This Website Sucks For Beginners

Keep in mind that the Mega Database is most of that money.  If you just wanted the software and download the modern games from TWIC archives, you could do that for as little as ~$150US.

If you go to some of these big tournaments (e.g. US Open, World Open, National Open, etc) you will see almost everyone on the top 25-50 boards using ChessBase to prepare for their games.

There's a MAGA database? Awesome! I hope I'm in it. I have a MAGA hat and a MAGA bumper st............

Oh wait..... you said "Mega" database. 

Never mind. 

Still, for a 1600 rated player?!

I also suspect that ChessBase is used in OTB to get the drop on your opponents' openings more than anything else. It's very rare to do this before on-line games.

Also - and this is very much an opinion - I have always suspected that following 'best' move analysis isn't the best way of progressing in chess - puts far too much pressure on memory recall. A better approach - for mere mortals - is to seek to avoid 'bad' moves in a giving position, and this is something databases don't supply for obvious reasons.  

This is why I analyse my games off-line, using Arena and Stockfish-15,  rather than CCC method. I'm only really interested in the low-hanging-fruit, and I suspect this applies to most. CCC method splatters you with no end of minor inaccuracies and training suggestions which you have little means of de-tuning. For most games you want to know why you made a bad call in position X, and that requires recall of your thinking at that point and correction thereof. 

Of course at higher levels this way of thinking maybe duff, but I suspect most players would be better off thinking in terms of 'low-hanging-fruit' rather than aiming for computer - or GM -perfection.

It depends on the 1600.  If it is an older adult who is at their rating floor, they likely do not care and just want to have fun.  If it is a teenager who is trying to increase his rating, they will be ruthless!  To give you an idea, my local club has 3 "championship" tournaments each year (spring, summer, fall) where each week you basically know who you are playing.  I was playing an 1100 in the 3rd round a few years ago and he spent his 2 lessons with his NM coach that week identifying a hole in my repertoire (in effect, I was playing against a NM for the first 15 moves of the game).  Thankfully, after he got to the end of his prep, he lost the thread and blundered material, but this kind of thing is pretty common for kids.  They do not like to lose.

For masters trying to fight for wins in those tournaments, it is similar.  There are a few different strategies they will use.  Magnus, for example, is known to try to find ways to get his opponent out of book as quickly as possible so it can be a battle of the minds.  Thus, many times he will deliberately not make the best move just to get into waters his opponent is not likely to have researched ahead of time.  A lot of opening books in recent years strive for similar goals.  That is, they will identify a particular setup and try to drive towards that setup as much as possible (with the exceptions being when there is an obvious winning method by deviating).  This method is highly effective for club players.

then go to somewhere else and leave us who enjoy it alone instead of complaining about it

I'm a beginner and I've chess picked up again on chess.com during the last week or so. I highly enjoy it and have gone up around 200 elo after dropping down to stabilize basics. this website is fantastic for beginners, not unless you are playing bullet and blitz as a beginner when you should be playing at least 10-minute rapid, because you aren't analyzing or thinking it as through as much. 

 I think in that case it just generally depends from person to person, as everyone has certain preferences,  but as long as they are growing at a pace they are happy with it is good.

I am curious what skills you think you will learn by playing blitz.

Try laying off the 420, Oran.

Probably 75 - 85 % of population COULD become 2000 on chess.com but it is not their nature but nurture and environment that sets the limits. Learning 1 hour a day for 5 years is not something impossible even if chess is boring, most people can handle school after all. But why should they if there is nothing at the end of the road? That is why we have a lot of 600 - 800 account: either those are forgotten account or people just play it like a quick game without trying to learn and improve. 

@tygxc: I talk about average people who would have trouble learning anything by reading a book, analyzing their game and then improving. Most people prefer human interaction and question-answer type of learning. That's why 5 years and coach or teacher who checks in from time to time to see how you are progressing and answers questions is needed.

Problem is that majority of people DIDN'T follow my advice just like majority of people who try to lose wight DON'T follow through on the diet. I mean, I don't follow my advice. Because I have other things I would prefer to learn and invest my time and energy in.

And since you have hardly play chess for a year and don't really know anything beside small glimpses from youtube, maybe you shouldn't have a say in the matter.

You do not find it rather absurd that someone who has never broken 1000 is giving advice on whether it is possible to reach 2000?  Fascinating!  I suppose you sit on your couch on Sundays and tell Tom Brady how he should be running his offense as well?

There is a difference in passive and active learning.  Passive learning is good for introducing topics, but the vast majority of people need active learning to reinforce the material.  This is why school teachers will give a lecture and then give you very repetitive homework (well, they used to anyway - not so much these days).  So saying "You don't need to read books, just go watch [fill in the blank content creator]" is not entirely accurate.  If you are JUST reading the books, that is basically the same (as they are both passive learning).  If you are making the moves, trying to understand the purposes, looking at alternatives, and solving the puzzles in the books (i.e. active learning) you are going to improve much faster than someone who just engages in passive learning (whether that is watching videos or reading books).

