General Rating Idea

How to know whether you are really improving in the game or not?I have been here since 19 December 2014.I have played satisfactorily according to me but how do I know that I am really improving?I play satisfactorily here but during OTB tourneys,I have dropped a lot of points.Here are my ratings on chess.com:-

1636-Standard;Highest-1743

1411-Blitz;Highest-1491

1493(because of timeout)-Correspondence;Highest-1667

Tactics-1896(Highest)

Chess Mentor-1906(Highest)

FIDE rating-1284;Highest-1343(initial rating)

I won't mention the Bullet & Chess960 ratings because I play them when I am bored.I don't take them seriously.So,according to my above ratings,what would be my strength in OTB chess?I play standard games in front of the board so as to get a feel of OTB.Others I play in front of the screen.I don't go to a club because I defeat each and every guy who sits in front of me.I am also the highest rated in our city.So,what will be the best books that I can read just now?

I would base it more on openings.  For an idea how you are with tactics, focus on one opening.  Can you perform at the same level with an unfamiliar opening?  For me, I am seeing that recently I am not calculating far enough into a position and end up making inferior moves.  If I play an opening I am more familiar with, then losing or missing an easier win is usually a result of not seeing tactics.

The difference I am referring to is playing out a position to a desired better position or being able to capitalize on a position without needing  to spend a lot of time with each move.

A quick test before you put a game through an engine is to determine how you managed your time.  Did you spend 1-2 minutes for each move or were you able to plan several moves and then not need as much time to execute your plan?

This seems to be a good answer as to your progress.  If your rating isn't going up but you are winning your games, then perhaps play in specific tournaments instead of relying on a much larger population where others are also improving.  You won't see your own advancement as clearly.

Can anyone tell me about rating points? 
I won a game because the opponent ran out of time. Had I won the game by checkmate or resignation I would have gained 6 points. But in this case I gained NO points and the opponent lost no points.
In previous games I actually lost points when I lost the game by running out of time. How is it determined when you should or should not lose or gain points?

Kosmo - assume this is a online game? Can you link it. If no points lost, it suggests a draw and maybe you had insufficient material to win.

Hi Ishan, I think we are ca equal in strenght, and I feel underrated with Fide 1428. I know that when we meet, the one of us that has the best day wins. We can win against 1800 Fide, but we can also loose against 1200.

1600 Fide will be a very close game.

The way you does it , you improves slowly,so slow that its difficult to see, but you will see it if you meet one player today, and the same player one year later. It will be very much easier.

I am very much stronger than i was when I met you one year ago, ca 400 onlinepoints, I was slightly stronger than you back then, but now we are equal, so you have had a significant strenghtening.

If you loose focus and blunder, you will of course not play at you best strenght, but you have the skills and knowledge to give 1800 Fide a very difficult time.

I have problems seeing exactly where you should put in most trainingeffort, and suggest looking at master-games, and commented mastergames,and try to improve a little bit overall. 

What you really need is help from very strong players (Above 1800 Fide)to do after  game analyzes. Tore Garberg, Eivind Sæteren Berntsen and GM Vladimir Georgiev have helped me good.

The good thing: You are good at analyzing yourself. I liked yor analyze of my game here: http://www.chess.com/blog/DjonniDerevnja 

I usually like seeing master games(and commented too).I had given a tough time to a 1900+ in the last tourney.I had pressurised him so much that he even failed to spot a Mate in 1.But,I don't know what happened after that.I suddenly went on losing.In the last round I was paired with a 1100-player but lost against him too.I think that I lose because I fail to spot tactics,try new ideas DURING the game and fail to develop quickly with players rated higher than me and I don't have a solution for it.

You are certainly more experienced than me.I would like to know how Tore,Eivind and GM Vladmir helped you,perhaps I might get to know where you and I both fail.

I won't get any help from where I live.I'm the highest rated here and so no question of getting help from 1800's.So,I opt for books.Also,going out and training under a coach is expensive.

Coaching is expensive, but only 4 hours can do very, very much.

If you never takes games you cant finish, and avoids timeout, you will soon be above 1700 online, and get good opposition here.

Of course computer can help you analyze.

I think your playingstyle is well balanced between safety and agressivity.

Books is a good idea, that I havent used much myself, so I really cant tell you which books are better.

Yes, it is an online game only on it's 2nd move. That is probably the reason. Thanks.

Kosmokid: If your opponent or you times out before 4 moves, the game is determined a draw.

Muhammad, thanks for that observation but the record clearly show that I won on time out. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact it is a contest, with two games per contestant?

It certainly would not be fair to call a draw. Whatever your reason for Time Out the player that times out must lose because he has not met his obligations. It's like saying if a fighter in the ring gets knocked out but then it's called a draw because he failed to counter the last blow 
No, no, no! You lose then you lose, regardless.
I also think that it could lead to some serious abuse of the system.
It seems the no gain-no loss rating under the circumstances seems the fairest way. 

Thanks trakoz, I will check that out.

