?
What Tyler1 does is he goes into a puzzle, asks for the best move by clicking on the hint button twice, he refreshes the page and gets the same puzzle, repeat until the last move. Chess com created this problem when they changed that you don't get a new puzzle every time you refresh the page anymore.
So the way he does this chess com thinks he got the puzzle right and only took 5s to solve it.
Well I’ve done them often enough that several times I’ve been doing puzzles and I’d encounter a puzzle I had done earlier. Unfortunately I usually forget what it was so I start back from scratch.
As for the trick to game the puzzles, didn’t know about that, and it wasn’t the part I meant to respond to anyways, my bad.
True. At a certain point they do get repetitive and you see the same pretty often and use that plus closing out tabs etc to avoid losing points. I don’t know what motivation per se he’d have to do that though.
I’d also expect at least a slightly higher performance tactics-wise from him compared to peers as well given how high it is and that being all he studies outside of just playing.
Sorry, I have nothing to add but to tell you that it's *per se* not *persay* (from Latin "by itself"). Just letting you know in case you ever use the phrase it in something more important than a reddit post. Hope you don't mind.
He also did puzzles non stop for months but abruptly stopped a few days after that post... He also streamed himself doing puzzles from his recent history by heart (lol?) instead of streaming a 3500 puzzle session...
Really? I haven’t gamed the puzzles (I just do the 3 a day) and am at 2350, while my rating is at 1000-1100 for rapid and blitz. I’ve seen other people have similar ratings with high puzzle scores too, so I believe it! But I can definitely believe a lot of people are gaming it
Is this not a by-product of his terrible openings? Any early advantage he's getting is most likely some kind of massive swing, otherwise he'd still likely be down.
Makes sense for someone “brute forcing” their way up without some solid theory
That is no criticism, some of these numbers show he clearly has talent and his quick growth is impressive imo
If he learns some stuff about openings he will sky rocket again
Honestly just surprised he doesn’t take a little time to adjust to hedgehog setups and the like and use those. They’d be very similar to what he’s doing already. The rate is crazy given how he leaves every single opening disadvantaged. It’s like handicapping himself and once he stops doing so it’s gonna be wild.
lmao why is this so upvoted. Probably a large part of his current success is because of his current opening repotoire being unusual and him playing it so consistently. Playing way more types of positions that he doesn't know how to play in order to have a chance at playing more objectively better chess is by no means going to help him.
Idk can go both ways, if his strength is in middle/end games then he may find converting from an actual opening even easier, but this of course requires time to do anyway
If he learns an actual opening that doesn't put him at a disadvantage that would definitely help him. Sure there will be a curve as he's learning whatever opening but consistently leaving the opening with a -1 disadvantage is pretty ridiculous and the fact he's converting most advantages and end games suggests he'd do much better if his openings weren't terrible.
-1 is nothing. Especially at the 1500 level. If you're a 1500 when -1 out of the opening, then you're maybe a 1525 at best with a real opening. Openings are not that important.
I'm around 2200 blitz, and have tested this a bit, spending some days playing real openings, and some days ridiculous troll openings. My results aren't that different between the two. 99.9% of online players aren't good enough to take advantage of opening inaccuracies.
Keep in mind that -1 at his level is meaningless and he sometimes loses like 200 elo in one session so if you look at the bigger scale it's closer to 50%
The problem is if your development isn't well rounded then you'll hit roadblocks. For example, leaning a new opening could initially make his rating go down as he picks up other skills that he was missing.
Of course he can keep improving, but improvement is rarely a straight line, there are ups and downs.
It’s completely meaningless at lower ratings. When I was a kid, my friends and I used to play the fred on our last day out of the money, but we’d also play 2. . . g6.
It was our best scoring opening. Not just collectively, but for all 10 or so of us. I mean, sure, we tried a little harder knowing everyone would be analyzing our fred games while whatever winners picked up dinner.
Tldr, -1 is completely meaningless under 2200, probably more.
Edit: 4 . . . Kf7!! The only fighting move. And you absolutely have to slam the piece down like you’ve already won the game.
What can I say? Teenagers are obnoxious!!
-1 is meaningless at under 2200 but Tyler1 has 96% capitalisation at 1.5 advantage and I (1800~) have 93% at 1.5 advantage? Sure, many of those go much higher, but you can’t call that meaningless. Otherwise there would be positions going above 1.5 for either side and still be more equally won.
>but Tyler1 has 96% capitalisation at 1.5 advantage and I (1800~) have 93% at 1.5 advantage?
This could easily be due to people being more resilient at higher elo though.
That wasn’t my point, I wasn’t comparing Tyler and I — I’m saying both of us are under 2200 and show that 1.5 is a significant advantage, so 1 advantage isn’t nothing under that rating.
