Why Does One Player Improve And Another Stays The Same?

Why does someone who plays every day, studies theory (for the most part), reviews their games etc etc not improve, whereas another player improves?

Why does somebody who played for a year or two may reach a ranking of 1800+ or even 2000+ whereas others who play for the same amount of time struggle to break out of 1200, or even break 1000?

What is it exactly that makes one player improve, and another stay the same throughout their chess career? Is it a "dedication" to their craft, day-in and day-out, such as concentrated practice, practicing puzzles, and studying their player? Or is it more personal, perhaps IQ... or a more innate ability to understand puzzles?

Some people say kids are better at picking up chess because they have nothing to do all day except play chess. I don't find this to be true. Many people play nothing but chess every day and all day, and don't really improve.

Why?

What would you suggest someone who doesn't see the improvement in their game they believe they can achieve? Somebody who is struggling to reach higher levels?

There are many reasons including natural talent, people practicing chess more than you observe and many other factors. 

I think the most basic reason is because to improve, you must find ways to learn the chess information on your own and this means finding whatever way(s) work best for you (videos, books, games etc.) and different people have different learning styles. 

One person might go up in rating faster because they (intentionally or not) are utilizing techniques which they naturally learn better with

I have many theories

u are either dumb (like me) or not dumb (actually pushes himself the extra mile to learn and succeeds)

Like they say champions aren't born, they're made, but in some cases that isn't entirely true. Some people are just naturally more intelligent naturally gifted, or born with some traits that cannot be developed solely through hard work. Of course, you can get to a certain level with a dedicated work ethic and constant studying and absorption of information, but if you just aren't a natural, you can only get so far. 

State them 

No

How do you know how much someone studies?

you don't

Exactly. 

Natural talent is definitely a factor, though how you study is more important. You should study effectively in a way that you like. Whereas if you study and learn nothing, there is no way you can improve much.

You remember our club forum?...You know what theories @B1ZMARK comes up with xD

OK BUT DID YOU SEE MY ANALYSIS OF 2...NH5 AGAINST THE LONDON SYSTEM

Rough draft:

In the book "The Talent Code" by Daniel Coyle, his first chapter is dedicated to what he calls "deep practice". This means going over things SLOWLY, taking the time to take in information, process it, find mistakes, and fix them. Deep practice, done correctly, says Coyle, "should make you exhausted". Usually, if done right, you will feel tired after about an hour.

His example is a clarinet (?) player named Clarissa. Clarissa is playing a tune, but she hears a note. Brows furrowed, she stops, and squints at the music sheet. "Ba-dum bum bum." She repeats the correct tempo a few times, and tries playing it again. (This video recorded).

What does this mean for a chess player? 

In his book "Pump Up Your Rating", GM Axel Smith in his chapter about opening preparation advocates for "Active learning". He says that the reason why we don't remember our theory is partly because we are too busy clicking the next arrow. This is passive learning. Active learning, for the opening, at least, is of MOVING THE PIECES. The brain associates the respective muscle memory with an opening, and it helps memory. (there are studies that show this correlation is real). Even better would be to repeat to yourself why you play each move, which gives the brain even more ground to stand on. 

Without knowing it myself, I was practicing this kind of active learning back when I was 1300 rated (online). During this time, I Was infatuated with the evan's gambit. Since the opening book didn't give me enough lines, and since I didn't know databases existed, and since I just felt that the opening was very interesting, I would sit there at my board, making moves repeatedly, trying to justify each move for white, for black. When I'd found a very strong line for white, I would back up. "Black must have done something wrong. One of my justifications don't work". And try to find something for black. Etc. 

Out of 53 games I've played the evan's gambit accepted online, I've won 64% of them, drew 6%, and lost the other 30%, a very good plus score.

This doesn't just apply to openings. (and here come the various theories)

You apply them to tactics as well. If you're working through a book like the woodpecker, set up the board! Then sit there, hands clasped, and find the solution. It may take one minute. It may take 30. If it takes more than that, start moving the pieces around. KEEP THINKING! Do not look at the solution until you are reasonably sure what you have is right, and that you have considered all the possibilities for the opponent.

You can apply them to free time. I used to play various openings against myself. If I wanted to learn a new opening, I would just play a match against myself, trying to make white get an opening advantage, while trying to make black equalize. If one side got an overwhelming advantage, I would back up. Something went wrong. Go back, find another move. What's the reasoning behind each move? If I couldn't find a reasonable plan for a side, i would assume it wasn't very good for that side. What the position's actual evaluation is did not matter then, and still doesn't matter. The purpose is to develop thinking, which I THINK helped me a lot in internalizing the techniques in Logical Chess (the book).

I could list more, but I think I've typed a lot already.

wow that took 12 mins to type hmm

Nice post and also "welcome to my world" xD I find myself spending 12+ minutes for single posts often lol (to be fair, I probably write a bit too much sometimes)

I only do it for subjects i feel very strongly

they include

- psychology

- improvement

- psychology

- openings

- psychology

- strategy

- psychology

I think as others have said natural talent or being younger is a factor as your brain is still able to learn. Although if you put in the work and put in the hours and not do stupid stuff like the viznik variation you can easily be like 1800. Maybe like 2200+ has talent involved, but until then I think hard work can get you there. 

From what I understand if you're not improving you're either not studying correctly, not actually trying to improve at all, not playing any games and just reading books, or you've hit your limit in some way. Now how do you know you've hit your limit? You'll know you've hit it when you stop trying to improve. Otherwise, you won't know.