How hard to improve?

I agree with X_PLAYER_J_X. It doesn't matter which opening you start out with, just choose a standard one and learn what you can about it. If you love the Scotch, well there's your opening! I have a soft spot for the Scotch, because although I now play 1.d4, in my first ever rated OTB game I played the Scotch and won.

Kingscrucher has a video playlist on the Scotch. The 'Gary Kasparov's alternative' goes into a bit of detail, if I remember correctly. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL36BBAF29BFFE57CC&feature=plcp

Learning to spot tactics in positions is the best way to help your game from move 1 to when the game ends. Pick a couple openings for white and black- you can google most openings to get the basic ideas and few main lines. Then play them and learn through practice, after each game find who first left book and if it was you, learn the book move. If it was your opponent, look up the best move and plan against it. You can also look up master games of those openings to see how they play them and typical middle game strategies that result from them. Eventually you will learn the ins and outs of your openings, be able to respond well to non book responses, and get good middle game positions. You can also learn basic endgames like how to promote a lone pawn and king against king, know which pawn endings are drawn and how to draw them, and basic mates like rook or queen and king against king. As you progress, pick up a few books on strategy and endgame play.

@X PLAYER JX

Okay, so first of all, whatever a master says must be gold, right? So when Garry Kasparov says that openings don't matter at the beginner level, we should not listen to that? I don't know your age, but shouldn't you be able to think independently and not have to mooch off of things others say? If one master says something, it's not some sort of pearl of wisdom.

You can study Scotch theory at beginner level if you want. But you don't have to. You can get away with playing pretty much any decent, sound opening, as long as it doesn't have a theoretical refutation, and even then sometimes you can get away with playing refuted stuff. The point is that as long as you play decent moves, at under 1400 level, you will be fine.

You criticized me for writing "Your entire post was full of stuff any average tournament player should know by heart". Well, sure he's not a tournament player, but he can find that information anywhere on the internet. Any database or opening video can show him how to play the Scotch, and there's no need in you making an overly long post to tell him stuff that he could find elsewhere.

"An Dpnorman and Synaphai you 2 don't want me to write post half a page long yet you both sure did read it all. An I bet you were thirty for more."

Hah, keep telling youself that and maybe it'll make you feel better X PLAYER JX. I'm really not that "thirty" to read more of the same stuff over and over again.

I can tell that you have good intentions with your posts but they are irritatingly long and I fundamentally disagree with your belief that theoretical opening knowledge is a major factor under 1400.

X_PLAYER_J_X, as a novice myself, I appreciated your post on the Scotch, which was both informative and entertaining for someone at my level. It seems to have been accurately targeted and helpful for the OP too.

I, too, have the book How to Beat Your Dad at Chess, together with the companion volumes Chess Tactics for Kids and Chess Openings for Kids and find them extremely useful. Despite the titles, they are still a bit above my level, but I am learning a lot from them and totally recommend them.

Please don't let criticism from a great height by players for whom your post wasn't intended deter you from helping people like me. And a handy hint for those exalted experts – I'm sure your keyboard, like mine, has a PageDown key, so please feel free to dab it to skip any tedious stuff that you learned in your prams.

Dennis, you should try to focus on keeping your pieces safe and looking out for your opponent's threats. There's no point in trying to look 5-7 moves ahead if you are missing basic one threats and with it the game.

This might be a useful video for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao9iOeK_jvU

I think Joliepa's (#16) and Benedictine's posts make a lot of sense.

You can't do everything perfect right at the beginning, so you need first to fight againts your main chess weaknesses.

It feels like you're a bit lost in this process : you may consider using the help of a chess coach, even for a short period of time, so he can help you focus on a couple of relevant points to improve your game and to streamline your thought process.

