How I improved my rating from 1000 to 1500+ in 12 months

My blitzrating isnt as good as my onlinerating. Previous week I did what it takes to win more in blitz. I played an OTB longchesstournament. 9 games 90min +30min+ 30 sec/move. Blitz was at 1232 this morning, and my idea is that blitzrating shal raise faster than ever before, after this otb, Norwegian Championship.

I think long games have nothing with blitz. You can't improve blitz by playing long games. In blitz you need to think fast and not to make blunders under time pressure. Long games can't help you with it.

To be really good at blitz requires blitzplaying. A lot. But OTB long tournaments is really giving general strenght and understanding. And it gives  confidence. Confidence will save lots of time in blitz.

My goal is in fact to improve my longchess, and blitz is only a tool for giving myself broader experience.

I have eaten 39 blitzratingpoints today.

I guess Andreas Skotheim will reach 2100 blitz soon, because he played this otb-tournament too (Norwegian championship), and really got some hard fights. He finished nr 5 in class 2, which is a very strong result.

Learning a thing slowly before speeding it up is a strategy that can help. The formula one drivers probably drove a lot gogart when learning to compete with cars.

I don't know Djonni. I'm losing and winning in blitz not because of strength and understanding but because of blunders. In long game you have enough time to look carefully. In blitz you don't have it. Do you really need to learn something concerning simple stuff like forks, pins, etc? I don't think so. For blitz you need to learn how to spot them instantaneously. Long games can't give it at all.

Omega_Doom, it depends of where you are standing. I can improve a lot in blitz , training in high speed, and also playing longchess. Both trainings helps a lot.

Skotheim is on a higher level, he is at 2000, but have frozen there for a couple of months. He is already fast enough, and surely will get a lot from longchesstournaments.

Maybe I should play some bullet too, only to learn more speed.

I believe in confidence, and I believe speed can be buildt on confidence, and that longchess will strenghten the confidence. Especially the first 25 moves have improved a lot for me during this lonchesstournament.

Yes, Andreas is tremendously fast. I don't know how people play bullet. I panic when I have 1 minute left in a complete winning position. Fast thinking and good time management is a key in blitz. Confidence is good but complacency is bad. 1500-1700 in standard for me is nothing, in blitz it's huge.

I think  learning and understanding positional play makes a difference in blitz. As you said Omega_Doom a lot of games are decided by simple tactics. If you play into good positions, wins good squares, lines and diagonals, outnumbers your opponent on important squares, then suddenly easy tactical opportunities are given to tou.

May I vouch for tactics? I went from 1350 to 2350 in a year (tactics trainer) and my real life rating is catching up (I do tournements every month and a half or so. 1036 in january to 1590 USCF now. Of course I am a kid (14)

1) are those the only traps you recommend?

2) tactically is paul morphy the only chess player we should learn from? and if not who should I study?

Spider eating worked for me.

The main issue with this post is that there are multiple ways for someone to get to 1500 and to sum it up with just a few traps and taking a 'week off' comes across as rather righteous and arrogant quite frankly. Also, ratings are not as relative as you think they are as getting from 1300 - 1500 is stastically far easier than getting from 1500 -1800 as is getting from 1800 - 2000 and it only gets harder the further your rating goes. This is a fact. I agree that a 1500 is able to and should give advice to let's say 1200's and below but at the same time their advice is probably not to be fully trusted. 1800 is class A for a reason, and only at that level and above is one's advice to be somewhat trusted. Also, if your second account is where all your improvement took place why didn't you post this on your second account to avoid confusion? You seem very proud of your 'achievements' but you should be careful not to pat yourself on the back to hard and too early on as it may hold you back somewhat in developing in the future.

If only the presidential debates had this kind of fact checking (tears)

That being said, I two have learned the kernal of wisdom that pating yourself on the back after beating an opponent oftentimes will hold you back in your future progress.  When I stumbled upon your thread Matcs92, I thought it would be cool to learn this line after being bored out of my mind trying for a Petroff's Defense when most people opt for a four Knights game with the bishops developed outside the pawn chain leading to clever pawn moves and waiting till your opponent gets castled so you can pin the other guys knight with your bishop, but all too many people know this, and the game seems to be pretty much an even game.  I guess this is good for black to achieve in the opening, but I just thought those games where rather dull.  So I gave the Nimzovitch Defense a try, and found that it is just merely a blitz weapon only to be be used at your own risk.  

That being said, as I have preached time and time again in other threads in now even in my personal blog.  The key to chess improvement lies in the teachings of Dan Heisman, A Guide to Chess Improvement.  Before I was introduced with that book I purchased book after book not knowing what to start out with, until I found that book.  That book is the key, not opening traps, that can be easily parried.  Legal's Trap only works if your opponent has no idea what he is doing, and quite frankly at the 1500 level on live standard, pretty much no one is that ignorant of a commonly used opening trap.  The Halasor trap I think is less known, and perhaps you may score some wins with it, but such traps will only work on online chess, as most tournament players will know it.  

That being said, I do believe it possible to reach 1500 without even reading that book I mentioned, however, I feel it is worthwhile to go back to the basics when after you've first reached 1500 on live standard or rapid you'e since gone down by a hundred points or so over the course of a year or two...

I'm not trying to demean you in anyway.  I liked that you've shared your experience with the Nimzovitch.  I would have never learned that opening if I havn't read this.  I thank you for that, but the fact of the matter is, it takes more than just memorizing opening moves to get better, especially at our level.  The first thing one must do isn't memorizing a bunch of openings, but getting better at the big five, which Dan Heisman talks about in his website, his novice nook columns, and his books.  Everyone that has gotten better at chess has secretly gotten better at these basic five chess fundamentals, whither they had to read Dan Heisman or not.

A year and a four months ago you wrote:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-i-improved-my-rating-from-1000-to-1500-in-12-months

You recommended the Halosar trap as the way to get to 1500. It doesn't appear to be working to get you above 1500.

1,500 is enough to teach players below 1,000. 1,000 rated players can teach 100 rated players on how to move and very basic concepts. 1,500 is considered a high intermediate player but compared to GMs you are trash. You can teach people how to do some openings some tactics as long as they are much worse. But never teach opinion. In the same way you can teach a 200-500 Elo person a 2200 can teach you. And a 2500 can teach him until we get to magnus. That’s how it works. I’m a 1,000 my self and I’ve taught a few moves and tricks to 100 elo people. There ain’t nothing wrong with that.

And also don’t listen to these guys, you are simply sharing your journey to a considerably high rating. And teaching people who are struggling on how to reach your rating

Of course in theory you have much to learn yourself. But there is nothing wrong in sharing what you’ve learned so far.