@DoomedBishop said [^](/forum/redirect/post/olrxNz5q)
> @mrloophole Do you like to play unrated games with friends and acquaintances? You might just need help, without playing too many rated games. Study first, then practice, and THEN play rated games when you are ready. I'm sure there are plenty of players who would be willing to help you out. Also, don't try to memorize too much. Learn the moves (ask questions about each move and try to answer ...
I dont have friends who play chess well, not even to my level. I've also never played over the board. From these responses I think I'll play with a longer time control and study grandmaster games.
@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/4LV0sljN)
> "60-90 minutes a day"
> * Excellent.
> Stay away from blitz and bullet and play 15+10 rapid.
> Blunder check before you move.
> Enabling move confirmation in your profile is a great help.
> Analyze your lost games.
> Study annotated grandmaster games.
> I wrote a blog about your question:
> https://lichess.org/@/tpr/blog/reach-2000-in-1-year/dF8xLiJg
Thanks a lot
"... [annotated games are] infinitely more useful than bare game scores. However, annotated games vary widely in quality. Some are excellent study material. Others are poor. But the most numerous fall into a third category - good-but-wrong-for-you. ... You want games with annotations that answer the questions that baffle you the most. ... masters usually don't make the kind of instructive mistakes that amateurs learn the most from. In master-vs.-master games, the errors are usually minor and the punishment is so slow coming that the educational value is often lost. Perhaps the best game collection written specifically for novices is Logical Chess, Move by Move. It provides an explanation for every move and shows why the good moves are good and the bad ones are bad. Many of the games were lost by non-masters. ... there are major advantages to studying older games rather than those of today. The ideas expressed in a Rubinstein or Capablanca game are generally easier to understand. They are usually carried out to their logical end, often in a memorable way, ... In today's chess, the defense is much better. That may sound good. But it means that the defender's counterplay will muddy the waters and dilute the instructional value of the game. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)
The answer is obvious, at 1300 you need to improve EVERY aspect of the game.
The Egyptians used papyrus for writing. Now we use paper and there are more chess books than on all other sports combined. Put in the hard work and read some aimed at your level.
If you want a shortcut, I offer private lessons. Payment in full in advance and I guarantee you will be a master in 3 months.
@kindaspongey said [^](/forum/redirect/post/tKHlO7F6)
> > ... "Chess Structures" By Rios is awesome, but might me out of reach for you - but we always aim higher in chess. ...
>
> "... Chess structures: A Grandmaster Guide is not a primer of positional play; ... Instead, you might think of Chess Structures as positional chess 'finishing school.' ..." - John Hartmann
> https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/chess-structures-a-grandmaster-guide/
> A sample can be seen at https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7495.pdf .
> Maybe, mrloophole can find something useful at https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/i-need-advice?page=2 .
Fortunately, I did not say POSITIONAL PLAY. But, go ahead and keep quoting out of context. It's pretty funny.
The foreword even says "... allows the reader to acquire **reliable strategic knowledge**..." and "They will complete the opening phase **understanding the strategic landscape of the position.**"
I guess actually owning the books I suggest has the advantage of having it in hand with real context instead of searching the internet for quotes that are non-sensically irrelevant to try and make your point. Meh.
@mrloophole said [^](/forum/redirect/post/fxLD1WvD)
> I've also never played over the board
Can you buy a simple chess set? When it becomes necessary to study the position, you will get a set and set this position in reality.
@kindaspongey said in #20:
> ...
> @ChessPriyome said in #18:
> > ... "Chess Structures" By Rios is awesome, but might me out of reach for you - but we always aim higher in chess. ...
>
> "... Chess structures: A Grandmaster Guide is not a primer of positional play; ... Instead, you might think of Chess Structures as positional chess 'finishing school.' ..." - John Hartmann
> https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/chess-structures-a-grandmaster-guide/
> A sample can be seen at https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7495.pdf .
> Maybe, mrloophole can find something useful at https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/i-need-advice?page=2 .
@ChessPriyome said in #25:
> ... Fortunately, I did not say POSITIONAL PLAY. But, go ahead and keep quoting out of context. It's pretty funny.
Your #18 was only a little bit above my #20 and easy for everyone to see. I do not see anything in my #20 that indicates that you said "positional play". The John Hartmann comment was about the Structures book that was published more than a decade ago.
@ChessPriyome said in #25:
> The foreword even says "... allows the reader to acquire **reliable strategic knowledge**..." and "They will complete the opening phase **understanding the strategic landscape of the position.**"
It seems to me that that quote does not give much of an indication of which readers might find the book to be "out of reach".
@ChessPriyome said in #25:
> I guess actually owning the books I suggest has the advantage of having it in hand with real context
For those who don't own the book, it might be helpful to look at the free sample available at https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7495.pdf .
@ChessPriyome said in #25:
> instead of searching the internet for quotes that are non-sensically irrelevant to try and make your point. Meh.
It seems to me that my point was a relevant support to your own comment that the Structures book "might" be "out of reach for" mrloophole. By inicating that one "might think of" the Structures book "as positional chess 'finishing school ...'", it seems to me that John Hartmann gave some indication of the level of the book. I think that, for anyone considering the Structures book, it would be a good idea to look at the available free sample.
Warning: here, there is the potential for an infinite sequence of denials:
"... I did not say ..."
"I did not say you said ..."
"I did not say you said I said ..."
etc.
I suggest that we consider all such denials as, in effect, already in the record. It might damage the system if we attempt to actually post all of them.
just dont blunder and find east tactics
West tactics can also be helpful.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.