how do u actually get better at chess ?

@DECOY-CHOPPER

It seems to me that your biggest issues are (1) not adequately formulating a cohesive strategy and (2) not seeing threats from your opponent.

For example, what was the purpose of 11. Bxb8? You traded a strong, developed bishop for a knight that was still sitting on its home square. The tension in the position was over control of the dark squares and you released it without any apparent reason, then placed a knight on e5 that, while well positioned, was not doing anything concrete. Very early in the game, you also allowed Black's knight to settle on e4 and made no attempt to challenge it (which, down the line, created the fork that cost you the exchange).

First and foremost, you have to understand the typical themes and objectives inherent in your opening choice. The Exchange French, while not inherently bad, quickly leads to an even game where white cannot objectively hope for an advantage, barring some horrible mistakes from Black. If you play the Exchange French, the goal is, broadly speaking, to organize a kingside attack with your bishop on d3 while using your dark-squared bishop to eliminate or pressure Black's knight on f6 (so as to increase pressure on h7). Instead, you opted for a completely passive development scheme with a pawn on c3 and a light-squared bishop on e2, which achieved nothing. This cramped your position from the outset and extinguished any hope of an attack.

Bottom line: You have to have goals and objectives. The calculations and tactics help you achieve your goals and objectives, but that is all. Without an objective, calculation does not really help all that much. As a corollary, you have to study your openings of choice and understand the general themes. Aimless development is nearly always worse than no development, since it is often very difficult to correct the problem of a good piece being misplaced. Understand your opening and develop accordingly.

Second, missing obvious threats is also an issue (i.e., 21. ... Be3+), but one that can be corrected relatively easily. The first question you should always ask whenever your opponent moves is "what is the immediate threat, if any?" If there is no immediate threat, the next question should be, "Is this move a precursor to a threat on the following move?" If not, the third question should be "does this move hamper my ability to achieve MY objective?" With these three general questions, you have a fairly reliable system to avoid threats and identify your opponent's attempts to stifle your attack (which, ideally, will allow you to "counter the counter" or pivot in a different direction). The ability to calculate and visualize positions is important here, but still secondary to understanding your ultimate objectives because, if you don't understand how you should be attacking in the first place, you will likely never understand your opponent's countermeasures.

Two books I would recommend:

1. "Chess for Zebras" by Jonathan Rowson
2. "1000 Chess Problems" by Yakov Vladimirov

The first is a great resource for learning to evaluate a position, assess your attacking chances and your opponent's threats, and formulate cohesive objectives without constantly feeling lost or guessing at what to do.

The second is a book of HARD tactical puzzles, so don't expect to run through it. However, if you do and solve each problem diligently, you will VASTLY improve your ability to attack and defend, since most puzzles require you to carefully assess the opponent's responsive options, which, if you miss, will lead to disaster.

As for openings, almost any book or video will do. Just make sure you stay consistent with your repertoire. Familiarity with the landscape will make formulating plans and spotting tactics much easier. You can then use those lessons to broaden your horizons and apply the knowledge in analogous positions, and perhaps even in other opening systems.

Good luck!

@DECOY-CHOPPER Watch the two videos on this page to learn more about “good and bad trades” (if you want to go the extra mile, analyze the corresponding game and THEN compare your findings with mine in the text).

https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/how-good-do-i-have-to-be-these-days#IzmJh0FB

@DECOY-CHOPPER said ^

[...] i have found my weakness and that is calculation. [...] i had done a mistake , now that was in calculation . [...]

In the end, you'll need a broad skill set; calculations are just one of many areas that need work.

Good luck on your LIFELONG chess journey!

Till like 1800, you just learn concepts , learn to avoid tactics for your opponent, learn puzzles, this , that, it's like learning how to add two numbers at school, or learning how to multiply, or how to prime factorize and take a square root.

After you learn this, at least in my experience, it goes from "3 x 3" to "393030 x 93930 - the root of 59494, plus 23490". It turns into a little less about knowing these concepts and ideas, and a bit more about just your sheer capacity to calculate, predict, and how fast you can do it. You may be able to know how to play an opening, but can you memorize 30 lines of it? you may be able to calculate, but can you consistently calculate 10 moves ahead whilst taking just a few minutes of time?

TLDR ; imo,after a certain point, It becomes less about learning, and conceptualization, more about sheer practice, plus rating starts to deflate, so it feels like you're not progressing anymore, speaking as a player who peaked a little above that rating level.

@discoooooord , concepts like ? could u give me few ideas

@DECOY-CHOPPER said ^

@discoooooord , concepts like ? could u give me few ideas

Like knowing what an IKP is, and plans for both sides in those structures. There's like some other pawn structures, like Englund or English pawn structure or something, the one that happens in the exchange caro-kann, but I forgot the name because I don't play chess anymore.

Upto a level, knowing that and your opponent not knowing that, can give you an advantage. But then you reach a level where your opponent also virtually knows every trick, and tactic, and then it turns into more of a fight of brute force.

