can you help me arrange my list by importance ?!?

Top 10 best ways I've seen myself improve

1. Going over your games with a stronger player(coach)

2.Going thru annotated master games

3.Read books

4.Play & do postmortem with your peers

5.Play against computers your rating and a little stronger

6.Play theametci games of your openings

7.Play Blindfold chess

8.Solve Puzzels

9.Play yourself

10.Play vote chess that involve the types of positions you dont play.

could someone help arrange form least to most imporatant or tell me if my list is fin already. I'm aware there are other ways but I really just wanna focus on these 10 thank you so no add on's.

10. Play Blind Fold- need to play right w/eyes open 1st

9.  Play vote chess w/positions you don't play or do well- On top of having to memorize something you don't normally use, then being faced with the challenge of appyling it, you can get bogged down by too many wrong votes wrecking your chances to see the best lines of play and or confused by arguments that seem to have merit, even if you check them against an engine.

8. Playing yourself- It is true that you can learn a lot like this. You can also miss a lot too. If you aren't seeing the errors in strategy and tactics with one color, you are likely to duplicate similar mistakes with the other. I do however think you will catch some mistakes and ask yourself how you should have played.

The rest of these I think are very subjective. For example, the skill of the peers you play against, the coach you use, how informative the books are, etc and your ability to understand, properly utilizing them are going to vary from individual to individual. Therefore to make that list applying concretely for everyone would be wrong.

I didnt say it was for everyone I said for myself and thanks for the feedback.

Why are you asking for others to re-rank the ten activities that helped YOU? I'm not a mind reader and know very little about you other than the fact that you are supposedly a 1706 USCF player with a sud-1600 standard rating, sub-1200 blitz rating, and are below 1700 on corr. chess. You say you don't play "full force" on here, but that seems suspect. In all seriousness if I knew what level you really were I would suggest sticking with 2-3 of these activities depending on your level but the list itself is already arranged in the format of what helped you the most thus far... so why not continue on the same path?

I just wanted to see if someone could arrange it better and when I say I dont play full force that just means I never use the openings I play in OTB I still try just as hard to win and if you took a look at my last 10 or so games alll except one (i won) are either unrated or draws against 2000ish players so my corr. rating never goes up since lately I've rarely been playing rated games and even below those games youd see that the other games in my history were played a year or more ago so of course my chess.com rating and OTB wouldnt match just to clarify your suspicions.

chessmaster102 wrote:

I didnt say it was for everyone I said for myself and thanks for the feedback.

I was saying I had no way to truly assess this for you and so would anyone based on their experience, because these things apply to everyone differently. Sorry if I didn't clarify what I was saying better.

This is why some people have coaches, so the coaches know what is best for their students, so in this case if you need help with openings the most that would be your #1.

Better than solving puzzels is to NOT SOLVE puzzles - that is how we

learn!

I understand that some people play below their ability in online chess as opposed to the internet, I fall into this group as well. However, I commented on the disparity because it was such a large margin, and let's be honest isn't it always a convenient excuse?. Given that ratings here are easier to achieve than in real OTB play that should counteract the level of commitment some display towards internet play.

I already told you the reason but you refuse to trust even after me and someone else explained it so whateves anyway do you actually have something to say towards the topic.

I usually give someone a pass,especially if their membership and rating verifiable. With people using opening book and several other things that might be over looked, along with the many distractions I tend to have while trying to play on Chess.com, I can see how it is possible to achieve higher ratings OTB than here.

You are going at it the wrong way; this is what you should do

1) Study opening theory

2) sharpen your tactics by studying games from brilliant players like Murphy, Capablanca, Alekine, Tal, Fischer, Shirov and Kasparov

3) Study end games

4) PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE,.........PRACTICE!!!

If I am getting my wins OTB at chess club, playing rated against casual club players, instead of playing tournaments, I personally think it could be easier to get a higher rating in the relaxing and quiet confines of a chess club hall, instead of here or playing tournaments.

If you haven't noticed in some ways it can be quite cut throat here. There are pages and pages of closed accounts of cheaters, plenty of poor sports who are causing trouble, trolling for their next victory and I can't think with both of my phones ringing, son bugging me to get him something and wife complaining because I am on here. I realize we all have different circumstances to deal with.

what about Marshall wasn't he a tactical wiz or even Burne for that matter and maybe chigorin or are these minors and I should only study players 2700 or world champion statis by the way isn'  Morozevich good players to add to that list.

I merely suggested some of the most innovative and combative players such as Capablanca that was able to create an attack even in the simplest positions or Tal the "magician" that was able to create attacks out thin air or of course the incomparable Fischer the ultimate attacker always challenging their opponents by playing the sharpest and more double edge lines; that doesn't mean that there other players worth studying their games.

At your rating definitely do TACTICS first.. trust me I played plenty of 1700s and they either go out of theory quickly or they dont capitilise on peoples opening mistakes.

Many people make tactical mistakes at your rating so you can win if your good at tactics.

tactics tactics tactics

thanks everyone

Okay, how are we supposed to judge a list based upon yourself?  It just don't make sense.