Chess progress and understanding.

Since I started playing chess earlier this year (well technically last year, but 365 days have not yet elapsed) my rating on this site (live chess) has doubled from 800+ - 1600+.

But I don't feel like I am good at chess (and I know that comparing myself to all of the great chess player in the world, I'm not). However even comparing myself to...myself a few hundred rating points ago, I don't feel like I have gained any new chess understanding or insight.

The only time that I felt like I was really beginning to understand this chess game was when I checked out "Chess for Dummies" from my local library. My rating at the time was a solid 950. I read about the main principles of chess, develop your pieces, control the center, etc. As well as some basic tactics.

Suddenly I was playing at an 1100 level and I felt great, all of the mysteries chess had to offer had been unlocked! Now 500 rating points later I feel as though I don't understand anything. I had always assumed that players above 1400 never had to worry about hanging pawns or pieces, or making simple mistakes.

Part of this comes from the fact that I always try to play players close to my own rating, so that every game is a struggle. I know that I could trounce most 1100-1400's, but even knowing this it feels as though my game is actively becoming worse with every 10 rating points I acquire.

I know I'm not the best, or even a "good" chess player, but I had always assumed that upon hitting the 1600 landmark some sort of mystical chess understanding would be mine.

To any players higher or lower than myself, do you ever feel like this? And if you don't then at what point do you believe that you really gained an understanding of chess and became more than a beginner?

A great deal of chess improvement is not related to knowledge so much as to skill building. If one asks a 10-handicapper in golf how much new golf knowledge he absorbed in going from 25-handicap to his current playing level, he'd probably respond, "Not all that much, but I sure did practice and play a lot to get here." While chess is surely (at least to me) more of a head game than a sport, building skill is a very, very large component of improvement. This may be at the heart of your query. Or not.

I used to understand so much, but my tactics were horrible. I used to look at tactics as 'cheapos', tricks not worthy of my attention. Now I understand a little bit more and practise my tactics regularly :P

Well I started about 250 days ago (I had an email from chess.com telling me :P) and I might have put in an average of 1.5 hours every day.

Not quite up to 5000 D:

Your Fide is 1848, I assume that mine is somewhere in the high 1500's or low 1600's.

How do you feel about your chess ability?

That's what I mean. I know that I have improved, but I would be hard pressed to put the full nature of my improvement into words.

For me, 1600 USCF was the beginning of solid-average-joe chess among serious hobbyists. You have a nice bag of knowledge stored up that should serve as a good foundation for further development.

Maybe you are becoming aware of how overwhelming the challenge of each game is, while before you were seeing fewer lines and alternatives and had a simplified view of what was going on.

BTW, my observation at this later stage of my chess career is that while it is easy enough to gain new and practical knowledge that ought to be improving my results, the better results come much slower than I had expected, and in smaller bites. I think that my results are being limited by my calculational ability and typical bad habits/errors. It wouldn't surprise me if this applies to most of us c. 1400-1900+.

If I ever want to  get anywhere above 1800 I'll need a psychologist and/or a strong teacher.

I think this is a really good point.

I think my FIDE rating doesn't say alot because it is based on a total of 14 games. My national ELO is somewhere in the 2000.
Currently I am happy with my chess ability, but I also feel that I've sort of hit a plateau. Ofcourse I want to become better, but that means I will have to put in alot of study again, and I'm not so interested in that at the moment. The problem is that the higher you get on the ladder, the more you have to study to improve.

I concur..
You have chess players who miss more than they see on the chess board and you have chess players who see more than they miss on the chess board. I think you passed the magical border between those groups.

I guess that to know is not enough you also need to use it, I guess that even if you know the same stuff at 1600 than at 1000 you are using it much more better now. To do an analogy with sports it's not enough to know when to shoot at the goal, you also need to recognize when these ments happen live. 

You probably recognize pattern much better now.

As a beginner/novice the previous posts are very interesting. I'm beginning to feel some of the feelings mentioned. I guess that's what chess is all about. Thanks.

lol

I was going to quote that very same line! I used to open a game with a standard opening and start looking for options. Now pushing my first pawn is getting difficult because I can't decide which option or strategy I want to pursue. I don't know where that magical border is but goldendog's 1600 sounds about right. I don't know what my real rating is but I feel like I'll need therapy soon.

I have been playing chess for 2 months, and my correspondence rating here is around 1400. If my rating doubled in the next year I would be delighted!

A common misconception is - we will automatically progress in the game (aka our points will increase). High-level players also give these misguiding advice - study a lot, play a lot. Unfortunately that is not the case.

When a player advances from one level to another - experience and knowledge is definitely a part of it, but it is change in the process how we think.

Let us take an example. A 1st level beginner looks for possible moves, and selects the one which looks best. A 2nd level player thinks of one's good moves as well as opponent's responses! A 3rd level player thinks of one's good moves, opponent's good responses, and how to counteract them.

An intermediate player has developed the skills to spot pins, forks, skewers, mates, etc. A still advanced player thinks how those pins, skewers, forks can be created even if they do not exist! That is tactics.

Then players develop their skills at strategy. Intermediate players can make plans of attacks and defenses, and can think what their opponents are planning. A still advanced player can just by seeing opponent's moves, fathom what can be the possible strategies behind them.

A beginner level player thinks only 1-2 moves ahead. An advanced level player can visualise (there is analysis board for those who cannot) several moves ahead. A beginner level player sometimes make speculative sacrifices - on the haunch that he/she will win. An advanced player makes precision calculations before sacrifices - there is no speculative sacrifice in master level games.

So basically just playing and studying books will not automatically make us advance. We have to train ourselves to refine our thinking process. We have to rise over paradoxical attitudes. e.g.: One player in vote chess commented, "how come you can see those moves, I can't?" That same player was reluctant to solve a puzzle saying, "Does puzzle-solving really help our game?" He would rather play a dozen simultaneous games, will study lots of books, but he would not change his thinking pattern - which is really needed. Studying master games does not help unless they are annonated. Basic knowledge of endings, tactics, strategy, openings, are all good and essential - but we have to increase and refine our level of thinking - for me solving puzzles from easy to difficult has immensely helped to advance. 

The more I learn the less I know.  I know I am a better player than a few years back or even just about 6 months back.  But, I still feel like there are large gaps in my game.  I do feel like those gaps get smaller and smaller though

There are speculative sacrifices in master games.

 Tal anyone?

 Then our study of the masters game was faulty! Each masters game with sacrifice I have found precision calculations - there have been positional sacrifices - but those are not speculative - they knew exactly what they were doing!

My games show that being self taught after the basics has limitations. Genuine high quality guidance has become a necessity if I am to avoid spending too much time in the learning process. So correct thinking is priority. Getting there is not so easy.