Good way to put it :)

If you're apologizing for something then you know you've done wrong. "I'm sorry to do this but..." 

" I only want to hear opinions from people rated at least 1800 in blitz/bullet. Sorry for being picky, but I learned that only good players can give good advice."

I'm rated only in the 1600's so obviously I have nothing important to write here.

My friend is 1850 in blitz on chess.com.  He knows openings really well, or what my other friend calls a "book whore". I am roughly 1700 for both blitz and bullet, and the difference between a 1600 and 1500 in blitz is tactical consitency. 

First, I want to thank everyone who responded constructively and relevantly (a huge thanks to waffllemaster but to many others as well) no matter what their rating is. Of course my aim was to get relevant advice from players better than me. I doesn't matter if a player is a 1800, or a 1700, I just wanted to get advice from someone who can teach&inspire me not the other way around (I don't think that player can help me get at the level he is not himself).

That's all. In my country there is a saying "The cheapest advice will cost you the most."

I'm quite sad, that there are so many narrow-minded people who get offended and post trash (I didn't ask for anyway!). Maybe they didn't read the content in the box: "Please be relevant, helpful & nice.".

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that posts like "sorry, I don't meet your holy standard, therefore I can't give you any advice you arrogant shallow j*rk" are of any relevance and helpfulness. If you don't like what I posted, why do you react? Do you think I care that you get offended by what I wrote? I didn't mean to insult anyone, and if someone got offended by that I guess they should solve some inner issues.

DISCLAIMER: If someone feels like posting another IRRELEVANT trash, please consider not.

So again, thanks a lot to everyone who tried to help me get better :).

... crickets ...

Wow...I have no idea what (or who) you're talking about.  I've always found his books to be greatly enlightening; he's my favorite writer on the game.

Well, it improves the accuracy of your rating....

Hm, that's funny:  I find it delightful. 

What I said about Kasparov's books is probably unfair.  I was basing my opinion on previous experiences, and my knowledge of what he has written is admittedly outdated.  

I went nuts buying chess books at the turn of the century.  I was going to used bookstores for most of what I bought, but I also looked for new books.  In those days, at least in the bookstores I frequented, the Kasparov selections were exactly that: thin and flimsy on instruction.  

The only one I actually bought was Garry Kasparov's Chess Puzzle Book, which isn't even 100 pages long.  I suppose I expect my tactics books to do more.  I don't even recall the other titles that were on the shelves, but they were similarly short and looked unorganized to me, at least when compared to books like Silman's.

I bought well over 100 chess books during that time, most of which I no longer own.  For one, I figured out that buying used chess books means you are getting the books no one wants to keep.  If you want to get better, it's best to avoid the cast-offs.  

You can find great rare books at times, but they also disappear as quickly if you don't get them then and there.  You will rarely find a Silman book at the used book store.  Kasparov's thin '90s books were there in multiple quantities.  Reinfeld's oeuvre was always well-represented, but never his tactics books.

I just did a search of Amazon's offerings of Kasparov's books.  I haven't even seen some of those titles, but I've also been away from the game for several years.  So, if Garry is out there watching this thread from an anonymous account: I'm sorry.  

But I doubt he cares about my opinion, anyway.

Not unless you're a lawyer. 

Someone called for a lawyer?

AndyClifton wrote:

Fingerly wrote:

But I doubt he cares about my opinion, anyway.

Not unless you're a lawyer. 

Hey, we wanted a lawyer, not a weasel...oh wait, I guess you'll do. (heehee!)

always have a plan, some goal, no matter if it be good or bad. When you have a plan you automatically calculate and visualise. And watch videos of amazing games....

No, it's a dumb way to put it! Of course I wouldn't take advice from a lower rated player. When Bobby Fischer was rated below 1800, his understanding of chess at that point was commensurate to that level. You must realize that he wouldn't have given you the same advice and insight about chess and how to get better at it, as he would as a GM.

Wait . . . was this a thread involving chess advice or advice on something else?

In order to improve, one must play many games of chess. That is a necessary, but insufficient condition for improvement. In order to improve, you also need to identify your weaknesses and do specific work to fix those. 

In the 1980s, Kasparov recommended the following steps to serious improvement:

a) Analyse your games honestly and identify your strengths and weaknesses. These are only in relation to you, not to some exterior metric. 

b) Identify speficic weaknesses. Don't just say, oh, my endgames are bad. Work out which types of endgames have cost you the most points.

c) Work on the weakest part of your game first. Study the games of masters who are particularly strong in that area, and seek out the very best sources for targetted instruction.

d) Evaluate your progress and revise your lists. It's rare that a persistent weakness becomes a strength, but when it is no longer the weakest part of your game, move on to the next weakness. 

+1 ,welll sad smyslov