How to (really) get better at chess: What they aren't telling you

Well even when I'm playing someone better than me I'm going to look for winning tactics (at the same time I'm making positionally sound moves).

If you mean setting traps with moves that are positionally questionable, that's not good no matter what level you're playing.

You are definately learning when those dramatic tactics as you put it are best left for less evenly matched games.  The shocking bishop sacrifice had better lead to some serious positional advantage or mate or you pretty much just gave up two points. 

I see it as there are positional tactics and tactics which yield material.  Sometimes I go pretty deep in my calculations just to end up with a well timed open file or something simple like that.  With good play sometimes a simple positional tactic can decide the game.  

Thank you Wafflemaster and Seraphimity. Well put. The fog is lifting.

This psychological part of the game is interesting to me. Of course when you're playing against a familiar opponent, you can rely on past games to help guide your strategy. But when it comes to playing someone knew, you only have their rating to judge their skill (unless you study their past games of course) and adjust your strategy accordingly. 

I definitely do that. I love playing King's Gambit against anyone under 1400 but am hesitant against higher ranked players because they often don't play 1. e5 or they decline and complicate things.

I think it's funny how when I make a really dumb move against someone ranked a couple hundred points less than me, they don't capitalize on it enough. I've done it myself, where I figured that they're setting me up for something and I'll shy away from "taking the bait". Amazing how preconceived ideas can dictate play in spite of reality.

That's true.  I think everyone does this even if they say they play the board only.  (Talking club games here anyway...)  when I know my opponent is weaker I'm willing to be what I'll call "positionally greedy" where I essentially try to have my cake and eat it too, suspecting they won't punish me for it... not at great risk or anything, if they call me on it I'll just fall to equal.

And with players who I know are much stronger I'll spend a lot more time calculating a tactical variation and go deeper because I know there's a good chance they've seen everything I'm seeing.

It's an interesting game the first time you play someone if you don't know their rating.  I had the experience a few times setting up a board in a public place and waiting for people to stop and play.  If all they'll say is "I've played before" and they open with 5 moves of book, they could be anywhere from 1200 to 2800 you just don't know.  I ended up playing this kid pretty conservatively until he missed a simplish tactic, then I knew I could push him around more.  Our next two games weren't as long.

The opposite effect is also true for me when I'm playing the kids in chess club. None of them has beaten me yet, so I want to make sure they earn it, especially because of the trash talking that's sure to follow. With this in mind I notice myself playing really passively, almost timid, trying not to lose rather than playing to win. Ironically if that kid was just a screenname and a rating, I'd play them much more aggressively. This week I'm going to give them my A game. I don't want to destroy them and break their confidence but hopefully motivate them to improve. I'm sure it'd be more instructional too...

I've never seen anyone sitting in front of a board like that. First thing that came to mind was some lovely young lady sitting in front of a board at the food court. "I'm not very good. Would you teach me?" It could happen 

I use combinations...left and right then an uppercut. Sometimes i make a roundhouse kick with a combo like spinning back fist and elbow drop. Tactics like a slipping a jab then counter punching with the right then a back kick sometimes do the damage.

@yoeyyutch: You can think about positional play as thinking of the board in terms of (positional) details. If you can describe the position in words, then you are thinking "positionally." For example, terms like light-color complex, open files, outposts - these are all positional factors. That said... you don't really need to read a positional book with each chapter based on each positional factor - I feel that it is a bit excessive. Where as you can justify reading a tactics puzzle book because the practice would allow you to spot (easier said than done) a tactic in any given position, with positional factors you can just keep it in mind - it is not as hard to see or find.

I want to make something clear... I am not saying that positional chess should be ignored, rather, I am saying that you do not need to study it alone. You can learn all you need to learn about positional chess by studying master games - learning the "flow", basic strategies, etc.

@linlaoda

Thanks again for more insight!

yeah i can relate to linlaoda's post because me trying to read specific books is way less efficient than a tactics book and it is also more frustrating. but reading tactics books is much easier to understand and easier to follow and you feel like you are actually getting better. so far i read about 5 or 6 chess books and i have to say that the tactics books have way more benefit than the opening or strategy books

For what it's worth, I put together a free lessons program on how to become a chess master. I looked back at my tournament career, over 40 years, and figured out what worked the best for me, and explain it on YouTube. My website has it, and more, and can be found on my profile. I have a video lessons group here with over 1,000 members with plenty of support systems in place in the forums. It's clear and concise and will maximize your study and playing time.

Please post the link thank you very much.

Weird comment, but I just dont like seeing GM games!!! Most of the time, I dont know what they are doing on why. I do like seeing games of people about 100-300 points more than me. I can atleast follow what is going on (or think I do!).

Also, when I replay a GM game, I try to think of what move I would make, then compare it with the GM move. I end up being right about 85% of the time, but then it goes out of whack :)

One more interesting point along these lines. I once played an elderly gentleman in a club match and won material, but lost the end game. He adviced me to improve my end game and gave me a book of all Nigel Short's  games, starting from when he was a kid playing club till he was GM, all in sequential order. It took me 1 month to play all games in the book. In the initial games I was sure I could beat him, but then his games got better.

After finishing the book, I thrashed the guys I used to struggle to beat. I really didnt learn anything specific other than seeing the types of moves he kept making, but my game improved by grades!

Is the consensus that even longer online games are no substitute for OTB then? Most of my friends aren't really into chess and there are surprisingly few clubs near to me, considering I live in a major city. Do I really have no hope of ever improving?

At your rating, Piece, the main thing to do is play. Play complete games. Play at least 20 minutes a day.

If you start feeling the urge to be more competitively, there are many excellent study tools available at your local library, online (youtube, for instance), here, or in a book store. Chess is one of those great games that doesn't cost much money to play well. But it does require a commitment.

But again, the first thing to do is to play. MANY games.

Thanks for the advice. I did start to play quite a bit a few years ago but like I say, struggled to find opponents. At my peak, Chessmaster (9 I think) rated me at 1300ish, although I think that may have been a little optimistic. I do enjoy the blitz games, but you're right. If I want to get better, I need to start playing some longer games where I give it my full attention. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think I'll ever be a seriously strong player, I really don't think I'm wired that way. I just love the game. (I live in Manchester in the UK Paul.)

I find doing puzzles more helpful than working through entire games.  I recommend James Plaskett's Can you be a tactical chess genius? (Everyman Chess).  But as Plaskett himself says, there's no substitute for sheer flair.

Hey, thanks Paul. I'd searched for clubs in my area and seen a few different lists, but there is actually one here that's practically round the corner from me which I hadn;t found. Think I'm gonna give them a call. Really appreciate the help & advice.

P.S. It's raining here now. Probably hasn;t stopped since your last visit.

Aw, it;s closed down. (Probably due to adverse weather conditions.) Nearest one after that's a few miles a way. Still a possibility though. Thanks again.