What am I doing wrong?

LifelongChessNovice
AyushMChessMator wrote:
AzygousWolf wrote:

First piece of advice, play longer games. I know playing a 10 minute game may be "exciting" but it means you have less time to actually contemplate your position and spot the patterns that you learn by taking your time, you mention missing and messing up positions, this comes down to seeing every aspect of the board, which is harder to do if you are under time pressure, play 30 minute games, you will be surprised what you spot with that extra time up your sleeve.

Second, Focus less on studying lines, focus more on fundamentals, at this level you want to play sound and justifiable moves and let your opponent mess up. At the level you are playing at, if you are trying to pull off complex traps, you aren't focusing on the basics.

Finally, ignore people like MarkofGreatness.

Advice from a 900 is rather funny, as they usually have no idea what they're talking about. I'll give you my two cents:

-Tactics - these help your game and can honestly increase your rating quickly. Also, you need to be aware on hanging pieces on both sides of the boards. Not blundering single-handedly improves your play. 

- 10min Chess w/ mixing in SOME 30min Chess - Quicker chess helps you develop systems and get more familiar with your opening. Longer time controls will develop analysis skills

- Analyze your games for mistakes and use the reasoning of why the engine preferred a move, and how it alters the position

-Middle game planning - look at some grandmaster games (agadmator covers them well) and start plan development so you know what you are doing.

- Work on your endgames - this is clean-up work and this site has Drills that can help you

With all that being said, good luck!

Thank you for the feedback, I'm not really sure how one sees the rating of posters either. Is 900 a good rating?

I'm just curious, whats up with MarkofGreatness judging from the comment about him/her? As a new person here, I've no clue what to make of that comment.

Tactics - I do just fine non-timed and catch the hanging pieces. Timed, I can miss maybe 1/3 of them that could be a game changer. Similarly, pretty much no mistakes in non-timed games. Timed, I can make some missteps that are costly. Though technically I lack the sharp checkmate ability but am improving over time.

10 vs 30 minute chess - Now I'm confused on which to do if at all. Technically I've never timed my games before but 30 minutes sounds far more accurate than 10 minutes. But I tried the 10 minute ones just to see how I'd do implementing my [weak ability for] sharper checkmates without reducing the opponent to just the king and 2 other pieces.

Analysis - I analyze everything and even diverging lines just to what might have happened. Read above and a poster was right, I over-analyze things in general.

Middle game - That's actually pretty solid for me when I'm not in 10 minute games.

End game - That's pretty solid when I gradually wear them down then checkmate the isolated king...but I'm assuming any novice can do that. My current project is to improve my weak ability to do sharp checkmates when the board is still moderately populated.

KeSetoKaiba
LifelongChessNovice wrote:
AyushMChessMator wrote:
AzygousWolf wrote:

First piece of advice, play longer games. I know playing a 10 minute game may be "exciting" but it means you have less time to actually contemplate your position and spot the patterns that you learn by taking your time, you mention missing and messing up positions, this comes down to seeing every aspect of the board, which is harder to do if you are under time pressure, play 30 minute games, you will be surprised what you spot with that extra time up your sleeve.

Second, Focus less on studying lines, focus more on fundamentals, at this level you want to play sound and justifiable moves and let your opponent mess up. At the level you are playing at, if you are trying to pull off complex traps, you aren't focusing on the basics.

Finally, ignore people like MarkofGreatness.

Advice from a 900 is rather funny, as they usually have no idea what they're talking about. I'll give you my two cents:

-Tactics - these help your game and can honestly increase your rating quickly. Also, you need to be aware on hanging pieces on both sides of the boards. Not blundering single-handedly improves your play. 

- 10min Chess w/ mixing in SOME 30min Chess - Quicker chess helps you develop systems and get more familiar with your opening. Longer time controls will develop analysis skills

- Analyze your games for mistakes and use the reasoning of why the engine preferred a move, and how it alters the position

-Middle game planning - look at some grandmaster games (agadmator covers them well) and start plan development so you know what you are doing.

- Work on your endgames - this is clean-up work and this site has Drills that can help you

With all that being said, good luck!

Thank you for the feedback, I'm not really sure how one sees the rating of posters either. Is 900 a good rating?

I'm just curious, whats up with MarkofGreatness judging from the comment about him/her? As a new person here, I've no clue what to make of that comment...

