Improving game from 1400 rating online chess

Hi all,

I play mainly correspondence chess on several websites, generally I'm rated between 1400 and 1500, sometimes lower on redhotpawn, and I'm much worse on blitz, around 1000 and 1250.

I've been playing for some years now, but I seem stuck at this rating, I don't know exactly what to improve, I generally open with D4 with white, and if I'm playing black, I play either d5 or e5 depending on the opening by white.

I've been told to focus more on tactics than openings at such a low rating, but I feel like I'm hitting a ceiling right now, should I still focus on tactics and long games or try to study deeply openings and games ?

I precise that on correspondence I don't use database even for opening (I can learn an opening before playing I but do not rely on external info while in game in order not to fool myself).

So my question is where should I turn my focus on? Playing as much games I can, starting to study grandmasters game from start to end ? Or play tactics all the time or a combination of all ?

Thanks for your help.

- Feel free to correct my english if I make mistakes. -

jr

The OP wrote:

I precise that on correspondence I don't use database even for opening (I can learn an opening before playing I but do not rely on external info while in game in order not to fool myself).

Ok, thanks for that insight, I thought opening study was for later but it's obvious that I'm way too often in trouble finding good moves early in the game. I'll try this approach and see if my game improve in timed games also.

Well the advice I am going to give you is:

Think of chess like an automobile.

Tactic's are like gas.

They keep you going. However, You still need to improve in other area's lol.

If all you do is get gas for your car it doesn't mean you will get to your destination. 

For example:

If you have no tires or engine than the gas is useless lol.

Same thing apply's to chess.

If all you do is study tactics for your chess game it doesn't mean you will win all the time.

For example

If you have terrible opening play, middle game play, or endgame play than knowing tactic's is useless.

I remember talking to a person who studyed tactic's and was in similar problem. He was stuck as well.

I asked him a question.

I said do you know how to checkmate a king with 2 bishops or 1 bishop + 1 knight?

He studyed tactics but didn't know how to checkmate a king. What if in a game you ended up in that position? Your tactics would be useless than!

Chess is like a car.

You need everything to work in order for you to get to your destination.

You need your engine, oil, gas, wheels etc.

In chess it would be like:

• Opening Knowledge & Theory

• Middle Game Planning

• End Game Technique

• Mating Patterns

• Pawn Structure

• Handling Open position vs Closed positions

• Checkmating with King + Queen vs King
• Checkmating with King + Rook vs King
• Checkmating with King + 2 Bishop vs King
• Checkmating with King + 1 Bishop + 1 Knight vs King
• Checkmating with King + Queen vs King + Rook

I wrote a nice comment a while back to a nice person who was in a similar situation. People liked my comment so much I put it in a blog so people can have something to think about.

I will share with you the link below. Which can give you other options and idea's.

http://www.chess.com/blog/X_PLAYER_J_X/chess-plan-for-beginners

I have had people tell me they felt stuck in their chess game. I respond with well what have you been doing? Do you have routine or a plan on how you want to improve your chess game?

You would be surpised how many people do not even have a plan.

I will be the first one to admit I didn't have a plan.

There is no shame in not having a plan. I didn't have a plan in the beginning than I realized I need a plan. You might not have a plan either but now you might be thinking of getting a plan. The link I showed above could be a way to come up with a plan for yourself. Which can help you become unstuck lol.

I mean I started the game for fun didn't think of a plan than got stuck. Than I had to realize if you want to make some sort of improvement than you have to come up with a plan. Otherwise how could you measure whether or not your game is improving or not?

Frankly, When you think about it. It does give you some encouragement. All this time you might have not been doing all of these different things which is why you are stuck. However, Maybe after doing all of these things you will greatly improve.

I personally believe everyone has the power/chance to improve and become a Title player one day.

I am ranked 1800 and even 2000 on other chess sites and yet I feel like I know so little.

Chess is a vast complex game. It is rich with so much information and things to learn.

