Improving

I recently broke 1800 online after a long time. My next goal is 1900 and then 2000+ and so on. What is the best way to continue moving up? is there something that really seperates the 2000 players from the 1800 players that I should be working on? I know tactics are always big, so outside of that

Um I guess I wouldn't know but maybe more tactics and endgame or openings

Would u get out no one likes u

yeah I am doing some more blitz to work on speeding up my thought process and think more dynamically

Ok

Yeah the spiders noob

Rly

way to stay on topic. you are no better than he is now

Varies by player, of course.  I'm around the same level and for me, what happens when I play players 200-300 points higher is that it becomes glaringly obvious by about the 25th move that their ability to correctly gauge which squares need to be controlled and how to do so is much greater than mine.  I'm probably still even materially but I'm gradually running out of squares that are of any real use and my game falls apart not long after.

By contrast, when I play players 200-300 points lower, I feel like I win just because I use my pieces better than they do.  In other words, it feels like 2100 players beat me on the squares where there are no pieces, but I beat 1500 players on the squares where there are pieces.

Of course, being aware that I need to be more cognizant of and pro-active about winning crucial squares doesn't necessarily mean I have the discipline or ability to pull it off, which is why I'm 1700-1800 and not 2000.

@Trip very true. The question is how we move forward. I notice that if the higher rated player simplifies to the endgame I always seem one turn too slow to do what I want because of a single pieces placement and lose

Congratulations on breaking 1800.

I think Tripp is right: that's about how I feel when I'm getting ground down by significantly higher rated players. My guess is your tactical sense is already pretty well developed: the next step, I think, is developing a longer-range sense of strategy, as I think Silman would put it. I'm guessing if you're up in the 1800s you'll get more out of Silman's stuff now, which I sometimes have trouble following.

Bryan Smith, my favourite columnist here, talks about pawn structures to recognise in particular openings and I think that ties in to what Tripp says about the better players knowing which squares to control: I can understand the principle without having had the time to sit down and work it out in practice. (I have a book he recommended on chess openings sitting on my shelf but have never actually looked at it: too busy getting thrashed by you guys up in the 17/1800s!)

Good luck with the climb to to the 1900s.

Try to avoid mistake like this. Gosh, what did I do?

Hmm yeah pawn structures go right along with important squares

Yes!  Experts aren't just class players on steroids but actually have a better evaluation function.  They are also superior in planning and can defend better too, and have greater strategic endgame proficiency and employ schematic thinking.  It all boils down to some extra knowledge but more importantly thought process.  Aagard's Inside the Chess Mind and Heisman's Improving Chess Thinker shed light on how different classes think. 

I have decided an increase in tactics, with 1900 tactics for the end of january

More chess mentor with a 2100 goal

and end game study with silmans endgame book

and a book on the french recomended by IM Pfen

Lets go with by the end of jan.

1900 online

1400 bullet

1600 blitz

1700 standard

Are you playing enough super slow games 75 and 90 minutes? if you want to be a solid positional player and aquire the necessary skills and the experience that it takes to climb have to pay your dues playing slow chess against suitable opponents.

Good luck!

lots of online which is slow, and then at least a 60m live online game a week, and then otb games are usually at least 2h a side

improve your weak points that cause you losses.

very helpful...haha