I agree to your point buddy. But, I think that, with a good training programme, you might have reached there in less time. If I am right, the youngest GM in the world is from Ukraine and became GM at the age of 13. Surely, he underwent training. Right? 

But, having said that, as you pointed out, to reach a particular level, one need not study a lot of theory or undergo training and watch a lot of videos of master games etc. That is my view point also (Even though I may be wrong as I am a beginner).

Love your post. Thanks. I totally agree.

Thank you ncubbie. That is informative. I always think that I will analyse each game after I play it. Not only that, I even started (but not much progress) classifying my games - on the basis of sacrifices I did and won etc.,listing the common blunders I make etc. But, I always want to play the next game immediately instead of all these, if I have time. Such a tender heart!  Yes, yes, I have to grow a lot. 

I am not afraid of losing. But when I continuously win, it is like my heart singing a sweet song. But when I lose, I want to kill my opponent .

Seamus1 wrote: "I would have thought that you should study and practice openings before turning one's attention to the endgames.

Invariably I find that I'm often down material by the time I reach the endgame, so at that stage I'm on the back foot."

  He he, you have a good point there. But why did the Quote doesn't work properly in your post (#9)?

   This is something I find very important in my chess life - studying and playing. I own a pretty good arsenal of books, but they're not worth the paper that they are printed on if I don't study from them, let alone look at them. I've given up TV, was a die hard sports fan for over 30 years, and have taken all the games off my hard drive, except my chess programs and Civ III to study chess, but yet have still not gone into the books that much.

   My goal in chess is at least 1800, whether on here or OTB, but that won't happen unless I start working at it. I'm not the one to talk but 7 hrs/a week won't get you to where you are now to where you want to be in the near future. 30-35 hrs a week just means you'll get there a little bit faster. Listen to Prawn even more about this. There's no progress in chess without blood sweat and a lot of tears.

   *going to play and study and take my own advice as well for a change*

   -Mark

Thank you for the information. Yes, I know perfectly that the time I spend for each move in turn based chess is my choice. But, with the present time constraints I have, I may not be able to spend as much time my opponent might be spending on each move. So, that is what I meant when I said that it would not be fair. Any way, after reading your post, I am now more interested in turn based chess; even though I may not try it at least until my MBA admission and visa approval is confirmed.

Happy vacations for you (and not for me - I have to study a lot )

Chessmarksthespots, it is all about priorities in life. I agree to you completely that the more I spend quality time for chess, the faster I will improve. But, if I don't intend chess to make my full time career, there will be definitely a limit I have to impose on the time spent for playing chess; if the career path I chose is so much time - demanding type. 

Let me try to clarify the question I raised again: Even if don't become an expert in my entire life, I don't mind. But, I will definitely try to achieve that, in case I have enough time for that. So, my question is how to effectively try to become considerably better. And at present, I don't set any particular time limit for me to become, say a master.

There are things that are more important to me than chess. Same will be the case with you and everybody else also, if chess is not your full time career.

Anyway, I who was in his 1200s and 1100s in August when I began is now in 1400s. So, certainly, at least until a particular level, there should be growth, by merely playing games; even if the improvement rate will not be very good. From that particular level onwards, may be I should undergo some training as per my time - availability to improve further.

@ sekhar1

How old are you?

The only way to become world champion is by running up steps a lot and punching hunks of chilled meat at a butcher's.

You should spend a lot more time playing than studying at the beginner level.  If you want to divide 7 hours then say 5-6 hours of play and 1 hour of study.  When you play, challenge yourself to find the best moves you can, don't settle for a move that might work or looks good at first.  The quote "once you find a good move, stop, look for a better one" is good advice.  After working very hard on every move, when you study pick 1 book.  I can be tactics or endgames or a strategy book, and with your 1 to 2 hours go over it and take notes of things you find important or useful.  Don't switch to another book until that book is completely finished.