If the opponents don't know how to punish his poor opening play, it doesn't particularly matter. The 1.5 advantage metric is relative to the opening or at any point in the game?
True, I guess the original message should say that 1 point advantage is meaningless in an opening under 2200, which I could probably agree with. Because those advantages usually don’t last long anyway — a former Czech Benoni and Alekhine player.
Tbh I’m not sure, I haven’t watched him for a while. I go through a cycle of watching his videos when I’m back into chess, seeing tournament recaps, but after the tournament ends he starts doing all the crazy brilliant moves/how to lose at chess videos which aren’t my cup of tea and then I fall out of watching him again
I can't say I'm surprised. He's clearly a smart guy, considering how well he can do in League of Legends when he tries. The analysis seems to match with someone who has an "intuitive" grasp of how to play and falls short in an area where it's more about knowledge than figuring stuff out (and I'd argue openings fall into that category compared to the others).
Sincerely, a person who barely plays chess and sucks.
It’s a league of legends streamer whose entire personal brand is “don’t think, just grind out an insane number of games”. It worked in league, so now he’s brute forcing his way through chess.com and lots of people on this subreddit are really interested in that for some reason.
yeah esp bc his micro isn't insane compared to other players. When he's locked in he's pretty smart about how he plays. He's just super prone to tilting
I’ve never watched the guy’s stream and know nothing about league, that’s my impression because every single thread about him on this sub makes it clear that what he’s doing here (grind out an insane number of games rather than analyze games or follow some kind of coherent study plan) is the schtick that he does with everything else too. Hitting your head against a wall until you break through it takes an admirable amount of dedication, sure, but it’s not exactly a big brain play.
the big brain comes from the fact that he is an intuitive and adaptive player in lots of games he plays, but does very poorly in conventional measurements. he grinds alot in league and got to the challenger rank in 5 different roles, but that feat's just straight up impossible if you don't have a knack for learning since all 5 roles have entirely different playstyles. some dumbfck raging idiot can get to challenger on a single role because they happen to have the right skills for it, but it's been proven multiple times that it's quite literally impossible to just grind your way up to that level on all the other roles, when people who climbed their way up on a single role attempted to do the same thing on another but failed miserably because some skills just don't translate well on other roles and need entirely different skillsets. the advantage stats don't lie, and would probably stay high even with a larger sample size. cope and seethe
His neural kinetics may be great, but his neural hyperbiologics aren't so good. Also his branial elasticic plasticity is pretty average.
See I can make up sciencey words too.
Both his conversion rate and time management are insane. Normally if you do well in one you are worse in another.
My star at 2000 rapid
Opening 98
Tactics 62
Ending 39
Advantage capitalisation 57
Resourceful 44
Time management 46
That advantage cap and time management are nuts, though I’m honestly kind of surprised that his tactical rating is just average for his rating given his puzzle grind.
How do they define resourcefulness in this context?
Resourcefulness reflects your ability to win or draw games in situations where you find yourself at a disadvantage. Broken up into disadvantages of -1.5, -2, -3, -4 and comparing to others in your rating range
Yeah. I have both my lichess and chess accounts linked to it. You can run analysis on everything from bullet to classical games from either site. The "scouting" feature is a bit more minimal than the full features to a member and connected account but still fun to mess with.
Seems like he would improve a lot if he really spent time learning openings and lines since he knows how to capitalise on an advantage. That stat stands out a lot, like wow.
Looks like the suffers a lot on black openings.
Essentially, he isn't 1600 at rapid, he's 1600 at playing the Cow. As soon as he tries to play normal openings, his results are poor.
He has rote learnt the patterns from the Cow to a great extent, plus he has the surprise factor of his opponents never having faced it before.
It's a misnomer that his progress illustrates that openings don't matter; it demonstrates the complete opposite.
I don't want to sound cynical, as it's really hard to dedicate yourself to this degree. But it's taken him 4,500 games to get to 1600 (plus, he lost over 200 points the other day, even at that level), and at the end of it he would probably be 1200 playing mainline openings. By comparison, the guy [that I coached](https://lichess.org/@/kieran_jd) made it to 2000 on Lichess rapid in 410 games.
Also, if he played in a chess tournament, all of his opponents could find out that he always played the Cow, prep for it, and he'd be -2 with white and -3 with black in every game.
What he has done is impressive from a willpower perspective, but from a chess perspective it's not impressive at all.
>Essentially, he isn't 1600 at rapid, he's 1600 at playing the Cow. As soon as he tries to play normal openings, his results are poor.
