I am stuck at 2000 what should I do

"results may not be so good just relying on the 5-second increment"

• To find out how much increment you need, play a session of puzzle rush.
  If you can solve puzzle rush at 5 seconds/puzzle, then you can finish a game on 5 seconds increment.
  If you need more than 5 seconds per puzzle in puzzle rush, then 15+10 or even 30+20 may be better for you.

"especially if the opponent has averaged 19 seconds per move and still has a 3-minute time reserve"

• The reserve of the opponent does not matter.
  It is only your ability to find the good move in the given position on increment alone.
  Even on the contrary: the reserve of your opponent can benefit you, as you can think in his time.

@tpr said in #11:

... To find out how much increment you need, play a session of puzzle rush.
If you can solve ...

As far as I know, no general study has been done on the results for everyone when obeying tpr rules.

@tpr said in #9:

... A 10+5 game is ideally played at average 25 s / move. ...

@kindaspongey said in #10:

... For a specific individual, results may not be so good just relying on the 5-second increment from move 31 on (especially if the opponent has averaged 19 seconds per move and still has a 3-minute time reserve).

@tpr said in #11:

... The reserve of the opponent does not matter.
It is only your ability to find the good move in the given position on increment alone.

Some players may find that it matters if one is obliged to average 5 seconds per move for 18 moves while the opponent can think for 15 seconds per move for those same moves.

@tpr said in #11:

Even on the contrary: the reserve of your opponent can benefit you, as you can think in his time.

"Can", but maybe not, right? While it is "in [one's opponent's] time", one does not know what the opponent is going to play. I think that, generally, it is considered to be a significant disadvantage if one is obliged to go for 18 moves averaging 5 seconds per move while the opponent can average 15 seconds per move.

@shadow1414 said in #8:

... analyze games if there is something to analyze. 'I lost because I blundered my Queen on move four? There is nothing to analyze.' 'I won a long, back-and-fourth game where there were several candidate moves that I considered? There is a lot to analyze.' When determining if a game is worth analyzing or not, you should not look at the result; you should look at the game itself.

@tpr said in #9:

'I lost because I blundered my Queen on move four?'

• Why did you lose your queen on move 4? Go to the core of that. Otherwise you will ...

If I am following things correctly, the
"blundered my Queen" and
"back-and-fourth" quotes were hypothetic inventions by shadow1414.

@tpr said in #9:

... Analyzing won games is fun, but makes you cocky. You remember the win, bu forget the mistakes. ...

I have not heard of tpr being generally recognized as an authority on what can be expected for everyone.

(@)kindaspongey: 'I am not sure what you have in mind by referring to using "all of their time".' ~ Time is less important than the position. It does not matter if you have an hour, ten minutes, one minute, ten seconds, or less than one second left; all that matters is checkmate. It does not matter if a football team wins by twenty, ten, five, two, or one goal; all that matters is that they win.

'Many players might have difficulty finishing successfully after using 25 seconds per move for 1-30 and "leeching off of" the 5-second increment from move 31 on' ~ Many players might have difficulty with learning a new game. Therefore, they should not have started chess at all. If someone has difficulty with using good strategies, then they should practice them. Life is difficult, so should we not try life at all? 'If you only do what you can do, you will never be more than you are now.' --- Master Shifu from Kung Fu Panda.

'Anyway, I am not advising specifically 13 seconds per move.' ~ Then you worded your, '75 moves' sentence poorly. Did your moon rock not include instructions on how to phrase things in a way that accurately describes your thoughts?

'25 seconds per move seems risky to me,' ~ Locking yourself away from great positions seems like self-sabotage to me, but if someone wants to hold themselves back rather than learn, fail, analyze, and master an advanced strategy...fine.

My advice: If someone is competitive---which, if they ask how to improve, they presumably are---then they should learn how to leech off of increment (like how the government leeches off of innocent people by brainwashing them into committing suicide by entering war).

'My only concern is to be sure that a player is aware of what might go wrong with that idea.' ~ My only concern is to be sure that a player is aware of what might go wrong with them leaving their house: A plane could fall on them. In life, no action is risk-free.

By the way, if copy-pasting quotes from others while adding nothing of your own to them---like you do with most of your posts, it seems---is your idea of doing the forums a favor, then you are wasting your time (and lowering the forum's quality).

(@)tpr: "'I won a long, back-and-fourth game where there were several candidate moves that I considered?'

Analyzing won games is fun, but makes you cocky. You remember the win, bu forget the mistakes.
Analyzing lost games is less fun, but makes you humble and helps you improve. The memory of the loss helps to remember your mistakes." ~ If you enter the analysis of a won game with the proper mentality---'My win is probably not the revolutionary masterpiece that it felt like it was while I was performing it'---then you will remember your errors.

For what it is worth, I fail to see how what you wrote here is a response to what it is seemingly supposed to be a response to.

@kindaspongey said in #6:

... Moves 1-23 were played at an average rate that would have made sense if it had been expected that the game would last for 233 moves. ... In a 10+5 game, one could average 13 seconds per move and have enough time for 75 moves.

