you should probably study tactics
because you hung your knight as early as move 15 in your game with Mefi105
Question for the high rated players
Sort:
luckbird wrote:
in aware tactics are important, keep in mind everything I so here on chess.com is usually while in working my two jobs. I intend to continue studying them, but I was trying to provoke maybe a discussion around what resources helped people break through and how people broke down their time studying.
you should probably study tactics
because you hung your knight as early as move 15 in your game with Mefi105
I've been registered with Chess.com for 2.5 yrs but after an initial flurry, I didn't play a single game for about 2 years. For the past month I've been trying to get my game back. I'm not studying any books, but just following some general principles.
- Try not to trade pieces when attacking; opposite when defending.
- Don't push pawns in front of your castled King while your opponent still has dangerous pieces on the board.
-Knights are more valuable than bishops in closed positions.
-Play the middle game like a Tiger, the endgame like a Boa Constrictor.
- Develop pieces before attacking; don't try to checkmate your opponent in 5 moves; the better players will see through it in 5 seconds.
- when winning a piece; consolidate and rebuild an attack.
- what threats is your opponent trying to build. how can I disrupt it. Be wary of making the move your opponent expects (or wants).
Strangely enough I've found Chess 960 to be very useful in sharpening my attacks, coordinating pieces and improvising openings.
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
Nowadays we are all blessed by so many more opportunities than we had back when I was starting out (we used to have to walk 10 miles through a blizzard to even find a chess club!).
I bet it was uphill in both directions too. 
Seriously, your comment is an excellent one -- one of those rare gems that keeps me sifting through all of the dross on the forums for the occasional words of wisdom. As an 1800 USCF player, I can relate to the OP's situation. Since retiring a year and a half ago, I have been studying chess like never before.
I'd like to run a thought past you, based on what I think I'm learning. Acquiring more chess knowledge is essential to progress, but it's not enough. Equally important is eliminating errors in one's thought process. Maybe it's a tendency toward passivity or defensiveness rather than seeking activity. That was one of my problems. Another potential error is laziness in calculating variations. I'm working on that one now. Others include failing to take sufficiently into account your opponent's potential play and focusing too much on one area of the board. Surely other players are limited by those or other errors in their thinking.
And now a few words for Franklin: when you analyze your games, don't just figure out where you went wrong -- ask yourself why you went wrong. What were you thinking that caused you to go in the wrong direction? Also, I can highly recommend Yusupov's series of books. They are helping me a lot by making me think more effectively at the board. After finishing just the first volume, my six rated games have resulted in +4-1=1 against opponents with a higher average rating than mine. Hopefully, I'm on the road to reaching the next level, and I wish all the best for your progress in our wonderful game.
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
First off, you don't need a coach. I never had one.
And I think you also have to (unfortunately) consider the possibility that you might never break that barrier. Lots of people don't. For that matter, tons of people never get to be an A player!
One thing that concerns me a bit is that you want to know how to do it "the quickest." We get a lot of people on here who want to know how to be a master in a year. Or six months. As though it's some sort of race. Such types strike me as tourists, and most likely won't even be around here in another year. Or six months.
But of course, you've already put in quite a bit of work to get to 1800 USCF, and now it's a matter of working some more. Quite a bit more. As always with chess (as with anything else).
Anyway, there were a few books that helped me on my road to improvement. One was Pawn Structure Chess by Andy Soltis. Another was Complete Chess Strategy by Ludek Pachman (although of course if you can get all 3 volumes--which weren't available in my day--that's even better). And what finally enabled me to understand what a plan was was that illustrative-game section in Znosko-Borovsky's How Not To Play Chess.
And of course play. A lot. Nowadays we are all blessed by so many more opportunities than we had back when I was starting out (we used to have to walk 10 miles through a blizzard to even find a chess club!).
Thank you to Ghost_of_Pushwood for being understanding and some suggested reading material! To clarify when I say the quickest, I mean what was quickest/most helpful to you. Everyone is different, but I'm trying to get some good materials that will help me improve. I may or may not be able to improve "quickly". I am well aware that will depend entirely on me and the effort I put into it. I'm basically just trying to get the perspective of someone that has "Been there" "Done that".
