Getting from Expert to Master

Hello, I have played chess for a long time now (although I am new to this site) and have achieved an expert rating in the USCF rating system. My rating tends to be bump back and forth about 2050 to 2150. I would like to achieve 2200 and a Master title, but it just seems like I can't "get over the hump." What truly separates a master from an expert? Tactics? Positional study? Opening theory? Endgames? I imagine it's probably all that and more. Advice from any player would be appreciated, especially from masters and up. Thanks.

I probably shouldn't respond here to much detail seeing as I'd be about half your rating, but upon analyzing your past games, is there a single section or opening where you lose over 50% of your games?

No offense, but I'd guess 2200 is still low enough that there is at least one broad area of study (like openings or endgames) that, when compared to your strengths, you've more or less ignored up to this point.

Although maybe a problem with execution.  Anything from not playing in tournaments enough to simply not being able to calculate very well.

Anyway, I'm not a master.  Good luck :)

When I made the move from expert to master back in the 80’s, I studied mostly openings since it was the weakest part of my game. That said, what help me improve the most was playing masters as much as possible, then discussing the games with them. Since then my rating has decreased slowly and I am bouncing around the mid 2000s due to a number of non-chess related factors.

I've looked over my openings and such many times, but there doesn't seem to be one that is particularly bad for me. I personally think it may be tactics because I have always seemed to be better positionally.

I've been told by a Master player that in order to attain Master level, you must know 7 openings for the first move e4 or d4 (or whatever your first move may be) as white and know everything up to and including Master-level endgame theories. I believe the Master tactics component is up to you. There are players who grasp positional/tactical better than others and that part could be lower-rated compared to the other components. 

Just playing games means you're getting better, because you can't neccessarily become worse overall. 

waffllemaster wrote:

No offense, but I'd guess 2200 is still low enough that there is at least one broad area of study (like openings or endgames) that, when compared to your strengths, you've more or less ignored up to this point.

Although maybe a problem with execution.  Anything from not playing in tournaments enough to simply not being able to calculate very well.

Anyway, I'm not a master.  Good luck :)

None taken... I would agree you are correct in saying that there is usually at least one broad area that masters know and experts do not, at least from the masters I have played and talked to. And thanks mnag, I try to play masters as often as I can.

Thanks for the advice x7Vighthawk, I think as far as opening theory goes I know perhaps as much as a low level master. It's the endgame theory that seems to get me, like many non-masters. Thanks for the advice everyone I think I will turn in for tonight... And Happy New Year!

Thanks for the link rtr

Try a good coach for a bit. Not too sure as to either where to find one or what they are likely to charge but there are any number of GMs who play on-line, I suspect any one of them would be glad to point you in the right direction or give you a quote.

[COMMENT DELETED]

EDIT:Deleted my pathetic attempt to cut and paste the ChessMentor scorecard because it was screwing up the whole page.  My bad .  I still think doing the CM in adaptive mode might point out a few areas you should work on, and would be worth a $100 a year diamond membership even if only half the 4k lessons were challenging.

There's a book by Andy Soltis that is precisely about this subject.

umbrella_corporation wrote:

yes let's talk about the metaphysics of a master versus expert level player on a chess website.  that'll help u achieve ur goal 

Okay I loled you can have a +1 for that. Really though I just need ideas... I'm sick of bumping between 2050 and 2150

I would enthusiastically recommend What it Takes to Become a Chess Master by Soltis. That book probably played the largest role in my journey to master. There Soltis claims, and I would have to agree with him, that the biggest difference between masters and experts is not some tactical pattern or endgame, it is knowledge of what matters most.

Thanks! I will look into it

My free video lessons course was set up to allow anyone to duplicate my rise to master status. What worked for me nearly 34 years ago was to play good old-fashioned postal chess. One year of this and I rose from low 2000s to 2200 in a few months. Why? Because I took my time and forced myself to not only learn openings, but analyzing positions. In my opinion, you derive the maximum benefit from studyng your own games as you attempt to correct your weaknesses and reduce making them. you can study all kinds of recommended areas of chess, but I don't believe you will gain as much from them as you would by studying your own games.

Postal ches is preetty much dead now, it's all done online, they call it Online or Turn Based chess here. Most people don't know to take their time. So, one can do very well at it if they devote their time and energy.

My free video lessons group can be joined here, 6th largest on chess.com in less than 2 years: 

http://www.chess.com/groups/join?id=14246

My YouTube playlist is on group wall, so you can easily find my 11 part video lessons course. Also, my games analysis vidoes, over 200 of them, show you how to assess and analyze a postion. It's all there, neatly spelled out for anyone to improve their game, for free!

Thanks for the link.. just joined :)

Only been around for a few days but I'm thinking about buying the diamond. And yeah I don't know what was with the scorecard doing that to the page, lol