How to Increase Rating from 1200 to 2000 or More?

How to Increase Rating from 1200 to 2000 or More?

Post your valuable Inputs.... 

Start with 1200 first.  

so every day a new thread with same question. how bout check out yesterday's thread?

@tipish, in every new thread you give this same answer? Lol

@IMBacon,

Sure... Tnx

Step 1: Love playing and learning about chess.

Step 2: Honestly? After step 1, step 2 doesn't matter.

That's how to be "2000 or More"

You may not have a happy life, but you'll be good at chess.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/this-is-my-understanding-of-chess-improvement

Analyze Your Games

Well, every free member can do unlimited new posts/day. 

Go ahead OP, there is no restriction of posts in chess.com' Term of Service.

Thank you All

Every forum has the "this question is always asked" so what that means more are interested in learning that game or whatever the forum is. let people ask people that act annoyed don't have to read or even reply to these questions it's amazing it's like you have a choice... anyways love playing the game, practice and analyze always try to make your move after you try to predict his/her next move or maybe even two next moves he may make or alternative moves they may make all about learning from mistakes, you will make them. if you beat someone twice in a row consider playing the next level of difficult rating If you always beat say someone at 1100 then you aren't really growing need the next challenge to expand on and let yourself learn new harder lessons.

Most beginners think chess can be "mastered" after a set amount of time, or work, but it's not the case. But a lot of work and a lot of time is needed to get real progress. At some level, you will plateau out.

For many people, it won't be at 2000 rating. Statistically, when you are 2000 above, it should be like at a level better than 90%+ of the chess playing world.

Just like not everyone is going to be a millionaire....

Do you guys think scrabble is more difficult, or lets say compareable to chess? Saw an interesting video about strategy in scrabble, you need it alot aswell.. but also you gotta know alot of words..

Pretty much anything that humans can never do perfectly, but is still fun at low skill levels (and all skill levels) is a good game... and for such games you can't really compare the difficulty right? Because they're not possible to play perfectly.

But I would say there is more nuance to chess, and more to learn if you want to be one of the best players.

Good answer  ! As I really liked the approach. But is chess only more nuanced because of all the people dedicating their lifes into it, since hundreds of years (which isnt the case for scrabble) or is it simply the games idea, which leaves more room for human perfection.

Anyways whats your thought on monopoly? 

For anyone who thinks, why the hell am I asking, this question in such a thread:

I am a around 1500 elo player, and stagnated for some months now in my improvement. eventhough i am always working on it. I know that there is no real answer to, how to improve from lets say 1500 to 1700 and so forth. At least the answer wont be the satisfactory golden shortcut or method for training. But that does not stop me from scrying through thoose threads  

So i figured why not ask an interesting question, which actually will get some nice answers

Sorry thats just me

Yeah that's a good question, whether it's the game itself or due to how many people are willing to dedicate their lives (more or less) to playing it well.

One thing chess has going for it is there is no hidden information, and the more you know, the more can go into your plans. In scrabble I assume you could get really technical and, for example, calculate the probability of drawing certain letters, estimate player's final point totals even in the middle of the game, etc, but such planning is limited by probability i.e. you make your calculations and that's it. In chess players have to make their best guess too, but there are always new things to learn, and more observations to calculate that can improve those educated guesses.

I have been searching intensively the past 2 weeks on improving chess. Here are what I found:

1. Chess books are very educative.  Just like any education system, they teach, but, they don't show me how to apply the knowledge into real games. I have to figure it out myself. So, to me, chess book is like textbook, more about information and knowledge.

2. Chess magazine are very practical. Super GM provide notes and thoughts on their games, which teach you what you don't often find in books. For example, playing h3 before castling often discourage ...Bg4. However, more than often, it signals the intention to attack on kingside. Or, something like " This move surprised me slightly. Vishy probably wanted the rook to be defensively placed on the sixth rank in case something should happen on the kingside. It also makes sense in some lines to have the pawn on a5, where it supports a ♗b4 pin on the queen on d2. "

Is it very instructional? Not really. But, do I learn more about chess play? Yes, I do, because it is the "experience" of a GM. Just like when I work in the lab, my professor teaches me his experience, something very valuable that I would never find in textbook.

3. Chess videos are very instructional because verbal teaching is always better than reading a book, unless that person "reads" the text he prepared, instead of explaining the ideas.

4. Chess tactics improve tactical calculation, of course. But, practicing tactics does not teach me how to create a tactics. However, a strong tactical calculation allows me to realize tactics in the game. If I am not good at mate in 2, I cannot realize I can mate in 2. I don't appreciate chess tactics from chess.com or chesstempo, or lichess. I only practice with CT-Art. The reason is very simple, I saw the results with CT-Art.

5. Chess positional ideas can be learned from chess magazines. When I read chess magazine, I am very selective. I only spend 5 minutes trying to digest the annotation if I think it benefits me. I don't even look at the variations. I only focus on the "critical moment" or something like "this is a natural move" or "this often signals"

6. Chess calculation gave me a real headache to figure out a good way to improve. Up until now, I have only 2 methods. 

a) Study the sacrifice move of Tal's games. I always see his goal within 5 moves after the sacrifice. It does not require an NM to explain to me what Tal planned to do. The game explains itself.

b) Compare the two positions of one game. This method is provided by Soltis in his book Studying Made Easy. Basically, I look at two diagrams in between 5-10 plies, depend on how complicated it is, and try to figure out the variation that lead from one diagram to the other. Soltis explains that the second diagram is what must be visualized first in my mind before I even calculate anything. If I cannot visualize the resulting position and then evaluate it, I just waste my time calculating.

Alright, that is all I have for you today. When I find out something new, I will share because I wish to receive feedback from you all to improve my training

Wow, such a nice attacking game. The defense was really bad, but with good annotations this could teach a lot... it's too bad I never ran across any annotated attacking games like this as a new player, so it always just seemed like magic. As a result I didn't appreciate attacking until much later.

You're the type of person to also get mad at people for bumping threads. (Which there is nothing wrong with!)