How to become an expert in Chess?

I don't even know where to start with such hysteria, so I won't bother trying. Have a good day.

This was short but sweet. But seriously I doubt that most people can go from beginner to expert in 2 years with 1 hour a day. If that were so, there would probably be loads of experts here on chess.com which is not the case. It might be possible for a young and talented person with quality training.

We should examine the meaning of the word expert:

Ex = Has been

Spurt = drip under pressure.

i believe the words of a professional player who reached to top levels than any other average player who have achieved nothing in the game. 

@Atos: "But seriously I doubt that most people can go from beginner to expert in 2 years with 1 hour a day. If that were so, there would probably be loads of experts here on chess.com which is not the case. It might be possible for a young and talented person with quality training."

i would say that this is true but there are many factors that discourage ppl from becoming experts, mainly the compensation they get from the time spent on the game is very low compared to dedicating that time on improving different skills that might have higher returns on investment, if you think of it business wise. Another discouraging factor is that ppl have lives, families and other things to take care of than to study chess for more than two years.etc...

Woof! woof!

For what other purpose than selfpromotion are you doing all that for free? :p

The top FIDO rated players.

Lasker Fan:

>>People "trained" by tactical problem-solving waste too much time analysing the wrong moves in OTB (problems are problems because the solution is along the most unlikely path).  One good site to learn the basics (and important basics are they) is chesstactics.org.<<

What is your source for this statement?

Generally people well trained in tactics, immediately see and recognize the tactic.  They analyse forcing moves first which is the correct thing to do.  Petrosian said if you don't see a tactical idea in the first minute your probably not going to see it.  The point to tactical exercises is pattern recognition which is accomplished by a lot of repetition.  I think you have tactical exercises mixed up with composed problems which is another world, all togeather,  from practical chess.

Natalia Pogonina is a well respected member of this site, and does contribute freely in many forums, and at her web page. She even finds time to answer pointed questions here on this site. There are many players at her level who peruse these forums, with not even a contribution from them. Let us appreciate a top player's contribution, an try and take something positive from it. Attacking top level players will only do one thing...make them stop contributing.

I would much prefer to here the opinion from one who has accomplished much...than one who has not.

Wish you all  a very happy & prosperous new year!!!

Has been a little bit busy. Will catch up with you as soon as possible. Meanwhile, let me assure some of you that I play chess 99% for the sake of entertainment / happiness itself. But, then, when I win more and when my rating increases, I become happier and when I lose / my rating decreases, I don't feel that good .

 When my rank sometimes reach 32,000 in .526 million ( 5.26 lakh), I am a happier person. And when it drops to 40,000 + as now (88.2 percentile), I am not happy about my ranking as in the former case. So, to ensure the entertainment value also, I have to improve my game.

So, I wish the time however less it be, to be used in the best effective manner, so that my game will improve. 

Also, before my next post, I hope that some of you might be interested in this post made by me earlier - giving details about some of my attempts to increase my rating:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/why-wont-my-opponents-resign?page=2  post no: 38

Accourding to me this lil step seems to be good  study(tactics 15  mins )-play(implement)-analyise(look deeply wid friends or engines)

thats make u sound player ...  

Form a consistent, non-varying opening repetoire and look through books on the main lines etc. Once you have done this study tactics every day (not a LOT of tactics, because you will go crazy, but maybe 30 minutes a day on HARD problems.) While this is going on, if you have a chess computer like fritz or rybka, play a lot of games online against stronger opponents (with your opening repetoire only if you can) and then go over the game with a computer and see what kind of positions arise and if you made a mistake, figure out what it was and don't do it again. I have a different username now, but my rating USCF has gone up hundreds (about 500 or 600) points from where it was, and I am now about an expert. This will take constant work and passion, but in a year or two, it is perfectly attainable. GM Alex Yermolinsky is a very wise man. Study tactics, and work extensively on openings like I have described, and I am sure you will see the improvement in your game that I have experienced in mine. 

Best of luck

well yes in 2 years its really a bit short if you dont start as a kid, but i would say it doesnt need extra hours to become and expert. i dont think, even f i myself wont make it, it wouldn´t be impossible to just devote some spare time to chess and someday become expert. i mean i know im much weaker but 2000 i mean it doesnt look like the mount everrest to me,  it looks much more like the stairway to the top of the empire state building, yeah it looks like a lot of work but everyone somewhat healthy can eventually reach it.

yes i know she was probably joking with books,  but expect a few well written books for me personally most books are a verry unefficent. Also and please correct me, i dont understand how at a low level long games can help you? you dont have knowledge about positions you would like to reach and you also dont have the technique to implement you plans even if you had some. I might be horribly wrong, but i would think studying first most of the fundamentals before playing games would be the correct way.

Dont get me wrong, well probably most books are good, but then what do you get, eleven games??? and then they explain it, they tell the positional stuff but the forget what to tell what the master was planning or wanted to implement.. or they say give variation that dont interest you because you are not strong enough to assess the resulting position.

Seriously i think specially in this age, there are way more efficent ways to learn nowadays then just spend your money on books that may or may not be good.

I know a system that can help you to become IM at least! The GM Igor Smirnov is different to all the others GM in just one thing... He is not afraid on telling you the truth about how a GM Think. If you want to become a chess expert click this link http://chess-teacher.com/home#oid=1442_5  And dont postpone your chess progress... with just two of his courses you can become a Chess Expert. If you study seriously all of them you should become at least IM. No matter how old you are have actually. http://chess-teacher.com/home#oid=1442_5

i dont think everyone can become im, also its funny how smirnov had the confused look when finegold pointed out that he confused queen and king rofl.

no joking smirnov is really great teacher i believe but i dont think anyone can become im. ofc i can become im but not like everyone could. maybe you can become im when you have a lot if im friends and they let you win a lot so you get the title.

Chess.com tactics trainer will improve your game

Hehehe its just your opinion my opinion is that everyone can become IM at least. But whatever this conversation doesnt make any sense.

just my thought, maybe you are right i dont know. i would just assume its not possible. i also really think smirnov is strong, it was just a funny joke from finegold in his video...