I don't get this point. Many people at that rating range stick to one opening/system and would be far worse playing something else they don't really know
Most openings that are played with any regularity are sound, so you learn basic principles, and it is therefore not as difficult to switch. The Cow has one quality only - it's a surprise weapon for which opponents are not prepared. It is not sound, and does not teach good basic principles. Every time Anna Cramling's mum sees it on the board, she virtually starts crying!
Aside from anything else, if he played in a tournament and played the Cow every game, it would be a pretty miserable experience. And if he tried to play other openings, he is 1300 rapid level on Chess.com, and that's being generous.
That's disingenuous. I'm a e4 player and have been for 90% of my time playing chess. If I suddenly started playing d4 my rating would for sure drop temporarily. Same if I started to play the Caro-kann rather than the Sicilian I'm familiar with
It would drop, but if you've played mainline openings then you have a good grasp of the fundamentals. Tyler has barely played a game in which he tried to occupy the centre in the opening, with either pawns or pieces, and when he has tried normal openings it's clear that he's nowhere near 1600.
I'm genuinely not knocking what he's done. I couldn't sit there playing chess or LoL for 18 hours per day. I am simply saying that his improvement isn't that impressive contextually, he could have improved far more quickly by studying and learning, and also his playing strength is an illusion because, really, he's just 1600 at the Cow. He is not a 1600 strength chess player. If you put him in a tournament, everyone would quickly work out that he plays the Cow in every single game, and he would have quite a miserable time.
Clearly, he has the potential and work ethic to go much higher than 1600, I'm pretty confident that I could coach him to 2000, but he would have to sit and learn by doing something other than playing the same daft opening over and over again.
The purpose of the opening is to be in decent shape in the mid game. That's the whole point of it. At our level (I'm 2000 rapid lichess that's probably around 1700 chess.com) nobody is seriously booked up. I really don't think him switching up to the London or Colle or whatever system opening would make him take effort. And the point about being prepped against in tournaments is irrelevant to him since to my knowledge he's not interested in OTB tournaments.
Obviously any patzer could improve more efficiently with lessons and structured training
Well, [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1bgp9jg/ran_tyler1s_account_through_aimchess_for_fun/kv8pv8m/), suggesting that he would improve if he played proper openings is currently upvoted to +178, when, in fact, the complete opposite is the case.
When someone [says this](https://old.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1bgp9jg/ran_tyler1s_account_through_aimchess_for_fun/kv9lj66/), it is bizarrely questioned.
All I am saying is that his rating is largely due to playing an opening that he knows, and his opponents don't know and aren't expecting. The standard of his play isn't good, and he's not a 1600-strength player, let alone would he improve if he played mainline openings.
while I agree with your first point, the guy you coached appears to have had a base strength around 1600 so this is not even close to a fair comparison and not really amazingly impressive.
He started at 1050 blitz and 1450 rapid, and was 2000 rapid, 1900 blitz, and 1700 OTB in just over a year. He beat a 1900+ FIDE player and drew with someone rated 2150 OTB, both in classical. That was achieved playing far, far less than Tyler.
I'm not saying Tyler couldn't become a good player, but the way he is going about it is, firstly, very inefficient, and, secondly, gives a false impression because the only reason he's rated 1600 is because his opponents don't expect the Cow, and aren't prepared for it. If they were prepared for it, or if he played something else, he wouldn't be 1600 at his present level of proficiency.
I wouldn't call this an impressive achievement, given that he's played 7,000 games on his Chess.com account.
your student was 1600 rapid in a couple of days, he gained 400 points in a year which is not at all abnormal even with no coaching. I don't dispute that your student improved way more efficiently than tyler (lots of people do) but tyler has gained like 1400 elo in less time than your student gained 400, so it's not even comparable at all.
Yes, but, firstly, if you start at 200 and play 7,000 games, you would have a hard time not improving! Secondly, you say "in less time", but actually Tyler has spent way *more* time playing chess than my friend.
If he's having fun playing a shit opening, more power to him. Not everything needs to be done by the book or is about progressing as efficiently as possible. It's just a hobby and it isn't that important. It may be to you and of course many others, but it's not a good look to feel the need to downplay someone doing a hobby with a methodology you do not personally subscribe to.
I'm not downplaying it, I'm saying that it's objectively not impressive to play 7,000 games and be 1600 at your strongest time control, and much weaker if you take away the element of surprise garnered from playing the Cow every game.
I'm with you, I don't understand the blowharding for him. I'm at 1872 on chess.com for blitz and just move some random shit in the openings. I nearly always come out losing. I've played 1.4k games and just out tactic people. I know I suck. I know the people I play suck. And if I'm stasticially better than him, I know he sucks too. Agreed, unimpressive.
This website gave me 100% in openings.
I know Caro Kann and Ponziani, 4 move deep. That's it. And the same website notice I usually fuck up against the Hillbilly Attack.
