How to Improve Positional Understanding (1727 USCF)?

Gamesfan, yes I think that is possible with enough work put in. One of my coaches, a International Master, said that pretty much everyone can get to the FM level, the talented ones might be able to get a lot higher though. I dont know how much free time you got but with enough effort Im sure you could do it. Just my opinion of course.

Sure, but what he means (I assume) is there are ways to artificially boost online ratings (without cheating and without even knowing you're doing it).

One way, for example, is to play the same person 10 or 20 times in a row. This can artificially inflate (or deflate) your rating. Another is to only play certain ratings (playing higher ratings is lower risk and higher reward).

In tournament chess you have no control over your opponents, and the opponents are mostly random. (And extremely rare that someone uses an engine.)

lol

No really! This isn't the only reason, but it's one reason you will see peak ratings one or more hundred(s) of points above a persons normal rating on websites. So if you stop at this peak and claim ____ points of improvement it's just silliness.

Not that masters aren't 2400 blitz here.

Usually you can tell just by playing against someone (or looking at their games) how strong of a player they are. 

but thats not what I did so whats your point mister Long Number?

Seems you both misunderstood me. This was all in the context of Huey's post which you replied to in #76.

Getting better at chess also improves your blitz, of course. Huey's point, which I was backing up, was that if you want to talk about rate of improvement (rating points gained in a time frame) then your OTB rating is a better metric. I backed this up by saying internet ratings in general (not yours or anyone's rating specifically) can be influenced in ways an OTB rating cannot.

Well even that is not really true because as long as you don´t use engine assistance your internet ratings pretty much reflect your playing strength. Of course there are many exceptions like players who are much stronger in blitz chess than in OTB chess or some masters that really suck at blitz. But even in these cases the rating differs not by that much. I have never seen someone with a 2400 blitz rating here who wasn´t either master or expert in OTB chess. 

Also I didn´t get Hueys point either as I said like twice (now three times) that I improved massively in OTB (from 1100 to 2300 in 4 years) and because of that also improved my blitz rating here immensely. So what you can see also in my case is that when I started improving in OTB also my blitz rating here went up. In my case the otb and blitz rating differs by 100 points which is not that much. In many cases it is even more accurate.

Yes, as long as you don't use an engine, your rating will pretty much reflect your playing strength, I agree. I know at least one 2200 rated player who is rated 2400 blitz here. I'm sure your rating is also correct.

You seem to be taking it too personally though, it's not about any individual's rating. I'm speaking about ratings in general and what can affect them. Cheating is not the only thing that affects them.

Out of curiosity, how old were (or are if it's now) you once you broke 2300?

17 sir.

I feel the same way as that IM, to some extent. Anyone likely can reach master-class in chess—if they have the time and resources to devote to improving.

Most people don't have the time and resources to spare, though.

For a lot of players, chess only occupies about ten to twenty minutes of their day, as an occasional diversion.

To get to 2200+ requires a lot of hard work and time.

Try coaching an adult who has been playing for 5 or 10 years already. Even if they want to get better they're often unwilling (or unable) to change their thinking.

I think most people have the time and resources to become master already. But with a poor start you have a lot of things to unlearn. People who were, e.g., an IM at 15 don't know anything about this.

Well, in some ways they do. Some coaches refuse to take students who aren't talented kids already.

Exactly, and for (almost everyone) who puts in a lot of work, it's not painful. They enjoy it.

Many people implicitly say they don't enjoy the work by asking for tricks. That one special opening, that one book, that magic daily routine that will make improvement fall into their lap.

To tie this in with my previous post, I had a conversation with a 1500 rated adult who had been playing most of his life. He believed placing pawns on the same color as your bishop in every position was good. I gave 3 reasons it can be bad in many positions, and he basically responded by saying "well this is how I play and it works for me."

This can happen in more subtle ways too. Like when people use "I don't like that kind of position" as an excuse to never learn anything about it.

I started chess 1 year 3 months ago. I don't have any ELO rating. But I am like 1400s here....