This Website Sucks For Beginners

 What is ironic is that I didn't follow my own advice. I just lost a game due to smothered checkmate.

I appreciate the help guys. You really helped me see how I've been rushing moves a lot and I feel like that's probably why I start to decline the more I play. I tend to get overconfident after I win one and then think I can just brush through games like a grandmaster after the first win. Also I've followed the advice for blunder checking and actually taking the time to move forward and I feel like I've improved a lot already. 

For example the following game was right after I woke up and read through everything here. 

It sucks that the guy resigned before I could continue much further because I felt like this was one of my best games since starting, but I seriously appreciate all of you and apologize for coming off as possibly hostile or passive aggressive in my original post. Just gets frustrating sometimes constantly getting dragged down and then getting the "usual" responses in the beginners forums when I ask for help. 

So did you do the lesson properly, some lessons are very important, so in the the lessons you need to understand it deeply, I remember there is a lesson activating pieces and I finally break 1100. Don't forget to do puzzle everyday. You said you only have one free analysis a day without membership, thats true, but you could analyse your game without a engine. And you should always think what could your opponent do, always double check before making a move. If there is nothing you can do try to put your pieces in a more active square

For one thing, you can do an unlimited number of engine analysis for free on chess.com. What you are talking about is the stupid and useless "game review". But of course people are not talking about that.

When people say "analyze your games", they obviously don't mean "push a button and then do nothing else".

What they mean is this: go through your game, try to identify your blunders (and your opponent's), and try to learn from those blunders. You don't even need a computer for that, people were doing that long before computers existed. But of course a computer helps a lot in spotting the blunders.

Is it possible that some players (notably me) will just peak at 500? I've been watching videos and analyzing games as well as playing better from what I can tell. Just seems like I keep hovering between 480 and 500

#30
"Is it possible that some players (notably me) will just peak at 500?"
++ Many do, but it does not depend on the player, but on what they do.
Just mental discipline to split the move selection process and the move verification process i.e. blunder checking is enough to reach 1500 for any person.
Beyond that it becomes harder. Any young person can reach 2000 in 200 hours without special talent. For elder persons 2000 might be impossible.
Beyond 2000 it becomes even harder and it requires lots of work i.e. analysis of lost games and of grandmaster games and study of endgames.

I think that you have to think 2 moves and play the better one. (Buy gold membership cuz it’s cheap

Emmanuel Lasker, in his "Manuel for Chess" believed that with proper training any person could reach the level of master.  Less than 5% actually do, so you may question that assertion, but it does have some merit.  If you watch kids improve, you often see that they only focus on tactics.  I believe of was Christopher Yoo's father who stated that he did not do anything but tactics until he was over 1500.

While other life priorities may keep you from improving, the likelihood that your natural peak is in the sub-1000 levels is low.

#34
With on par with a master, Lasker meant such that a grandmaster cannot give any odds, i.e. 2000.
Lasker also said most do not reach that, because they do the wrong thing.
Lasker did not say any person, but any young person with no special talent required.
Age matters in learning.

It seems to me that 2000 is much higher than 500, or maybe the new math they teach these days does not have it so?

Keep in mind that when Lasker wrote that, he was in his 60s.  "Young man" did not mean a child.  Age matters in learning, to an extent, but it is not the wall people make it out to be.  Put another way:  chess is like learning a language.  You can become fluent in any language at almost any age, so long as you do the right things to learn it.

Idk  but I'm 27, I've been playing in person for a handful of years casually here and there. Only started playing online here recently and I feel like I'm not really getting any better than 500.

Wow so I just give advice to a person that is 15 year older than me lol 

Also got around to trying out lichess and I got my butt royally kicked all over the place there too. So I think It's just a me thing. I think I'm gonna stop playing before I start dropping below 400 too.

