lichess.org
Donate

Beating Berserkers: How I Finished 37th in the 2025 Winter Marathon

If you want to win games and gain rating, then do not berserk.
If you want to win an arena, then berserk all games.
Top 3 berserked up to 99% of games.
The winner played 299 games with 88% berserk.
Not only does berserk force the opponent to play at a higher pace, but also it allows to cram more games into the same time, thus also more winning streaks.

If you want to win games and gain rating, then do not berserk. If you want to win an arena, then berserk all games. Top 3 berserked up to 99% of games. The winner played 299 games with 88% berserk. Not only does berserk force the opponent to play at a higher pace, but also it allows to cram more games into the same time, thus also more winning streaks.

@tpr said in #2:

If you want to win games and gain rating, then do not berserk.
If you want to win an arena, then berserk all games.
Top 3 berserked up to 99% of games.
The winner played 299 games with 88% berserk.
Not only does berserk force the opponent to play at a higher pace, but also it allows to cram more games into the same time, thus also more winning streaks.

I usually berserk more in time controls better suited for it (e.g. ones with no increment), but with 5+3 it was unclear how effective berserking would be with such a large time disadvantage. When berserking early on, my results suffered as I struggled to convert and had some bad losses due to the time disadvantage, and my play would have likely only gotten worse as I got more tired. In saying this, I'm still not sure if I would have done better berserking every game, for example. I was trying to maintain win streaks when I had them, but many of my wins simply came from using the advantage of not berserking back. But of course, it also depends on the player. If the time control were something like 5+0 instead, I would definitely have berserked most games. It's also worth noting that even though when I was lower in the standings few players berserked back, much more would berserk back once I climbed my way up higher.

@tpr said in #2: > If you want to win games and gain rating, then do not berserk. > If you want to win an arena, then berserk all games. > Top 3 berserked up to 99% of games. > The winner played 299 games with 88% berserk. > Not only does berserk force the opponent to play at a higher pace, but also it allows to cram more games into the same time, thus also more winning streaks. I usually berserk more in time controls better suited for it (e.g. ones with no increment), but with 5+3 it was unclear how effective berserking would be with such a large time disadvantage. When berserking early on, my results suffered as I struggled to convert and had some bad losses due to the time disadvantage, and my play would have likely only gotten worse as I got more tired. In saying this, I'm still not sure if I would have done better berserking every game, for example. I was trying to maintain win streaks when I had them, but many of my wins simply came from using the advantage of not berserking back. But of course, it also depends on the player. If the time control were something like 5+0 instead, I would definitely have berserked most games. It's also worth noting that even though when I was lower in the standings few players berserked back, much more would berserk back once I climbed my way up higher.

#3
"with 5+3 it was unclear how effective berserking would be with such a large time disadvantage."

  • To win arena it is necessary even with 5+3 and even more with 5+0.
    The winner scored 867 arena points out of 299 games, that is 2.9 arena point per game. He berserked 88% and won 70%.
    The runner up scored 666 arena points out of 181 games, that is 3.67 arena point per game. He berserked 99% and won 84%.
    The third one scored 602 arena points out of 214 games, that is 2.81 arena point per game. He berserked 99% and won 71%.

Personally I have never ever berserked. I sign up for 5+3, not 2.5+0.
In one game my opponent berserked, I did not berserk back, he resigned.
Arena wise that makes sense. He would have lost the game, so he chose to lose it right away and start a new game.

"when I was lower in the standings few players berserked back" * Logical, they want to win 5+3 games not arena.
"much more would berserk back once I climbed my way up higher" * Logical, they want to win arena, or win a top 100 trophy..

#3 "with 5+3 it was unclear how effective berserking would be with such a large time disadvantage." * To win arena it is necessary even with 5+3 and even more with 5+0. The winner scored 867 arena points out of 299 games, that is 2.9 arena point per game. He berserked 88% and won 70%. The runner up scored 666 arena points out of 181 games, that is 3.67 arena point per game. He berserked 99% and won 84%. The third one scored 602 arena points out of 214 games, that is 2.81 arena point per game. He berserked 99% and won 71%. Personally I have never ever berserked. I sign up for 5+3, not 2.5+0. In one game my opponent berserked, I did not berserk back, he resigned. Arena wise that makes sense. He would have lost the game, so he chose to lose it right away and start a new game. "when I was lower in the standings few players berserked back" * Logical, they want to win 5+3 games not arena. "much more would berserk back once I climbed my way up higher" * Logical, they want to win arena, or win a top 100 trophy..

@tpr said in #4:

  • To win arena it is necessary even with 5+3 and even more with 5+0.
    The winner scored 867 arena points out of 299 games, that is 2.9 arena point per game. He berserked 88% and won 70%.
    The runner up scored 666 arena points out of 181 games, that is 3.67 arena point per game. He berserked 99% and won 84%.
    The third one scored 602 arena points out of 214 games, that is 2.81 arena point per game. He berserked 99% and won 71%.

Sure, to win an arena, berserking is definitely beneficial/necessary. That said, berserking when you are significantly higher rated than most of your opponents is very different to berserking when most of your opponents have a similar rating to you. However, there are still people around my rating range who were very successful berserking heavily, but I still think ultimately it comes down to the player.

@tpr said in #4: > * To win arena it is necessary even with 5+3 and even more with 5+0. > The winner scored 867 arena points out of 299 games, that is 2.9 arena point per game. He berserked 88% and won 70%. > The runner up scored 666 arena points out of 181 games, that is 3.67 arena point per game. He berserked 99% and won 84%. > The third one scored 602 arena points out of 214 games, that is 2.81 arena point per game. He berserked 99% and won 71%. Sure, to win an arena, berserking is definitely beneficial/necessary. That said, berserking when you are significantly higher rated than most of your opponents is very different to berserking when most of your opponents have a similar rating to you. However, there are still people around my rating range who were very successful berserking heavily, but I still think ultimately it comes down to the player.

very nice games highlighted, great job srp!

very nice games highlighted, great job srp!

Are you aware that the CM you beat finished 10th?

Are you aware that the CM you beat finished 10th?

@Samuwell said in #7:

Are you aware that the CM you beat finished 10th?

No, I wasn't, in terms of results against the top 10, I also drew 4th

@Samuwell said in #7: > Are you aware that the CM you beat finished 10th? No, I wasn't, in terms of results against the top 10, I also drew 4th

thanks for sharing your experience with the marathon

That said, berserking when you are significantly higher rated than most of your opponents is very different to berserking when most of your opponents have a similar rating to you.

yes, and it was something else entirely berserking opponents rated several hundred points higher who did not berserk back, it took some pressure off since it felt like they were under more pressure to not lose, not that they did since time advantage was huge, but there were some upsets that maybe wouldnt have happened if time were equal, something about not overthinking and just going for simple intuitive moves...

thanks for sharing your experience with the marathon > That said, berserking when you are significantly higher rated than most of your opponents is very different to berserking when most of your opponents have a similar rating to you. yes, and it was something else entirely berserking opponents rated several hundred points higher who did not berserk back, it took some pressure off since it felt like they were under more pressure to not lose, not that they did since time advantage was huge, but there were some upsets that maybe wouldnt have happened if time were equal, something about not overthinking and just going for simple intuitive moves...