When my last two active games stop messing me about I will have a rank of 1354.

Mentally I feel able to make moves now with much more confidence that I will not make an amateurish mistake but after 259 games I have the following

116 wins, 116 losses 10 draws. 17 timeouts.

I have only improved by 154 points from the start (1200).  Maybe I am just not cut out for chess.

Hi

It's hard to say without knowing what you have tried so far. Have you tried understanding opening principles? I just looked at the last game you played against Basel to see if I could see the problem. After 6 moves you're doing ok. You have developed your centre pawns and have removed white's ability to castle via the bishop exchange on f1. At this stage you are probably slightly ahead. However, 7. ... g5 and 8. ... f6 are really horrible moves. First of all, notice how after 8 moves all your pieces are on the back rank. No piece development at all (white has three pieces out by the same stage). Even worse, you have opened up your king to attack by moving the f and g pawns forward. Actually, you put all your pawns on black squares having already exchanged your white-square bishop. The consequence is that white can easily invade the white squares (e.g. 9 Qh5+) and the game is nearly over. The reason that white can sacrifice the knight with 11. Nxg5 (which would lead to you losing your queen if you accepted) is because you have no development. When one side has a big lead in development tactical opportunities always occur.

Your king never gets to castle and you get ripped apart.

Do you know about making sure that you develop your pieces early on? A typical opening is to move the central pawns forward, then get the knights out, then develop the bishops, then castle. If you stick to these principles in the opening it would make a huge difference.

Give it a rest: put your rating away and have fun. Try to play against players much better than you, if you win or draw, THEN you'll feel you have improved. I'm (supposedly) 1684 and I don't feel as a 1684 player. I think I'm worse than that. However I try to focus more on my games than in my rating. Try to learn from  books, puzzles, games of players rated over 2300 and try to find your best move in every single position you have.

ps: Study patterns. that's essential, at least it was for me lol.

when you're done, 3 or maybe 4 months from now, you'll be better, I can assure you that.

Chess improvement, like weight loss, takes time and patience if you want the results to be of a permanent nature.

It takes roughly 12,000+ hours of the correct study to become GM strength.

where did you get 12,000 hours from? you know thats about a year and a half of constant studying ( ie 24/7 ) right? You need more than studying you need experiance of games etc. Its a bit like maths and physics - knowing the theory is one thing, but applying it is quite another.

It is a well reserached number. 

Go to site Chessvibes.  They have a number of pieces penned by leading researchers.  You may have to look through archives, but it is there and also elsewhere.

Much of the data was culled by interviewing people that have become Masters and GM's.  It is a very thorough, and peer reviewed study and also available in hard copy.

Keep in mind, I never stated that this number alone would ensure anything.

Interesting. That number seems a little low to me.

That too, is interesting.  I had not really wrapped my brain around it until you suggested that notion. 

I believe also Chessbase did study, available on their site--natch--and it also had interesting tidbits like average age of people when they started serious chess and it turned out the average starting age was HIGHER for those that became GM's than it was for those that had plateaued at Master level.

One could infer that the "wiring" the brain undertakes for chess pattern (Kerns) recognition is best left to be done once other neural pathways are fully in place.  I am not stating this to be the case, only that one could infer it.

There are a host of interesting, some seemingly common sense, and some counterintuitve patterns that have emerged in these studies.  I suggest some time spent tracking this down and looking in to it will reward the inquistive mind.

I am not sure what any of it means, but to cut to the chase, I think my initial post and metaphor on this issue would be the best way I could phrase my argument.

A possibly pertinent aside and a true account:

After reading his newly composed poem to a crowd of fans, a famous poet was asked "What did it mean?"  His response was:  "So you want me to say it again only less well?"

With due respect,

~ richie_and_oprah

What is the best way to study patterns? Maybe a stupid question:P

Anyone interested.

It really depends on sevreal factors which include:

1. Your current level of understanding. 2. Your goals. 3. Your realistic work habits.

Get a book on tactics.  Do all of them.  Look at answers you cannot figure out. The idea is to learn ideas, not test them, yet.  Do it again.  If you think, this is easy I know this! then you are learning. Then you start it again.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

What book you choose should reflect your answers to question 1,2 & 3.

For example:  Reinfeld book of 1001 Mates I can do whole book in 20 minutes.  When I first started, it took me a few weeks.  Now I need Dvoretsky and it is like fighting in a swamp for me, taking me weeks to make progress. 

Its chess, if you just play casually like myself (and most chess.com) dont worry so much about rating :)

I'm not that big a fan of chess study.  Your study comes from playing stronger opponents.  It's hard as a novice learning advanced moves from a book.  That is not true for everyone, but not being book smart, like me, experience is where I learn the best. 

I guess my biggest piece of advice is to clearly look out your moves because you should have 3 days! to make your move.  When your flustered you don't make confident moves.  Good luck!

this website offers almost anything for the fastest improvement any.

Just try to combine 50/50 game with 100-150 points stronger opponent and  everything leasted in the "learn" menu, including computer analysis of all games lost

And never play blitz, the only way to study is deep considering position in long chess.

I personally feel to have improvement about 50-70 points in the first month

I never studied, and consequently never improved much either, but my plateau is in the 15-1600 range.  I regard that as my natural ability level, and i know i'm not going to get much better by magic.  It would have to be by hard work which i'm not willing to put in - I like playing, but only as a casual hobby.  If you want serious improvement past your natural ability level, you'll need to do more than just play games.

I don't know who said it, but:

Improving at chess is like climbing a glass mountain.

Improvement will take a couple hours a day of studying tactics and,mates in 1,2,3etc.A wonderful book to help in this area is rapid chess improvement.It explains things in detail.

a good book to help with basic mating puzzles and more is bobby fischar teaches chess.It will guide you in the right direction to start with.or you could consider the tactics trainer here.

take some time to understand the ideas behind your openings.I suffer the same problems hince the rating problem.

Probably easier than a regular mountain, you could use suction cups and the greenhouse effect would keep it nice and warm.

I am going for some books this weekend any suggestions

Suction cups would definately help, and some thick leather for any rough bits.