When will I stop improving?

when u die

Really, you'll stop improving only once you stop playing. Experience is how you gain skill.

I agree. I'm still very bad at classical compared to my online skill. And yeah, 1200 FIDE players don't bluder pieces or miss basic tactics. However, their sense of strategy is weak, and if you keep making steady progress, they will almost always leave weaknesses for you to exploit. Therefore, if you just keep piling up pressure or improving your pieces, either they will eventually just crumble, or your position will be so good that there will inevitably simply be unstoppable one- or two- move threats at your disposal. If you don't realise that, and instead go into to your games expecting clear winning opportunities, you are bound to be impatient, overpress, and end up just getting worse positions than you deserve.

I have to admit, though, I still haven't figured out a way to consistently beat 1700-1800 FIDE players. They just don't make that many mistakes or even inaccuracies. So even the strategy of slow-playing it and slowly outplaying them only works around 50% of the time; the other 50% of the time, I never even get a chance to obtain a superior position, and I just end up getting desperate and often throw away the entire game.

There is no denying the winning strategy in classical is very different and much less clear than in online blitz/rapid. And it's one that even I am yet to fully figure out. That's why the majority of my classical games end in draws - whether against higher-rated (2100-2200 FIDE) or lower-rated (1700-1800) players.

So yeah, classical is definitely pretty tough.

Uscf player here. Sometimes class B players (uscf) really aren’t anything to sneeze at. You have to consistently put pressure on them. They’ll miss moves, but it will always be on you to spot the mistakes- last weekend I played a tough game against a 1700 who put up decent resistance. I’ll post the game when I can find it. Imo the first thing is to adjust your mentality to never underestimate them and never think that you deserve to win any of your games. 

Edit: here it is

In theory there is no limit

For my last few online games when my opponents stop using bots . Seriously though my game has I believe suffered by age not being agist personal opinion I have to play rapid or classical now or blunder too much. Younger I would play aggressive sacking my pieces for position or seeing traps.

Why? Is it wrong to be playing chess for fun and the thrill of competition without feeling the need to study?

Hey, B1Z! Yeah, some of those games can be really tough. In my fourth ever classical game, I actually played a 1700 ECF player (ECF ratings are roughly equivalent to USCF ones) and lost, although that was actually a result of just panicking in a completely winning position. I then faced that same opponent again a few games later and was lucky to escape with a draw. So yeah, I think I'll have to get used to the fact that I shouldn't expect to win when playing lower-rated players.

Are you sure about that? ECF ratings are on a completely different scale from USCF ratings.. According to chess.com (see https://www.chess.com/terms/english-chess-federation ), an ECF rating of 100 is approximately 1450 FIDE/143 USCF, and no players have an ECF rating above 300. ECF ratings are simply on a different scale from USCF ratings.

I think he meant an ECF player around the strength of a 1700, or maybe just ECF 170.

I meant ECF 1700. The English Chess Federation switched to Elo ratings in 2020. Nowadays, ECF and USCF ratings are close to equivalent.

Yeah, positive. That article is outdated. The ECF switched to Elo 3 years ago.

Haha I appreciate the implicit compliment that my progress has been too fast to have even been possible. However, no, I don't "very much" know what" wrong. I have a FIDE and a national rating, and am also a verified coach with 5 current students, all of whom are happy with my services. I'm not sure how you think all of that would tie in with your insinuation that I have cheated my way to my current rating.

It's now actually been 3 years to the month since I first learnt the rules. However, this post was made over a year ago, and it had indeed been less than 2 years since I was properly introduced to chess. My rating was 2200 at the time; a few months later, I first reached 2400 (on Lichess in blitz, but at that rating range, Lichess and chess.com are almost the same). If you don't believe me that I learnt the rules 3 years ago, you can literally see my first ever games for yourself: I originally played the on the account maxkho (which has been banned for smurfing, which is really dumb since chess.com is open about allowing one training account per user); just sort all the games by date and lo and behold.

I envy you
I spent two months trying very hard and my ELO never rose above 500.
It's clear that I have no talent for chess.
you have talent
Please do your best.

What? How am I changing my claims lol? It took me 2 years to get to 2400, and I have now been more or less stuck at that rating for the past year (although my Lichess blitz rating is 2450 and it feels like I might make 2500 some time soon). Where is the contradiction?

Also, as I said, you can easily test my claims by checking out my original account, maxkho, which will readily show you that I'm not making anything up. It feels like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. 

Good lord.  This nonsense thread is still going on?

Wow, talk about a cramped position for black! 25 moves in and not a single piece or pawn made it onto your side of the board. Throughout the entire 38 move game, no piece/pawn lasted more than 1 move on your side of the board

Why is it nonsense lol

Well when you put it like that it seems easy, but having taken the black side of such positions and winning against 2100s, white really has to be on edge to keep his advantage. But when he does, it looks fantastic, yeah!