Improving

I was mainly referring to your wonderings in post #13 where you are talking about math and comparing the thinking processes between maths and chess.

Something I never see chess players talk about is the application of theories, philosophies and ideas of outside disciplines. Almost like chess is an island with no contact with the outside world.

It is my belief, that if you want to get past the patzer stage of chess, you have to get creative and bring something unique to the game otherwise you will just be a 'book' player. By this I don't mean the opening book, I mean only relying on what you've read in books, watched in videos or picked-up from reading the Chess.com forums.

It sounds like perhaps we may agree on more than we disagree.

Another vote for considering a paid membership here.  I've got stacks of books around the house but the only ones I use regularly are some general opening tomes like FCO and Chess Opening Essentials.  Pretty much all my studying now is with the ChessMentor although I watch videos regularly too.  There are some killer video series on openings that I use to quickly review typical plans for openings I don't have down cold (OK, that's all of them  ).  So my advice is to go diamond.  We all learn differently though so only you know what's best.  Absolutely nothing wrong with going old school and studying with a book and a board.  I just find other media more efficient for me.

Billions of threads on this:

http://www.chess.com/forum/search?keyword=how+to+improve

Im not sure what you are getting at here! Do you mean to say that I shouldnt relate maths and chess, that I should or that you have no idea, you are just saying its unique?  I do know what you mean about being a book player, but I feel that what I want to learn about chess are the principles, and the concepts, not specific sets of patterns.  I should hope that this evolves into some form of originality, and an understanding transcendant of that which I have gathered through the study of study of others

I'm saying if you sit down at a chess board with nothing EXCEPT what you have learned through books, videos and other material, then you may find yourself limited to only being able to do what you have studied. Which, of course can take you a long ways. But if you plan to excel at the game, then you have to have a little something extra beyond what comes from the books.

I say if you feel like there is some line of thought in maths that you feel is applicable to your chess playing, then you should investigate it and decide if it is a good fit with your philosophies about chess.

Yes, I bothered to check and saw that. Hence the [COMMENT DELETED].

I'm always a little grumpy before my morning tea kicks in.

I massively agree with you on that- I do see it all the time in fellow students, when something new comes up, they crumple, whereas with my understanding, ok I may make more mistakes, but I like to think it means that I can adapt to the new situation.

When you speak of philosophy of chess what do you mean, precisely?  I have some concept of what it is but I'd like to hear what you think.

For example, some players are more aggressive, or tactical. Some players are more positional and like to build-up for action.

2 Strong players can look at one position and come to 2 different conclusions. All because of their own personal philosophies about what they see in front of them. This, of course, explains why there is usually a winner and a loser in a game of chess; one players philosophies won out over the other's.

Now that I think about it, 'philosophies' is probably not the best word here. Probably 'theories' is a more appropriate word.

I did think that was what you meant, and yes I suppose philosophy is somewhat overendowing perhaps, but I like it and I think it fits well enough after having accounted for my enjoyment of its use to be used.  Im sure there is a word that means overly philosophical or profound but I can never remember it!

Regarding your latter point, do you actually think that it is the philosophies of the players that win out or their abilities.  Whilst of course they are intertwined, I am not convinced that they have a large decisive influence on the outcome- my philosophy can be infinitely aligned with that of Carlsen, but my play is certainly not.

I asked this same question three years ago. There is plenty of good advice to be found here: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/whats-the-fastest-way-to-get-better

I also recommend the membership on chess.com as a good way to improve. The thousands of videos are pretty good, as is chess mentor, the ability to analyze your games, and the database. I'd have it if I wasn't poor. There's also a channel I'd recommend on youtube too: Chess Club and Scholastic Center of St Louis, which has another ~550 chess lectures to learn ideas from.

Chess is all about mistakes. Mistakes are the ultimate reason ANYONE loses a game of chess.

But, for stronger players, these mistakes are usually very subtle and often are a matter of taste(philosophy, theory......).

