Hmm? I don't think so? It's really true, that everyone has a limit, and that everyone has reservations about what they're willing to do.
My guess is that batgirl can improve, FWIW, I don't know her.
However it's also frustrating being told you can improve by people who don't know you. I used to get upset when I'd read online things like "anyone can be ____ rating" or "I'm 1700 and I suck at chess so bad, please help me improve" because I thought it would be a miracle if I were ever that good.
Can you write that phonetically?
It's a reference to a song by Buffalo Springfield.
Don't know how to interpret you, sorry if I'm being dumb here:
but it stands for "For What It's Worth"
Don't know how to interpret you, sorry if I'm being dumb here
You're not being dumb at all. I'm being silly... and learning some things.
All in my opinion here still.
But I think the hardest thing is how long term and slow paced it has to be.
Lets say you choose a year and only two books. I think this is a great start. Maybe one book is a game collection and one is strategy or endgames. Ideally you pick something you haven't done or an area you're especially unknoweldgable in.
Then for 6 months read one book, and for 6 months read the other. Yes, that means you'll probably read them multiple times. Over and over and over. But this is great, because you're much more likely to get most of what the author is trying to communicate.
Also, play every day.
Depending on your schedule and commitments in life maybe you can do more, or maybe you have to do less.
IMO if someone can do this with ~5 books over the course of a few years, they'll be pretty good. 10 books even better. Include one from each catagory: opening, endgame, strategy, tactics, annotated game collection.
Again, this is my opinion, and I'm not a trainer 
or is it Stephen Stills?
I think so. He also wrote the song, which concerns riots on Sunset Strip in 1966. Frank Zappa's "Trouble Every Day" presents another view of the same event.
Steps in evaluating a position:
You are right! I didn't even think of this. It looks silly for me to give advice.
Honestly, the way I got better at blitz was by playing bullet chess!
I was always running out of time in won positions, then I started playing bullet and fixed a lot of those problems.
Yeah, blitz is for kids. But that's a state of mind. Ulf Andersson beat up on Nakamura when Naka was ~20 and Andersson was in his 50s.
"Suite: Judy Blue Eyes" is one of my favorite non-Beatles songs from the 1960s!
Stephen Stills rocks!
I don't know how many games that I have played online. I do know that my personal database of online games contains nearly 70,000, that thousands of games are missing due to database corruptions that occurred while I was learning to use ChessBase, and that I have systematically excluded my bullet games. I've played bullet on ICC, Playchess, FICS, and chess.com with a handful of games elsewhere. On chess.com, I have quit bullet after 10,000 wins.
My best guess is that I passed 100,000 games a couple of years ago.
I do think that blitz places a much heavier premium on opening preparation than longer time control chess.
My blitz ratings really didn't improve until I started seriously studying my opening and developing some sort of consistent opening repertoire, which meant I could play the game into positions I was comfortable with, rather than figuring it all out on the board in a totally new position.
In those familiar positions, you burn much less clock and make a lot less blunders, and overall make better decisions.
I've been experimenting recently with the bizarro world "Modern Defense" as black, which most white players at my rating (1300-1500) don't specifically study, and thus are out of their pet opening as white in most cases. It's amazing how poor the quality of the play becomes - both him and myself start blundering like nuts and making horrible strategic decisions in the time crunch. Centipawn errors like 75+, sometimes 100+!
Us same two players in a super solid system (like the London) that I and him are familiar with, make zero blunders and barely even crack 10 centipawn of error even in the postgame analysis.
Aren't you being a little mean to that person.