game improvement

Perhaps this will be of use to you:

https://www.chess.com/blog/nklristic/the-beginners-tale-first-steps-to-chess-improvement

In the article I've linked, I've explained how I've improved from beginner to intermediate level. Bear in mind that it will take some time.

Thanks for all advices

Improving Your Chess - Resources for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/improving-your-chess-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond

Dear TheZebix,

I am a certified, full-time chess coach, so I hope I can help you. Everybody is different, so that's why there isn't only one general way to learn. First of all, you have to discover your biggest weaknesses in the game and start working on them. The most effective way for that is analysing your own games. Of course, if you are a beginner, you can't do it efficiently because you don't know too much about the game yet. There is a built-in engine on chess.com which can show you if a move is good or bad but the only problem that it can't explain you the plans, ideas behind the moves, so you won't know why is it so good or bad.

You can learn from books or Youtube channels as well, and maybe you can find a lot of useful information there but these sources are mostly general things and not personalized at all. That's why you need a good coach sooner or later if you really want to be better at chess. A good coach can help you with identifying your biggest weaknesses and explain everything, so you can leave your mistakes behind you. Of course, you won't apply everything immediately, this is a learning process (like learning languages), but if you are persistent and enthusiastic, you will achieve your goals.

In my opinion, chess has 4 main territories (openings, strategies, tactics/combinations and endgames). If you want to improve efficiently, you should improve all of these skills almost at the same time. That's what my training program is based on. My students really like it because the lessons are not boring (because we talk about more than one areas within one lesson) and they feel the improvement on the longer run. Of course, there are always ups and downs but this is completely normal in everyone's career.

I hope this is helpful for you. Good luck for your games!

Go watch Levy's Videos(@GothamChess)

https://support.chess.com/article/437-how-do-i-get-better-at-chess

Hope this helps, 

Enjoy 

#6

"I am a... chess coach, so I hope I can help you." ++ ... and get some $$ from you...
"you have to discover your biggest weaknesses in the game" ++ True
"The most effective way for that is analysing your own games." ++ True
"There is a built-in engine on chess.com" ++ True
"the only problem that it can't explain you the plans, ideas behind the moves"
++ It shows you the possible lines, but you have to put in your own effort to understand

"You can learn from books or Youtube channels"
++ 1 book = 200 h of study = 200 YouTube videos of 1 h each = 200 h of coaching.
A book costs $20, 200 videos of $10 cost $2000, 200 h of $50/h coaching costs $10000.

"these sources are mostly general things and not personalized"
++  True, but books about math, physics... are not personalized either.

"That's why you need a good coach sooner or later"
++ Wrong. A book by a top grandmaster is better than a mediocre coach.

"A good coach can help you with identifying your biggest weaknesses and explain everything" ++ A coach may help, just like a book, a video, or analysis on your own.
You always have to put in the effort yourself.

"chess has 4 main territories (openings, strategies, tactics/combinations and endgames)."
++ In my opinion it is 1) blunder prevention 2) tactics 3) endgames 4) openings in that order. Strategy is linked to either tactics (center, open file, 7th rank, 8th rank, outpost, pin...),
or endgames (passed pawn, weak pawn, restraint of pawn majority...).

"you should improve all of these skills almost at the same time."
++ Wrong.

1) <1500 rating: Blunder prevention.
As long as you blunder all tactics, endgames, openings study is useless.

2) 1500 - 2000 rating: Tactics.
"Chess is 99% tactics" - Teichmann. Engines prove him right: engines defeat grandmasters with tactics regardless of opening and they do not even reach the endgame. As long as you are weak in tactics study of endgames that you do not reach or of openings that do not matter is useless.

3) 2000 - 2500 rating: Endgames. Endgames can be taught exactly. Table bases tell you the absolute truth about all positions with up to 7 men. As long as you cannot convert an advantage of 1 pawn, opening study is useless as an advantage of 1 pawn is the most you can get out of the opening.