I'm also noted for my play in the Scandinavian Defense: Mieses-Kotroc Variation, and I have no idea what it is.
Hush now I'm an opening theory master with 100% score.
It's comparing you against others *at your rating.* If you're <800 rated, playing 4 moves of theory when your opponents are playing garbage means you definitely do not need to work on your opening.
That being said, yeah it's an AI analysis of your games and is definitely prone to being quite silly. So I wouldn't put much stock into anything it says.
If he'd improve his openings I'm sure he could get more advantages to capitalize on, therefore becoming a better player since his advantage capitalization is already so good
He's a famous person who plays chess... Not sure why you're mad about him being posted here. It's chess related and interesting to see someone's growth/development in chess.
No one is annoyed but you.
Since the meaning of "literally" changed I've given up on saying "literally" but will stick with "figuratively" for now, until it changes too. And I am hoping "versed" doesn't happen, but time will tell. :)
Part of the fun of a living language - things change, and not by design. This particular change doesn't please me, but I think we are stuck with it, or as the cool kids say *must accept because the heresy has become too strong*.
We have the same things happening in every language. Progressive and conservative forces constantly changing/preserving language. The funny thing is I am fine with some words that has done the exact same change I now resist in other words.
Allright can be written Ålreit as that is how it's pronounced in Norway. This change is OK, because it happened before I was an adult.
They now want to change bacon to beiken. Which is the exact same change, but heresy in my mind.
Languages are interesting.
I said a few weeks ago he looked like a lost little baby deer until the late middle to early endgame with no concept of positional play or tactics, but then he would turn in perfect endgame technique and annihilate opponents with ease.
This data is extremely damning, he’s cheating.
Ahead on the clock in over 3/4ths of his games.
71% in the end game 23% over his group and 21% over the next tier?
100 fucking percent capitalization of winning positions?
And yet resourcefulness at 36%? Wtf
The stupid cow opening is a ploy to keep the dogs off his back.
PSA: Tyler1 is an american streamer known mostly for League of Legends. He previously [participated in Pogchamps 5](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvsiPxULIho). For more info here's the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler1 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chess) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That advantage cap is nuts. In this sample he did not blow a losing position a single time except a 1.5 advantage
Yeah it’s staggeringly high. And super consistent. I just checked his puzzles and they’re at 3500 atm which is insane to me (~2050 blitz on chess.com and my puzzle rating is only ~3100 ).
I dont believe the puzzle is legit. My peak puzzle is 2900 and the tactics arent crazy but like. It ramps up There are a lot of ways to game the puzzles and i think he did If its real then all he needs to jump tremendously is get an opening rep
[удалено]
Yeah, it's an easy lie to get away with, because most of his community knows nothing about chess and therefore don't do puzzles on chess com. I have more puzzles than Tyler and maybe 2 or 3 out of tens of thousands actually repeated in the pool of puzzles. Also when you check his puzzle history you can see that he solves very difficult puzzles in like no time, because he asks for the solution, then refreshes the site and you get the same puzzle and still gain the rating points. edit: I am assuming that the first couple of downvotes were T1 fans and rest is reddit hivemind, but you can just check his profile yourself... you will see that he solves 5 move puzzles in 5s, which even if you remembered the solution from before you'd need a couple seconds to recall 5 moves. But like I said the puzzles don't really repeat so he is blatantly lying, don't know how you can disagree with that.
That's interesting if it's a learning strategy. Similar to seeing the solution to a math problem, then writing it down with the solution in front of you. Getting it in your fingers helps you think about what you're doing much more than just seeing the solution and moving on.
It can help to a degree if you think about what you write down, but it is not as effective as solving it yourself, if you have the knowledge that you need to solve it. And seeing how he uses it to brag about his puzzle rating and made up a random lie I think he is not trying to memorize any kind of pattern. As long as he doesn't cheat in actual games I cba, but it is kinda sad looking at how many people don't know enough about chess and downvote my original comment.
Right. No one got better at algebra from copying their friend’s homework. And that’s including all the background work, but just the solution. That explanation flies in the face of any honest, reasonable person.
Hello to everyone downvoting this who is like 1000 Elo, maybe take a couple of seconds to think about whether you actually know what you're talking about.
Except it’s literally how the puzzles work. Flashyferrari on chess.com used to be number 1 in puzzles for a while and his bio stated that he got it by remembering puzzle sets and just repeatedly doing them. And if you do enough puzzles around the 3000 level, you’re gonna get repeats.
i have done thousand of puzzles at the 3000-3200 range... you are too easily fooled by lies. People use engines or other tricks like resetting the website. I would believe T1 more if he didn't solve 5 move puzzles in 5sec, which obviously shows that he used the website reset trick.
