How.. do.. you.. study!?

There are tons of "how to get good" threads. And this may look like yet another one. But make no mistake this is different.. how?

Well, first of all, people keep telling you to study, to get better ratings. But no one tells you how. I mean,

1) how would you really study? Watch opening videos? See master games? Which master for example? Magnus? Caruana? they play tons of games these days.. should you watch Candidate tournaments? Blitz tournaments? 

Dang, It's getting more and more complicated. While question stands still as a rock. How would you study?

2) What are you gonna study? Openings? Endgames? middlegame? (is it even possible?). Openings are not suggested before 1800 or something. So you know all basic-intermediate endgame positions.. middlegame is not studiable.. so what? are you gonna study?

3) Books, some says books. Needless to says there are tons of books. Many people suggest Silman's books... Like Amateur's Mind and How to reassess your chess. Both from the same author.. Thing is Silman himself is an IM.. No offense but how on earth he is not a GM but teaching the ways of mastery. Idk maybe I'm just overlooking something here. GMs dont write books until they become an old f.art. Sorry that is the truth. Old time masters are already dead, their ways are old. modern chess needs more writers in my opinion.

Conclusion; what do have at hand? Some youtube streamers? Stephan is good but just teaching openings only.. with an odd russian accent. Levy.. talking at lightspeed.. Hikaru.. just having fun, not caring about telling what he is doing (in human language). Magnus?.. ... .. no comment.

Question stands still.. How the hell can you study? Efficiently, correctly. *sigh

Well the reason no one goes in to too much detail is because it's different for everyone. What works for me might not for you etc.

Find what you like what works for you, go over your games see where you're weakest and work on it. The same as studying anything really.

I...study...very...carefully...

thanks for a decent response, yes everybody has their style.

still i have a point that i'm trying to express here. 'studying' is a big black box, that people keep throwing each other. high rated players 'seems' like that they already know how to study but i doubt it. most of these people have natural talent and what they have is their plataeu, their potential already. like my potential is around 15-1600s.. I havent really studied much to reach here.. yet there are tons of 1000~ around.. trying to get to where i am standing. what should i suggest them..? study? that would be the irony.

Just don't study. 

It depends.

You should study the parts of your game that you need to study and that you will actually work on.

So, for example, if you are under 2000, you probably aren't going to lose your games because of your openings, so you won't need to study that. Even if you're willing to study that, I don't think that's the best use of study time.

On the other hand, if you feel like rook endgames are the weakest part of your game, but you won't actually work on rook endgames (because they're just not interesting to you), then you should find some other part of your game that is a weak part, but that you will also spend time studying.

When I'm determining what to work on, I do the following:

1. Identify the area of my game that I want to work on

2. Identify a training regimen for actually working on that part of my game

3. Follow that training regimen

4. Reassess after about a month

Hope this helps!

You know what would help?? If you didn't make the title of your threads in slow motion!!  "How...Do...You...Study..."...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Oh, yeah, I know you're going to block me from this thread, like you've done others who didn't absolutely agree with your ASININE VIEWPOINTS, so I'll get this in while I can------you've been Downvoted too, so nevermind the silly, stupid Downvotes that YOU do, cretin!!

I don't

Study annotated games by the Old Masters... Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Reti, Capablanca, etc.

Nobody more recent than Botvinnik.

You will find these games to be much more logical and more understandable than modern games.

@1

"Watch opening videos?" ++ No
"See master games?" ++ Yes
"Which master for example? Magnus? Caruana?" ++ Or Nepo, Ding...
"should you watch Candidate tournaments?" ++ Yes
"Blitz tournaments?" ++ No

"How would you study?" ++ Analyse your lost games.

"Openings?" ++ No
"Endgames?" ++ Yes
"middlegame? (is it even possible?)" ++ No, it is not possible to study.
"Openings are not suggested before 1800 or something." ++ Maybe not before 2500
"So you know all basic-intermediate endgame positions" ++ Then you would be GM

"Books, some says books." ++ Yes
"Many people suggest Silman's books" ++ No
"Silman himself is an IM" ++ Yes, rated 2383
"GMs dont write books until they become an old f.art" ++ Kasparov, Kramnik have written books
"Old time masters are already dead" ++ Being dead or old does not mean being wrong.
"modern chess needs more writers in my opinion" ++ Carlsen, Caruana, Nepo, Ding are playing.

"Some youtube streamers?" ++ No

"How the hell can you study?" ++ Analyse your lost games, study GM games, study endgames

This is how I learned to play. You can try to get fancy later.

Hi!  The fastest way to develop your Chess skills is to work with the help of a teacher or coach. They would guide you, taking into account your specific needs, telling you what you should study first, where to focus,  and chosing for you the best material amongst the huge amount of information available. You can be also a selfmade player but it might take longer.

Good luck!

theres coaches for chess? also how do i know my specific needs, i just place the pieces and lose man