FACT: You can't improve at chess

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

Right, most people get scared when it comes to the word "study" but the real issue here is love, if you love the game, you'll study it, and you'll slowly improve. One of the best ways to study is to go over your own games, they teach you what you know and don't know and where you need work etc.

Yha, I think you're correct. I hover under and around a 500 rating. Have been for about 2 years. I watched every video I could. If I did study chess It would do nothing for me because I'm barely able to beat other beginners. Even when I do try my best to implement fundamentals, I usually get out played.

Improvement is not linear in anything your trying to learn it's just more noticable in chess

the OP is correct, some people are able to improve overtime because they have a natural ability to get to that level, then they plateau. Practice will only make you better up to a limit imposed by your genetics.

Nope also the fact that many many people learn ches wrong and therefore plague earlier then they should therres too many factors it's like saying "im not good at adding a+b " even though you can its just easier for you to add A+B+C " your logic is if you can't do a+b that's your limit which is not how people learn it's more like a lot of A a decent chunk of C and some of B plus people have different learning styles .... Intelligence is only one of multiple factors