I'm stuck at 1200-1380. Any tips on how to become better?

Sort:
SmithyQ
AIM-AceMove wrote:

When i was 1250~1300 i though that i am soo much better than normal average person on the street. And that was kinda true. I was winning, but not every game versus old veterans on the parks. I was thinking that, becouse i am playing online over the internet there is no possible way someone old who plays only like 5 persons for years can possible be better than me. Me, who had wins versus "strong" online players all over the world back that time (10 years ago on Yahoo chess) i was feeling invincible. I beated all of my friends and even random players on street who were playing chess for many years casually.

Things started to change when i entered my first local tournament and i got absolutely destroyed by 7 years old kid which at that time i was thinking no one under 12 years or so could beat me, becouse they can't possible have more experience than me.. You see how much wrong i was... How little i knew about chess... When i go to club i was losing left and right.. on time, on position, i even blundered 2 pieces in a row move after move..

Same here.  My grandfather was the best chess player I knew.  Everyone said he was the best, and once I started beating him, I figured I was the best.

I was lucky enough to go to a weekend tournament and meet a GM, though, and I got destroyed.  There wasn't enough of me left to sweep into a bucket afterwards.  I realized that I wasn't hot stuff, but I saw how effortless a GM made chess look.  I vowed I would get that good.

It's been over a decade since then, and while I haven't gotten GM good, I'm no longer losing in 13 moves to serious players.  Progress!

AIM-AceMove

I see now what you mean, but first of all, we cant' compare daily chess with live chess with clock. Is just not the same chess. Then , by come up with GM like move , well their moves are connected with that move with this plan etc. You can make a same move or two but with wrong purpose. When i analyze my games often i make 1st choice stockfish move. And not talking only easy obvious moves like re-captures or checkmates. Many players also can make those top engine or GM moves. Even better, by solving tactical 5 move puzzle. Your all 5 moves were best moves in position. But what is the point if the rest of your games you blunder a lot.

Remember this: Your game is as good as your worst move. NThere is a little value how many strong top engine or GM moves you made in a game when is full of blunders or you made 1 terrible blunder and you lost the game. Here comes your Rating. Ratings shows overall how strong you are (not daily chess rating, rating here shows almost nothing. You are probably close to 900-1000 level compared to tournament player if you are 1400 daily chess. And at the same time someone who does not care, which a lot of people don't can have 1400 daily chess rating with a lot of games going on , but their real fide rating  to be way few hundreds points  higher ) 1300 is just intermediate  level, indicates the players understanding for the game of chess is far far far away from expert or master or Grand Master. He might have memorized opening moves or can see 2 move checkmate or fork sometime but overall is pretty bad compared to active tournament players.

ufmgambit06
learningthemoves wrote:

Thought of you and this thread when I saw Master Jerry's (Chess.com username: ChessNetwork) new video today because it's got some really great training that makes key details about the most important position in chess easy to understand (so you can apply it to your next games immediately). Check it out:

https://www.chess.com/blog/ChessNetwork/beginner-to-chess-master-8---how-to-promote-a-pawn

Thanks for the link LTM.

ufmgambit06
OnceUponaCheckmate wrote:

 Sometimes it come down to who makes the least blunder.

I agree with this take.

ufmgambit06
[COMMENT DELETED]
ufmgambit06
[COMMENT DELETED]
ufmgambit06
[COMMENT DELETED]
JubilationTCornpone
ufmgambit06 wrote:
OnceUponaCheckmate wrote:

 Sometimes it come down to who makes the least blunder.

I agree with this take.

In fact, it is a famous quote:

The winner is the one who makes the second-to-last mistake.

-- Tartakower

learningthemoves

Unless of course the winner makes the mistake of being a poor sport refusing to shake the loser's hand after the match and instead curses his mother and spits in the loser's face in which case he is the winner and also made the last mistake.

ufmgambit06

Here is a Tactics Trainer problem. I'm trying to better understand some of the themes. In this problem, overloading was tagged. Which piece is overloaded? How/why? 

Kis_closed

Mind if I ask how old you are?

playerafar

@ufmgambit06
Its not pure overloading.  Black's Queen is the defender of his e8-rook.
So white attacks that defender - both decoying and deflecting it at the same time.
And thereby winning the exchange.
The argument for overloading is that black's Queen can't both defend itself -
and defend his rook at the same time.
But in the purest case of overloading - it would be the Queen unable to
defend against two things both other than defending itself.
Which isn't the case here.

Moral of that problem:  Motifs get priority - not themes.
What defends black's rook?  His Queen.  Seeing that motif is key.
What to look AT -  not look for.  The rest is just a result -
and description of what's then done about that motif of Q-defender.

ufmgambit06

@playerafar,  I see, Yes, I have been trying to spot the motifs but sill get dumbfounded on what to look for in a Motif.  P.S : I have still been going over those notes! 

playerafar

@ufmgambit06 
'
on what to look for in a Motif'.  This will NOT work.
I wish I could think of a good analogy to describe why not.

Some forest rangers are told some people are lost in the woods.
"How many?"  "What's their description" "Who are they"
We don't have that information.  Just start looking.
"But we don't know who or what to look for!"  Don't worry about that.
If you see some campers and hunters who aren't lost - let them go. 
If these people really are lost - they'll become visible sooner or later.
"Okay - I get it now.  We don't look for them - and we don't find them.  We just look - and when they're in sight - we rescue"
Now you've got the idea.

How to control how people interpret - or react to what's written -
is something Hollywood's very good at.  And professional writers.
But I'm just me.

learningthemoves

Snails have motif than any other animal, but ironically they can't chew their food with them.

learningthemoves

Yes!

ufmgambit06
HueyWilliams wrote:

I always have to laugh at all of this "motif"-labeling nonsense.  I don't know any of that stuff and yet I seem to do pretty well at these things.  You'd be a lot better off not worrying about the "overloading" tag and just figuring out how to solve the problem. 

Well from watching a video by Vishy Anand on chess24, he knows his motifs and themes so it can't hurt.

DavidForthoffer

Work on Tactics Trainer for 15 minutes every day.

ufmgambit06

 lol there are alot of trolls on chess.com

ufmgambit06
HueyWilliams wrote:

Yes, but there is also the possibility that Vishy is spouting on about "motifs" and "themes" because it seems to make these matters simpler and more easily digestible...when in reality somebody solving a chess problem might not think in such terms at all (I certainly don't). 

And there are some players that do. Just like in music : There are musicians that think and know about the theory of what they are playing, and some who don't.