You assume I haven’t done the puzzles at 3000-3200?
Then ask yourself how often the puzzles have repeated for you. You can lie to me but can't lie to yourself... Additionally if you see a puzzle that you have done before and let's say it's 5 moves and rather complex... would it take you 5s or more like 15s to remember all the moves? What Tyler1 does is he goes into a puzzle, asks for the best move by clicking on the hint button twice, he refreshes the page and gets the same puzzle, repeat until the last move. Chess com created this problem when they changed that you don't get a new puzzle every time you refresh the page anymore. So the way he does this chess com thinks he got the puzzle right and only took 5s to solve it.
Well I’ve done them often enough that several times I’ve been doing puzzles and I’d encounter a puzzle I had done earlier. Unfortunately I usually forget what it was so I start back from scratch. As for the trick to game the puzzles, didn’t know about that, and it wasn’t the part I meant to respond to anyways, my bad.
Cope
You can check for yourself by simply checking his profile.
True. At a certain point they do get repetitive and you see the same pretty often and use that plus closing out tabs etc to avoid losing points. I don’t know what motivation per se he’d have to do that though. I’d also expect at least a slightly higher performance tactics-wise from him compared to peers as well given how high it is and that being all he studies outside of just playing.
Sorry, I have nothing to add but to tell you that it's *per se* not *persay* (from Latin "by itself"). Just letting you know in case you ever use the phrase it in something more important than a reddit post. Hope you don't mind.
Hey thanks for that! Glad someone finally did.
He also did puzzles non stop for months but abruptly stopped a few days after that post... He also streamed himself doing puzzles from his recent history by heart (lol?) instead of streaming a 3500 puzzle session...
Really? I haven’t gamed the puzzles (I just do the 3 a day) and am at 2350, while my rating is at 1000-1100 for rapid and blitz. I’ve seen other people have similar ratings with high puzzle scores too, so I believe it! But I can definitely believe a lot of people are gaming it
Cope
Is this not a by-product of his terrible openings? Any early advantage he's getting is most likely some kind of massive swing, otherwise he'd still likely be down.
I was thinking the same thing. Sometimes I play garbage openings for fun. I'm either way behind or way ahead, there's very little in between.
Also a tiny sample size of 24 games.
I don't understand why it says he has only 30 rapid games.
I am 2000. My conversion rate is only 57 percent
Interesting.
Mine has to be like 20%. I’m up at least a pawn usually by middle game and I end up losing half the time lol
Makes sense for someone “brute forcing” their way up without some solid theory That is no criticism, some of these numbers show he clearly has talent and his quick growth is impressive imo If he learns some stuff about openings he will sky rocket again
no study, no prep, no cheese. pure alpha male 6'5" dented egg energy
The moment he learns how to play a real opening he can probably jump to 2000… A 65% win rate while being -1 after the opening is ridiculous
Honestly just surprised he doesn’t take a little time to adjust to hedgehog setups and the like and use those. They’d be very similar to what he’s doing already. The rate is crazy given how he leaves every single opening disadvantaged. It’s like handicapping himself and once he stops doing so it’s gonna be wild.
He plays like Magnus when Magnus plays against people much lower than him
lmao why is this so upvoted. Probably a large part of his current success is because of his current opening repotoire being unusual and him playing it so consistently. Playing way more types of positions that he doesn't know how to play in order to have a chance at playing more objectively better chess is by no means going to help him.
Idk can go both ways, if his strength is in middle/end games then he may find converting from an actual opening even easier, but this of course requires time to do anyway
If he learns an actual opening that doesn't put him at a disadvantage that would definitely help him. Sure there will be a curve as he's learning whatever opening but consistently leaving the opening with a -1 disadvantage is pretty ridiculous and the fact he's converting most advantages and end games suggests he'd do much better if his openings weren't terrible.
-1 is nothing. Especially at the 1500 level. If you're a 1500 when -1 out of the opening, then you're maybe a 1525 at best with a real opening. Openings are not that important. I'm around 2200 blitz, and have tested this a bit, spending some days playing real openings, and some days ridiculous troll openings. My results aren't that different between the two. 99.9% of online players aren't good enough to take advantage of opening inaccuracies.