It's OK.I know that you have tried your best :)

I like openings and always try to explore new ones after I have finished studying one(not toooooo deep but limited).I don't know which opening I should try because I don't know which suits be best.So,its hard for me choose one.BTW,can you name some openings which you try and think that others should try it out?

from rating we wont judge anydody becoz its in u to improve ur game by analizing games and viewing problem and by practicing chess every day for 4 hours     the one do all the things will become grandmaster !!!!!          so even if ur playing against 1001 rated players in an fide tournament ......!!!!!!!!!!!!!   pls dont judge anybody by rating

Ishan, you can look deeper into the Chigorin-variation on Ruy Lopez, not necessesarily to play it by the book. We had it in our chessclass, and I got a lot of flexible ideas, and an extended understanding for how the knight moves.

Here is one video, but it only scratches the surface:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKdpgPFVA1g

Myself I feel the need for looking more into the french, because I gets a lot of french answers playing e4.

Which openings is most suitable?

Different openings gives different gamestyle.

Against sicilian white often plays grand prix attack or yugoslav attack, which are pawnstorms- opposite castling can give white pawnstorm on the kingside and black on the queenside. Its a race, and the fastest is the favourite,

So Sicilian is good for aggressive pawnstorm-style. Whites other much used plan against sicilian is rookpressure in the d-line, which I often got problems with facing the Smith-Morra gambit.

I think Ruy Lopez is a opening that can lead to very many different kinds of play. Sometimes it can become a very fast attack, and it can become very positional, and you can be forced into french or something else.

I think its interesting to discuss the personality of openings, and I guess you might have very different feelings about how they influence the game-style.

I also think that their personality will change as you gets better. Sicilian is the first year very defensive, and it is difficult to get the queenside attack going . Its still difficult for me. To make it work your tempo must be very optimized, if not its mainly about defence. 

When playing g6 in Sicilian , the g6 pawn becomes a target for white to bite with a pawn.

THE ANALYZE WITH TORE GARBERG.

Tore is experienced, and have played chess in 42 years. He has three small kids, and the two largest , Andreas and Linnea Garberg Tryggestad are norwegian champions for kids.

He helped me anaalyze a game against Kaj-Andreas Hanevik, A game i thought was close and interesting, where I lost in the end,

It wasnt close. Tore was able to evaluate much better than me, and I agree with him after, but hadnt a clue before. If you evaluate right, you know which pieces to improve, and you know when you must run for a draw. If I had understood in ca move 25 that draw was what I should play for, I actually could have done it.

Another thing was the value of pieces. We say that knight is 3, rook 5, queen 9, pawn 1, but those values are not fixed, they do change each time their role and position on the board changes. Sometimes a bishop can be a big pawn, with the value of 1, and when set free, with good diagonals it can become a monster , worth 5,6, 7 or something.

Which squares they control, and how many, and how movable they are does a difference. 

You can win material in chess without taking. You can improve the pieces. Everybody knows that a pawn can be improved to a queen if it can walk all the way, but guys like me didnt know that a 3-knight can improve to value 5 - kingknight. If you are able to put the knight on the opponents kingside of the center, it becomes a value 5 kingknight if its not chased away. That means that in some positions you can take it with a rook, and that is an even exchange. 

Such things are difficult to see and understand. A rook in his corner can sometimes have the value of a pawn, even a weak pawn, but we can develop it into a standard value 5 rook. It will not get that value, before it gets ok position.

The game I did show in my blog was the first with this improved valueunderstanding, and I was able to do a winning exchangesacrifice with confidence, because I understood clearly that my bishop where stronger than my rook in the position, and saw many moves ahead that I could use that advantage. Actually I took his defenderbishop , gave my rook and got one open line, and one open diagonal for my queen for the exchange. And a killing pressure.

The GM@s plays like that all the time, but on my level it is hard to spot and evaluate correctly.

I assume that the evaluation will be better with experience, but that analyze from Tore was a real mindopener. I knew about it already, but he made it much more clear. I understood with my whole system, and that understanding might be worth 150 Fideratingpoints of added strenght.

In response to the OP, look for a "strong player" at your OTB tournaments. Try to find a master or someone strong enough to score at least 80% against you at your best. If you are lucky enough to find a coach with years of experience, they will be able to tell you how you are doing. Two or three performances should be sufficient to determine where you are headed.

About these "opening recommendations," if you are not [a certain rating that varies from coach to coach, but is generally accepted to be just under master level], trying to do openings is not the best way to go. You will develop habits regarding memorization of moves and lack the foundation required to improve to master level or higher. This pattern will leave you near your current rating until you stop focusing on openings and start with [either tactics, positional play, guess the move exercises, or another method recommended by a coach].

Unless you are already a professional coach or have extensive chess experience, please refrain from advising players below [the rating ranges usually are 1600 to 2100 uscf/fide, depending on the player's level of chess understanding] of focusing on openings. You will be doing them a disservice and further help will be ineffective.

Well,my city isn't a village but there is only one coach here.He teaches just for his financial reasons.So he just makes me play with small kids who even have their first day at the class.

I am not that lazy.I play long games (90/30 or 45/45 time) with the board in front of me.I analyze the Corresponde games which 'I' THINK are beneficial.