how to cross live 1700 mark?

I have been playing chess for about one and half year or so. I am struggling to pass 1600 mark on another chess server.

How should I prepare myself to cross 1700 goal? What should I study or practice regularly ?? I mean to say which area I need to focus on tactics, opening or endings??

Try Yusupov/Jussupow's 9 book training series and Nunn's Understanding Chess Endings.  And some beginner warm up tactics then level appropriate tactics before your endgame or positional studies.  You also have two types of advanced intermediates as far as openings go.  Some memorize deep the theory (but don't fully understand the lines as this type of player sometimes doesn't play in the spirit of the openings) and others who just want to sit down and play a game of chess (usually playing things like the Veresov, Trompowsky, or London System). 

Against the first type you may want a sound yet offbeat line to throw them off, or play a not so sharp but easy to remember opening.  An example against the first is 1.e4,c5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.d4,cxd4 4.Nxd4,Qb6!? (2...e6 works too but it's a different system, though transpositions between the two systems is possible) or 1.e4,c6 2.d4,Na6 fishing for Bxa6 Qa5+ Qxa6. 

Miles plays some offbeat stuff:

Also memorize some offbeat lines from the KIA, Trompowsky, London, etc., as black that are both sound and feel natural for your style of playing.  They'll still know the openings better than you but if you play memory for a little while they won't be the only ones to save some precious clock time

It is a far from complete training database I'm making, but it should serve as a nice sample (even with a potential novelty for white too)

If you have time..then play a bunch of 1000 rated players and you will move up one point at a time. Of course, one loss and you will go down 20 points

Thanks guys...:-)

@Aaron...

There's no point in playing with lower rated. I always prefer game with at least 1400, so chances are equal.

1700 from 1600 is an easy leap.

1. Do 50-100 tactics puzzles a day, whether its from a book like Combinational Motifs, 1001 Brilliant Checkmates or whatever, or a website that organizes them by THEME (not at random like chess.com tactics trainer).

2. Study annotated chess games (by decent players who use a lot of text, not variations). Google "download annotated chess games" to find some.

3. Learn all the mainlines of your openings really well, but dont go TOO mainline... I've found that playing sidelines works very well for my students because the plans are the same, but the opponent often doesnt know the small details of the new direction.

Do these 3 things for a couple of weeks and you'll get there easily.  :)

the comment was made in jest.  I received my highest rating by having Magnus Carlsen log in under my user id and play some games. 

Try the andrew soltis book "how to study chess" .. you will find loooot of good advices to improve your chess

I just don't understand why ratings are such a big deal? For instance, why are people so inclined to say that they have to be a higher rating or they aren't good enough? Let me explain it this way, ratings, or I should say online ratings are not the same as the old days, for chess playing skill all around has exponentially jumped from the golden days of chess. With this in mind, why do people think that if they don't meet the expectation of a score they are not good enough, or maybe even better than a master, or they feel they have no chance against one of these players. Now, I agree that the score is a good gauge to fit in where your at, with potential to grow, right! So why is it a big deal? I'll tell you, "because people use it as a way for supremacy." To say, "Someone is a patzer because of a lowsy score!" Huh? All I'm trying to say is that a person is still the same person; a human capable of mistakes! At the same time it's good to show improvement, but that doesn't mean that you have to live and die by these points. Look, I know for a fact if i get better all I have to do is win 20 games in a row I'll go up 100 points! So why is it a big deal if other humans play me and they happen to be the same skill mind as me.

This reminds me. I would like to share my own once in a lifetime tournament experience. First of all I want to say that I cannot go to a chess club in my town; there are no clubs here. In fact, I can't find anyone who plays. This explains why I have no rating, except the provisional rating I have for losing every round in a tournament because I had to play the top competitors because I have no rating. Does that make sense? I realize, ya people could sandbag, but I mean jeez la weez! Anyway that's my story.

On another note. People are going to improve if they work at it regardless if this reflects on an internet score or not. 

Thank you so much for your help.

Well there has to be some goal back of your mind and then you try to achieve that by working on it.

If you just play or work without any goal probably wouldn't achieve anything.

I recently thought about the fact that there are people out there who can beat me 98% of the time. From a certain point of view If you take chess to be a draw that means that I am simply lacking in a logical understanding of the game.

While I worry about if I can get to 1700 live standard or the annoyance of being a 1500 again the fact is that even when I hit 1700 I still dont get it.

If you and I stopped trying to get to 1700 and instead focused on thinking during our games we would surely begin to close up the holes in our game that make us so prone to losing and as a logical consequence we would surely start to beat people who have not put in this effort.

Theoretically this could take us even higher than a mere 1700.

I saw stockfish beat Naka even when Naka was given pawn odds.

I could not even beat a 1600 on this site if they had pawn odds. Surley I have more understanding to gain. 

While not knowing your situation I could guess it to be similar.  

"If you just play or work without any goal probably wouldn't achieve anything."

Goals are good but setting the goal of a rating means that you need another goal to define how to do so.

Saying "I want to make it to 2000 elo" doesnt do anything if you dont have other guidelines to get there.

That's right about needing a goal. I got a little sidetracked. I don't like how players get categorized into stereotypes; that if you are not higher than someone else you have nothing to offer the chess comunity. In the world there are about 30 million players on this site who are passionate about chess and that means we are among peers. I don't put so much emphasis on getting the points as much as learning through the experience. 

Correct