Why do I suck (1500)?

You can look at my game history if you want. What am I doing wrong? Where am I weakest? What should I do to get better?

im actually 1850 uscf. dont know if ill ever figure out how to reach 1900.

Its better you show some games in the thread which you feel represent your playing level.

And why you, I and many others suck is becouse we dont practice enough.

1500 is 1700 USCF? Then I'm almost 2200 and that's not right.

Not in online chess which is too high, blitz numbers are generally a good amount lower than USCF.

I don't know how USCF converts to FIDE (which I assume you use), but blitz rating here is something like 150-200 points below OTB USCF rating supposively. I think the OP was the one who did the study actually. The "Online" ratings at Chess.com are inflated compared to USCF ratings though.

U all suck if what Above is true.

It'd be really awesome if I were as good as 2100+ USCF, but it is not true.  Live ratings can be deceiving, you have to play in tournaments to be sure. 200 points lower?  Well again there's no strict conversion.  Even my OTB rating, inactive as it is, is higher than 1750.

To the OP.  What are you working on now / recently that's not given you any improvement?  What do you see as your biggest weakness?  I don't have great advice for you, but this will give others more to go on than just looking at your games.

See this thread for an exhaustive (if useless) discussion:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/why-are-men-better-than-other-men

Yes I definitely take it with a grain of salt (fine, more like a spoon). But it is an interesting and possible correlation that might help give people an estimate where they would rank rating wise if they don't have a USCF rating already. We wouldn't know if someone could translate their abilities from playing online blitz to OTB tournament until they tried, and some may do it better than others, but a loose correlation appears to exist from what I've read and witnessed.

Yeah it's a approximate generalisation which seems fairly accurate for most people, not an exact calculation.

Yes, I think the best is + or - 200 in blitz or standard will catch the great majority of people.  Maybe as many as 9 out of 10.

If they have this, but want even more specific before going to a tournament, I'd find a local club and visit it a few times.  Pay attention to how well you do against players (and ask them their rating).  Let's say you beat a 1500 because he drops his queen.  Well that doesn't count lol, it's a club game.  When I say pay attention I mean are you getting decent positions out of the opening?  Are you able to convert an advantage in the endgame?  When you're a little worse do you put up good resistance?  Are the tactics they hit you with easy or hard to find yourself in retrospect? etc.

Blitz USCF or standard time controls? Cus I'm one of those guys that suck at blitz compared to standard.

Its blitz Chess.com rating to standard (OTB tournament controls is what I call it) USCF rating.

That's a rather retarded formula then. It's just a very general idea of a persons rating that can vary by insane amounts.

Which 1500 troubles you? The blitz or Chess 960?

I hate my tactics rating but can only get it to inch up.

I would say your greatest need is study of endgame.

Actually the data backs it up well from what I've read and witnessed myself. Here is a link to one recent discussion on the matter (its long, you can skip to the relevent parts).

Blitz shouldn't be compared with standard. The data is junk.

I'm not going to go over the same things you went over with Adam in another thread. Whether you choose to accept the conclusions from the data or not is up to you. But if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck I'm going to at least highly consider the probability that it may indeed be a duck. :)