Chess improvement

How can I improve from the level I'm on? Roughly a 1450 OTB player to the next level?

I can't devote a lot of time to chess. Roughly 1-2 hrs a day.

Read ECO cover to cover...

Read "My system" and play long games tournaments. With 1 or 2 hrs/day you will need several month to read it and understand it well so don't bother if you don't see the results after 2 weeks.

This is almost the only way to progress.  

I have my system but I never read it. Always got bored. But I'll take your advice and see.

Positional play is typically the wall at that level.  Learn how to target weak squares and pawns better, learn bishop vs. knight and their strengths and weaknesses, bishop without a counterpart, basic endgames (you mastered triangulation and opposition in class D so now work on things like widening the beach head), that bishops defend weak squares, trading off their most dangerous attacking piece (a defensive technique), and yes I'll second My System.

Study positional chess and endgames (and still do basic tactical drill warm ups for a few minutes). 

Then you always lose, and you don't know how because you don't know anything about chess. Your opponent positionally outplay you, and you don't understand why you lose because you don't understand positional chess. Studying books is essential in chess development.

Winning Chess by Chernev

http://www.uscfsales.com/winning-chess-new-edition.html

Great book to get stronger at Tactics

1000 Best Short Games of Chess

http://www.uscfsales.com/1000-best-short-games-of-chess.html

Go over the minature every day with a chess clock and board time yourself the games are short so you go over a number of them fairly quickly and internalize the patterns.

1000 Winning Chess Combinations

http://www.amazon.com/1001-Winning-Chess-Sacrifices-Combinations/dp/0879801115/ref=pd_sim_b_3

Solve problems through your minds eye without moving the pieces on a set or a computer at least 35 minutes a day.

Ask for advice after the game, and analyze a bit by yourself.

Orange's advice is very sound.

agreed

You are suggesting the OP that he can get better at chess without actually STUDYING chess. With practice you can reach maybe 1600, but not more than that. You suggest just to play to improve. Then he plays a rook ending, which is theorically won, but he drew it, because he haven't studied endgames.

Learn chess tactics. Without it you will not improve. Solve puzzle. That is one  how you can improve your calculations. 

http://gmigorsmirnov.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-secrets-of-strong-players.html

I played 1600s who play chess for like 2-3 years and are stuck at that rating. They have played lots of games, but their level is still 1600, so studying is required. I know a kid who has played chess for 4 years, he couldn't win a won K+P vs K, and he is around 1400

Tell those 1600s to study planning and calculate more thoroughly.  Strategy and positional knowledge is oftentimes confused.  They aren't the same but are related, tactics are also related to strategy too such as sacrificing a pawn to improve your king position in an endgame, sacrifice a pawn to take squares away from an opponent's knight (as their own pawn would occupy it), opening lines for bishops and/or rooks, etc. 

Who knows if they have coaches teaching them? Plus every single titled player studied a lot to reach that level, I don't understand why "normal" people shouldn't study.

Both are good, but saying that just by playing you can get better, it's a bit arrogant, since every titled player studied a lot before reaching that level. Fischer said that he studied lots of chess book and games. Was he stupid?

Xeelfiar wrote:

Both are good, but saying that just by playing you can get better, it's a bit arrogant, since every titled player studied a lot before reaching that level. Fischer said that he studied lots of chess book and games. Was he stupid?

Nobody says you shouldn't study. It's just that playing and analyzing is (much) more important.

I read the same story... from Arne Moll:

" I played actively first, then too passive, then I lost a pawn, and then it was all over. After I resigned, nobody stood by the board to analyse with us. My opponent patiently explained to me that I could have held a draw with the so-called Philidor position. I had no idea what he was talking about. In all those years in the Max Euwe Center studying Philidor's opening ideas, I'd never bothered to look at Philidor's famous rook endings. I had studied the wrong Philidor."

http://www.chessvibes.com/columns/the-wrong-philidor

I agree but for some reason, I very seldom analyze my losses. I guess I find it boring especially versus playing or studying. I know I am missing an opportunity to improve. Two questions: first, what ratio of your time is spent analyzing, studying and playing; second, from anyone that has found analyzing their games tedious or boring, how have you got around that.

Thanks for any feedback.

I don´t think that 2 hours for chess daily is not enough. Is not an small amount of time. But you have to be focused during that 2 hours. (And I just read an article by a master recommending 2 hours for people starting in chess that want to start playing seriously to avoid saturation).