What is your self assessment of 1800 strength actually based on? You haven't played any rated games over the board. You haven't played any games here either. No one can assess your chess based on your prose.
Why not play some games? That will at least help people understand if you are a beginner with big dreams or if you are actually pretty good for your age.
That would also affect whether or not people agree wtih your study plan.
What is your self assessment of 1800 strength actually based on? You haven't played any rated games over the board. You haven't played any games here either. No one can assess your chess based on your prose.
Why not play some games? That will at least help people understand if you are a beginner with big dreams or if you are actually pretty good for your age.
That would also affect whether or not people agree wtih your study plan.
I play unrated OTB games in a chess club in Brussels (where I live).
Everybody there is FIDE rated except for me, and my self assessment (also based on the opinion of some IMs and FMs there) has as its main argument my results in these games (I tend to lose or sometimes draw vs 2000+ opponents, I've had all three results vs people rated 1700-1900 and I almost always win against <1650 rated opponents. I have also taken Ponzetto's tests I mentioned in my first post, obtaining about the same result.
Good plan, however I don't see the OTB practice, which is necessary to become a good player.
I think you mean "so please bear with me". "Bare with me" would probably be regarded as distracting your opponent under FIDE regulations.
I think you mean "so please bear with me". "Bare with me" would probably be regarded as distracting your opponent under FIDE regulations.
Thanks 
I like ideas like this... I don't know if it will help me, but it's interesting.
I agree. I was lucky enough to get a copy of this book. I think it's out of print now.
Hmm, that's a fairly solid way to meet the Sicilian. Maybe against e6 d4 ed Nxd4 you'd like the Bd3 Nxc6 lines. I don't know the name.
Dvoretsky may be too advanced for you, but you should keep it as a reference. Your study plan should get you to 1600 easily, then you can assess whether your opening repertoire should be as much of a focus as it is at present. I think that you'll find more basic tactics and less opening study will carry you from 1600 to 1800 in fewer years.
That looks a solid plan Kidaddict (and very good English by the way). As hicetnunc said, playing OTB and then reviewing those games take a lot of time and must be considered part of the plan. I'm not close to your level, but in my own plan, playing OTB is about 3 hours per week and reviewing about 1 hour, so 4 hours out of about 14-16 hours per week is about a quarter of available time.
At 14, you have loads of time to get to your target.
In bocca al lupo! (thanks google)
Nice plan. "Test your positional play" is a great book. Let us how how that 'thinking the board in circles' works.
Dvoretsky may be too advanced for you, but you should keep it as a reference. Your study plan should get you to 1600 easily, then you can assess whether your opening repertoire should be as much of a focus as it is at present. I think that you'll find more basic tactics and less opening study will carry you from 1600 to 1800 in fewer years.
He is already at 1800 and I believe him.
At any level up to 2400 tactics should be studied.
Theory and practice are two different things. Studying different aspects of the game is totally different from studying for tournament play. You'd better get a good coach because no one can see their own weaknesses.
In the words of Mike Tyson: "Sure, everyone has a plan. Until they get punched in the mouth."
And we have the same repertoire with the black pieces.
I think the plan is rather good but I am not so sure about trying to learn how to play blindfold chess?
My suggestion is not to do blindfold and increase your tactics training.
Nice plan. "Test your positional play" is a great book. Let us how how that 'thinking the board in circles' works.
What I (try to) do is I focus first on the four center squares (e4-d4-e5-d5) and then I gradually add concentric circles of squares to the picture to get a full chessboard. I find this easier because if I do the same thing with ranks and files I can't visualise exactly eight of them (I can do this for a particular sector of the board only). I think this is because when our brain looks at a number of objects it can only count up to three at first sight. When the objects are more than three the brain must first group them and only then count them.
I think the plan is rather good but I am not so sure about trying to learn how to play blindfold chess?
My suggestion is not to do blindfold and increase your tactics training.
I'm trying to learn blindfold partly because many strong players have said that they see resources and, in general, calculate better when they visualise the board in their heads, and also because I'll then be able to read chess books more easily, and hopefully more often (for example in the bus or on my bed).