For example, John Bartholomew's "Chess Fundamentals" and "Climbing the Rating Ladder" series are both excellent and highly recommended.  Someone that just watches those will still improve less than someone who started at the same level and works through the first few books in the Yusupov Chess Tigers series ("Build Your Chess", "Boost Your Chess", and "Chess Evolution" - all level 1).

So, to you, it is perfectly reasonable for someone who hasn't played football since Pop Warner to give advice to people on how to get into a D1 program?  Personally, I find such arrogance combined with that massive amount of ignorance to be an odd pairing, but to each their own.

You feel that books are only good for beginners or advanced players?  Interesting.  So, as someone who is a beginner, would you not find any books useful?  Have you tried reading any chess books designed for your level (i.e. Yasser's "Winning Chess" series)?  Or do you simply know they are not useful without having ever picked them up?

You assert that most people have tried what @dmfed mentioned and failed.  That is demonstrating a lack of understanding of human nature.  Everyone knows that to lose weight, you have to eat healthy and be active.  There is no hidden information there.  Yet, in the US, roughly 70% of the adult male population is overweight or obese.  Is it because they all failed when following the advice to eat healthy and exercise or because they failed to actually follow that advice on a consistent basis?

Almost every beginner that has come to the forums over the last 14 years has been given the same advice: play slower time controls and practice tactics.  After several months, they will often come back to the forums saying "I am not improving" and when you look at their history, they are playing blitz and bullet for countless hours and not doing any tactics.  In order to improve, you must avoid the dopamine hits of quick games for the sake of learning.  That is not something many people are able to do for long periods of time, as evidence by the fact that they want to look like swimsuit models, but keep eating whole cheesecakes for dessert.

I advice you to watch youtube videos or games between players especially high rated players and see what the motive behind their moves. It will take some time to understand what their motives are at the beginning but you would get the hang of it.

Hah, edited out about 1200 in OTB and 1000 on chess.com, I see. Well, once again you don't know anything at all. A lot of players who don't improve, don't put their time in learning and instead put their time in just playing. Not everyone in the tournament are there to win, just like in most other solo sports.

I know because I have been to OTB tournament once and I have also been in both team and solo sport competition where my focus was on having fun and learning my limits. 

Most people prefer to just play chess for enjoyment and would put 1 hour per day in playing instead of playing one game, analyzing it for twice - thrice the time and then create puzzle list based on which areas you have failed in just to summarize your achievements at the end of the week and repeat once again.

I know exactly what I need to do to improve my rating, and at least for now I will nope straight  out of that type of commitment.

EDIT: Right, forgot about rating. The 1800 - 2000 rating which people could reach is on chess.com. Which would probably be around 1500 OTB from my understanding. Which is possible to reach within 5 years of deliberate training methodology.

Wow. I find it incredible that someone can be so ignorant on so many different topics and yet be so opinionated about those same topics.  I look forward to seeing you prove that the tried-and-true methods for chess improvement are wrong as you progress to 2000 in any time control.  When you do that, you will have everything you need to write a book that you will say is not useful for anyone, but will still want people to buy.

So you have spoken to all the 2000+ players on the platform and asked how they got there?  And you most certainly are someone who never will because you 1) think you know everything, 2) do not know what you do not know, and 3) are unwilling and unable to listen to those who know more than you.  Those 3 things are not conducive to learning.

And no, I am not saying "You are a 600 player so you don't know what you are talking about.". I am saying that a 600 player giving advice on how to do something they have never done and is counter to the recommendations of people who have actually done it is likely bunk.  It is like getting advice on how to solve a calculus problem from someone who has yet to master basic algebra.

At one point in time, I was an ~800 rated player.  The reason I am no longer such is the difference in attitude: I knew I didn't know anything and sought to learn instead of asserting I had all the answers.  You come across like a teenager telling their father he doesn't know anything despite the many more years of experience and wisdom possessed by the father.  To borrow a line from an 80s movie: You cannot fill a cup that is already full.

And I now think the answer to whether you are a troll or an idiot has been answered.

From that thread where Eric Hansen was talking about not reading any books, it is important to note that he DID have coaches and other strong players to play and analyze with. As had most other GM, IM, NM and probably CM. And they also spent probably 8+ hours per day on chess. Books and videos are for people like us, who don't have time and money for that kind of commitment. 

Probably same for the 2000+ speed players here: those that didn't use books and slower time control are both more gifted at chess so that they learn more and faster from just playing and analyzing as well as they spent more time playing. But if you play 1000+ games and don't improve, maybe trying that other method which everybody is talking about instead of claiming to know everything.

The rest is pointless to even talk about, your knowledge about "humans" show perfectly when you think that people will cheat less if chess became more popular, mainstream and profitable.

Still trying to argue with a piece of concrete and change its mind here I see...