4) >2500 rating: Openings. Openings decide games between super grandmasters, and in ICCF correspondence play. Many IM play without real opening knowledge. Carlsen deliberately plays weird openings like 1 a4 or 1 d4 b6 against lesser grandmasters to avoid drawing opening lines. Play chess, not openings!"

Yes, he should try to improve everything at the same time.

People rated pretty low should learn opening principles and follow those. That is how you improve openings at the beginner level mainly. And long before 2 500 rating you will need to learn plans in a certain opening and thematic things (you may put this into tactics and strategy as well), and finally some concrete lines. All of that will have to be touched long before 2 500 level.

You still need to checkmate with a rook and a queen, with a single queen and with a single rook. You need to understand the opposition in order to understand how to win a pawn up endgames, you need to activate your king, go for activity. Without it, you will not move too much forward. You will certainly not get to 2 000 level without these. In my games, even when I was rated 1 200, a lot of games were decided in the endgame and knowing opposition was necessary to win those.

People below 1 500 still need to work on tactics if they are to improve as well.

Blunder prevention is something that happens as you play and as you learn. It is something gained through experience and while learning other things mentioned. Of course making sure your move is not a blunder is something everyone should aim to do.

#11

"he should try to improve everything at the same time" ++ No, there are priorities.

"Blunder prevention is something that happens as you play and as you learn."
++ No, it is 1st priority. As long as you hang pieces and pawns all the rest is in vain.
"making sure your move is not a blunder is something everyone should aim to do"
++ Indeed, but many beginners fail miserably on this. They spend $$ on coaches, videos, books, they memorize openings and then they hang pieces and pawns.

"People below 1 500 still need to work on tactics if they are to improve as well."
++ It is 2nd priority. You can be 3000 in tactics puzzles, but it is worthless if you hang a queen.

"You need to understand the opposition in order to understand how to win a pawn up"
++ Endgame knowledge is no help if you get checkmated.
You only reach an endgame is neither player blunders and if both players are equally matched in spotting offensive and defensive tactics.
"Before the endgame the Gods have placed the middle game" - Tarrasch
I do recommend to study endgames, because they can be taught as exact knowledge.
The middle game is a matter of style: no 2 grandmasters play the same.
The opening is fashion: what was wrong yesterday is right today and will be wrong tomorrow.

"long before 2 500 rating you will need to learn plans in a certain opening and thematic things (you may put this into tactics and strategy as well), and finally some concrete lines."
++ It is an illusion that opening knowledge helps you. Engines destroy grandmasters with 1 e4 b5? or 1 d4 g5? Openings are the icing on the cake, but most beginners seem to think they are the cake and many coaches go along with that delusion. It is a form of lazyness: they hope by memorizing they need no thinking and will be able to overrun opponents. It even helps against weaker opponents, which reinforces the delusion.

I didn't mean at the same time as in today is Sunday and we do everything today. What I meant was that before someone gets to 1 500 they will have to do some work on all things I've mentioned.

You've said that before 1 500 you basically only need blunder prevention, which is only part of the story. In order not to blunder, you need to do some work on all things I've mentioned before. Of course some people will be much better tactically but a lot worse in the endgame, but some basic stuff in all areas is almost always mandatory to get to 1 500.

It is of course first priority not to blunder but it is not enough. If you do not know opening principles, if you do not know simple checkmates, if your tactical vision is inadequate, etc. you will not get to 1 500... ever. And you will blunder a lot. Either you will be lost out of the opening because you are pushing pawns or you will not see that a square is insufficiently defended and put your piece there etc.

You are correct that pawn up in the endgame is useless if you get checkmated, but a certain percentage of your games (and that percentage is far from meaningless) will still get to the endgame stage, it is inevitable. People will just exchange most of the stuff and then those who make less mistakes in the endgame will win.

As for coaches, you are correct that everything (surely to a certain point) can be done without them. Subjectively, I would consider a coach only if you are serious about chess and have some higher goals. But not all the people are the same. Someone needs to pay for something in order to apply themselves seriously and some people just enjoy working with others and don't like to work alone. To each his own.

As for engines and beating GMs, I mean of course, that is not a good comparison. The difference in strength is 800 or more ELO, so of course they beat them. It is like saying that the engine of a car doesn't really matter because any car can beat Usain Bolt in a race.