To develop your intuition (the subconscious process which helps you select candidate moves), you may want to go over classical games. A chess.com or google research for "best chess anthologies" or something similar should bring up a lot of relevant titles.

an interesting thread for sure.

btw, xplayer- would you/no could you deliver the punchline of your corny jokes;  I do them occasionally to annoy my teenage daughter.   perhaps they've been annoying others on the thread too- but what the Heck!  if you want to talk about the scotch- please do! (so says I).  I hate the "tl;dr" response.

There's been thread after thread after thread; about how frustrated some are that they haven't seen chess improvement.

you guys all have; "ELO RATING DISORDER."  beware this crippling and contagious disease.  If I know anything I know that obsessive unhappiness or frustration about your rating will completely knock you out of this interesting engaging hobby!

instead my grandmasterly voice says that real rating improvement, probably comes on its own timing- with lots of confidence and study.  and that you need to be the great Student FIRST before you can expect to become the master.

for about a week I had a string of great games; my elo rose; and friday night a bad setback.

apparently I have fallen into bad habits and am now taking my own advice and looking at my game(s).  Rather interestingly I find that I didn't play THAT badly.  bad I had some moments, got aimless- and then became unconfident and discouraged and lost more points.

@hicetnunc.  you've been VERY helpful for a long time with advice.  I'm interested in you take on finding a coach.  have you personally done this?  how do you find someone?? theres a lot of names out there... but I'd be concerned about getting a good deal and getting real value for your money.

on the other end of the scale- the 'prodigy' program is like, mm, $150 USD per month?  thats a LOT! [cue the tl;dr]

Yeah I'm still looking at coaches. Problem is the few I've been interested in haven't responded or ended up wanting far to much (for me). Still looking!

HA HA I added the punchlines under the questions but I'll show you them lol

Q: What are the only kind of trees that grow fingers?
A:Ummm, Palm trees.

A: your looking sharp.

Enjoy your level while you can because improvement comes the better you get at something.  You'll fly right to 1600's in no time with a consistent study of theoretical (and some strategic) endgames and tactics.  After that it'll be slower.  You'll still do theoretical endgames but study more the strategic endgames from Shereshevsky's Endgame Strategy.  This is also the time to learn deeply positional concepts such as strengths and weaknesses of knight vs. bishop, pawn structure, center type, weak squares and color complexes, and various ways to handle open files depending on the position.  Open Files is a good book for this specific topic, one strategy when the opponent has control over an open file is ignoring it creating threats elsewhere even!  Though blocking and opposing are more typical.  It's mostly a battle between denying the opponent entry points and obtaining them for yourself.

In response to the text I highlighted in red.

No what ever a master says should be taken into consideration. For that is why they are a master.

In response to the text I highlighted in green.

Its not called mooching off. It is called listening to helpful advice usually from players rated much higher. To try and see what they are doing so you can yourself reach same heights.

In response to the text I highlighted in blue.

If you feel like winging the opening and just using Chess principles to get you by in the opening that is your prerogative. It does not mean people can not learn in other ways. Some people on earth are not designed to just develop a piece to the center because Chess principles told them too. They want concrete reasons on why they should develop certain pieces instead of other pieces.

I will use a Cooking Metaphor.

My Grandma use to just eye ball ingredients when she cooked. She didn't need a measuring glass. She could just look at some ingredients and judge what she thought was right. An all the meals she made were delicious no one could agrue that they were not delicious.

My Mom on other hand needs a measuring glass. It simply kills her not to have the right amount inside. An her food taste just as delicious as my Grandma's did.

Who's cooking method is right? If both meals come out delicious than they both are right.

I myself am the type of person who needs a concrete reason to why I make a certain move. I hate moving my pieces alot of times if I don't have too. So I like concrete reasons so I can move them to the right spot the first time.

It does not mean that is the only way to play chess. It is just 1 way of playing chess. Every chess player is entitled to play chess the way that suits them the best.

In response to the text I highlighted in orange.

WOW WOW WOW Dpnorman that statement in orange you wrote can be said about everything in chess.

If peopled wanted to they could do anything by themselves.

There is resources out their on everything. Books, Videos, Clubs, Groups, etc.

