Can't Win

I began playing 'seriously' back in late March. I broke 1000 about a month ago which, for me, was a great milestone. For a while it seemed that I was winning every game. Really I was probably more like 70% but I was very happy with my play. Felt good.

Lately however, I can't seem to win. It is like I have forgotten everything I have learned!! I have analyzed the situation and I know I was not over confident. But now I have lost all confidence. It is extremely frustrating. I am losing to people in the 600's!!!!!!!!! I am not saying that I should never lose to such people but this is not even funny anymore. Part of me want to give up but I am too stubborn for that.

Has anyone ever had this happen? What did you do? Take a break for a while? Play through it?

Help.

I think everyone has had the above situation at one point or another, I myself range from 1100-1300 here on chess.com, I go through long winning streaks and then equally long losing streaks (I am defining streaks as 4 or more wins or losses in a row).

When I find myself in a slump it's usually due to burn out, so I'll do one of two things:

1) Take a break, nothing refreshes the old grey muscle more then rest and relaxation.  When I come back after a week or so off I find I am playing sharper then ever.

2) Change my playstyle - I tend to run the same openings for extended periods of time (currently playing a lot of king's gambits) and anyone is liable to start fading out after playing the same way over and over and over again.  Find a new opening book you like to play an d run with that for a while.

Good thoughts. I had been playing King's Gambits for a while too. Maybe it is time to get more familiar with some other openings.

Thanks for your input. Not a lot of people like to comment on something like this. I don't think anyone likes to admit that there are times when you just suck!

Everyone is vulnerable to going into a slump every so often. Vary your study a little, take a little break...use some vacation time if you need to. Often slumps or at least plateaus occur right before a jump in performance, so don't be discouraged. Don't give up, but don't feel like you have to just plow straight ahead either.

Sometimes it helps to play people better than you. I'm also in the low thousands but I only play people 50-200 points higher than me. Then even your "slumps" will probably be better games than the ones you play with people in the 600s.

Most good players only become good after years of practise. I stopped playing chess 30 years ago and joined this site 2 months ago. I get beaten à lot and I do not mind, because it is good for my brain and i know that with every game i get à very little bit better. You should think in years if you really want to improve. To get good at something takes as à rule of thumb 10 000 hours practise....

I read your post and was surprised to read that even those in the 1000s feel the way I do.  I am only in the 300s.   I have more to say, but I will start a new post. You, my advanced opponent, have little to fear, IMHO.

wow i never would have gusse there be players in 300 im 1075 and sometime i feel that i won't get to 1500 but i still don't get how the point work why i get more in  some games and less in others.

As IM Mikhail Baturyn's website says, study tactics, then strategy, then GM or mastering level, OPENINGS. I forgot the link...

chess is a difficult game.

I agree with pfren regarding openings. I believe that opening theory really is for advanced players. Beginners have enough on their plate learning the basics. I tend to stick with one or maybe two openings and play whatever variation materialises.

Regarding bad runs; I play a lot on chess.com and inevitably experience poor form predominantly brought about by mental fatigue and simply loss of focus caused by too much chess. I find a day of very light exposure to chess, refreshes the brain very quickly and sets you up for the coming games.

I would say: first study tactics, then endings, then strategy, and openings last of all.

You won't understand the point of the strategies or openings unless you already know what a won ending looks like.

Studying chess(endgames,tactics and strategy) is really essential to improvement. Take a look at GM Aronian, he is a top 3 player in the world,and yet he buys the two recent endgame book by Nunn to study it last year.

Many many years ago( I am still at school) when I am just strating at chess, I read from cover to cover Winning Chess Strategy and Chess Ending Essentaial Knowledge by Averbakh, I also got Chess Primer by Capablanca. I play some few games with my school mate for 1 year(my stimation the total of games we played are( less than 70). Then I stopped playing chess for many years. I came back a few years ago and play chess online at FICS, I easily got to 1700 on pace to reach 1800(but I stop again). So what this tell, chess studying made a huge impact on me. I  see people at FICS who have thousand and thousand games, but their rating is low and they are stack there, the reason is maybe they never study chess..

