I play a lot, but I'm not improving. What am I doing wrong?

Of course the info I said, and others have said, is for beginners that really want to improve, because they really enjoy chess. Most people aren't a genuis starting out at chess. It takes study, and hard work to become an expert at it. At least for most people.

However, even if you never become an expert, you can still derive great pleasure from playing, and learning more about it. Also you can still play when your old. Also having a good memory is helpful to everyone, chess players included.

I like taking my time, I don't like blitz, never have, because I have many fond memories playing numerous games with good friends, late into the night. Sharing food, drink, having a good time, and talking about life, also important issues at the time. Its a game, enjoy it as such. Good luck.

Manny_Fresh77 wrote:

"... I enjoy the game enough to put in the effort to improve I just need to itemize or prioritize what to do first since I really haven't done much outside of playing and watching youtube videos of games played by GMs. So that's my logical next question. I haven't taken any studying seriously so what do I study first? Openings? Middle games? Endings? checkmates? structures? I'll take any advice." 

There has been much vehement argument on this question. My suggestion would be to get a few books on a variety of subjects and go from one to another according to your mood and what seems most helpful at the time. Just remember that you want to learn about all the different parts of the subject.

The 10,000 hour rule probably applies here. Generally speaking it takes 10,000 hrs to become "great" at anything. This is a generalization and may be oversimplifying, but probably not. That's almost 20 hrs a week for 10 years. There is a book about the 10,000 hour rule.

Outliers by Gladwell. It's a very popular book.

maybe you could play chess with someone better than you and ask them to help you on your gamesrapid 15/10 or 30 min ought to be good.or maybe some dailyor blitz(I don't recommend bullet

You don't study one part of chess, then another, then another.  You study all aspects of chess in parallel. 

In any given week you can do some tactical puzzles, study a couple of standard endings, read about some positional concepts, play over some master games, deepen your knowledge of some aspect of an opening that you play, and study your recent games to find (and eliminate) your typical mistakes.  All aspects of your game improve together. 

It also helps to play some practice games ... but they need to be taken seriously, and that is often hard to do when playing blitz on-line.  Your practice games need to be slow enough that you do not end up making absurd blunders in time trouble.

The idea is that all parts of your game should be equally strong, because your practical playing strength tends to be closest to the weakest part of your game.

The best test of whether or not you are improving is to play in  "normal tempo" OTB tournaments and track the Elo-style rating that you get from your national chess association.

For someone in the "980-1300" range, I think it is a little early to be thinking about perhaps spending 10,000 hours to "become 'great'".

kindaspongey wrote:

For someone in the "980-1300" range, I think it is a little early to be thinking about perhaps spending 10,000 hours to "become 'great'".

I was more or less trying to say have some patience. In the OP Manny says he's been playing a few years, but probably (I'm assuming) not 20 hrs a week.

I hovered around the 1300 level for years when all I did was play and nothing else.

Once I started reviewing my games, and also studying some chess books, my understanding of the game began to skyrocket.

So these days, I'm convinced of one thing: Playing is great for practicing what you already know. But studying and reviewing is where the real improvement happens.

If you're not improving, it's probably because you're not studying or reviewing as much as you need to.

At the very least: review every single game you play to try to find improvements. Then check with an engine to see what you might've missed. Just by doing this alone, you'll begin to see improvement.

Brilliant, concise, and on the money!

Really, you can mate with a bishop and knight OTB, but cant with a queen blindfolded? Qg1, Qg5, bring king over, Qg7#?

You really aren't ok.

#1 is about pattern recognition.  If you have good pattern recognition, you should be able to mate with Q+K vs K in blindfold chess.

#2 is about piece coordination.  To mate with Bishop and Knight (not blind), you need to understand piece coordination.  One slip-up and you have to start over again.  If you can't do number 2, you badly need to study piece coordination.

