Playing many games doesn't improve rating

dis guy ses his not improvin but he aint lost a standard game yet... shud play more

What helped me the most (or close to it) was when I started going to a chess club where literally all the players were rated at least 200 points above me.  I went about every week for a year.  1 or 2 of them were rated 400 points above me.  And I got my butt kicked very night I went there.  Club rules were no games faster than 10/10 by the way, and rarely could you play someone more than twice in a row  (the guy owned the building so he could make any rules he wanted heh).  Comments made after the game were fantastic, it's amazing how a few phrases can mean a lot.

Also I was a player who had done ~95% of his learning form tactic puzzle books + online blitz games and very briefly looking at the games with an engine afterwards... I very much lacked any kind evaluation or planning.  Anyway around the time I was visiting this club I read and played though every page of Dvoretsky's endgame manual (sometimes I wonder how I did that heh) and Soltis' pawn structure book.  I then read and played over the notes I took while reading these books (about a notebook worth).  I believe these two books hit on my weaknesses squarely and so also helped me improve a lot.  (I was also sporadically going though the Zurich 1953 game collection book, although I never finished it).

So my advice is play long games against people better than you (tournaments are best) and analyze afterwards.  Also it's my opinion that if you haven't read at least 1 endgame, 1 middle game, and 1 game collection book then you can't really say you've hit a wall in your improvement yet.

IMO this is what pushed me from strong C / weak B player to weak A player, roughly 200 points.  I was not frequenting tournament at this time (which I regret) so I'm not sure how my USCF rating would have reacted, but I do base this opinion on my performance at the few tournaments I did go to as well as being able to do well at the club in the end :)

Hmm, I notice your live chess - standard rating is much higher than your blitz/bullet (and you haven't lost a game yet, so it may go even higher!)  I'm not sure, but from the few people I've looked at usually their standard rating is lower than their bullet/blitz.

If your question is only about blitz/bullet ratings then it seems you already have a good foundation and aren't playing fast enough.  In one sense in speed games you have to be in puzzle solving mode... that is the very first thing you do is "see" the possible checks and captures and "check" if there are any 1-2 move tactics.

I use quotes because, for example, when I say add 2+2 you don't "check" the answer by adding on your fingers, you just know that it's 4.  Also the possible checks and captures in a position only change 1 move at a time so this is also fairly instant.

It also pays to play a lot of common sense moves with little or no analysis... you could go for an attack in a double edged position, or you could finish development... well to be safe just make the developing move even if you feel it gives up a small advantage.  The time you save from analysing is worth it.

Also pay attention to what weaknesses take more time to exploit.  If he's attacking your knigside don't try to find a legitimate defense, just close up some files even if it's terrible.  Maybe you're screwed but it will take him time to reposition... or maybe the endgame is lost but that will take 30 accurate moves to convert.  It's this sort of anti-chess thinking that helps speed you up and win more speed games.

Wow. This thread is different from all others I've seen here.

Whereas in most threads you needn't look past the third or fourth response, unless you want to read about race, religion, or politics, this thread begins with noise and ends with signal.

wafflemaster saves the day.

I was going to give you some advice but - oh no - my rating just dropped from 1802 to 1797. Please wait until I have regained credibility.

Ah! They can; they may; but will they?

That seems to be the core of the question. 

Kypromancer wrote:

I was going to give you some advice but - oh no - my rating just dropped from 1802 to 1797. Please wait until I have regained credibility.

I just laughed for 20 minutes straight, thanks!

I suppose you got that advise from a good player as well?
Honestly, if you're looking for help I think the first step is being open to it.
Sorry, I'm not allowed to give advise and my live rating doesn't allow it by far. I don't think it's insulting or arrogant, but it definately seems a bit shallow.

lol

If you only want advice on how to play faster chess, blitz and bullet players are definitely the guys to ask; I agree that speed games are all tactics. I suck at fast games, so I have no advice to give. If you want advice on how to improve your slower games, ask people who play slower games. I am assuming you only want to improve at blitz. Slow chess is a whole different game. In my opinion, one can't become a good speed player without first becoming better in slower time controls, but I allow the possibility of being in error on this.

That's strange, because usually I see the standard rating as 200-400 points higher than the blitz rating on FICS. I haven't really paid attention to it at Chess.com. I've never had my blitz rating higher than my standard rating. 

Wow you're 1700 standard trysts.

I really should check more people then.  From what I remember I've seen those with ~2000 blitz have ~1700 standard rating and I thought that's just how it goes.  But at the moment the handful of people I checked do indeed have standard > blitz.

In a week or two I think I'll starting playing some 15/0 games here and see what it's like.  Maybe I'm still bias but I somehow doubt my standard > my blitz.

I always thought the people here with 1900-2000 blitz rating were actually 2100-2300 standard rating on the Internet, and they just didn't play standard games. Maybe it's all different here. When I play a 1600-1700 blitz rated player on FICS, sometimes I'll check out their profile and they seem to always be about 1900-2000 rated in standard if they play standard time-control games.

Yeah, FICS and what I remember of ICC the standard ratings were always higher.  I figured chess.com's standard pool was somehow different.  Actually my theory was not many people played it, so it topped out around 2000 so only master strength players who beat nearly everyone would be as high as that.

I have 1790 rating  on my club in long time games , here in  rapid blitz bullet I still  sucks fail.

I like to think and chess is  a thinking game

if you are weak you must much training f you are strong you can play much , carlsen play huge and less training.

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..." 

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.