Having a solid set of theories or philosophies does not guarantee wins on the individual game level, but they will take you far in overall wins and improvements.

Frittles I am absolutley amazed that you started off at 1500 after just half a year! I started a year ago and I'm now 1100 (having started at around 700 as most tend to?) I mean, I would say that I have only really started learning anything at all in the last 2 months- i.e I learnt what a pin was about 2 months ago (shocking huh!) so perhaps if I count then as my starting date I can progress to 1500 in 4 months(I wish!)- when I started on the site I only played for about 3 months and then stopped until about 2 months ago.  May I ask why your progress slowed? life got in the way?

I think I started around 1200-1300 and studied a lot (I did ~40 hours of tactics trainer and many more watching chess.com videos) and played >1000 standard length games in a few months which got me to 1500. 

People have different playing abilities and progress at different rates though. Some people stay at 1300 their whole life. Studying helps everyone though. If you're asking why I'm only 1727 on here...I took a year off of chess, and I'm probably capable of a higher rating if I played more standard length games, but I also just enjoy blitz and that doesn't really improve my game. You could improve more than me in that time if you studied hard.

Also, as a general rule, your fastest rating improvements will happen at lower levels. Going from 1100 to 1200 is much easier than going 1900 to 2000, for example.

How not to get a standard rating of 2000: Play lots of blitz

Regarding this nonsense: "it is apparent that you can increase your arsenal of chess ideas much quicker by applying them in blitz games"

While you can play more games in less time, you can't apply most of what you need to learn during a blitz game, so your claim is flawed.

Do not worry about your blitz rating. I did, as evidenced by my post on here "I am ridiculously bad at blitz" a few weeks ago. But what matters is your OTB rating.

What follows is a copy of a response I made to a thread a little while back on a similar topic:

There have been a lot of people who have asked this question on the forums, including myself a few years ago. Every time I see this question, I give roughly the same answer, which is made up of the following few paragraphs.

Keep playing chess. Also keep studying tactics. I mean that. It's true that there are not tactics in every position, but there sure are tactics in every game, and when they do occur, one slip up will kill you, so you must be studying and practicing tactics more than anything else.

In terms of playing chess, you must, and I cannot stress this enough, you must challenge yourself and regularly take on opponents rated 200+ points above you. You will get your butt kicked on a regular basis, and this is how you improve. With every win over an opponent rated 200+ points above you, you not only gain an enormous chunk of rating points but you also gain confidence in your ability to play chess at that level.

I myself was wondering this two years ago, as a sub-1000 player. I am now rated 1811 U.S.C.F. That's not where I want to be, as my goal is National Master and I'm not stopping until I get there, but I gained a lot of points so far and I think my advice is useful. Most of my games when I was rated between 1200 and 1700 were against players with ratings at least 100 points above me, and some were even against players 500+ points above me. Playing higher-rated opponents is very important. I must admit, my age is a factor. I am young (16 years old) and therefore it is easier for me to improve. It has long been known that in chess it is easier for junior players to get better than older ones, probably because the brain isn't fully formed until a person is in his mid 20s. While this makes it more difficult for older players to improve, I have seen older players do it. It is not impossible.

Finally, improving at chess is a commitment. You have to be willing to make chess study one of the top priorities of your life. You must play chess as often as possible- probably a tournament almost every weekend if you're really serious about improving. On the weekdays or whenever you're not playing in tournaments, you must A) analyze your games from your tournaments, B) practice and study tactics) and C) play more chess online, preferrably not blitz or bullet, as addicting as they are. You must be willing to dedicate many hours of your time to chess. If you aren't dedicated enough to do that, then you will not improve. It is an enormous effort even for a young player.

In a longer time control, you have more time to determine the validity of your plan. In blitz games, as we all know, you can be patient and wait for your opponent to mess-up with some silly blunder. In longer time controls, the chances of this are much less and require more thinking.

I'm not sure anyone has said blitz is bad for you.

Blitz isn't what keeps aspiring players from improving. Too much blitz often is.