i want to improve.

hey . i am currently an average player but really want to do better and strengthen my game. i have the time to study as im only in 10th grade but dont know what to focus on. i would really appreciate everybodys help in this matter and my thanks to all are in advance. {My goal rating would be about 1700 on this site. also i already know my basic endgames.} My big tournement is in about 7 months i would like to win and i came 3rd last time.

Whats your FIDE rating?

Mine is 1800. 

Depending on how good you are I can help you improve over this thread. 

A strange remark.

Isn't his rating higher than your rating?

Tactics,tactics,tactics,opening principles,basic endgames and don't forget to play and analyse your games.

i currently dont have a fide rating but my CMA rating is 1144 and rising steadily. my last tournement in which i won gained me 80 points over 6 games

I would love to know how to do a queen sacrafice. does anyone know how?

Check my website in my profile. I have a free course ready to go on YouTube that teaches you what you need to know most, and what you don't need to know. My claim is anyone who dedicates themselves to my methods can become a chess master. Although there are many roads to chess mastery, these methods worked for me.

Yes, that is indeed your claim.

It's weird, you see all these "I want to improve threads", but never any "I want to get worse" threads.

I would settle for "I want to not completely screw up in the next couple weeks."

1. Stick your queen in the path of at least one of your opponent's pieces.

2. Opponent captures your queen.

3. ???

4. Checkmate!

I would definitely look at NM aww-rats website and free videos as a starting place for you.

I know that you sincerely believe what you say but how do we know that it was actually the methods you advocate that lead to your high rating and not some innate talent that you may have that came out despite the method that you advocate? I have looked over your videos and they seem a little controversial to me.  

Yep, that's always the problem with these claims...

Well, my new series is mostly premium, you have to be a member of my group the Rat Pack to see it. I made two videos public, the rest are private. This series starts with my first rated games from over 40 years ago and I will present them all. I had some talent, but the learning process was long and slow for me. What it boils down to, is I slowly demonstrate, though my ups and downs, how I got good at chess, and the people who are watching it can't get enough of it. You may work it at your own pace, but I have found myself posting a new cideo daily to satisfy the demand.

In short, I went back over my chess career and isolated what worked, and what didn't, and these are the methods I used and will work for others. Please show me another chess teacher that outlines a clear cut path to becoming a chess master. Well, there isn't one that I know of. I stand by my statement, if you're dedicated, my methods will work.

Again, it's controversial...no matter how fervently you may believe in it yourself.

The only think you can really say that it really boils down to is the individual.  You can have the most amazing teacher with the most amazing material (or a poor teacher with poor material) but learning only ever takes place inside the student's head.

A good instructor or coach can bring out the best in a student, but guaranteeing a certain level, especially when you bias this guarantee by basing it on your own experience, isn't believable to me.  Simply by virtue of being a titled player, your experience with chess is categorically outside of the norm.

What would make it believable to me, and I've never seen it, is for coaches to take on random students and report their success.  Coaches with 100 national champions don't mean much when they attract the best students.  Perhaps a bit cynically I think if instructors taught at random then success for all of them would tend toward the same value (ruling out unreasonably poor instructors).  Because as I said before, learning depends on the individual.

I'm not trying to dump on your efforts and successes.  If your students are pleased and learning you should be proud.  I just woudln't go around claiming your "path to mastery" is the "real deal" so to speak.  (Although it's probably correct to make these claims for advertisement purposes).

I think something to keep in mind, is that two people can claim they have the same level of devotion and curiosity about something, and yet actually have a different level in reality. You can't ascertain that a player is passionate enough simply because he says he is. For example, people have absolutely no reason to believe that I am dedicated enough to the game to become strong simply because I personally happen to believe that, as there is no way they can get in my head to see if what I say is actually true.

Words are cheap, as they say.  Actions are what count.

For example a person may be in love with the idea of chess improvement, but not the actual work it takes to improve. So they'd talk about it, but not read the books, not do the analysis, not go to the tournaments, not get the coaches.

Also a person may enjoy working hard at learning chess without feeling the need to talk about it much.