Even becoming an A class player that is how I improved to a point is talking with people who are better than I am and asking them questions. Sometimes I'd understand initially, sometimes not. But usually things people say would prove helpful once my own chess understanding reached a certain level. That is all I'm going for here.
I don't remember the authors; but "Exchanging to Win in the Endgame" and "Secrets of Chess Training" were good.
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
First off, you don't need a coach. I never had one.
And I think you also have to (unfortunately) consider the possibility that you might never break that barrier. Lots of people don't. For that matter, tons of people never get to be an A player!
One thing that concerns me a bit is that you want to know how to do it "the quickest." We get a lot of people on here who want to know how to be a master in a year. Or six months. As though it's some sort of race. Such types strike me as tourists, and most likely won't even be around here in another year. Or six months.
But of course, you've already put in quite a bit of work to get to 1800 USCF, and now it's a matter of working some more. Quite a bit more. As always with chess (as with anything else).
Anyway, there were a few books that helped me on my road to improvement. One was Pawn Structure Chess by Andy Soltis. Another was Complete Chess Strategy by Ludek Pachman (although of course if you can get all 3 volumes--which weren't available in my day--that's even better). And what finally enabled me to understand what a plan was was that illustrative-game section in Znosko-Borovsky's How Not To Play Chess.
And of course play. A lot. Nowadays we are all blessed by so many more opportunities than we had back when I was starting out (we used to have to walk 10 miles through a blizzard to even find a chess club!).
Wow! @Ghost_of_Pushwood must have been channelling me or something. He actually gave a serious answer! Ok, he couldn't have been channelling me, because his advice is actually excellent!
If you're close to 2000 strength, the first thing to do is to make a serious evaluation of your game.
What are your strengths? Be specific. For example, if you think you're strong in the endgame, which endgames in particular are you strong in?
What are your weaknesses? Again, be specific!
How much time each week are you willing to devote to chess, including study and casual play?
Garry Kasparov and many others recommend you pick out the weakest part of your game and work on that. Constantly evaluate your game. Once your weakness is no longer a weakness, move on to the next area that's a weakness. Today's best players are universally strong.
Review your opening repertoire. If there's an opening which you love but you have lost three serious games in a row in that opening you may want to consider finding a better opening, for you. You could be playing the best openings in the world, but if you're not comfortable with the resulting positions, it may be time to look for something that fits where you're at right now.
And again, follow @Ghost_of_Pushwood's advice: Play. LOTS! If you can manage it, 2 hours of blitz every day will really help your game. Just remember that the blitz isn't a substitute for the hard studying you also need to do.
PS: My advice is geared towards someone who wants to break 2000 OTB, not just online.
This is correct--"every game is a free lesson"--you should examine the games you play and find the mistakes you made--and then try and avoid those mistakes in the future.
catdogorb wrote:
Also Soltis' book Pawn Structure Chess was one of the most helpful (if not the most helpful) book on chess I've ever read. So a big +1 to pushwood's recommendation.
Yes, that book is very important! It is a "must have"!!
just read books
May 3, 2018
0
#12
The advice many other players gave on here is great, though I have an important notice to add:
Playing all those games is not going to help you if you don't ANALYZE them, find RECURRING mistakes, and focus on ELIMINATING those mistakes from your play.
Also, a more modern alternative to Soltis' "Pawn Structure Chess" is "Pawn Structures: A Grandmaster Guide" by Mauricio Flores Rios. I find that book excellent!
I've been told my an IM not to analyze using the computer. I am curious as to your thoughts on this... and how does a weaker A class player go about trying to get 'correct' analysis without one? I've looked at my own games and that of what the engine say... sometimes I'm pretty accurate and in some positions it throws out crazy tactical moves or subtle moves that seem to not give advantage but it changes the evaluation completely. I keep thinking "how would I see all that?". What are your thoughts on the best way to analyze a game from a human perspective? Do you think using the chess engines is beneficial, or is there some other method you might use?
May 3, 2018
0
#14
Using chess engines is beneficial, although to get maximum benefit you should analyze with the engine AFTER analyzing yourself. That way you can fact-check both your moves and analysis.
When people say 'do not use engines to analyze your games,' they really mean "analyze your games by yourself, and then use a computer to check." You don't want the computer to think for you. If it points out a move that you haven't seen both in playing and in analysis, it prolly means you have a blindspot and should investigate further.