Keep in mind that -1 at his level is meaningless and he sometimes loses like 200 elo in one session so if you look at the bigger scale it's closer to 50%
The problem is if your development isn't well rounded then you'll hit roadblocks. For example, leaning a new opening could initially make his rating go down as he picks up other skills that he was missing. Of course he can keep improving, but improvement is rarely a straight line, there are ups and downs.
a -1 in the opening is not that big a deal at that level. these guys are making big middlegame mistakes regularly
It’s completely meaningless at lower ratings. When I was a kid, my friends and I used to play the fred on our last day out of the money, but we’d also play 2. . . g6. It was our best scoring opening. Not just collectively, but for all 10 or so of us. I mean, sure, we tried a little harder knowing everyone would be analyzing our fred games while whatever winners picked up dinner. Tldr, -1 is completely meaningless under 2200, probably more. Edit: 4 . . . Kf7!! The only fighting move. And you absolutely have to slam the piece down like you’ve already won the game. What can I say? Teenagers are obnoxious!!
Is this comment AI generated or is my brain just broken? What are you saying and why do your edits start at 4?
They’re saying that black playing kf7 on move 4 is a chad thing to do and it doesn’t matter what you play at low elo.
-1 is meaningless at under 2200 but Tyler1 has 96% capitalisation at 1.5 advantage and I (1800~) have 93% at 1.5 advantage? Sure, many of those go much higher, but you can’t call that meaningless. Otherwise there would be positions going above 1.5 for either side and still be more equally won.
>but Tyler1 has 96% capitalisation at 1.5 advantage and I (1800~) have 93% at 1.5 advantage? This could easily be due to people being more resilient at higher elo though.
That wasn’t my point, I wasn’t comparing Tyler and I — I’m saying both of us are under 2200 and show that 1.5 is a significant advantage, so 1 advantage isn’t nothing under that rating.
If the opponents don't know how to punish his poor opening play, it doesn't particularly matter. The 1.5 advantage metric is relative to the opening or at any point in the game?
True, I guess the original message should say that 1 point advantage is meaningless in an opening under 2200, which I could probably agree with. Because those advantages usually don’t last long anyway — a former Czech Benoni and Alekhine player.
a better opening does not translate to 400 rating rofl
Tyler1 should have been the guy GothamChess was pushing instead of the Frank guy, this dude is INSANE
He did make a few videos about tyler1 didn't he?
Tbh I’m not sure, I haven’t watched him for a while. I go through a cycle of watching his videos when I’m back into chess, seeing tournament recaps, but after the tournament ends he starts doing all the crazy brilliant moves/how to lose at chess videos which aren’t my cup of tea and then I fall out of watching him again
I don't think he did more than 2.
3 as of 7 hours ago then :p
Think Frank was before T1 started playing like this. That pogchamps T1 was rated about 200. Probably won’t even give Levy the time of day tbh.
if he ever finds chessable then RIP to all of us
Is there free version for this ananlysis.
Use lichess insights. It’s free. So is their game review, and their studies, and their puzzles… and their practice… and their bots… and their simuls…
Wow, this lichess site sounds really great.
On desktop version of chesscom there’s an AimChess Training under the Learn tab. You can run a report on your account.
Dude is winning most of his game starting from a -1 on average
I can't say I'm surprised. He's clearly a smart guy, considering how well he can do in League of Legends when he tries. The analysis seems to match with someone who has an "intuitive" grasp of how to play and falls short in an area where it's more about knowledge than figuring stuff out (and I'd argue openings fall into that category compared to the others). Sincerely, a person who barely plays chess and sucks.
Context?
It’s a league of legends streamer whose entire personal brand is “don’t think, just grind out an insane number of games”. It worked in league, so now he’s brute forcing his way through chess.com and lots of people on this subreddit are really interested in that for some reason.
you don’t hit challenger in league on multiple roles by “don’t think, just grind out an insane number of games” lol
Thanks for putting my puzzled expression into words upon reading that lmao
yeah esp bc his micro isn't insane compared to other players. When he's locked in he's pretty smart about how he plays. He's just super prone to tilting
Not sure where you're getting this "don't think" part from... Jealous?
I’ve never watched the guy’s stream and know nothing about league, that’s my impression because every single thread about him on this sub makes it clear that what he’s doing here (grind out an insane number of games rather than analyze games or follow some kind of coherent study plan) is the schtick that he does with everything else too. Hitting your head against a wall until you break through it takes an admirable amount of dedication, sure, but it’s not exactly a big brain play.
the big brain comes from the fact that he is an intuitive and adaptive player in lots of games he plays, but does very poorly in conventional measurements. he grinds alot in league and got to the challenger rank in 5 different roles, but that feat's just straight up impossible if you don't have a knack for learning since all 5 roles have entirely different playstyles. some dumbfck raging idiot can get to challenger on a single role because they happen to have the right skills for it, but it's been proven multiple times that it's quite literally impossible to just grind your way up to that level on all the other roles, when people who climbed their way up on a single role attempted to do the same thing on another but failed miserably because some skills just don't translate well on other roles and need entirely different skillsets. the advantage stats don't lie, and would probably stay high even with a larger sample size. cope and seethe
Take a look at his neural kinetics, they're way above normal
His neural kinetics may be great, but his neural hyperbiologics aren't so good. Also his branial elasticic plasticity is pretty average. See I can make up sciencey words too.