It is based on you rating deviation. You can read about it here....

http://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-ratings---how-they-work

I understand that I must study theory and tactics which I do a lot of and it has helped me tremendously. In the Chess.com study material they recommend, along with much more, studying openings. Not only for using them but for recognizing patterns in opponents. I realize I have a heck of a lot to learn but to "not care at all about openings" seems counter intuitive to me. What is the point of studying tactics and strategy if they are not to be employed in openings?

I just blundered my queen in my last game being the idiot that I am, and it makes me want to consider not playing chess at all given how poorly I can play sometimes. Don't study openings, it's a bad idea since you need to study tactics at your level. I'm not much higher rated than you and I certainly don't deserve to be rated higher, but keep using tactical puzzles, or at least that's what you're supposd to do at that level, although if you're anything like me, you might as well give up on chess and get a life. I actually have friends and family, and by that token, I don't have time to use "Rapid Chess Improvement" or anything like that. I'm pretty well destined to continue sucking for years to come. Can't wait.

Definitely don't bother with openings at your level, since all games under about 1500 level are decided by tactics. I actually once bought a video on the Scotch opening but it actually made my game worse because I paid no attention to anything but the opening. Killing blunders and tactical oversights is pretty much impossible if you don't already have natural talent for the game, or you don't have enough ridiculous amounts of free time to spend hours on end studying tactics. On another thread about blunders someone posted to sac pieces and play ridiculously aggressive so that if you lose you have the excuse that you were trying to create a beautiful sacrifice checkmate or something. That thought interested me, since attacking chess sounds fun, but attacking chess is all tactics and therefore definitely hard for me.

I agree regarding Chess Tactics.  That and endgames are going to make the biggest difference.  I study chess tactics in the following way:

I take a fixed number of tactics puzzles, lets say 70.  Each day of the week I do 10 puzzles so at the end of the week I have finished all 70.  The next week I repeat the same 10 each day so by the end of week two I have done the same 70 again.  I do this for 4 weeks.  It is amazing how you just look at the board and you "see" the answer straight away by the end of the 4 weeks.

My advice is to make the 70 you choose "varied" and if your rating is around 1000, make them reasonably easy too, like 1 or 2 (maybe 3) moves at most.

The idea is to get the "pattern recognition" in your head.

Look at the following basic endgames:

- king and pawn versus king

- Can you mate in 12 moves from any position with king and rook versus king?

- basic king and pawn endings

You need to do the above study in a quiet environmant and stick to the tactics routine and If the above doesn't improve your play I will be amazed!  

The problem with a developing player giving attention to opening is as follows.

1. If your opponent play a move that you never seen before, you will never know what to do.

2. Openings at times are matter of opinion, evaluation will change from time to time. It means what you study today might not work tomorrow.

3. At below master level, tactics is the common reason of defeat. What is the use of opening if you will blunder

4. What is the use of opening if you don't know how to exploit an advantage.

5. Suppose you study sicilian, are you tactical and strategical competent enough for the complex line of sicilian.

6. Do you know how to convert rook endgame winning positions or draw rook endgame position that should be draw?

Just familiarize you self with the general ideas of opening. Like control of center. Instead study typical middle game positions, like middle game with isolated pawn, close center middle game, open center, hanging pawns,pawn sacrifice for inititative,backward pawn etc(of course don't forget tactics and endgames). In this way after the opening you will have an idea what to do.

Just study tactics and endgames.  Follow opening principles.  Play slowly.  The games that I lose, close to 100% of em were all lost simply because I blundered by playing too quickly and not carefully calculating.I only play online chess or 30 minute time controls thats it.  Tactics trainer is awesome do it everyday.

What you have described is precisely what I do. There is a lot being made of openings in this thread. Yes, I study some openings but not to replicate them, to learn the principles that make the openings valuable. In my studies of chess I have spent maybe 10% of that time studying openings. I do a lot of tactics training, usually my allotted 25 per day. I completely agree with you, I usually lose when I rush a move resulting in a blunder or I have a move I wish to make and make it without sufficiently analyzing my opponent's move.