Been Stuck At 700 For A Decade - Tips To Improve?

The truth is for a 700 rated, puzzles should not be a priority. Truth is, there are better ways to practice tactics than doing a few mover puzzles. Truth is until 5 years ago coaches instructing new players did NOT emphasize tactics.  This is a recent phenomenon on display here by lazy instructors giving students standard puzzles to study - as if were a homework assignment.

Serious tactic study will prove beneficial, but only for players who are at that stage of development. My point is there exist far better ways of investing study time for players <1000.  

2nd point. Students should seek lessons by progression. Good instructors can be found at any level. If you are 2200 - then a IM or GM would be excellent. If you're 700 a 1700 can make for a great coach - if experienced. I'll guarantee I'm more successful at teaching new players than a GM as Naka could ever be. For one GM's have little or no experience in teaching new players. Their chess knowledge doesn't translate to the beginner. They'll shout the usual tactics/puzzles and disappear.  Why? It's the same in every sport. The elite are Doers, seldom have the skills for teaching new players. Just look at sports teams and who are the head coaches? Usually ex-players of ordinary skill performance, but able to communicate and recognize the essential.

I suspect not a single player that's posted here "study tactics" has an ounce of hands on experience of teaching more than a few. They're just repeating the advertisements - believing "Naka improves his chess by playing puzzle rush". Perhaps he does - but so what. Notice he's not playing it anymore and his OTB rating has taken a dive?

What are those far better ways then please?

Also - I just started a new thread requesting a skilled guide / mentor / teacher - but would anyone here be willing to play me and lend me some knowledge? Perhaps on an ongoing basis?

I know my current account is new, but I've been here a while so please take it as granted that I've seen you post before, and in general I have only nice things to say.

And for example here, again, I agree when you say things like play slow time controls.

But this is also one of the seemingly rare times we disagree (on tactics), and since you make such a reasonable argument to the OP (use your judgement, the consensus is tactics) I feel like I should say something.

Yes the recommendation of tactics is ubiquitous (here and everywhere else), but if a person is not only 600, but "stuck" at 600, then there's something else going on, something more fundamental. I don't know the cause, but I'd say functionally it means he's not checking whether his moves are safe, and whether his opponent's moves can be punished, and I'm talking about 1 ply stuff here.

Now, the baisc idea of tactics (make 2 threats, and if the opponent can only remove 1 of them then you get to execute the other) is fine, but tactic puzzles seem to be skipping ahead.

And while I usually seem to disagree with @mustangmate, and I'm not sold on his advice of e.g. memorizing the board, when he's recommending something like the 8 queen's puzzle I think he's on the right track.

I'm no coach, and there's no real reason to take my word for it more than anyone else's, but that's my two cents.

By memorizing the board - it's meant to observe it's characteristics and understand the game takes place on finite ground.

Yes - a very basic concept. But are the consequences fully understood?

I... don't know what that means, observe it takes place on finite ground.

Maybe it means... they're getting used to the boundaries of the board or something? It forces them to look from corner to corner all the way across?

I honestly don't know.

Those who espouse to not study tactics are espousing nonsense.

By example - can pieces retreat off the board?

Simple right ?

Not so

There are many good things solving tactics does. Obviously tactical patterns, but it also improves your calculation (both visualization ability and analysis habits).

There's good reason that almost every coach will recommend tactics to almost any player.

But consider that some people solve 1000s of tactics without improving.

Why do you think that is?

That's my main question to you. OPs case is unordinary, and pat answers like "study tactics," IMO, misses the bigger picture.

By the way... it wouldn't surprise me at all if solving tactic puzzles helped the OP.

But I think it's better to start with something more fundamental, and that's board vision. Simply looking to see whether a move is safe. Becoming familiar with how the pieces move and capture in the context of doing your best to never lose even a single pawn. I think it's safer to start with that.

Here is another exercise -

One of my favorites as it gives example of the 5 ways for a draw to occur.

Solve the Saavedra position.

White: Kb6 and pawn c6

Black: Ka1 and Rd5

White to play and win.

Also, the Knights Tour is another great exercise for new players.

Yeah, I mean... this is why we usually don't agree. You're just on a different wavelength than me. I don't know what you're getting at

I'm not saying your wrong or trying to be mean, but sometimes I feel like I don't get it.

You're very correct llama44 about getting off to the right start.

Yeah, maybe the knight's tour is useful.

Not necessarily solving it (that may be too hard) but trying it out and getting used to it, stuff like that.

Same for 8 queens puzzle.

Find 64 pennies and practice the knights tour !

Why is my case unordinary?

Quite often I feel like I have chess developmental or learning disorder.

What are the implications ?

The idea is for the student to figure out some things for themselves. To have those moments of clarity. The simple fact that pieces are free to move about on the board, but can not retreat off it, has far reaching consequences and defines the game.

The point is not whether there are other aspects of chess that are important.  Of course there are.  However, the point of contention in this discussion is whether study of tactics is unimportant.  

I have a cousin who is very smart. More than one standardized intelligence test put him over the 99th percentile, he speaks many languages, plays many instruments, has a great memory... and just talking to him is enough to give you the impression you're talking to a pretty smart dude.

But he's god awful at chess. Just terrible.

Different people have different ways of thinking. What goes on in your head while learning or playing chess isn't guaranteed to be the same as when someone else is doing it. And I think that's partly why some people seem to improve preposterously fast, and some don't really improve at all. The natural way they think is either really good or bad for chess.

So to answer your question, I say it's unordinary because I think most people would move past 600 even though they don't do any studying (books, videos, tactics, etc) simply by playing a lot. That doesn't mean you can't improve, but I do think it means an advice giver should stop and think about what may or may not be useful for you.

I think tactics will be very useful to you! But maybe not at this exact moment. We all started out in chess by doing the things I talked about. Even great players, when they were beginners, were putting all their energy into trying to see if their move was safe to make... and they often failed. Oh darn, that bishop was hiding in the corner and now I lost my queen. But they kept playing and eventually their hard work paid off, and they stopped (99.99% of the time) playing moves that immediately lost a pawn or other piece (at least in long games).