#3 is about basic, stock endgame positions.  If you are even remotely any good (i.e. 1400), you ought to know all 4 of those endings like the back of your hand, and especially the first two as they come up far more than the other two as they work in all cases except Rook pawns whereas the Short-Side Defense is specific to Bishop Pawns while the Long-Side Defense is specific to the two center pawns.  In all 4 cases, White has a King, Rook, and Pawn while Black has a King and Rook, and Lucena's position is the one that's a win for White, where the Black King is cut off 3 files from the pawn, and White builds a bridge.

Until you can do items 1, 2, and 3, you need to reduce the online play, increase the studying with book, board, and pieces, and forget about studying openings until you can do all 3.

You think you are ok?  Define ok?  Over the board rating of 1300?  That's not ok.  That's scrub!

Its not going to matter how much you play online, its not going to matter how many chess apps you have on a phone.  At what point was it determined that chess improvement was done on a phone???

You want to improve?  

Set up a real board, and pieces, and open a chess book.  

Review your games.

Openings should definitely be last!  At your level, as long as you know opening concepts, like control the center, develop minor pieces first, not the queen, get the king safe via castling, etc, you should be fine in the opening and get a playable game against that level of opposition until you get to about 1800. 

There is arugment between the rest which should come first.  Here's what I would recommend:

1. Basic Checkmates:  K+Q vs K, K+R vs K, K+B+B vs K, K+B+N vs K.
2. Beginner Tactics:  Winning Chess Tactics by Yasser Seiriwan
3. Endgames:  I recommend "Silman's Endgame Course".  Others, except maybe Winning Chess Endings by Seiriwan, are probably too advanced.
4. Strategy:  Winning Chess Strategies by Yasser Seiriwan
5. Calculation:  The Inner Game of Chess by Andrew Soltis
6. Advanced Tactics and Advanced Strategy - I would recommend the 9-book series by Yusupov.  The 3 orange books should be read first, then the blue, then the green.  However, make sure you complete the first 5 items in the list above before doing this.
7. Openings - By then, you are probably ready for opening theory.

Also, U-Tube is garbage.  Many of them are just wrong and done by amateurs.  Also, you should be studying with a 3-D board and pieces, and probably should be playing some in over the board tournaments.  But even before you go to tournaments, when you study, study on a 3D board, not a computer.  Passive studying, which is basically watching videos or making moves via mouse clicks, isn't as effective as making the moves yourself on the board!

Its not going to matter how much you play online

I find it easier online. :)

The point of knowing the B+N+K vs Lone King is not based on Frequency of occurrence.  It's about piece coordination, and can be applied to middlegame positions.

Bishop and Knight is a special case.  With minor pieces, they can only attack one color complex at a time, unlike Rooks and Queens.

That said, Bishops also control squares of the color it occupies, and it will always occupy the same color.  The Light-Squared Bishop will never occupy or control a Dark Square.

Knights, on the other hand, control the color complex opposite that of the color square it occupies.  So if it is on a Light Square, the squares it controls are all dark!

So if you look at the endgame, B+N vs Lone K, and study it (don't try to figure it out from the first move on your own), you will often see how the pieces coordinate.  Take the diagram below, for example.  This is a common position in one of the two ways of mastering this mate.  One way is to reduce the island of the King with Triangles.  This one comes from forcing the King into the wrong corner (a1) and driving it to the right corner (a8).  In the latter process, this position is part of the forced sequence.  It is White to move, what should he do?

Well, if you think about what squares are controlled, you can easily see that a Knight and Bishop work best together when they occupy the same color square, as then the Bishop controls the squares of the same color and the Knight the squares of the opposite color.

Here, it looks like the Black King is running out and getting ready to run for h8, the wrong corner.  However, look at how the Knight covers d6 and c7, the King covers c5 and d5.  If White can cover d7, you have a barrier or a cage where the King can't run Northeast to h8.  So the correct move here is 1.Bf5!!  The Bishop now covers d7 and c8.  So the King must either go back to b6 or he can go to b7.  But the c8-c7-d7-d6 barrier along with the White King keeps the Black King in the Northwest corner of the board!

