Chess advice: How to improve

But my biggest weakness is I've neglected the opposite of my style.  If I do study aggressive chess (attacks) sure I'm not going to get a chance to use it much, but that's not the point is it?  When I do get into those situations it won't be a gap in my understanding or, more importantly, if there comes a time when I must either convert my advantage into an attack, or yield equality I'll be able to continue the fight.

Of course most middlegame plans of my openings don't involve this, but you can't control what plans your opponent chooses to make his position vulnerable to.

Using the rooks right

Like what was said early, once all the pieces are developed, what to do.

Also, not being vary varied in what type of games you play.  I still have fun though so I really don't care : ).

I'm with wafflemaster -- indeed, playing with a gap in your game hurts, and either scares you from entering something, otherwise attractive, involving the gap, or if you do enter it, you'll probably botch the position at some point. You can't avoid tactics: they're simply everywhere; and even if you do for one game that would be quite a rare game. Positional play is not nearly as important, though limited knowledge there will still hurt you when you're looking for combinations, not realizing that they're simply not there and won't be till your position gets much better. I wouldn't know, but perhaps wild attackers can really screw up promising positions just because they take action (most notably, by sacrificing) way too early.

You simply have to get confident in your weaknesses. I myself need to somehow get comfortable in unstable, unclear positions with swamps of hideous tactical variations.

i agree with most of it except the part about making it work instead of hobby.playing one brilliant game can inspire you for a few days.given you will play may be 1 game a month like that, but that will keep you going. e.g. i won't forget this game for a few months, may not play like this for a few months but it will keep me going http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=118222855

Oh I was inspired: My story is that I felt (and still do) that I knew a lot of sophisticated ideas that grandmasters might use; however, I was loosing badly to better players, because of the fundamentals like tactics and theoretical endgame positions -- not because of positional subtleties. I always felt tons of tactics and endgames would be too monotonous -- and to me it's not quite as fun -- but I realized that buckling down and learning these things were not exactly hard, because they aren't especially complex -- it was just a matter of getting these things done with. But in that time I have developed a much better appreciation of these two kingdoms of the game, and have enjoyed having each different, but closely interconnected, part work harmoniously with one another.

Basically I felt my basics didn't match my knowledge, and that if I could balance the two better I might play some brilliant games with this understanding, but be able to back them up with tactics and endgame technique. Right now that's what seems to be working for me: straightforward, but necessary, tactical and endgame work, the former involving mainly puzzles.

But keep in mind my post was all about improvement; one has to decide for themselves how much work they feel like putting in in order to efficiently improve; there is nothing wrong with playing for enjoyment and doing what you like, just that you won't improve as well.

However, I will say there's a good argument one could make about diligently trying to improve, for the sake of, in fact, augmenting one's own enjoyment of the game! In fact this is the main reason I want to, not for the unlikely (but latent) dream of making money off the game! To me it gets more and more satisfying to be able to win progressively less lopsided positions, find my way through gradually less obvious tactics, and making my individual moves ever more poisonous. To each his own, but if you have the time I think it's worth trying, even if it's tempting not to and be content with your current skill level.

I have played about two thousand live games, lost 66% of them, my rating has never been above 1425. So I gave up palying live chess and now I am playing online chess.

Playing online chess is much better for begeinners and average palyers, and I think I made some progress. The 'analyse game' board is very useful, as it reduces the numbers of my mistakes and blunders. Above all, I am not losing on time. I defeated a palyer rated +1850, and now my online rating is soaring up (+ 1600), and I am sure it will reach + 2000 in a few months.

Those who want to improve, at first play online chess as much as you can before playing live chess.

I dont know what I have been worried about. I just realized that the  "the king is stationary, the queen has all the power".  he he   "Frazier"

Nice post, I like it.

I've since switched my repertoire to 1.c4 where sometimes kingside attacks are called for.  I've been looking over some games (Korchnoi for example) and feel like I'm "getting it."  Like you said I thought it would be a lot of work but it's pretty painless (and enjoyable too).  Not that attacks are simple and easy now (lol) but this isn't a big gap anymore.

Personally for me, tactics are really starting to click. I actually played a game against Fritz where he quickly got equality but could only beat me by slowly grinding me down out of an endgame edge; I did not really blunder at all however.

Also, endgames, though still tough, aren't as tough as they used to be. It really is all about practice, something I've often tried to avoid for the parts I didn't like as much. Instead I would convince myself that it wasn't necessary, and though I did improve without it, I realize how much efficiency I was missing out on by not taking the prudent road for so long.

what do you say is a good way to improve tactics? the tactics trainer here?  Also what kind of schedule do you go by for studying chess in general?

Thank you GM gbidari I've got a problem in balanced positions like I have problems against Scandonavian defence especially when my opponents can play the Qd8 line and just develop trade pieces and sit solid( I feel this is the general plan). You can maybe tell already I prefer complications, or better yet I prefer dynamic potential play with pawns and hence that is why I have problems with Scando. I also have a problem that if I dont do like 30 puzzles everyday before I play at the end of the week I don't feel like I've prep myself properly but if I do that then I tend to play my best chess because I'm sharp tactically and then the last thing I do before I play and while I play is to make sure that I concentrate on my breathing so that I stay calm and don't get to excited or down on myself for that matter.