My story, I was stuck at 1800 for a decade, and solving more tactics and learning new openings didn't help. I ended up purchasing GM Smirnov's video course Grandmaster's Positional Understanding, and that was a eureka moment. In eight months I crested over 2000 and in just under two years I got over 2100, with my rating fluctuating in between those two ever since.
I'm not saying this course is a magic bullet, but the combination of video lessons, flow charts and practical exercises certainly worked for me; note that I spent three solid months going through all the material, so it was more than just 'watch video and get good'. If you've read lots of books and haven't improved, though, perhaps a different medium may kickstart your growth. Worth a thought.
It's far more important to learn to trust yourself than to get "correct" analysis.
There's a way to get the best of both worlds, but only if you're disciplined: Analyse your games completely for at least as much time as it was played. If it was a blitz game, 10 minutes may be all that's needed. If it was a serious 6 hour game, it deserves deeper analysis. Write down all the key moments, all the tactics that you consider important, and double check them without the use of an engine.
When you are done with that, pretend that you're preparing to publish your notes. Only then, check with the computer to make sure everything is correct. If your computer disagrees, make sure that it's right and not you. Pay special attention to tactics you didn't even consider.
But yes, your IM coach gave good advice that has often been repeated by the likes of Dvoretsky and Yusupov.
May 3, 2018
0
#17
It does, actually.
As pawn structures covered in both of the books originate after openings commonly played, having a modern version of the book means that variations commonly discussed today occur in only one of the volumes.
Take the Najdorf with ...e5, for example. Soltis doesn't cover this structure at all, while Rios has a few chapters on the subject.
I also personally found the Rios book easier to read.
Consider simply enjoying being in the 90th percentile (roughly USCF 1800 rating for tournament chess-players). The reason you might not be able to advance higher is b/c the top 10th percentile play roughly 10 times the number of officially rated games that the bottom 90 play. Simple chess-nut fanaticism among the top 10 percent is the most likely source of your stalled rating. Do you really want to join that club? Maybe yes, maybe no?
You can always gain more chess knowledge via study, and learning to apply it at faster time controls. Even if your rating improvement eventually stalls, the above two areas can almost always be improved, unless you're getting too old to keep up with the playing strength of rating pool.
Just enjoy the game at whatever "natural level" you can achieve, unless you're somehow embarrassed by not being higher rated ?? 
@zborg raises a good point: getting better at chess doesn't necessarily mean you will enjoy chess more. Most people want to win more, but you will always win 50% of your games against a similarly skilled opponent. If you're 1800, you will win 50% against other 1800s. If you get to 2000, though you're much better, you'll still only score 50% against other 2000s.
Others want to get better because they want to understand the game. Though my understanding is undoubtedly greater than it was before, and I can appreciate certain subtleties that I couldn't before, chess is a lot of work. It's enjoyable, but still work. Compare that to my 1400-1500 days, where chess was pure play. It was like going to the movies or playing a videogame: it was a thrill, anything could happen, and I played moves because I felt like it, not because of deeper meaning. Time to attack, f4-f5! Screw the consequences! Dam the torpedoes! That sort of thing.
If you're willing to put in the time, of course you can go higher. Just beware that it may not have a big payoff. When I hit 2000, I was happy for a day or two, but then it was back to studying.
As a final thought, when I was 1500, I thought the 1800+ were chess gods. I never stood a chance against them, and I assumed they were near perfect. Even if you never improve, know that lower-rated players think you're immortal. That's a nice thought, isn't it?
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Hello all. I've been playing chess for a very long time it seems (since 2003) in USCF events. Probably about 4-5 years ago I hit that 1800-1900 level that I flux in and have not been able to really break the barrier into 2000+. I normally study chess quite a bit, however this year and been a disaster with family issues. I'm taking a renewed interest in trying to improve though as my personal life seems to be settling down.
So my question really is how to break that 1800-1900 barrier the quickest? I've had chess coaches in the past, they all focus on tactical training puzzles. These are good, but I don't really need a coach to accomplish that goal. Suggestions on maybe things to study, ratio of time allotment, anything that helped you break the barrier. I know I need to just put in the work, but I would like to be a bit more serious about my improvement in the coming years.