FACT: You can't improve at chess

2 and a half years ago I was stuck in mid 1500s blitz. Right now I am at low 1800s - high 1700s blitz on this website. That's a 250 points improvement in the last 2 and a half years. According to OP I should have been forever stuck on 1500 blitz rating and yet as of the moment of writing this comment I am rated 1826 blitz.

Carlsen's improvement is a slow and steady improvement over a long period of time.

It don't exist. If I study chess and sharpen my mind more I would be better. Yet most people who followed the trend to chess will never increase. I'm a lazy person who started playing chess because I am naturally an overconfident person. I don't like living realistically because I want to have things my way. Study to comprehend and understand that is way harder than just going at it any kind of way. I hate reality. Lol good luck

The safest thinking process about this critical thinking is to think that "there should be a mistake in your training process, one should know what to study and how." Knowing how to know this fact is what should a chess player should solve in order to avoid stagnation. Nevertheless, let us just play, challenge me and let's have some fun chessers

If your not improving you need to change something up and hat may cause you to lose more games sort term but continue trying till you figure eor something that works

Also if you want a graph of consistently improving overtime I'm a good example (humans themselves aren't super consistent though sometimes )

Not everyone improves some people get stuck but not everyone gets unstuck that's the hard part figure out how to get unstuck in progress

People aren't consistent they improve in a short amount of time or a long time usually I get suck for a while at a certain elo (like 2000 for months ) then jump up 200+ points in a few weeks so to answer your question yes humans improve are they consistent about it no

Talking about the op right ? Btw nice improvement

9 years an rapid in my book

^ This.

Well said.

you can easily... well not easily but the main thing chess is about is pattern recognition. if you had unlimited memory in your brain and you memorised every pattern and how to handle it would you say you improved? obviously that's unrealistic but it is possible to learn more patterns.

I don't study lmao it isn't just about not studying it's how you think how you view /what you learn from your positions surr studying can be important and needed for some people but one of the most important things is being able to realize a few things things your doing erong and fix it at least every few games

Ex: oh I have really bad time management I probably should play faster and think on critical moments,or oh I just hung a one move tactic because I didn't focus (everyone does )

Actually there are a good chunk of people who "study " and do it wrong and therefore don't improve at all sometimes studying is really difficult for some people and doesn't fit their style of learning others is is perfect for them

Like I know w guy (who slowly ) improving but they are sorts stuck at 1000 elo even tho they have a coach if studying is helpful or not really really depends on the person (it can for me even tho I don't because I memorize things easily anyway so grinding is typically better for me )

True true though elat 2000+ it isn't just pattern recognition (it can work ) you have to change up what your doing compared to everyone else cause most of the 2000+ are st the point where they have really good pattern recognition and /or study a good chunk (tbh working on my mid and endgames is so much better than that ) tho sometimes studying can be useful I guess technically I did study some but the most I did was watch YouTube 🫤 if your stuck and your studying it isn't working harder your probably doing something wrong in the games you are playing working hard only gets you so far you have to work smart + hard

Well, I don't think we're actually in disagreement.

I consider analyzing your games and/or identifying your mistakes to be a form of studying, as well. We can call it "self-study", for example. Reflecting on your previous moves and trying to find improvements.

But many players won't even do that. They'll play a game and then, win or lose, they'll play another game - and they won't give a second thought to the game they previously played ... which often ensures that they'll keep making similar mistakes into the future, because they aren't taking the time to learn from them and/or aren't bothering to try alternate things.

I guess that's true lol just depends what you mean by studying

I just don't like saying the term cause emost people that by opening up a book instead of analyzing your own games books can be fun to read tho

The funny thing is some people say you should analyze only your loses but it should be losses plus wins it really only takes like two to three minutes of analyzing (I don't even do that usually I analyze every few games cause half the time I goof off anyway ) I kinda try to figure out what I'm doing wrong mid game but that's hard to do for most people

Like just look at the obvious stuff you do wrong and try to figure out how and why it went wrong

Like was it because of a blunder ,did you resign to early(most people ) ,time management ,tilt ,playing too fast and just hanging pieces in the opening(also poor time management knowing when to think also means knowing when to play slow and when to play fast ),is it pattern recognition

Mostly just not listening to dummy stockfish and actually realizing you messed up on your own at least at first

(Not trying to coach you btw )

Yes, I think the term "study" might scare people off, or bore them. But I believe there are many different ways to study chess.

As long as you're learning or discovering new ideas that you can implement into your play, I'd say you're studying chess ...

I guess "not traditional " studying lol though most people (especially the usa ) are used to a more traditional form