I'm trying to improve to 1000 rating... Any ideas on how to get to 1000?

Lmao, all players under 1200 play about the same, 700 to 900 is just as bad...

Don't say me anything.  OK

Yes, having experience doesn't help you if you are still in the single digits.

Maybe be play chess with someone at your home and why not just try there's ideas 

Watch Gotham chess and other chess content creators on YouTube!

I improved very well thanks to them

I just reached 1000 Rapid recently and for me constant playing and solving puzzles definitely helped. Watching high level players play and trying to understand your opponents move certainly helped. Try to learn some theories as well like how to counter the scholar's mate and having your own opening repertoire (For me I play spanish and french defense recently).

Just learn a simple opening like the london (levy has a video on it) and play it. you should alson do puzzles, probably on  lichess

Having achieved a 1000 rating the first thing I did was find a solid opening I like. The Réti is what I play with White and the Pirc with Black Eric Rosen has a YTvideo on the Pirc. The London is in fashion (I think it must have been London Fashion Week relatively recently). If you follow Levy I know he doesn't recommend Sicilian openings for beginners except the Dragon. This is because there's a ton of theory on them and they have been around a long time so a lot of players better than you will know them. The openings I play are less susceptible to gambits, also because most Chess coaches recommend learning e4 and d4 openings first I know a lot of players that are just beginning at Chess have no experience with hypermodern openings. Ben Finegold recommends sticking to an opening for at least a year of play so you build up match experience with it. Jeremy Silman has a useful book covering chess principles but you can pick up a lot of what he covers from Ben Finegold beginner classes on YT his delivery is quite humourous so it helps with what can be a dry subject. I would also avoid gambits to begin with. There's enough to learn without them, as a beginner you need to learn how not to give material away and you'll lose enough without gambiting anything that it doesn't make sense. There's also more risk in gambits so your opponent has to fall into traps which is great when it works but you have to know how to play back from an opponent knowing how to avoid the traps too. 

I hope that helps.

I envy you! You can manage to play everyday for a minimum of 3 games!!

I just started playing again and it was more than 3 decades ago when I was very active like you. Keep it up.

I'm still lost in the forum, together with the game application. I find it hard to navigate. I hope someone can post a link where I can read the guidelines.

Perhaps I'll post my question in a new thread so as not to deviate from the conversation.

My two cents on this:

I recently hit 1000 rating in rapid, after a 14 game winning streak (still haven’t lost) after learning this. When your opponent moves, you have to think, “Why is my opponent moving there?” You then have to realize what they are trying to do and make a move off of that. I strongly suggest playing minimum 10 min games. Another thing that helped me was puzzles on lichess. 

So Rapid made you think more? How is that a bad thing? If you want to improve this is good. Short-term who cares if your blitz/bullet suffers? In the long-run in a year or 2 from now thinking more would improve you and your blitz/bullet would be better because of it.

Thanks, but to get better at chess, you need to study, right? 

Yes, but I've been playing rapid for a while and while my rapid is 700, my blitz and bullet is 300 rating. So, I'm on the 300 ratings but I do play at a 600 - 800 level, right? So, I need to get my ratings up like rapid. 

'Think beyond the box'

Try and think why your position is badder than your opponent, do you think your pieces are stuck? Maybe think why you lost a game.

Oh and don't always think about material. Sure, if you win a piece, you might win. But what if you don't get that piece and don't know how to convert a winning position? You should focus on position more often, because its more easier to get a winning positon, then get a winning material advantage. 

A good position has:

• Lots of Space (Controlled squares)
• Attacking pieces
• A safe king
• Defending Pieces (Usually, thats the knight you bring out when you play Kings knight attack)

Mix match

I spend about two hours on chess and my study would be, 

• 50% On studying. Blogs, videos, my book, etc
• 20% on puzzles
• 30% on playing games

I like Levy Rozman's video on evaluating any position. Look for 

• Material Advantage
• King Saftey 
• Space 
• Piece Activity

Then I try to find the best move. When I'm in a losing position, I look back at my game to see what I did wrong. Mostly I lose in the opening. But is the 20/40/40 rule useful? ( 20% in the opening, 40 % in the middlegame, and 40% in the endgame.)

у меня уже 1000 рейтинга

If you lose in the opening, I suggest studying a decent opening. Try and put queen priority to the middle game or late opening. 

"The thing is that puzzles is a great way to improve, but you may not always find these positions that puzzles give you in positions."

Nevertheless, a lot of the journey from 1000 and upwards is pattern recognition -- and puzzles help you think in terms of combinations, and how to see tactics, etc.  Whereas the particular position may not ever arise, every game has potential for pins, skewers, forks, and so forth, and the question is how easily one can recognize and/or foresee them