The secret to getting good at chess is a lot like the secret to getting good at anything.  Word hard at it and over time you'll get a lot of skill.  The problem with getting good at chess is a lot like the problem with getting good at anything, you have to put it before other things in your life, and because hard work isn't fun it's hard to be disciplined about it.  Good luck :)

I do think it's important to learn how and what to study.  You can spend seven hours a week flailing around on blitz games and reinforcing your own mistakes, or you can spend seven hours a week memorizing opening lines, and you'll find that you make your progress much, much slower.

The consensus among the top teachers seems to be that you need to divide your time between:

1) Playing slow games, using up as much of the time control as possible to think about your moves.

2) Studying tactics to learn as many basic tactical patterns by sight as possible.

3) Learning endgames

4) Going over the games of master-level players, especially those with annotations

The exact methods you use and how you split your time between them are up to you.

Most people will never be anny good, you need to have a special talent for chess.

Ordinary people who work hard for years only reach somewhere around 2000-2200 in fide.

1.Try to have fun with chess.

 - If you aim to high you'll probably give up after some years when the reallity hits you, most people will allways suck at chess, no matter what they do!

No, I can't ask Vishi (Vishwanathan Anand) his secret. 3 months back, I was wondering whether I should make chess my full time career or not. When Vishi knew about this, he was really worried about his chances of retaining his title. So, he personally came to my house (his native place is in my neighbouring state) and requested me  not to make chess my full time career. So, I cannot follow your advice. 

And may be killing all the better chess players in planet earth. 

Why talk about chess carrier when you really suck at chess? If you had a 2400+ rating in live and a low age you could think about it. But 1300-1400, forget it! 

Thanks, I perfectly agree with most of the points made by you. I know very well that if I can make chess my full time career, I will become considerably better even in a matter of few months.

But, in my GMAT class today, the Lecturer was asking us to use all our time for GMAT preparation. (He shouldn't see me typing all these stuff here - Then I am finished). He stated that "None of you will have a peaceful sleep until you write your GMAT test." So it is this GMAT Lecturer who is the villian. If he wasn't there, I could have spent more time for chess. Damn him. 

Before moving ahead, let me make a few requests to all the people who take part in this thread:

1. Please don't engage in any personal attacks

2. Please don't deviate from the topic

3. Please avoid the focus on me, as far as possible (even though I may love it). I am already feeling guilty that I spend too much time in explaining my life to others in the context of this topic, here in this thread. As we all  know, the forums in chess.com are intended for the benefit of everybody; not just an individual.

I am not a philanthropist; perhaps the opposite of that and may be the most selfish person ever lived in this planet; but, I want not only me, but many others, say thousands (is it a very big exaggeration?) to get benefits from this thread; because I know perfectly that these forums are intended for the benefits of everybody.

Yes, I confess that I carried away a lot in explaining about myself; which was in realty, impolite. And now, I say sorry for that.

 Under the present circumstances, let me once again reframe the topic of this forum:

"We all play chess. Most of us want to be really good at chess. But, only some of us are able to do it. We may not able to do much about our inherent talents etc. But, many of us might not be spending our time for chess (whatever be the duration), in the most effective way possible. Anyway, I am sure that I any way don't do and I have screwed it up all myself. 

Different people will be spending different amount of time for playing chess - say 7/14/21/28/35/42 etc. hours per week depending on various factors. Why I stress on the multiples of 7 is that if it is a multiple of 7, we can easily calculate the daily average.

So, my question is for a beginner, say, me , who is having a live chess standard rating of 1434 or some one else, who can spend 'x' hours per week on an average; whatever be x; how much percentage of time available for chess he/she has to spend for playing, preparing etc. until he/she reach, say 1800 in chess.com (in turn based chess or live standard or both) (Hopefully, it is the intermediate level.)? 

I am seeking some general guidelines in this direction as I know very well that there cannot be a perfect generalised answer and opinions do vary."

Just move to another country. You'll be an expat in chess in no time.

The bigger your brains, the higher your rating...

why?