A chess.com friend of mine asked a similar question; they asked me how I got into chess and what chess rating is considered "good" so I gave them a shorter version (still really long I admit) of how I began chess and responded to the rating portion by describing some "average" ratings for chess. Here is copy & pasted my response to them:

Okay, cool; here is another long message coming here grin.png

First let me give a shorter summary of my chess, so you get some idea where I'm coming from. I don't know if I mentioned how I got into chess to you yet, so here is the super short version... I knew the rules of chess since elementary school, but chess was just another board game to me and I almost never played. It wasn't until years later I decided I would try to get a little more serious into chess - literally just as a challenge to see how good I could become. The day I decided to take chess more seriously was the day I created my chess.com account!

That was just over 3 years ago (time really flies) and I've learned a lot since then. My "true rating" (if I had to guess) in elementary school was about 800 maybe? (I didn't even fathom that chess was a competitive thing with ratings and tournaments back then). When I created my chess.com account, my rating stabilized around 1100 or so (after all, I did play some chess as a kid, but again very little). Since then my determination has had me improving, but unlike your story, I didn't have any large breaks from my learning. It has been a little over 3 years since I "started" (so I completely find 4 or 5 years for you honest and relatable to me since you had some breaks in there). 

Obviously, chess isn't all only about playing and studying (although even this might get one fairly good too). One example of a big long-term step in my chess journey was joining a chess club; playing longer time control chess in person is much different than online. About a year and a half ago I joined a local chess club (yes, it took me over a year to find one for me, but this is another story!). Another step that undoubtedly impacted my chess was that I became a member of USCF a little over one year ago. Chess is about a lot of little steps: as are most big undertakings in life.

I'm leaving out a ton of details of course because I don't want to cram 3 years of experiences into one post, but I analyzed virtually every game I played over the 3 years. Most with a computer, many by hand with a physical chess board and lots of them I even wrote annotations with my game written game moves - yes, I am quite determined when I set my mind to something: not just chess but a lot of my life success I can attribute to putting in the effort for a lot of things.

Anyway, let me give some samples for what is "really good" (since you probably forgot to answer this part of my last post xD). 

Rating and chess ability is ALWAYS relational. When you are learning, a 1500 might seem undefeatable. To an expert, a grandmaster can probably win with little effort and many of them can even win blindfolded! What about "super-grandmasters" qualifying for the world championship match? They aren't "really good" compared to many chess engines (computer programs), so rating really is relational and it greatly depends on your rating pool. Who are you comparing your chess level to? Other online players? Chess club players? Fellow USCF or FIDE grandmasters? It really depends a lot!

First of all, what do you think the "average" rating is? This question always surprises people when they hear the answer. Counting all players who play chess in the world - doesn't matter if they are rated, unrated, know the rules, forgets en passant, grandmaster or beginner, the average chess rating is around 1000 rating. People are always under the false impression that it is much higher. What is more interesting to me is that 1000 rating is a very attainable goal; with some dedication, learning the rules and just following opening principles, 1000 is very reachable with time. So the "average" (or better than 50% of all players) is about 1000 rating. 

This seems like a good time to mention an obvious point if I haven't said it already, but the rating system is very math-based, so it is no wonder a nice round number like 1000 works out to be the average because the rating system can be put into a statistical bell-curve to see how you align to everyone in the world mathematically. 

Anyway, 1000 is roughly the average rating for all chess players everywhere. What about the more seasoned chess crowd; what is "average" or "really good" for them? chess.com is a tougher group of players than the average chess player because you are more likely to create a chess account if you are good at chess. I think the chess.com average is currently 1100 or 1150 or somewhere around that for 10 min games (the most popular time control on chess.com). What about USCF (United States Chess Federation) average? If I recall correctly, the average in this tough rating pool is around 1200 or so I think. Surprisingly, it always seems like every local chess club has at least one or two really strong chess players. Club level USCF average (rating of strong chess players in a local chess club in a fairly populated area) is probably around 1500 or 1600 with 1800s not being super uncommon to see and some clubs may even have one or two expert players (2000+). 

