My guess (I'm new too) is that you have not played enough games to let the rating/ranking settle down. I clicked on your name, and it says 11 games. My feeling is that you're going to need to play 50 to have any confidence in the number.
The advice I have seen is to play lots and lots of games (95% of what you do) and to spend the rest of the time doing puzzles.
I have no idea about openings. I'm going to leave that until I have played at least a few hundred games.
Just do what's fun, I guess.
I've played 115 rapid games (mostly 30 minutes) and a handful of blitz games.
I'm sorry, mate. I guess that 11 I saw means something else; like I said: I'm new, I don't really understand the interface yet.
Solve puzzles, i find myself wondering why im playing the strongest 1100's Its cause im not making forcing moves, i give them space, time to develope their peices. Checks captures an attacking are forcing moves, look for them. I suck at tactics also, this is why i lose games too.
Playing rated games isba choice. Then again at lower levels, there's a lot of unsound trickery, unfortunately hyped by Internet content. If I had to start over I would not play rated games until I'm pretty sure I can comfortably beat 1500+ rapid players here. It's extremely frustrating and helps you not when you face stuff that's pure trickery. It doesn't help you learn.
^^ trickery can often be refuted, theres a reason why good players dont play stupid openings or moves. Would you want to be a 1500 and not know what do do when someone plays QH5 on move 2 ?
^^ trickery can often be refuted, theres a reason why good players dont play stupid openings or moves. Would you want to be a 1500 and not know what do do when someone plays QH5 on move 2 ?
Tell me... how many times you get 2.Qh5 in a double king pawn game as a 1500 in a serious game? Mind you, blitz doesn't count as a serious game. Trickery at lower rating bands here is mostly about unsound attacks which are only meant to make you focus on stuff that won't get your understanding of chess to become deeper. That's one of the reasons why I have decided to mostly ditch rated blitz and bullet around here, and keep playing casual games in those time controls as part of the clubs I'm a member of (for socialization purposes). Maybe the OP can consider rated games once he feels more comfortable.
One of the things that's incredibly frustrating and outright annoying in online chess is that you rarely get to play rated chess that can teach you anything valuable when you're U1500. I'm sorry to be harsh, but that's my take on it.
Well playing blitz or bullet isnt ideal for improving. Rated or unrated i dont think it matters, theres no prize for rating points. The only benifit i can think of for playing rating games is there a better chance the people playing will care more about the outcome an try an play their best. So not opening with the englund gambit lol. Honestly as a begginer i started with looking up all the trappy stuff people can play just so i know what to look for, then focused on playing solid chess.....its still a work in progress lol
I didn't start playing chess to get a rating, my aim is to improve, become a better player and enjoy the game.
But of course I do want to see my rating improve. But I've hit a bit of a plateau around the 850 - 880 mark. Someone on a YT chess channel I follow commented saying that 800 - 900 rated players seem to be much better lately. I'm not sure what's going on but I'm facing players in my rating range who are thrashing me and seem to be more aware of particular openings, defences and systems.
Should I hit the pause button on rated games and play unrated until my chess improves? Should I customise my opponent rating and play against people rated in 700 - 800 range rated or not?
Perhaps my rating climbed too quickly and I'm not really an 850 player. More of a 700 player in disguise.
I try not to practice too much on the bots as they just don't play like humans. I can beat the 1100 rated ones fairly easily, but not so much humans rated at 900.
Also should I now start to study a system for both White and Black. Perhaps the London system and something equally solid for Black?