@ chessmaster the reason why your less aggressive or it seems that u have gotten worse is because of the new knowledge u have required it can sometimes prevent u from playing a move because you've learnt that for eg. dont leave pieces unprotected, knights don't belong on the rim, isolated pawns r bad (I personally enjoy playing with the IP) that's my take on whats happening to you, now for my advice. I think you should be doing lots and lots of tactical problem solving( John Nunn books are fantastic) this way you won't pop pieces so much and you can punish opponents for tactical errors do this while you slowly learn the sublties in chess for which you will need a coach for. I hope this helps mate. *_*

could you help me out with a experment. Could we set up a 5 game match between you and a RM (2100) engine or person. By going off how old masters would rate amatures I think you could beat a a player of this stretgh 3.5/5 or higher. Thats only if your not above 2000. I'll explain more if your intrested just send me a PM.

I would think getting a coach will be the best way. The old saying " Practice makes perfect", but its really " Perfect practice makes perfect" the problem with this is most of us do not have a good training. Buy books, might get a few tid-bits, then its on to another. So its really what works for one is not the magic bullet for another. Finding what works is where a coach might work best.

@chessmaster: I gave you a few PMs and it says you replied but there was nothing in the messages, not sure what that's about. Perhaps you could tell me here?

What? Considering you aren't titled, wouldn't he be more impressive the more you know now that you can better appreciate his superior skill? 

 to you maybe bu players who are strong don't see it as much jk.

 uhhh I hate my darn computer but i'm not on my computer now but I need you to answer these questions before we continue.

were you playing fritz at it's full stregth ? what version of fritz was this ? was it a theametic game were the opening is something you get your best results from even if not did it end upthis way ? have you ever benn above the 2000 rating mark OTB ? I need you to send me the game to get more info ?

  Oh, this is a fun and interesting thread. (Thanks, Gbidari)

Answering to Bigguy, the best way to identify your weakness is analyzing your own games. It's like the x-rays, or even better!, the sonar, because most of you are trying to get out of the womb of caissa (metaphoric, huh?)

Now, seriously, analyzing your games is the best way to spot weaknesses. but there is a problem, actually two, with this approach.

1. the first one is when the player lacks of knowledge to know exactly where(how, when and why) are the weaknesses, so, it has to recurr to somebody else, usually a better player. Unfortunately the usual way to do so it's going to a coach, who will charge you per hour and it won't solve your problems in so short time. But there is a way to skip this moneysuckers  (kidding, I use to be one), but I repeat, the best way to skip spending money with coaches is to gather one or more chess buddies with a strong desire to improve. This is a corrupt variation of the botvinnik system, where all the players analyze extensively a game from somebody of the group: many brains are better than one!
2. the second problem is a continuation of the first one, and actually is the same: Recursion. Means that an honest intropection (looking for a solution of a big problem by yourself) could end in the begining, because the subject's reasoning is walking in circles repeating the cycle time after time. And this happens due to lack of knowledge, or the very human trait of indecisiveness.

Before the advent of coaches (Max Euwe), the old masters had to trust themselves, or perish. And I think the only one who broke the barrier of this behavior after that was Fischer.

An idea, about the chess buddies group: They can make turns to do conferences of something you decide (some strategic theme, or opening, or whatever), and later all the members discuss.

there is and interesting thread here: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/question-for-titled-players-regarding-improvement

Have all of you a good day .

Well, in this case -- not really. See, I used to think the things he talked about made him godlike in skill; I wondered why he wasn't a grandmaster himself. Remember, chess is all relative! I used to think this way about experts, class As, etc!

Can he crush me in a game? For now, yes -- strong players are strong most chiefly because they are better practical players. At the end of the day, no matter what kind of trouble they are in, they can win the game, in some way or another. That means not hanging your rook after 50 well played moves; it means being able to bluff out your opponent in a worse position; it means fighting with every last ounce of energy. They don't hang simple tactics, and they force you to really beat them -- without them totally cracking like any class player will do under pressure. There have been many games where I was positionally doing well, and I would win, but only because my opponent got impatient and made a bad move, essentially cracking and losing a lot more quickly than they had to.  This kind of practical chess skill is something I have been developing (and it is the only reason I am where I am now), and it is the reason why people who understand chess much less than me can still beat me. I feel there are certain things I understand better than strong players, but I make more avoidable blunders than they do; I am much less consistent than them, and it usually makes me lose my games to stronger players in the end. Note that these blunders can be remarkably simple, even though the next game I could unleash a brilliant 5-6 move combination.

There is nothing so deep about being good at tactics and all the things about practical chess that I mentioned; it just takes lots and lots of practice. The certain things about chess I know very deeply do not win me a lot of games at my level but they do tell me that my potential greatly outweighs where I am right now, I just have to buckle down and study a lot of tactics and endgames. Again, nothing special at all, just lots of hard, disciplined work.