I have found the best way to be in chess is humble and like a sponge.

Absorb all the information you can but don't allow yourself to gain an ego. Simply because what you learn today as being right might turn out to be wrong tomorrow.

Throught out chess history you can see lines which Grand Masters believe were terrible than the next day 1 different move later the position turns from being terrible to being very strong.

First I think it is very clear.  we all have a PERSONAL voyage when it comes to chess improvement.  I'm not sure I can offer too much since I'm not really that much further ahead of you but two things stick out...

first, why haven't you looked for a coach?  do you feel like you can't afford one? do you not know who to trust.  But yours is EXACTLY the kind of situation a coach could help the most.  someone who is stuck to his rating.  you need insight. if you''ve done a lot of study and still aren't moving ahead you need someone who can help you find what you haven't been seeing.

Second,  Generally, looking over annotated games are considered very instructive.  you don't want just any old grandmaster- instead you want games that a coach sees as very instructive.  there are so many books that do this.   you haven't talked about books...

Lastly, and perhaps mostly if you dont' want to try to find a coach- you still out to be intensely looking over your game.  where are you losing?  

do you get into an endgame and not know what to do?  do you start losing at the opening (it doesn't sound like it)- middlegame problems might SEEM tactical but be strategic.  If you give your opponent lots of handy squares to work with- then yeah you'll lose tactically from strategic mistakes.

any ways, right I am a patzer!  But I feel empowered tonight.  I've been winning and improving in several time controls; I'm at high point in G30, rapidly gaining on blitz- and aint in bad shape for correspondance chess.

In short, I feel like I'm rising right through your rating range.  maybe in a couple years I stagnate and be where your at-- but my coach and me thinks I can go places...

Several commentators have offered detailed advice here. I would follow that of baddogno.

play icc my name HABANACHESS MY LOVE NAME SATANICHESS GG

Thanks all for your insights, I'll check some grandmaster games and the way they play opening and start using a database to check my moves with what's actually played in the opening.

One stupid question though, let say my opponent make a move which get us early out of the theory, this probably mean that this move is a "mistake" (unless the player is very strong and have found a new better way but at my level I doubt it can happen) in this case I should find why is it a bad move, but generally bad moves in the opening are not really explained so I should concentrate and find myself the refutation or is there some theories on bad opening moves ?

Stop blundering.

I'm probably in the same boat, but I've always tried to follow this advice.  "If I do this, what will my opponent do?  And then what will I do?  And then what will my opponent do?"  As far out as you can see.  It's not enough to have a strategy, you have to figure out how your opponent is going to respond to that strategy.  Sound openings - Capablanca never studied them much.  Make sure you answer your opponents moves, try to control the center, don't overextend or move one piece too many times in an opening.  Once the pieces are developed then figure out a plan of action and see the first part of my reply.

You should figure out why the move is bad.

Which is very tough!

Believe it or not this is were experience comes in.

People tell beginners to pick a few openings than stick with them. The reason why is so you can play the opening long enough until you reach a point were you have seen all the crazy responses by different people and have figured out what to do against them lol.

However, In the beginning it is hard.

Simply because you can not prepare for everything. Usually the rule of thumb is to remember the best moves and than try and figure out why your opponents move is wrong compared to the best move.

I've posted about this on other posts, but I'm only slightly higher rated than you (I range 1300-1400 5-min blitz here, compared to your 1200), but I too was stuck in your exact same predicament for over a year. 

Honestly, studying more tactics will NOT get you out of the rut. At the 1200 5-min blitz level, while yes, you do miss tactics, the overwhelming majority of them at 1200+ are due to to positional pressure or really messy positions. A 1400 player vs a 1200 won't even need to get into this tactical slugfest, as you may have experienced. When I'm playing at 1400 level, I can miss 3-4 tactical kill shots against a 1200, and still easily win as the position I build up is so dominant due to their errors. 

