I don't know how to get better.

No it's not a curious behavior to go in a chess club down town and to buy 5 books,some on each part of the game and to read them.

And do the same thing 6 months later etc etc....

I like to know how it work and not play like an idiot...

Work on your Calculation and Understanding of the game .

3 days later, and still just playing speed chess.

@souptime4 is merciless.

Hey hey, give him some time.

I dont like to sugar coat things...

Well i saw it played by a few wgm on icc 20 years ago but i didn't know what it was called...but i really liked it and that is how i started to play d4....

i was already an experienced beginner...around 1400.

Bad habits are tough to change....

Like a diet of pure bacon and coffee.

I used to know a guy like that. He's not here anymore, so calm down, lol

hummm bacon....that bring a lot of good memories....a lot of bacon on a big piece of bread.....it taste so good!

I definently agree with GMatchen, as the openings are not something a beginner should learn at all. If they learn an opening it should be something that is simplified or easy to understand. If they dive down too deep they will get confused and will not know what to do. Also at that level, understanding openings is pointless if you don't understand the name of the game, and that is to get good positionally, tactically and endgames.

I would say tactics matter from 2000 and down, however 2000 and up it is up to the positional part of the game as people make lesser and from there it is up to the better positional player to outplay there opponent. The game of Chess is a positional game as it is built on posiitons, truly if you don't have any positional knowledge and skill you will not succeed in the game, it is that simple. I don't care how good you are tactically, yes tactics is fun and its is cool to watch, however the positional aspect shows one true skill. The only thing I will say is that it is cool to see what computers can do in this day and age with calculation, however no human is even close to that, so truly positional knowledge outclasses this and more importantly outclasses and outranks any opening knowledge. 

I would say openings is about 10% of the game, if that. The positional, tactical, and endgame covers the rest, however that is from a broad view. But as for openings being relievant for a 1600-1800 or below, I say no, it is no point, as it takes to much time, most people don't memorize or care for too many openings on that level, sure they may have there own small repitoire but nothing more outside of that.

So what I am saying is have your small repirtoire, but don't get into it too much and focus on the positional, tactical, endgame, strategical, and principled part of the game. Then once hit at least 1800(though I recommend 2000) then you can dig down deep into a lot of openings as in those levels you will need it. 

Just so you know, this is a very common thing to say, except instead of 2000 the speaker will usually choose a rating that's within 200 points of their rating.

For example a GM may say tactics is enough to get you to 2400, but to be 2500 like me you have to know a little more.

Or a 1400 player may say to get to 1600 requires tactics, and after that I'll study something else.

---

The truth is you need a little of everything no matter what your rating is.

@llama44, I understand and respect your point of view, however this player is 1000, and that is his highest rating in daily, right now he doesn't really need opening repitoires(just a small amount, if that). However I do definently agree with you when you said that you should have everything in your game, but if you really want to know a good rating to start some openings I would say it woud be 1800-2000. Trust me if you get great at 5-10 openings, he could easily destroy people in his level, at his level it doesn't take too many openings to know and dominate with at all.

Truth is in the game of Chess many people don't need to study to openings, just study the openings that work for them. Why would a person study over 20-30 openings and do them in depth when nobody study's them, and what if a person has better positional or tactical play than the other person? what is the other opponent going to do? Is he/she going to bully you when you don't see that book move? And so what, are you going to lose because you cannot play the game out of the opening in which you know so much?

This is exactly why all people of all levels need to put positional and tactical play and endgames above these things, like I said have your small repitoire but after that it is pointless, the only reason someone might get any close to those openings is a GM. But for my level, your level, and his level, learning that many openings is not important and if you know the Principled,Positional,Tactical and Endgame part of the game, he would focus on outplaying more people that trying to win in the opening. 

Besides learning the opening phase of the game for different openings takes to much time, energy, memorization and is pointless without understanding, and even if you do have understanding, when are you going to play that opening, and why go to a different opening outside of your zone when you play better with an opening you are comfortable with? There is plenty of reasons why it is easier and more beneficial to keep a small repitiore and be elite with it, than a broad playstlye that you are average with, even for your level trust me. 

So I respect your point of view but as for as learning everything, I say learn a little of openings and learn a lot of positional play(especially), tactics, endgames, and everything that has stategical value that develops the mind, because openings in this day and age do only so much I feel. Maybe you have a different view of that and that is fine, however when it goes for me it is not needed. 

But still I respect your point of view. 

Yeah, I agree, in the beginning just learn a little bit about the opening. The opening principals for example, and that's it. Also the basic checkmates like Q+K vs K and two rooks vs lone king... and I count that for endgames heh.

Then some basic tactical ideas, like fork / double attack, pin / skewer, discovered attack / discovered check, and overloading / removing the defender. That counts as tactics.

For strategy I'd say piece activity and king safety. Rooks on open files, bishops on long or open diagonals, control the center, that sort of thing. Probably mention that pawn breaks exist.

---

IMO that's something like a beginner starter pack

And sure, in the beginning what improves your results the most is tactics... although after reading some topics on here like this

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-come-my-puzzle-rating-is-so-high-when-my-other-ratings-are-so-low?

I think we use tactics as a stand in for what's actually important, and that's good calculation habits and the ability to visualize 1 or 2 moves into the future. Habits like, for example, looking at forcing moves... and when one sequence doesn't win material try changing the move order to see if that wins something. These are skills that solving tactics should teach someone (and of course tactical patterns are useful too).

---

Well, I hope that's not too long winded. You gave a long post so I felt liberated to chatter away

What you said was accurate and right I agree with all that you said, surely both of our point of views are accurate.

Maybe we should become friends so we can discuss some more interesting topis sometime.

But if you don't want to become friends I understand.

Yeah, no problem. I like chatting about chess stuff and I'm not really picky with my friends list

wow only $20 hour!   /sarc.

Well, if they're going to PAY $20/lesson, that IS a bargain!

You should use youtube. You can learn a lot of cool things. Here is a good channel to get started. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLXYjOKeyT-KCwK09Bvvxwg?sub_confirmation=1