Their is nothing wrong with seeking advice from others or help from others.

We are in a chess forum. What use would be the chess forum? If it was not to give out advice?

In response to the text I highlighted in green.

No one is forcing you to read what I am saying. An you can't say the theory I showed him was bad. It made perfect sense and it was simple to understand. An he seemed as if he learned it fairly well.

An I played a game with this line as black few days ago.

What was whites mistake in this game? 6.Qe2

Theory tells you to make certain moves not becuase they are kool moves. It is becuase they have underline reasoning behind the moves.

An for the people that know the reasons behind the move. It can be very powerful and deadly thing.

1800

I don't know if anyones still reading but I think the question as to whether to get a coach is an interesting one; if you like I don't do OTB tournaments.

frankly, I think if you approached most seasoned coaches with the idea that you want to bring up your (online) blitz rating up- you would very little response. 

Frankly coaches are VERY up on going to tournaments;  there's good for that. Having been to a couple, i can vouch that you play your finest chess at a tournament.   the quiet, the intense concentration, the touch rules; everything in a chess tournament is made to allow you to focus your complete undivided effort.

on the other hand; at home- someone always having a problem during the most critical move of the game- your tired- your plugged to music and not paying attention (TELL me I'm not the only one who plays music to live chess!)...

normally I would completely write off a coach if your an online "warrior"

on the other hand; your frustrated and beating your head into what you feel is a uncomfortable rating.   You can see your mistakes, but you keep making them.  I think if your frustrated you DO need a coach.  I think he/she ought to be strong.

I think its not easy, but that you should persist.  I appeal to strong players in this thread- PLEASE consider the plight of some of these online chessplayers;  they can do better!  they need some help in identifying their error.   Get them to look beyond the opening - and try to work through their sloppy calculation

I found myself asking this a couple years back.

The thing about chess for me is I see this indirect pattern of improvement.

I just keep doing tactics trainer and playing longer game. I'm a bit of a blitz addict but I'm restraining myself I bit.

I've learnt a few openings and am now trying to really work on my middle game. I find myself in so many position where I'm not really sure what I should be doing so I just move.

I think in my longer 3 day games I really need to sit back and think about the best approach. I move far too quickly.

Plus I always time out of my online games so hopefully within the next month I'll be around 1400 Online.

Play 50 games of blitz, study something new. And play another 50 games and you'll see improvement over all. Thats my way of going 1300-1900 in 1 year. (Not even doing it the most efficient way)

Opening ideas matter at all levels.

I love the scotch gambit very much. I understand your love for it! The opening I play often transposes to the scotch gambit.

On the subject of whether opening is important at the beginner level, I will cite the vast number of games I've played which begin like this.

If only black knew his theory and didn't lose straight out of the gate.

Stockfish already evaluates at +0.6

And I think that what's hidden in your very good comment is a set of two things: 1) seeing a couple of hundred interesting positions that arise in 50 blitz games is very valuable; and 2) there seems to be a great deal of importance in studying and thinking fast and slow.

 

I might add that --and this is just a thought-- faster thinking in chess, as provided by rapid and blitz time controls, seems to induce faster integrations of learned information.  How many times I come across players at a chess club who absolutely are against online play and short time controls, yet cannot improve with all of the slow study and games they do.  It's sad.  It's even worse that so many GM coaches are starting to talk about how "bad" blitz is for the improving player.  I think it goes to show that some of these coaches have no pedagogical training or awareness.  You see the same thing at university, though, too: very good mathematicians and physicists who can't teach to save their lives (despite the fact that the current university model thinks it a good idea to have them teaching classes).

I dont feel the thousands of blitz games I have played helped my slow game except in time scrambles . Playing a lot of blitz creates habits that are bad for classic/slow games . 

That's also the claim made by the coaches I've mentioned.  If someone is not studying and playing slowly, too, I think they will generally pick up bad habits and become impulsive.  As always, I think people are confusing correlation and causation.