I reached my current lofty heights (about 1500 USCF) long ago, before there were decent chess engines, videos, and things like chess.com, and I have not done much improving since, although perhaps I am now not too far away from earning my over-1400 title.
I think Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104437/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/logichess.pdf gave me the feeling that I had some sort of understanding of what is supposed to happen in a chess game. Perhaps Simple Attacking Plans by Fred Wilson https://web.archive.org/web/20140708090402/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review874.pdf would be a modern book to use for the same sort of purpose.
I made a number of attempts to read books like Ideas Behind the Chess Openings, but I found it way too hard to try to read all the way through such a thing. Eventually, I think that I got a somewhat acceptable general knowledge of openings (along with some other basics) from How to Win at Chess by I. A. Horowitz. Perhaps Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html would be a good modern alternative, along wth Chess Endgames for Kids by Karsten Mueller for endings and Winning Chess by Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093415/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review919.pdf for tactics.
For more specialized opening knowledge, I think there is no realistic alternative to doing some trial-and-error exploration until one finds possibilities that one is comfortable with. In a 2007 GM John Nunn book, in connection with opening study, it is stated that, if a "book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first", and the reader was also advised, "To begin with, only study the main lines - that will cope with 90% of your games, and you can easily fill in the unusual lines later." I still vividly remember the time I faced 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 over the board and I discovered that I had completely forgotten what Reinfeld had told me to do about it. After getting clobbered, I looked up the book recommendations and I think that I am considerably more likely to remember at least some of that stuff if the situation ever arises again. For many players, I suspect that their opening knowledge expands gradually in that sort of fashion.
In my case, for White, I found myself making the sort of desperation decision that was described by IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings Vol. 4. I think he is right about the advantages and disadvantages of such a choice.
"For players with very limited experience, I recommend using openings in which the play can be clarified at an early stage, often with a degree of simplification. ... you will have to get used to playing with open lines for both sides' pieces ... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... Of course, you can also play 1 d4 ... A solid and more-or-less universal set-up is 2 Nf3 and 3 Bf4, followed in most cases by 4 e3, 5 Be2 and 6 0-0. I'd rather see my students fight their way through open positions instead; however, if you're not getting out of the opening alive after 1 e4, this method of playing 1 d4 deserves consideration. ... a commonly suggested 'easy' repertoire for White with 1 Nf3 and the King's indian Attack ... doesn't lead to an open game or one with a clear plan for White. Furthermore, it encourages mechanical play. Similarly, teachers sometimes recommend the Colle System ..., which can also be played too automatically, and usually doesn't lead to an open position. For true beginners, the King's Indian Attack and Colle System have the benefit of offering a safe position that nearly guarantees passage to some kind of playable middlegame; they may be a reasonable alternative if other openings are too intimidating. But having gained even a small amount of experience, you really should switch to more open and less automatic play."
I also agree with the 2013 Dan Heisman comment: "... tournament play offers that rich, 'all-wekend' chess experience where you congregate with other players, eat and talk chess during meals and in-between games, and benefit from the entire ambiance. ..."
Hello, I'm just a beginner, I would like to know a few things.
What did you do to move from a lower rating to a higher one? What helped the most? Why? I'm asking this because, I realized I could spend years playing chess without improving much. Should I be playing 2000+ rated opponents and try to copy what they're doing? Should I spend my time playing against a chess engine hoping it eventually makes me better? Should I read chess books, watch videos, practice tactics? How do I even practice efficiently? How do I know I progressed. What is a chess player supposed to know at a certain rating. How do you learn how to play this game as close to efficiently as possible? Is there some sort of checklist with exceptions? There's a reason why some player just keep improving over the years while others get stuck at a specific rating. What would you do if for some reason tomorrow, you forgot everything you knew about chess and had to learn the game from nothing. How do you think you could get back to your rating?
I think these are important questions that can help decide how to spend time learning chess. I'm just curious of everyone's chess learning experience. Is there a right way to approach learning for chess? That might be the real question.