I know that last paragraph was a ton of averages for comparison, but hopefully this gives you some idea. 2000+ is generally considered USCF "expert" and 2100+ is probably around National Master (NM) level. Higher is likely Candidate Master (CM) or Fide Master (FM) with exceptions of course. 2300+ or so is typically International Master (IM) and 2400+ is usually solid grandmaster (GM) level. All of these official titles after "expert" also require norms to be completed and costs money to receive, but I'm speaking more about the level of play and not so much if the player completed x-norm or not. The class of grandmasters competing for qualification into the world championship match are informally called "super-grandmasters" and is typically 2700+ rating! This is the absolute elite. Now granted, these 2700+ players might be able to score 3000+ rating on chess.com, but this is because they accumulate points against streamers and other "strong" players who are much weaker than they are, instead of their regular 2700-ish competition. Chess computers (based on the program) are usually rated anywhere from this up to 3500-ish on the highest settings. Even Stockfish that chess.com uses is only around 3200 I think, but anyway that isn't important - we are not computers, nor do human players usually compete with them, they are tools for learning and training more than they are opponents. 

This is a ton of info, but I don't want to discourage you by listing all of the many "averages" because again, the "real average" is about 1000 or so if we include all chess players in the world. You can check your profile "stats" on chess.com to view your "percentile" for various time controls. This is how you statistically rank on chess.com global ranking (by rating only) against others - beginner through grandmaster. If you are lucky enough to reach 1300 chess.com, that is around the 75% mark I think (meaning that if you played against 100 random chess.com opponents range of rating from beginner to grandmaster, you will win about 75 of the 100 games). 1500 is around the 90% point I believe. 1500 chess.com rating is about higher rating than 90% of all chess.com players in the world!

Long story short, it depends on average and what you consider "really good" happy.png

AyushMChessMator
LifelongChessNovice wrote:
AyushMChessMator wrote:
AzygousWolf wrote:

First piece of advice, play longer games. I know playing a 10 minute game may be "exciting" but it means you have less time to actually contemplate your position and spot the patterns that you learn by taking your time, you mention missing and messing up positions, this comes down to seeing every aspect of the board, which is harder to do if you are under time pressure, play 30 minute games, you will be surprised what you spot with that extra time up your sleeve.

Second, Focus less on studying lines, focus more on fundamentals, at this level you want to play sound and justifiable moves and let your opponent mess up. At the level you are playing at, if you are trying to pull off complex traps, you aren't focusing on the basics.

Finally, ignore people like MarkofGreatness.

Advice from a 900 is rather funny, as they usually have no idea what they're talking about. I'll give you my two cents:

-Tactics - these help your game and can honestly increase your rating quickly. Also, you need to be aware on hanging pieces on both sides of the boards. Not blundering single-handedly improves your play. 

- 10min Chess w/ mixing in SOME 30min Chess - Quicker chess helps you develop systems and get more familiar with your opening. Longer time controls will develop analysis skills

- Analyze your games for mistakes and use the reasoning of why the engine preferred a move, and how it alters the position

-Middle game planning - look at some grandmaster games (agadmator covers them well) and start plan development so you know what you are doing.

- Work on your endgames - this is clean-up work and this site has Drills that can help you

With all that being said, good luck!

Thank you for the feedback, I'm not really sure how one sees the rating of posters either. Is 900 a good rating?

I'm just curious, whats up with MarkofGreatness judging from the comment about him/her? As a new person here, I've no clue what to make of that comment.

Tactics - I do just fine non-timed and catch the hanging pieces. Timed, I can miss maybe 1/3 of them that could be a game changer. Similarly, pretty much no mistakes in non-timed games. Timed, I can make some missteps that are costly. Though technically I lack the sharp checkmate ability but am improving over time.

10 vs 30 minute chess - Now I'm confused on which to do if at all. Technically I've never timed my games before but 30 minutes sounds far more accurate than 10 minutes. But I tried the 10 minute ones just to see how I'd do implementing my [weak ability for] sharper checkmates without reducing the opponent to just the king and 2 other pieces.

Analysis - I analyze everything and even diverging lines just to what might have happened. Read above and a poster was right, I over-analyze things in general.

Middle game - That's actually pretty solid for me when I'm not in 10 minute games.

End game - That's pretty solid when I gradually wear them down then checkmate the isolated king...but I'm assuming any novice can do that. My current project is to improve my weak ability to do sharp checkmates when the board is still moderately populated.

You have yet to play a 30 minute game on this site and yet you are here talking about 30 min being more "accurate". With a 404 Blitz rating from 10 min games, chances are that you're not much better at 30 min games.

