What do you think is better for someone like me, computer analysis or self analysis of games
Both, use the computer to test your thoughts during the game. Computers are calculation beasts, so learn to analyse your games yourself from and with a coach instead. A coach can humanize what a computer means.
Firstly, how important is it to spend a lot of time remembering openings. I'm talking about my level here (around 1850 rapid, around 1700 FIDE rapid) and I'm not interested in playing fast time controls.
When I meet someone about 200 rating points above me in a slower time control, I need to know how to get into a decent position at least in the middle game. And pawn-breaks are my weakness, as well as surviving pawn-storms or avoiding them happening to me in the first place.
As someone of 60 years old who in my youth was playing for my school and my university but pretty much gave up for many years at the age of 22, do I have much chance of making any progress now? (I'm not looking to get a title but 1900 FIDE / 2100 sort of rapid on here rating would be nice, albeit I'd probably never get a game at a slower online time control with increment in that pool and probably face a lot of engine users)
Thanks for the extensive question. I still coach students about your age of which my dad is one. I don't know if there is any research on if someone can still make progress (win rating) after a certain age. I do believe that you can still learn new things and optimize your play, so that you can play towards your strenghts. If you do that, I'm sure you get an alltime high in your rating. For example, complicated dynamic chess as you get older is much harder as it takes up more energy and younger folks are just better at that.
Learning openings is of course useful, but only to a certain degree. Especially if you are older, I wouldn't aim for a detailed repertoire, but more one that speaks more generally and focusses on core positions and idea's.
What makes 2400 blitz different from 2200-2300 ? I know how to improve but I have not been able to find a difference (like the difference between 2000-2200 is mostly positional play )
That's a hard question as not every 2200-2400 players is the same. Most of the time 2400 blitz-players have overall more skill. They have more experience with higher level games, are better at tactics, know their openings better etc. And especially for shorter time-controls: they learned how to be more practical with their time. For example by using opening with more traps, but also choosing easier options in the game to avoid loosing too much time.
They are better at everything I agree with that though there are certain skills that make a 2400 different from 2200 im just curious if there's anything I should work on more specifically other then "just get better at tactics and openings " cause it's kinda like saying "just blunder check " when u literally can not see the blunder otherwise you wouldn't have made it . I tend to find recommending certan time controls specifically for beginners based on how fast they play is pretty important im looking for more little things that make a huge difference.
What are good chess youtubers for advanced players around my level. (2000 rapid), seems to be so much beginner content but not enough for more experience :/
What do you think is better for someone like me, computer analysis or self analysis of games
Personaly I like self analyse but looking at stockfish can be helpful though if you do just make sure to analyze the games yourself first and then look at stockfish it doesn't need to be long just maybe 10sec-1m just enough to get a feel for how you lost
What makes 2400 blitz different from 2200-2300 ? I know how to improve but I have not been able to find a difference (like the difference between 2000-2200 is mostly positional play )
That's a hard question as not every 2200-2400 players is the same. Most of the time 2400 blitz-players have overall more skill. They have more experience with higher level games, are better at tactics, know their openings better etc. And especially for shorter time-controls: they learned how to be more practical with their time. For example by using opening with more traps, but also choosing easier options in the game to avoid loosing too much time.
They are better at everything I agree with that though there are certain skills that make a 2400 different from 2200 im just curious if there's anything I should work on more specifically other then "just get better at tactics and openings " cause it's kinda like saying "just blunder check " when u literally can not see the blunder otherwise you wouldn't have made it . I tend to find recommending certan time controls specifically for beginners based on how fast they play is pretty important im looking for more little things that make a huge difference.
Having a specific look at your games should be the answer then. Look for patterns in your play that can be improved and make them as specific as possible. I noticed in the Italian opening of one of my students that he likes to play Nh4-f5 a lot, but in the wrong situations.
What are good chess youtubers for advanced players around my level. (2000 rapid), seems to be so much beginner content but not enough for more experience :/
I don't watch a lot of youtube content unfortunately, so I can't help you there too much. I don't recommend watching too much content if you want to get stronger though. Practice and puzzle solving is the way to go.
I never had a chess coach. I am self-learned. Is that okay or will I be lost in terms of long term improvement. In fact, I already feel lost at the moment but trying hard to be on track to chess improvement.
I'm happy to see how determined you are. Keep it up! Having a good coach makes your progress easier in multiple ways. Not to say that I don't know players who have come a long way on their own.
Hi Roeland,
In recent years, I’ve noticed that mentality is being discussed more and more in the context of chess.
How big of a role does sports psychology play in your chess coaching and training?
And how valuable is it to focus on this aspect compared to more traditional training methods like solving puzzles and playing games?
I'm curious about your thoughts on this—both in the context of tournaments and, for example, regular club games.
Hi Roeland,
In recent years, I’ve noticed that mentality is being discussed more and more in the context of chess.
How big of a role does sports psychology play in your chess coaching and training?
And how valuable is it to focus on this aspect compared to more traditional training methods like solving puzzles and playing games?
I'm curious about your thoughts on this—both in the context of tournaments and, for example, regular club games.
Hey Laurelswreath, thanks for the extensive question. As someone with a psychology degree, my opinion is that mentality only needs to be adressed when it harms your play. Basic example: When someone feels nervous before a game, that is perfectly healthy. I have played many tournaments where I played with nervs. But when it becomes too much, as such that bad moves are played, then it is good to find ways to dial down the anxiety.
On the question of how important it is, that depends on the student. But of course solving puzzles and playing games are still the most important things to get stronger.
Thank you so much for posting this thread and sharing your knowledge with us, Roeland!
Pinning the thread now, huge appreciation! 
Thank you so much for posting this thread and sharing your knowledge with us, Roeland!
Pinning the thread now, huge appreciation!
Happy to share!
how to know all opening with easy step? example scandinavian defense?
Do you think it is better for someone of my level to study tactics or positional chess. or is it just a matter of identifying your own weaknesses and working on those.
What do you think of My System by Aron Nimzowitsch? It's a bit of a silly question but genuinely curious what you have to say about it.
Hi
I often hear or read instructions/advice like "adopting a light/dark square strategy", or pointing out "the player now has a weakness on the light/dark squares." These seems to simply mean the best squares for my pieces are likely to be light/dark squares, so barring immediate tactics, when looking to improve my position moves that get my pieces on the corresponding squares are likely to be better than ones that do not (much like putting my pawns on the squares that correspond to my missing Bishop will generally improve my position over having them on squares of the colour of my remaining Bishop).
Does the notion of light/dark squared weaknesses or strategy only come into play when the opponent has lost the corresponding Bishop? And does this concept evaporate once the player has likewise lost that Bishop? (I suppose Queen's on the board could matter - so maybe the more general question is whether this concept hinges on there being diagonal pieces on the board?)
For some reason the dark/light square weakness and/or strategy idea is one I don't fully feel comfortable with, and I'm not sure if I'm just over-complicating the notion or missing something more subtle about how to utilise it. Sorry if my question isn't entirely clear, but that reflects my own confusion with regards to the ideas.
How many books should I read, or what book is good, to have a adequate defense against a master ?
That's hard to say. But I can say that training, playing games and practicing with puzzles does more then watching video's and reading books. if you like a recommendation then a good book would be Learn from the Legends by Mihail Marin.