I think the plan is rather good but I am not so sure about trying to learn how to play blindfold chess?
My suggestion is not to do blindfold and increase your tactics training.
I'm trying to learn blindfold partly because many strong players have said that they see resources and, in general, calculate better when they visualise the board in their heads, and also because I'll then be able to read chess books more easily, and hopefully more often (for example in the bus or on my bed).
I may be wrong but think blindfold play is a skill some have without trying to learn blindfold play. I could play blindfold at age 10 but this did not really help me very much.
I think just studying chess, using a board will get you to the place where you can read a book and visualize.
The reason I emphasize tactics is because there will be a tactic or two or three which will happen in most of your games and that tactic will be decisive.
I will also suggest [if this is possible] to see if you can get a coach [rated 2200 or higher] to look at a few of your games to show you the mistakes and how you can improve.
One of the best ways to learn is to be able to see your mistakes and learn how to improve.
I think the plan is rather good but I am not so sure about trying to learn how to play blindfold chess?
My suggestion is not to do blindfold and increase your tactics training.
I'm trying to learn blindfold partly because many strong players have said that they see resources and, in general, calculate better when they visualise the board in their heads, and also because I'll then be able to read chess books more easily, and hopefully more often (for example in the bus or on my bed).
I may be wrong but think blindfold play is a skill some have without trying to learn blindfold play. I could play blindfold at age 10 but this did not really help me very much.
I think just studying chess, using a board will get you to the place where you can read a book and visualize.
The reason I emphasize tactics is because there will be a tactic or two or three which will happen in most of your games and that tactic will be decisive.
I will also suggest [if this is possible] to see if you can get a coach [rated 2200 or higher] to look at a few of your games to show you the mistakes and how you can improve.
One of the best ways to learn is to be able to see your mistakes and learn how to improve.
I am thinking about joining the chess.com university prodigy program in June, before my last school year starts.
Theory and practice are two different things. Studying different aspects of the game is totally different from studying for tournament play. You'd better get a good coach because no one can see their own weaknesses.
In the words of Mike Tyson: "Sure, everyone has a plan. Until they get punched in the mouth."
Not being able to see your own weaknesses is false. What is true is that most people are unwilling to accept their weaknesses.
You are not correct in this. Players play a game and after the game is over, cannot see all their mistakes.
I know this from the players who I have helped. I ask then to send me the moves of 2 or 3 of their games. I then look at the games and can see many errors that they had not recognized. Then after they learn their mistakes, they can improve.
Players will never improve very much if they think they have the ability to see all their errors.
Dvoretsky may be too advanced for you, but you should keep it as a reference. Your study plan should get you to 1600 easily, then you can assess whether your opening repertoire should be as much of a focus as it is at present. I think that you'll find more basic tactics and less opening study will carry you from 1600 to 1800 in fewer years.
He is already at 1800 and I believe him.
At any level up to 2400 tactics should be studied.
I believe what he said about his OTB rating, too.
I don't have an OTB rating, although I think my skill level is about 1800 ELO.
I remember when I had no OTB rating, but thought that I was A Class. http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2009/05/rating-estimation.html
Hi guys,
This is going to be a long post (you have been warned) so please bear with me.
I don't have an OTB rating, although I think my skill level is about 1800 ELO.
I'm 14-y-o so I have plenty of time to study chess, and I have created for myself a study plan to get to about 2100 ELO level.
The four areas in which I must improve are
Black Defences:
Opening as white: e4
Lo and behold, we have arrived to the end of this forum post.
I now realise I should have broken this into two-three different posts (but what can you do: cudda, shudda, wudda).
Remember: I have posted this as a forum thread because I want you for US army ... uh ... I mean ... I want you to offer suggestions and improvements, of course
. What do you think should be my priorities? Also, there are some points on which I'm not totally sure in the text (I'm sure you can spot them) and your advice is welcome.
I thank you for your immensely useful help (post it even if you're not sure I'll find it useful!).
Carlo aka KIDaddict