I used to feel that 1300s+ NEVER blundered, since when I plugged my losses against them into the computer, they truly never did! What was actually happening though, is that they built up such solid positions against me (likely from knowing their openings) that I had markedly inferior positions right out of the opening, and all the blunders to make were on my side. Once I acquired some opening knowledge to counter this, I found that even 1500s+ easily blunder once you put some positional pressure on them - I actually think a fair number of 1300-1500 rated players blunder a lot more than 1100-1150 players, in that the 1100 players rely almost entirely on tactical kills and avoiding tactical kills, whereas the 1300-1500s often play book lines they think they know and can easily overlook a tactic if the position is slightly different.

If studying more and more tactics is NOT getting your rating up right now, you should cut back big time on it, and start studying games and openings you play. I found that studying opening lines (this takes a fair amount of work, not just memorizing 2-3 lines) from an openings book made a huge difference in my game. You'll learn to make the 'quieter' moves that still give you advantage, and you'll be amazed at how often opponents, even 1500+, blunder regularly after you put them into even a bit of positional pressure. 

It was pretty shocking to me to see that studying tactics was NOT the answer, but my rating reflected it pretty clearly once I started cutting back on tactics and adding some really basic openings and positional knowledge, even at 1100-1200 5-min blitz level on this forum. 

I'm severely limited on study time now due to work and family, but even now, I often get worse ratingwise when I study tactics at cost of reviewing openings and games in openings I play. It's amazingly obvious, actually. I'm not saying to ignore tactics, but the "Michael De La Maza" strategy of all tactics is pretty wrong for folks like us who can't understand the 90% of nontactical moves required to play good chess. 

This is part of learning an opening.

Learning and opening does not only mean studying the 'main line' or named variations. You should also study out of book lines that you expect or have been played against you.

Contrary to what people have said above, it is both perfectly ok AND necessary to memorize computer engine winning responses if you can't figure it out yourself. You will learn a lot about chess by doing so - memorizing and ingraining winning moves is what chess learning is all about. 

It is not true that every move has a clear underlying explainable meaning, esp in the opening. This is why there are branch points and 'unclear' evaluations even by top GMs. 

But you'll find that most openings have quite a few positionally or tactically losing shots that players at our level make commonly and which you can exploit if you just study the opening and the common responses. 

If you study the games of Paul Morphy, you will quickly discover that he understood principles of mobility, piece coordination, and vulnerability. Against his weaker opponents, he often had a development advantage after ten moves. That's how he was able to win so many games in less than thirty moves.

My top students last year went through all eighteen of Morphy's games from the First American Chess Congress. These games help a young player develop an understanding of principles. 

Control of the center does not require occupation of the center. That's the point of hypermodern opening systems.

Likewise, classical development schemes are not the only way to assure that your pieces are mobile and coordinated and that you are attentive to vulnerabilities in your position. 

I think Morphy-without doubt one of the Greats-was not doing so well in closed positions.Nowadays chess is far more open-minded and elastic than in the past and far less dogmatic too.Principles and generalities can have quite a few exceptions and relying on principles is certainly inadequate-if not downright suicidal.The specific is King at chess, which, in the final analysis , is a game played move by move.Even the so called plans may be an illusion.Ideas,yes,sure but plans?What counts is to play a good move on each turn.And that is not easy at all...

Love to see a game that supports this contention.

I agree with the rest of your post. I rather suspect that Morphy would as well.

not precisely sure What the contention is ...

are we saying that modern games violate age-old principles in chess? or at least More than in the past?

or do you mean that the best players in the world, play more creatively than they did in the past- because they were able to understand exceptions to the principles of chess ?

-- I don't know that I agree guys.  take Nimzowitch.  one could argue that he was one of the most creative strong chess players in all of history.  He played "exceptions" to the rules of the chess...A very strong player playing creatively, understand the point of exceptions to the rules and just a few years after the principles were understood and published. 

Sorry. I could have been more clear.

Your contention that Morphy did not do well in closed positions.