To be frank(I'm trying to help you), nothing you have is "solid". You'll see it in your 30 min games; and by tactics, I don't necessarily mean hanging pieces; I mean ways to get hanging pieces, such as forks, pins, skewers as well as the mating sequences.

And no way is your endgame technique "solid"; it takes a lot of learning and principle; I highly doubt that you can even mate with two bishops and king vs king.  You might have difficulty with rook and king versus king.

By the way, to answer your question about seeing rating of the posters, you just have to click their user as it shows on the forum and their info pops up, including their rating.

Lastly, I bet that you miss 75% of Tactics and you don't even know it. Chess is crazy.

AyushMChessMator

In my eyes 900 is achieved when you know how to move the pieces and have some clue of how to move, developing, etc. They don;t have any "depth" of the game.

Anything above 1500 is decent for me and 1000+ is intermediate. In my opinion, "good" players are 2400+. 

LifelongChessNovice
AyushMChessMator wrote:
LifelongChessNovice wrote:
AyushMChessMator wrote:
AzygousWolf wrote:

First piece of advice, play longer games. I know playing a 10 minute game may be "exciting" but it means you have less time to actually contemplate your position and spot the patterns that you learn by taking your time, you mention missing and messing up positions, this comes down to seeing every aspect of the board, which is harder to do if you are under time pressure, play 30 minute games, you will be surprised what you spot with that extra time up your sleeve.

Second, Focus less on studying lines, focus more on fundamentals, at this level you want to play sound and justifiable moves and let your opponent mess up. At the level you are playing at, if you are trying to pull off complex traps, you aren't focusing on the basics.

Finally, ignore people like MarkofGreatness.

Advice from a 900 is rather funny, as they usually have no idea what they're talking about. I'll give you my two cents:

-Tactics - these help your game and can honestly increase your rating quickly. Also, you need to be aware on hanging pieces on both sides of the boards. Not blundering single-handedly improves your play. 

- 10min Chess w/ mixing in SOME 30min Chess - Quicker chess helps you develop systems and get more familiar with your opening. Longer time controls will develop analysis skills

- Analyze your games for mistakes and use the reasoning of why the engine preferred a move, and how it alters the position

-Middle game planning - look at some grandmaster games (agadmator covers them well) and start plan development so you know what you are doing.

- Work on your endgames - this is clean-up work and this site has Drills that can help you

With all that being said, good luck!

Thank you for the feedback, I'm not really sure how one sees the rating of posters either. Is 900 a good rating?

I'm just curious, whats up with MarkofGreatness judging from the comment about him/her? As a new person here, I've no clue what to make of that comment.

Tactics - I do just fine non-timed and catch the hanging pieces. Timed, I can miss maybe 1/3 of them that could be a game changer. Similarly, pretty much no mistakes in non-timed games. Timed, I can make some missteps that are costly. Though technically I lack the sharp checkmate ability but am improving over time.

10 vs 30 minute chess - Now I'm confused on which to do if at all. Technically I've never timed my games before but 30 minutes sounds far more accurate than 10 minutes. But I tried the 10 minute ones just to see how I'd do implementing my [weak ability for] sharper checkmates without reducing the opponent to just the king and 2 other pieces.

Analysis - I analyze everything and even diverging lines just to what might have happened. Read above and a poster was right, I over-analyze things in general.

Middle game - That's actually pretty solid for me when I'm not in 10 minute games.

End game - That's pretty solid when I gradually wear them down then checkmate the isolated king...but I'm assuming any novice can do that. My current project is to improve my weak ability to do sharp checkmates when the board is still moderately populated.

You have yet to play a 30 minute game on this site and yet you are here talking about 30 min being more "accurate". With a 404 Blitz rating from 10 min games, chances are that you're not much better at 30 min games.

To be frank(I'm trying to help you), nothing you have is "solid". You'll see it in your 30 min games; and by tactics, I don't necessarily mean hanging pieces; I mean ways to get hanging pieces, such as forks, pins, skewers as well as the mating sequences.

And no way is your endgame technique "solid"; it takes a lot of learning and principle; I highly doubt that you can even mate with two bishops and king vs king.  You might have difficulty with rook and king versus king.

By the way, to answer your question about seeing rating of the posters, you just have to click their user as it shows on the forum and their info pops up, including their rating.

Lastly, I bet that you miss 75% of Tactics and you don't even know it. Chess is crazy.