@shadow1414 said in #7:

... Better advice: One could use all of their time in order to obtain a much better position, survive by leeching off of increment, and win by checkmate.

@kindaspongey said in #8:

I am not sure what you have in mind by referring to using "all of their time". Many players might have difficulty finishing successfully after using 25 seconds per move for 1-30 and "leeching off of" the 5-second increment from move 31 on (especially if the opponent has averaged 19 seconds per move and still has a 3-minute time reserve).
Anyway, I am not advising specifically 13 seconds per move. I am just using that as one example of how one might do better than averaging ~8 seconds per move for 1-23.
25 seconds per move seems risky to me, but if a person wants to live dangerously ... Fine. Go for it. My only concern is to be sure that a player is aware of what might go wrong with that idea. It might not be a good choice for many.

@shadow1414 said in #13:

... Time is less important than the position. ...

It seems to that time could be pretty important if one player is obliged to average 5 seconds per move for 18 moves while the opponent can think for 15 seconds per move for those same moves.

@shadow1414 said in #13:

... Many players might have difficulty with learning a new game. Therefore, they should not have started chess at all. If someone has difficulty with using good strategies, then they should practice them. ...

I see no reason to believe that anyone "should" choose between
(A) not playing chess; and
(B) attempting to use practice to avoid the difficulty of strategies identified as "good" by shadow1414.
There are other possibilities and the best choice may depend on the individual.

@shadow1414 said in #13:

... you worded your, '75 moves' sentence poorly. Did your moon rock not include instructions on how to phrase things in a way that accurately describes your thoughts? ...

I see nothing inaccurate about the sentence: "In a 10+5 game, one could average 13 seconds per move and have enough time for 75 moves."

@shadow1414 said in #13:

... Locking yourself away from great positions seems like self-sabotage to me, ...

As far as I know, it has not been established that great positions are only achieved in 10+5 games by averaging 25 seconds per move for 30 moves.

@shadow1414 said in #13:

... My advice: If someone is competitive ... then they should learn how to leech off of increment ...

Perhaps the time required for such learning and the probability of success will vary considerably from person to person.

@shadow1414 said in #13:

... My only concern is to be sure that a player is aware of what might go wrong with them leaving their house: A plane could fall on them. In life, no action is risk-free. ...

But the degree of risk varies from action to action. It also varies from person to person, attempting the action.

"how what you wrote here is a response"

• The original poster is stuck and asks what to do.
  I say analyze losses.
  Analyzing wins is fun, but not helpful, and people invent excuses for doing it: I do it with the right attitude.
  Analyzing losses is less fun, but helpful, and people invent excuses for not doing it: stupid blunder.
  Look at the game analysis forum: plenty of won games. How could I have won faster when 2 pieces ahead?

@tpr said in #15:

... Analyzing wins is fun, but not helpful,

A few months ago, I saw a game that started 1e4 b6 2 Nf3 Bb7 3 Bc4 Bxe4.
https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/any-tips-to-improve-in-chess-
HaninHala1212 went on to win without taking advantage of the opportunity that was available at that point. Nevertheless, I see no reason to doubt that it would have been helpful to HaninHala1212 to become aware pf the missed opportunity.

@tpr said in #15:

and people invent excuses for doing it: ...

I see no reason to rule out appropriate reasons such as learning about what was possible after 1e4 b6 2 Nf3 Bb7 3 Bc4 Bxe4.

@tpr said in #15:

... Look at the game analysis forum: plenty of won games. ...

If HaninHala1212 had posted the 3...Bxe4 game, it seems to me that there would have been an opportunity for helpful learning.

The original poster is stuck.
That means he wins from weaker, players, loses from stronger players, and wins some and loses some against his peers.
The original poster asks what to do.
I say forget about the won games, but analyze the lost games so as to find and cure the reason for the losses.

Much harder to improve as you get older, doing the same thing as an adult if done to a kid, the brain rewiring is just crazy ‍️

@martinmodern said ^

Being stuck at a rating just takes ages and ages to improve, but when you finally improve you improve a lot

why 2000, you're more like a 1900

@tpr said in #17:

... The original poster asks what to do.
I say forget about the won games, but analyze the lost games so as to find and cure the reason for the losses.

I don't see any reason to believe that it would necessarily be a good idea to forget about things like 7...Bh5 in the game against HIMA2007.
[Event "rated rapid game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/WooX2dav"] [Date "2026.08.05"] [Black "martinmodern"] [Result "0-1"] [TimeControl "900+10"] [Annotator "lichess.org"] 1 d4 Nf6 2 Bf4 d5 3 e3 Bf5 4 Bd3 Bg6 5 Nf3 c5 6 c3 e6 7 Ne5 Bh5?? (-0.01 --> 2.14)
Perhaps, it would be worthwhile to wonder what was going on there. After 7 Ne5, ~80 seconds passed while martinmodern was making a decision.