Understanding this piece coordination and how pieces work together is critical in succeeding in chess.  Many beginners look at the pluses and minuses of each piece on the board individually.  They look at a knight as centralized or on the edge, a bishop as good or bad, but fail to look at the complete picture of how the Bishop and Knight best coordinate with each other!

its solid advice thriller. ty.

but  i don't agree with K vs KNB; K vs BB checkmates.  why?  just too darn impractical.  I think the assumption you're making is that the OP is willing to Study VERY hard and over long hours.

yet trying to do TOO much, and finding it dull, boring or overwhelming is a common failure for people that want to improve.

instead, any coach worth his salt, would assess where the person is at, and what is most important.

and thats why IMHO, that tactics practice become SO important.  yes, you can get awesome tactical skills by long hours of review with a chess engine- but many won't be able to do that- and won't put in the long hour it takes.

instead the typical improving player is SO much further ahead to get a chess tempo account and work perhaps 30 minutes 3-4 times a week.  in times he 30 minutes could become an hour.

but you have to admit, the program you laid out is NOT going to work if someone is only willing to put out 2 hours a week in study.  instead- it would be picking and choosing just like the OP was saying.

Yusupov particularly is NOT accessible without serious time and effort.  his whole deal was to be very methodical.

----

if you're willing to become practically a part time "full time" student of the game, and can find a way to put 15-45 hours a week into the game, no doubt your program is perfect.

with 2hours a week, (study), than spend all that time on tactics- at least for a while.  when your tactics elo goes way up, either here or on chesstempo- switch to mentor. IMHO.

bbeltkyle89 wrote:

chesster3145 wrote:

I can do the second and third ones.

Really, you can mate with a bishop and knight OTB, but cant with a queen blindfolded? Qg1, Qg5, bring king over, Qg7#?

Sorry, I meant the first and third ones.

ha!  you addressed the point when I was typing.

nonetheless what about time, thriller? do I have a point??

In response to your post 38, you don't need 15 to 45 hours per week, and you mention a gradual buildup in time and tolerance.

Look at what I mentioned.  Basic Mates.  This helps pattern recognition.  You can do 30 minutes at a time with this.

Next is beginner tactics.  Easily you can do 30 minutes on this a couple of times a week.  There is no need to study 15 to 45 hours at this stage.  You'd finish the book in a week.

Next is Endgame Study.  By now, you probably want to be up to an hour 3 to 4 times a week.

Next is Strategy.  Again, probably an hour 3 to 4 times a week.

Calculation.  You might get by on an hour 3 to 4 times a week, but here is where you start taking longer to get thru a page of analysis.  I would recommend 90 minutes 3 to 4 times a week.

By the time you reach the Yusupov series, you are probably ready to study either 120 minutes 3 to 4 times a week or an hour 6 times a week.  You still don't need 45 hours for this.

Also, during this time, you should be playing over the board.  I'd say minimum 20 games a year, whether that's a 5 round tournament 4 times a year, or a 1-day 3-rounder 7 times a year.

Also, this is not a 3-month program. 

Basic Mates you can probably do in a week. 

Winning Chess Tactics - Month Minimum!

The Endgamge book - Probably 6 months to a Year!

Strategy book - Probably a month given the advanced tolerance built

Calculation book - Probably another month or 2.

So by the time you reach step 6, which is probably 2 to 3 months per book, at least a 2-year process, if you started today, it would be at least 2018!

So yes, I think that if you are willing to put in the effort, you could get through that course (except openings) and be at least 1900 over the board by January 1st, 2020, and possibly higher.  If you are a kid, probably a lot faster than 2020, but for your typical adult (I was 20 when I studied my first chess book even though I was 8 when I learned the rules about how to play), 1900 to 2000 in 3 1/2 years is not unreasonable, and your time per week never exceeds 6 hours, not 15 to 45.  Yes, some extra time must be put in to playing in tournaments, but 6 hours per week and 4 weekend tournaments a year is still well below 15 to 45 hours a week!