Maybe I'm not as good as I think I am, maybe I am. All I know is the issues from the 10 minute games do not show up near half as often when not timed. Its natural to be skeptical of the newcomer and rightfully so but who knows what the truth is. Honestly 2 bishops + king is my favorite one to mate with but you don't know me well, no one really does...maybe not even myself. I guess the secret is out, I prefer bishop pair over knight pair. But yes thank you letting me know how to see peoples' ratings on the forum.

LifelongChessNovice
AyushMChessMator wrote:

In my eyes 900 is achieved when you know how to move the pieces and have some clue of how to move, developing, etc. They don;t have any "depth" of the game.

Anything above 1500 is decent for me and 1000+ is intermediate. In my opinion, "good" players are 2400+. 

I guess its a more nuanced thing to say one rating is good enough to give advice on certain advice. Maybe the best advice changes from level to level. I'm also assuming the lighthearted comment on MarkOfGreatness was a joke then.

ouchoopscrap

Play THOUSANDS of games and follow the sage wisdom of the other posters.  15/10 games give you much longer to visualize the board and avoid blunders.  Studying lines is great if you are a 2000 level player but at our level you just have to be careful and follow the flow of the game,  Tactics also help a person to begin to see more complex and useful methods for using your pieces.  Most importantly have fun and don't get too hung up on your rating.  It will improve if you slow down.  Yeah and ignore the jerks! 

AzygousWolf
AyushMChessMator wrote:
AzygousWolf wrote:

First piece of advice, play longer games. I know playing a 10 minute game may be "exciting" but it means you have less time to actually contemplate your position and spot the patterns that you learn by taking your time, you mention missing and messing up positions, this comes down to seeing every aspect of the board, which is harder to do if you are under time pressure, play 30 minute games, you will be surprised what you spot with that extra time up your sleeve.

Second, Focus less on studying lines, focus more on fundamentals, at this level you want to play sound and justifiable moves and let your opponent mess up. At the level you are playing at, if you are trying to pull off complex traps, you aren't focusing on the basics.

Finally, ignore people like MarkofGreatness.

Advice from a 900 is rather funny, as they usually have no idea what they're talking about. I'll give you my two cents:

-Tactics - these help your game and can honestly increase your rating quickly. Also, you need to be aware on hanging pieces on both sides of the boards. Not blundering single-handedly improves your play. 

- 10min Chess w/ mixing in SOME 30min Chess - Quicker chess helps you develop systems and get more familiar with your opening. Longer time controls will develop analysis skills

- Analyze your games for mistakes and use the reasoning of why the engine preferred a move, and how it alters the position

-Middle game planning - look at some grandmaster games (agadmator covers them well) and start plan development so you know what you are doing.

- Work on your endgames - this is clean-up work and this site has Drills that can help you

With all that being said, good luck!

So is the advise I've given wrong?

Ripley_Osbourne

Hi people, hi OP, there is a part in chess competition, that is not chess at all. I think, members who post in here to seek advices for repeated blunders, chronicle blindness and such, should be left alone with chess training and chess books advices.

 

Out of my own experience, here some of the things that might influence what I'd call here, the "attention span quality".

 

_ Sleep. Quality sleep helps tons. Bad sleep, broken sleep, shortened sleep, makes fertile ground for blunders.

 

_ Be hydrated.

 

_ Avoid having too much stuff to digest in your stomach: digestion drains oxygen your brain needs.

 

_ Personal issues: You just had a fight with a family member? Something went side way at work/school? Something is weighting on your heart? Maybe it's not the best time to start a chess game.

 

_ Identifying our flaws in thinking routines: we all do have got some sort of thinking routines, that are maybe not fit for a chess game. Try meditate on how you deal with things, mentally wise, and see if you can adjust your thinking process for chess games. I know it's vague, but it's hard (for me) to be more precise than that.

 

_ Mind the time: of course, if you're playing a daily game, it goes without saying, that playing moves like it was a blitz, is a terrible idea: correct that if it's the case. Try force yourself into contemplating the board for a minute ot two AT LEAST before playing ANY move. Keep an eye on your watch or such if you need. I promise that'll help much.

 

Voilà, good luck.

 

P.S. don't play a move while you're talking to someone or someone is talking to you. If phone, chat or real life.

