Will I ever put it together?

Surprisingly, you have asked a controversial question. I think many agree that there is something that one might call chess-talent, making it somewhat easier for some to learn chess stuff. I think just about everyone agrees that one's chess-improvement is greatly influenced by how much one studies, how one studies, and how one plays.

I appreciate your reply. Ive started my diamond membership so im gonna browse the articles and play the lessons while getting my daily games in. Sounds like theres hope yet! 

Sure to some people chess may come more naturally. For others a structured program can help in improvement.

I took a look at three of your losses... Stop resigning. You do drop a piece and you do get yourself into bad spots. Think about your opponent, you're not playing Kasparov, you're playing Doofus. Guess what? Doofus drops pieces. Doofus hangs mate. Did you hang mate? Doofus doesn't see it anyway. Problem is you're not sticking around long enough to see.

Once you've gotten that out of your system you can start actually improving. Next step would be to hit youtube and try and find a channel to follow with a GM/IM you can understand and follow.

Chess is not a test of character, or even a test of intelligence. It's just a difficult and fascinating game. It takes a while to get halfway decent at it, and a lifetime to master it. More than a lifetime in my case! Some people pick it up faster than others, but that doesn't mean that they will end up stronger.  As someone already mentioned, two months isn't very long, so quit beating yourself up! On the other hand, I took a quick look at a few of your games, and you seem to be making the same type of errors over and over. This has to stop. Send me a message if you would like to learn a little more

I appreciate everyones feedback. I will look for a grandmaster to follow and learn from. Ive stopped resigning from games and see them through. However, there seems to be one individual who insists on challenging me. Is playing one opponent repeatedly a bad thing? I try not to be rude and decline requests to play 

That all depends on if you are learning from him, and is it in daily or live?

We only play daily because we never agree of a time for live. I cant say that I learn from him, but there are also times when he beats me clean and i dont seem to see it coming. Ive given him the nickname wildman because of it lol. 

If it was live don't accept. Play as many people as possible in live. Study your games with him, see what he did. Look at what you could have done to stop him. 

Find out what your opponent wants and block them. Once you can do that, start to think about your own goals.

Fortunately this is one of the few things that has engaged me and holds my interest. The articles, the variations of chess you can play, the people and friends im making as well as rivals. I dont know what my future of chess looks like yet but im a mastery oriented type of individual. I suppose it was hasty to pose this question after 2 months knowing players have played for years/decades but I welcome anyone who has comments good or bad. Thank you for replying. If conviction is needed for mastery then ill add that to the list. 

"... In a recently published issue of the journal 'Intelligence' there were numerous studies, analysis, and pieces on the 10,000hr rule. In particular, one study by David Hambrick and colleagues entitled “Deliberate practice: Is that all it takes to become an expert”, sought out to 'test Ericsson’s claim that "individual differences in ultimate performance can largely be accounted for by differential amounts of past and current levels of practice.' As a refresher, Ericsson was the original researcher who developed and then publicized the concepts, which then took off with Gladwell’s Outliers, Geoffrey Colvin’s Talent is Overrated, Daniel Coyle’s The Talent Code, and numerous others who jumped on the bandwagon with their own spin.

In there research Hambrick reanalyzed 12 studies looking at expert performance in chess and music. Similar to Ericsson’s original work, they simply looked at hours of deliberate practice for each and compared it to performance levels along their development. In the chess studies, they found that deliberate practice explained 34% of the variance in performance, and therefore 66% unexplained. Looking at the individual numbers is even more staggering. There were some people who had over 20,000 hours of deliberate practice yet never went beyond Intermediate, the lowest of the three levels (intermediate, expert, and master). Perhaps most striking, was the range of “masters” was 832 hours to 24,284hrs to reach mastery.

When looking at Music, the results were very similar. 29.9% of the variance in performance was explained by amount of deliberate practice.

The whole study is worth a read as it delves into intelligence, personality, and other factors related to reaching 'expertise.' However, the take away to me is simply common sense. Does practice make you better? Of course it does, but it isn’t the be all end all.  And you know what, neither is genetics. ..."

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2014/03/why-gladwells-10000-rule-is-just-plain.html

hi

Unless you're Magnus Carlsen there is always someone better than you. I personally think an important part of improving is accepting the level you are on and enjoying playing while trying gradually to improve. It is like climbing a ladder, if you try too hard and try to skip ahead, you can lose your grip. Don't bother with lessons from GMs *unless they are focused on the beginner player*. I find following advice geared above my level actually makes me a worse player. Best source is tactics trainers- take as long as you need to solve. only practice while you can concentrate. check out the software Fritz -- it has excellent attack and defence training.

Yes the tactics mode is super helpful, its actually helped me mate a couple opponents with varations its had me solve. This app is great for helping a beginner like myself.