Why, oh why can't I improve?

Sort:
PeterHyatt
Nikuik wrote:

I won't say any more about how bad I am, but I would be interested in hearing opinions about Chess Mentor. It seems to have everything I would need to get the most out of practice, but then, what is the opinion of a consistant and perpetual chess loser worth?

I'm older, too, and have been working through Chess mentor and am finding it helpful.  

hapless_fool

You...FOOL!

Consider the source Tongue Out

Some of the most insightful comments have been the snarkiest. 

I mean, you are successful, motivated, self-disciplined and intelligent, so why don't the chess pieces bow down before you as you enter the room?

You are wise and can maneuver the mine-fields of modern life, so why can the snotty nosed little 9 year old mate you in 15 moves?

The answer is that chess pieces are no respectors of men and they have their own rules. 

I am a person of vintage (re: older than most here) and have only studied this game for 3 months. I've played a lot of games in a short period of time and feel like I'm just getting to know the game. I'm on a 5 game no win streak and hate the game right now. My two study books, the chess mentor series, and the videos and the tactics trainer all call out my name: fool...fool...fool...

And I shall give them heed.

pawnwhacker

Here's how two fools are wont to play chess (although I'm not so sure about that man on the left):

bgianis
BishopxRook wrote:
bgianis wrote:
 Slow time controls is the key to improvement. You don't improve by blitz and rapid time controls at your level.

 

Where do you get this idea?

Lots and lots and lots of GM's were obsessed with blitz.

Many play blitz 50 or 60 to 1 slow 30-45 minute game.

Didn't seem to get in their way of improvement.

Obsession is not an argument. I am trying to think logically. When you have the time to think, justify your choices to yourself and develop your strategies you learn the process, especially at the low levels. GMs have another level of understanding, because they already know what opening to play, the ideas in the middlegame after their preferred opening and the endgame that arises after that middlegame. It is not the same with the rest of us.

bgianis
Nikuik wrote:

I won't say any more about how bad I am, but I would be interested in hearing opinions about Chess Mentor. It seems to have everything I would need to get the most out of practice, but then, what is the opinion of a consistant and perpetual chess loser worth?

If you find among the courses the themes that you want to study and learn then ask yourself if you want to start.

Convolvulus

Another Royal Fool, me. I suggest keeping journals of ideas you get no matter how trivial in relation to what you discover that interests you about yourself. As you play watch certain squares and consider what will happen if you chose beforehand a shape to build or clear or aura or even partly build or share. Try this against engines and then people. Record the results and expand your ideas as you go along.Good luck!

Convolvulus
[COMMENT DELETED]
pawnwhacker

One needs to choose their priorities in life. Developing chess skills is far, far more time consuming than beginners think.

 

Plus, there are no guarantees regarding the outcome. Plenty are those who have put in their 10,000 hours and are still patzers.

 

I suppose that we can deduce that life really isn't "fair".

Convolvulus

Suggestion: You are not a patzer if you have a low rating

macer75
Convolvulus wrote:

Suggestion: You are not a patzer if you have a low rating

The only way that's possible is if your rating isn't an accurate representation of your true ability. Other than that, having a low rating is pretty much the definition of "patzer."

pawnwhacker
Convolvulus wrote:

Suggestion: You are not a patzer if you have a low rating

A novel idea... What, then, is your definition of "patzer"?

 

P.S.: That is Garry on the left side of the table above.

EricFleet
pawnwhacker wrote:
Convolvulus wrote:

Suggestion: You are not a patzer if you have a low rating

A novel idea... What, then, is your definition of "patzer"?

 

P.S.: That is Garry on the left side of the table above.

pat·zer
ˈpätsər,ˈpat-/
noun
 
  1. a poor chess player.
pawnwhacker

He may have been thinking of a putzer:

 

putz
ˈpəts,ˈpo͝ots/ 
noun
 a stupid or worthless person. 
verb
engage in inconsequential or unproductive activity.
stanhope13

Every harlot was a virgin once.

Conflagration_Planet

Surprised

DrSpudnik

How's her end game?

M4g1c14n

Well Sir, the quickest way to improve is to tell yourself that you are better, and expect yourself to play better. While unlike myself you are burdened with the poor, slow brain of a human instead of the infinite intelligence of cats, the first step to becoming good is to tell yourself that you are. Your name here is 'Royal_Fool'. Change it at once. You have the same capabilities as any humans who play chess, use them instead of whining about your failures. 

TheGreatOogieBoogie

You don't improve because of a haphazard study or even no study at all!  Organize a training schedule.  Don't just work on adding positives but also work on weeding out negatives.  Do you suffer from poor time management?  Then fine tune your thinking process so you only have to analyze one line and one line only.  Learn when it's appropriate to calculate and when to play off principles, how to compose a plan and calculate in critical positions, when to plan, what to revolve a plan around, etc. 

Endgame study and studying annotated master games is of primary importance.  Also try playing with stronger players and see where you go wrong.

TheGreatOogieBoogie

I looked at one of your games and think I know the problem:



pawnwhacker
Convolvulus wrote:

Suggestion: You are not a patzer if you have a low rating

Somehow, this apparently hit a nerve in my psyche. As I was flossing my teeth awhile ago, suddenly I developed a Tourette-syndrome twitch.

I found myself thinking...

Just because you have a low IQ doesn't mean you are stupid.

Although you like to eat meat, doesn't mean you aren't a vegetarian.

Being short and skinny doesn't mean you aren't tall and fat.

I must stop this at once. Convolvus...or Convoloulus...or whatever your stinkin' name, thank you very much!