If one goes to [Site "https://lichess.org/flatO9pH"], one can see the evaluation of the position go from ~0 to ~1.4 in favor of SamanyuNV when DECOY-CHOPPER played 25 Nd6. That is the machine indicating that a big mistake was made at that point.
DECOY-CHOPPER played the first 25 moves at an average rate that would have made sense if it had been expected that the game would last for 164 moves. In a 15+10 game, one could average 22 seconds per move and have enough time for 75 moves.
"... For many people with little time for chess the default option is internet blitz, in which the players have five minutes or less for the entire game. I cannot warn too strongly against taking this route if you want to improve, the problem being that playing too many games at a fast time limit will corrupt the decision making process. Instead of playing good moves, a player honed on blitz will look for moves he can make quickly and perhaps bring himself closer to a win on time. ...
... you need to keep to time limits in which the chess position is more relevant than the thinking time, and, ideally, much more relevant. I actually believe that only Grandmasters (2500+) should play five minute blitz, ... 1500 players should have at least 25 minutes thinking time for a game -- or a rough equivalent if they are using an incremental time limits. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)
"i have an question is an amature's mind book good?" - DECOY-CHOPPER (~3 days ago)
https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/what-books-to-read-for-improvement-rating-1400-1500-fide?page=2
What happened with that?
"... The Amateur’s Mind [(by IM Silman)] ... is one of the best instructive books in print. ..." - Taylor Kingston (2009)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708094419/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/ammind.pdf
"... There are several problems which can arise as a result of Kotov's method. ..." - GM John Nunn (1998)
After 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 exd5 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 c3 Be7 6 Be2 O-O 7 O-O Ne4 8 Bf4 c6 9 Nbd2 f5 10 c4 Be6 11 Bxb8 Rxb8 12 Ne5 Bg5 13 Ndf3 Bf6 14 c5 g5, 15 Ne1 turned the d4-pawn into an overworked pawn (responsible for protecting both c5 and e5). 15 Ne1 gave 1900 the opportunity to react with 15...Nxc5. This is a standard tactical idea, and there are books to help one practice such ideas. For example: Winning Chess (Batsford edition, https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093415/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/review919.pdf).

@DECOY-CHOPPER said in #1:

... i didnt know what the mistake was with nh5 , ididnt even think of be3+ .
but how do i think deeper , what is the method of thinking deeper . How do i train it . ...

After 15 Ne1 g4 16 N1d3 Bg5 17 f4 gxf3 18 Rxf3 Qf6 19 Nf4 Rbe8 20 Nh5, another standard tactical idea was in play: the exposed king. Once the f2-pawn had been moved, it was necessary to stay alert for checks. 20 Nh5 cleared the way for the g5-bishop to get to e3. DECOY-CHOPPER's spider-sense should have been tingling about the possibility of the g5-bishop partnering with the e4-knight to do something nasty.

@DECOY-CHOPPER said ^

@ChessPriyome , i am getting 'how to recess your chess' . ihv seen people suggest its good and i am getting it . what is your opinion

IMHO, "How to Reassess Your Chess" is a good book on thought processes and how to break down a position into imbalances. This is really something you should have been doing all along, but if you haven't, now is the time to breathe that in and all it's goodness. Understanding what an imbalance is will give you moments of chess clarity heretofore unexperienced.

I won't tell you what moves were bad in your games. I think you should read the Silman book and draw your own conclusions and share with your friends.

Previously mentioned "Chess for Zebras" is a rare book that is well written and gives good (psychological) chess advice that is applicable, assuming you know how to read. Don't rush with that one - you will miss the point of it. I'm reading it again this week. Storytelling.

“How to Reassess Your Chess, 4th Edition was designed for players in the 1400 to 2100 range.” - IM Jeremy Silman (2010)
"... The Amateur's Mind ... (for players 1000 to 1600) ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (2010)
"... Clearly [Chess for Zebras] is not a book for a beginner. ... Rather, this book is a tool for turning strong players into very strong players – Masters into IM’s and IM’s into GM’s. ..." - Derek Grimmell (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708233853/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review526.pdf

Think like a grandmaster was groundbreaking in its time, but it is more than a little outdated now. You can find out for yourself what modern writers such as Jonathan Tisdall, John Nunn and Mark Dvoretsky have to say about the "tree of analysis method".

I remember asking a professional coach, who was highly regarded, to tell me how to analyze, all he would say was "it is your positional understanding that will tell you what to analyze". So positional understanding comes first.

@tpr said ^

IM Silman is one of the worst authors.
GM Kotov was better, both as a player and as an author.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1084375

I think this is quite unfair given the audience Silman is writing to, which is mostly sub 1800 players.

More chess players get more out of HTRYC than the GM friendly TLAGM that is painful to read, quite honestly.

HTRYC: #12 on amazon chess books rank
TLGM: #1,189 on amazon chess books rank

That's not marginal, regardless of some of the mistakes. If you own 12 chess books you are considered a nerd by nearly all standards. To own TLAGM as of those 12 and be a sub 1700 rapid player, well, a fool and his money are soon parted.

AI says:
While the book is a highly respected Soviet classic, the specific method Kotov claims GMs use to calculate has been heavily debunked by modern chess psychology and top-level players.

If the target audience says it's BS, its BS.

Additionally:
Ultimately, Kotov's Think Like a Grandmaster claims to show how GMs think but fails because it is psychologically impossible. Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess does not claim to show how GMs think; it shows how club players should think to stop making random moves.

Last I looked, the OP is a club player dead center of the Club Player rating range. Based on that alone, HTRYS is the clear winner.

Do an experiment: try both, talk aloud while doing kotov, and see how tanked youll feel after verbalizing your 2-4 moves for Kotov and compare that to Silman's "club player" method.

You'll want to hold a party for the Kotov book burning.

It's a big miss for 1700 club players. There are way better similar books that do a way better and more realistic job of it than Kotov. But TODAY, NOW - HTRYC wins for you.

Of course, it's my 2c.