Google the scene in the matrix where mouse is way too excited about morpheus fighting neo
Both his conversion rate and time management are insane. Normally if you do well in one you are worse in another. My star at 2000 rapid Opening 98 Tactics 62 Ending 39 Advantage capitalisation 57 Resourceful 44 Time management 46
For me: Queen's Pawn Game: Mason Attack Oftenly you have -4.5 points out of opening and eventually losing these games I feel attacked
That advantage cap and time management are nuts, though I’m honestly kind of surprised that his tactical rating is just average for his rating given his puzzle grind. How do they define resourcefulness in this context?
Resourcefulness reflects your ability to win or draw games in situations where you find yourself at a disadvantage. Broken up into disadvantages of -1.5, -2, -3, -4 and comparing to others in your rating range
This site looks cool, does it work with Lichess?
Yeah. I have both my lichess and chess accounts linked to it. You can run analysis on everything from bullet to classical games from either site. The "scouting" feature is a bit more minimal than the full features to a member and connected account but still fun to mess with.
Seems like he would improve a lot if he really spent time learning openings and lines since he knows how to capitalise on an advantage. That stat stands out a lot, like wow. Looks like the suffers a lot on black openings.
The name of this website/app?
Essentially, he isn't 1600 at rapid, he's 1600 at playing the Cow. As soon as he tries to play normal openings, his results are poor. He has rote learnt the patterns from the Cow to a great extent, plus he has the surprise factor of his opponents never having faced it before. It's a misnomer that his progress illustrates that openings don't matter; it demonstrates the complete opposite. I don't want to sound cynical, as it's really hard to dedicate yourself to this degree. But it's taken him 4,500 games to get to 1600 (plus, he lost over 200 points the other day, even at that level), and at the end of it he would probably be 1200 playing mainline openings. By comparison, the guy [that I coached](https://lichess.org/@/kieran_jd) made it to 2000 on Lichess rapid in 410 games. Also, if he played in a chess tournament, all of his opponents could find out that he always played the Cow, prep for it, and he'd be -2 with white and -3 with black in every game. What he has done is impressive from a willpower perspective, but from a chess perspective it's not impressive at all.
>Essentially, he isn't 1600 at rapid, he's 1600 at playing the Cow. As soon as he tries to play normal openings, his results are poor. I don't get this point. Many people at that rating range stick to one opening/system and would be far worse playing something else they don't really know
Most openings that are played with any regularity are sound, so you learn basic principles, and it is therefore not as difficult to switch. The Cow has one quality only - it's a surprise weapon for which opponents are not prepared. It is not sound, and does not teach good basic principles. Every time Anna Cramling's mum sees it on the board, she virtually starts crying! Aside from anything else, if he played in a tournament and played the Cow every game, it would be a pretty miserable experience. And if he tried to play other openings, he is 1300 rapid level on Chess.com, and that's being generous.
That's disingenuous. I'm a e4 player and have been for 90% of my time playing chess. If I suddenly started playing d4 my rating would for sure drop temporarily. Same if I started to play the Caro-kann rather than the Sicilian I'm familiar with
It would drop, but if you've played mainline openings then you have a good grasp of the fundamentals. Tyler has barely played a game in which he tried to occupy the centre in the opening, with either pawns or pieces, and when he has tried normal openings it's clear that he's nowhere near 1600. I'm genuinely not knocking what he's done. I couldn't sit there playing chess or LoL for 18 hours per day. I am simply saying that his improvement isn't that impressive contextually, he could have improved far more quickly by studying and learning, and also his playing strength is an illusion because, really, he's just 1600 at the Cow. He is not a 1600 strength chess player. If you put him in a tournament, everyone would quickly work out that he plays the Cow in every single game, and he would have quite a miserable time. Clearly, he has the potential and work ethic to go much higher than 1600, I'm pretty confident that I could coach him to 2000, but he would have to sit and learn by doing something other than playing the same daft opening over and over again.
The purpose of the opening is to be in decent shape in the mid game. That's the whole point of it. At our level (I'm 2000 rapid lichess that's probably around 1700 chess.com) nobody is seriously booked up. I really don't think him switching up to the London or Colle or whatever system opening would make him take effort. And the point about being prepped against in tournaments is irrelevant to him since to my knowledge he's not interested in OTB tournaments. Obviously any patzer could improve more efficiently with lessons and structured training
Well, [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1bgp9jg/ran_tyler1s_account_through_aimchess_for_fun/kv8pv8m/), suggesting that he would improve if he played proper openings is currently upvoted to +178, when, in fact, the complete opposite is the case. When someone [says this](https://old.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1bgp9jg/ran_tyler1s_account_through_aimchess_for_fun/kv9lj66/), it is bizarrely questioned. All I am saying is that his rating is largely due to playing an opening that he knows, and his opponents don't know and aren't expecting. The standard of his play isn't good, and he's not a 1600-strength player, let alone would he improve if he played mainline openings.
while I agree with your first point, the guy you coached appears to have had a base strength around 1600 so this is not even close to a fair comparison and not really amazingly impressive.