#36
The full quote:
"Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young player, even if he possesses no special talent for chess, is likely to be among those two or three thousand chessplayers [who play on a par with a master]. There are, however, a quarter of a million chessplayers who annually spend no fewer than 200 hours on chess without making any progress. Without going into any further calculations, I can assert with a high degree of certainty that nowadays we achieve only a fraction of what we are capable of achieving."
The young player refers to age, that is consistent with what László Polgár said no talent, but age.
Top 2000-3000 in Lasker's time roughly corresponds to rated 2000 now.

Maybe its just because u have a bad mental, u should not being too worry about rating, what too think is improving not looking at numbers, this is not a math lol. So what to do is not being worry about rating, and if you lose don't be sad/mad/stressed, but you should learn about ur losses and blunders (no need to use engine, ur not driving a car).

There are more than 2000 grandmasters today, so it probably corresponds to 2500 Elo now.

Which makes the quote even weirder. I wonder if Lasker really believed in it (probably not), or he just said what he thought the audience wanted to hear.

Anyway, practice shows again and again that it takes a lot more than 2000 hours to get to a near-master rating.

A quick estimation in the case of the Polgar sisters: if we estimate that they reached near-master level at the age of 10 (reasonable), and they studied chess 5 hours a day between age 3 and 10, that is more than 12 000 hours.

I haven't read all the posts here, and I'm probably more a novice / hobbyist than a beginner, but I've really gotten a lot out of watching videos, especially Igor Smirnov, Nelson Lopez (Chess Vibes), and the Gotham Chess guy. They're all great players but they all seem to relate well to players at our level. I'm sure there are others that are excellent as well. Their videos are informative, helpful, and entertaining. 

And do lots of puzzles. Your brain will develop chess lines. I don't recommend playing the computer. I don't really think most of us play the computer the same way we play another human, especially if you know you can take back moves. Playing lots of games does help. Your brain gets "trained" to think in chess terms and will start to see things that are less obvious. 
But the sad truth is that blunders are part of the game. It's just that they are a bigger part of the game for us than a 2000, and our blunders are more, um.....embarrassing.  Fact of life, fact of chess. 

You are misquoting him.

Even if the young man has no talent at all, by following the above course he would advance to the class specified.  Compare with this possibility, the reality.  In fact, there are a quarter of a million chess amateurs who devote to chess at least two hundred hours every year and of these only a thousand, after a lifetime of study, attain the end.  Without losing myself in calculations, I believe I am safe in voicing the opinion that our efforts in chess attain only a hundredth of one per cent of their rightful result.

Our education, in all domains of endeavor, is frightfully wasteful of time and values.  In mathematics and in physics the results arrived at are still worse than in chess.  Is there a tendency to keep the bulk of the people stupid?  For governments of an autocratic type the foolishness of the multitude has always been an asset.  Possibly, also the mediocre who happen to be in authority follow the same policy.  This motif, it is true, is not predominant in chess.  The bad state of education in chess is due entirely to our backwardness.

- Lasker's Manual of Chess, page 248.

The "young man" is a term of endearment for his generation.  It basically means "anyone younger than me".  At the time, he wrote it, he was 60 years old.

To the OP, the Perpetual Chess podcast from this week may be of some interest.  It is about an adult amateur in his 40s (who is a doctor, has a wife and kids, and runs a non-profit) who has progressed from your level to roughly 1400 over the last couple years.  If you want to break out of the sub-1000s, the most important thing for you to study is tactics (and by that, I do not mean just doing the random tactics trainer, but study them deliberately).

What Lasker was referring to would be called Class A or Category 1 today.  It would be in the range of 1900-2100.  He believed almost anyone was capable (not just in chess, but in virtually all educational endeavors) but the way things were taught was not conducive to achieving those results.

That estimate is close to the 10,000 hours of deliberate practice.  Many people have questioned Lasker's 2000 hour estimate.  I think that was overly optimistic, but his overall point remains valid:  if you study the right things the right way, eventually you get much better at them.