It doesn't render openings irrelevant, especially when 2 people are higher rated and close to each other. I agree that learning concrete lines is a waste of time for a beginner, but after a while, if you are playing Ruy Lopez knowing that knight maneuver, c3-d4 idea, or a4 push is certainly not a waste of time.

I've mentioned it to you previously, I feel that you are underestimating what 1 500 rated people know because you are a lot better than them. These people are completely able to talk for hours about chess stuff to someone who is starting out. Saying that the difference between a complete beginner and someone rated 1 500 is a simple blunder prevention is a simplification of things and severe exaggeration in my opinion.

#13
My point is that there are priorities.
Take a strong GM, he does not blunder, he is good at tactics, he knows endgames, he knows openings. Give him white against an engine and impose the bad opening 1 e4 b5 or 1 d4 g5 on the engine. What happens? They do not reach an endgame. The engine wins by middlegame tactics despite the bad opening imposed on it. This proves that a difference in tactical ability far outweighs any opening disadvantage. At lower levels tactics count even more.

Even GMs blunder. Not so often of course. A few weeks ago there was a game where a GM missed a simple pawn fork and resigned immediately. Good GM to a strong engine is roughly like pairing me against some FM. Will my opening play matter in that game? Of course not. Will I reach an endgame? Not likely.

A strong engine is better at every part of the game, including opening. 1. e4 g5 is not great, but a strong engine has a vastly superior knowledge of the game. For us 1. e4 g5 is not explored enough because it's probably not the best. But at the same time, humans can't play perfectly against it especially as there is not much theory there, so an engine will dismantle a human easily. You can actually say that an engine knows 1. ...g5 theory far better than a human, so his opening play is superior as well.

In any case, an engine is better than a world champion in every area of the game, opening and endgames included. So as I've said, it doesn't prove anything.

Priorities up to 1 000 or 1 200 are to follow opening principles and avoid blunders. To get to 1 500, you have to have some basic grasp in every area of the game.

For instance, in my case, you would be correct, my tactical awareness is the weakest part of my game. So I have to drill tactics if I am to improve. But there are people below 2 000 who will have to improve something other than tactics, because perhaps tactics is their strong suit for their level and they may lose games due to other stuff.

#15
I am not even talking about 1 e4 g5, I say 1 e4 b5 or 1 d4 g5: white gets move and pawn and the engine still destroys a grandmaster with middle game tactics. Tactical awareness is the weakest part of all humans.
Put it another way: let 4 beginners train. A is trained to never hang a piece or pawn, B is trained in tactics, C is trained in endgames, D is trained in openings. I say A > B > C > D

I think that even 2 pawns up is not enough for most of the people. The difference is just too great.

Perhaps A, B and C will just push pawns and be lost out of the opening. But in that experiment, perhaps your conclusion would be correct.

In any case, my point is that it is much more efficient to learn the basic stuff in all areas. It is not really efficient to just train a single thing too much. King opposition and other basic endgame stuff can be learned pretty fast, while getting from 1 300 to 1 400 on chess tempo tactics can be a real pain. So it is not really efficient to just grind tactics without anything else.

I've seen people here who are 2 000 rated in chess.com tactics and they are around 1 000 rapid rated with many games played. Chess is not just tactical puzzles, even on lower levels. It is really important, of course, but I feel that expression "tactics = 90% of chess"  is an extreme exaggeration.

Tactics, tactics, and more tactics

Play only rapid (10 min) games or longer, allowing time for you to think about each move, playing blitz as a beginner is not the best way to improve

#17
"Chess is not just tactical puzzles, even on lower levels."
++ That is right. Many players are good at tactics puzzles, but weak in real play.
Often because they blunder.
Often they play too fast, faster than when they solve tactics puzzles.
Often because they miss a tactic for themselves or for their opponent as they have no hint that there is a tactic.
Tactics puzzles are only an imperfect way of training tactics.
Playing real games and analysing lost games is essential.
Study of annotated grandmaster games is a 3rd way of training tactics.