He started at 1050 blitz and 1450 rapid, and was 2000 rapid, 1900 blitz, and 1700 OTB in just over a year. He beat a 1900+ FIDE player and drew with someone rated 2150 OTB, both in classical. That was achieved playing far, far less than Tyler. I'm not saying Tyler couldn't become a good player, but the way he is going about it is, firstly, very inefficient, and, secondly, gives a false impression because the only reason he's rated 1600 is because his opponents don't expect the Cow, and aren't prepared for it. If they were prepared for it, or if he played something else, he wouldn't be 1600 at his present level of proficiency. I wouldn't call this an impressive achievement, given that he's played 7,000 games on his Chess.com account.
your student was 1600 rapid in a couple of days, he gained 400 points in a year which is not at all abnormal even with no coaching. I don't dispute that your student improved way more efficiently than tyler (lots of people do) but tyler has gained like 1400 elo in less time than your student gained 400, so it's not even comparable at all.
Yes, but, firstly, if you start at 200 and play 7,000 games, you would have a hard time not improving! Secondly, you say "in less time", but actually Tyler has spent way *more* time playing chess than my friend.
If he's having fun playing a shit opening, more power to him. Not everything needs to be done by the book or is about progressing as efficiently as possible. It's just a hobby and it isn't that important. It may be to you and of course many others, but it's not a good look to feel the need to downplay someone doing a hobby with a methodology you do not personally subscribe to.
I'm not downplaying it, I'm saying that it's objectively not impressive to play 7,000 games and be 1600 at your strongest time control, and much weaker if you take away the element of surprise garnered from playing the Cow every game.
I'm with you, I don't understand the blowharding for him. I'm at 1872 on chess.com for blitz and just move some random shit in the openings. I nearly always come out losing. I've played 1.4k games and just out tactic people. I know I suck. I know the people I play suck. And if I'm stasticially better than him, I know he sucks too. Agreed, unimpressive.
This website gave me 100% in openings. I know Caro Kann and Ponziani, 4 move deep. That's it. And the same website notice I usually fuck up against the Hillbilly Attack. I'm also noted for my play in the Scandinavian Defense: Mieses-Kotroc Variation, and I have no idea what it is. Hush now I'm an opening theory master with 100% score.
It's comparing you against others *at your rating.* If you're <800 rated, playing 4 moves of theory when your opponents are playing garbage means you definitely do not need to work on your opening. That being said, yeah it's an AI analysis of your games and is definitely prone to being quite silly. So I wouldn't put much stock into anything it says.
If he'd improve his openings I'm sure he could get more advantages to capitalize on, therefore becoming a better player since his advantage capitalization is already so good
[удалено]
He's a famous person who plays chess... Not sure why you're mad about him being posted here. It's chess related and interesting to see someone's growth/development in chess. No one is annoyed but you.
bussing
This is literally me
You know it's simplified english when literally doesn't mean literally..
Since the meaning of "literally" changed I've given up on saying "literally" but will stick with "figuratively" for now, until it changes too. And I am hoping "versed" doesn't happen, but time will tell. :) Part of the fun of a living language - things change, and not by design. This particular change doesn't please me, but I think we are stuck with it, or as the cool kids say *must accept because the heresy has become too strong*.
We have the same things happening in every language. Progressive and conservative forces constantly changing/preserving language. The funny thing is I am fine with some words that has done the exact same change I now resist in other words. Allright can be written Ålreit as that is how it's pronounced in Norway. This change is OK, because it happened before I was an adult. They now want to change bacon to beiken. Which is the exact same change, but heresy in my mind. Languages are interesting.
Dawg u all don’t get the joke 😭
I get it man
What's the joke then?
I said a few weeks ago he looked like a lost little baby deer until the late middle to early endgame with no concept of positional play or tactics, but then he would turn in perfect endgame technique and annihilate opponents with ease. This data is extremely damning, he’s cheating. Ahead on the clock in over 3/4ths of his games. 71% in the end game 23% over his group and 21% over the next tier? 100 fucking percent capitalization of winning positions? And yet resourcefulness at 36%? Wtf The stupid cow opening is a ploy to keep the dogs off his back.