LifelongChessNovice
Ripley_Osbourne wrote:

Hi people, hi OP, there is a part in chess competition, that is not chess at all. I think, members who post in here to seek advices for repeated blunders, chronicle blindness and such, should be left alone with chess training and chess books advices.

 

Out of my own experience, here some of the things that might influence what I'd call here, the "attention span quality".

 

_ Sleep. Quality sleep helps tons. Bad sleep, broken sleep, shortened sleep, makes fertile ground for blunders.

 

_ Be hydrated.

 

_ Avoid having too much stuff to digest in your stomach: digestion drains oxygen your brain needs.

 

_ Personal issues: You just had a fight with a family member? Something went side way at work/school? Something is weighting on your heart? Maybe it's not the best time to start a chess game.

 

_ Identifying our flaws in thinking routines: we all do have got some sort of thinking routines, that are maybe not fit for a chess game. Try meditate on how you deal with things, mentally wise, and see if you can adjust your thinking process for chess games. I know it's vague, but it's hard (for me) to be more precise than that.

 

_ Mind the time: of course, if you're playing a daily game, it goes without saying, that playing moves like it was a blitz, is a terrible idea: correct that if it's the case. Try force yourself into contemplating the board for a minute ot two AT LEAST before playing ANY move. Keep an eye on your watch or such if you need. I promise that'll help much.

 

Voilà, good luck.

 

P.S. don't play a move while you're talking to someone or someone is talking to you. If phone, chat or real life.

I have had some issues with that in the past and recurring with mental state and at times hydration. Basically brain fog from medical issues and at times lack of hydration. I'm guilty of trying to play some of those 10 minute chess games while talking to other people too (not that I had a choice to put it off or not, they wanted to talk then). When I mind the time and non-timed, my errors are minimal. Also I'm a bit too cautious so when I got to this website I was using those 10 minute games to work on weaknesses "timed games" and "sharper checkmates". Though maybe there were no sharper checkmates to be had at the time?

Ripley_Osbourne

Sure, an obsession for "sharper checkmates", like an obsession for anything else, can only damage your open mindness to solutions on the board. I glad I could help you identifying some sources of your chess problems. Good luck.

Kraig
Respectfully, how can you say your endgames are solid when the last draw you had, was a completely won end game that you blundered away into a draw?

An “end game” doesn’t exclusively apply to check mating a lone king with your king and two pieces, the end game skills include how to convert an ending position into a win!
Opposition, outflanking, burning tempi, triangulation are all resources you need to know, as well as more theoretical end games. Rook endgames, etc. The “end game” is huge component that most beginners and intermediates have only rudimentary knowledge of. I myself am currently reviewing the 100 end games everyone must know book, and it’s packed with ideas I never knew! It’s certainly more than just how to checkmate with a rook or bishop pair.

You should study tactics and endgames. Those two will give you the most bang for buck return on your improvement, in that order. Openings should be last.
LifelongChessNovice
Ripley_Osbourne wrote:

Sure, an obsession for "sharper checkmates", like an obsession for anything else, can only damage your open mindness to solutions on the board. I glad I could help you identifying some sources of your chess problems. Good luck.

I'll strike sharper checkmates off my list then. If they happen they happen. It was just a weakness I knew existed and well maybe its not a viable strategy for me ever. Nothing wrong with just grinding them down I guess.

LifelongChessNovice
Kraig wrote:
Respectfully, how can you say your endgames are solid when the last draw you had, was a completely won end game that you blundered away into a draw?

An “end game” doesn’t exclusively apply to check mating a lone king with your king and two pieces, the end game skills include how to convert an ending position into a win!
Opposition, outflanking, burning tempi, triangulation are all resources you need to know, as well as more theoretical end games. Rook endgames, etc. The “end game” is huge component that most beginners and intermediates have only rudimentary knowledge of. I myself am currently reviewing the 100 end games everyone must know book, and it’s packed with ideas I never knew! It’s certainly more than just how to checkmate with a rook or bishop pair.

You should study tactics and endgames. Those two will give you the most bang for buck return on your improvement, in that order. Openings should be last.

I only blundered it because I was going for improving my weakness in live play (not practice) rather than what should have been done namely grinding them down. One only looks as good as their weakest link shown so I guess I'll have to come back to chess.com for live games once I'm even better at grinding down in practice games. For clarification, I'm only looking at maybe five opening systems not the whole body and overwhelming myself.