<Comment deleted by user>
Even though I don't think many people would suggest this, I used to really like learning openings on YT and trying to memorize and study them. It's somewhat fun and I loved learning the London System, Nimzo-Indian, and Fried Liver Attack. Openings are easy to master and since you do puzzles, then your tactics can complement your opening theory. If you want, you can PM (private message) me if you want to send me your games and I can analyze them for you. I am nowhere near a coach or 2000, but I used to be in a same situation as you. Happy Chessing!
(Oh, and even if it only says I joined a few days ago, this isn't my first account on lichess.org or chess.com!)
I am in the 40's do not believe on people old people can't play chess. Do not memorize opening craps. Go for main lines. Second or third or fourth main sideline from the main lines is also a nice idea because it is lesser studied. Look at my games for Sicilian I play the Alapin. I usually outplay them in the opening. I play the Scotch. Opening nerds know the Najdorf Sicilian and the Ruy Lopez Marshall very well. Something like that.
@creeffryer
To be honest, I think you are playing too much. Chess requires a LOT of mental concentration and playing 4+ hours a day is probably going to very quickly become kind of pointless, if not detrimental, in terms of your actual development. Like, 5 puzzles, 1-2 rapid, 1 classical, some analysis and that's probably enough. Go do something else.
#4 Yes 2 hours of tactical puzzles is too much. Do not believe in Seven Circles and Woodpecker method. Now he is the additional evidence that it does not work. I attempted to do it too but it just don't work.
I won't offer my own advice other than to say, you're probably playing better and improving more than you think.
Much the same scenario in my own shoes. Played a lot of chess as a child, enjoyed the game very much. Then a year ago, started playing chess again after 20 years since playing.
I haven't used chessdotcom in over 6 months. Started at 900. Was a bit over 1200 elo when I left and definitely feel I've improved since then.
In my own opinion winning games at 1000 elo was much easier, than winning games at 1200 elo. Players noticed my tactics more easily and planned further ahead.
One trick that's helped my own games a lot since, Is to always expect your opponent to notice your tactics. Because it encourages oneself to plan further ahead and attempt to visualize what an opponent may do, or, is able to do in response.
In my opinion it also encourages positional play. Rather than throwing everything you have at one idea / tactic, which they may well notice.
Better players generally notice tactics more easily and plan further ahead.
I did notice you enjoy a slow game and play a lot of classical. So do I!
Love a friendly game sometime mate. Hit me up anytime.
Good luck!
Most of all do not believe on people that say do not memorize openings. Memorizing your opening lines are extremely useful. Those who don't memorize usually stay below lichess 2000.
I started on chesscom as well and despite doing tactics regularly I'd get blown out by the most cheesy noob lines and get smoked by 500 ELO players constantly. I think at my "peak" I had lost almost 100 games in a row (at least that's what it felt like) and was at a rating between 300 and 400 for most of my beginnings.
How people could pick it all up so "quickly" was beyond me. I'd spend the same amount of time on it as other people starting around the same time and despite neither putting more or less effort into it, I'd not be even close to their level.
It was pure struggle and it was no fun.
[ A little tangent on Chess and Poker ]
Before chess I would play poker. It was two very unlucky bad beats that made me stop playing poker and pick up chess instead. Poker was fun and had plenty of strategy in its gameplay. I loved that. However, it is also a game of luck and perfect play is tough. Even with perfect play you need to control yourself a lot and aim for long-term wins, really. The main difference, in regards to the topic we're discussing, however, was that poker was not as complex in the amount of strategic choices open to the player and was also less punishing (except that punishment was loss of money, of course). You had fewer ways to mess up and could still get some action by winging it -- something that also exists in chess but not to that capacity.
[ -- end -- ]
I got myself just one book on chess at first. Which one it was doesn't even really matter. What matters is that it talked about plans. This was beyond me at that point but I understood it in some general sense. Creating plans was my goal but I hadn't evolved enough for that yet. The other critical thing it taught me was the Fried Liver Attack.
With the Fried Liver I was able to boost through an easy 200-300 rating points (combined with my tactics training and regular play) and reach a consistent ELO of 700-800.
I now had a plan. A borrowed plan but a plan nonetheless. And it brought me wins and easier positions. For a brief moment a light was flickering and I wasn't in that zone of complete helplessness. My moves weren't just complete randomness that would get me immediately steamrolled.
I eventually signed up to lichess. I started playing chess, overall, around 2015. 7 years have passed and I am not playing seriously anymore. I mostly just play bullet to kill some time and that's it, really. My rating is poor for the amount of time spent playing,but I actually enjoy chess now and I get to reason about positions.
A few thoughts
A)
Tactics can be deep but in my personal experience tactics do two things:
1. Train good habits. Your tactical vision. Seeing the potential, threats, etc. on board at a glance. At least with some amount of depth.
2. Recognize patterns. You build a deep repertoire over time. You will be able to intuitively tell that there has to be a tactic around the corner just by looking at a certain position. Those positions depend on your level of play, as stronger players will usually give you fewer chances to just fork king and queen, but it still happens. As you improve, your tactics training will focus on recognizing those opportunities from a mile away, so that if you catch the chance your opponent might not even be aware of it before you have started your tactical sequence.
With that in mind, while high level tactics are good for training your general grasp of the board, if you want to build an instinctive pattern recognition you'll wanna go for volume instead. Lots and lots and lots of really easy and fun little tactics that just drill that part home.
B) Principles of Chess
If you are like me, the antithesis of a natural, you'll want to take your time with those. Let them sink in. Understand that you want to control the center on a very basic level ("GM says this is important") and evolve your understanding over time.
Some things just won't immediately make sense or not on a level that clicks for you. Evolve your understanding of principles like central control, initiative, space, etc. all the fun positional principles over time. Build up a reserve as you would with tactics.
But don't expect that alone to carry you to the "zone" on its own, for that you'll ALSO (not only! but also) want...
C) Plans
You need a plan. I don't think there is a definition of strategy that does not involve plans. Strategy is deliberate thinking about the future. Preparing actionable solutions for a future outcome is what planning is.
Don't overcomplicate things. Just come prepared. Don't just walk into the battlefield with nothing but tactical training.
Long-range you want to checkmate your opponent.
Mid-range, what do you seek to achieve? How can you achieve that?
Use your rational thinking. Reason about it. When I started out my first real plan was to play the fried liver attack and pwn my unprepared opponents. Now my plan is to move really quickly and play lines I am more comfortable with (as I am just playing bullet for luls). Actually, my plans are varying. If I get to play as white and we get e4/e5 I go for the Ruy Lopez and try to win on the basis of opening preparation.
Yes, these are real considerations. You don't just train yourself endlessly with no actionable plan. "I will get good"
Friend, chess is a game with a win condition. Start reasoning about how to get your victory. Then over time you will get better at reasoning over how to win in more specific scenarios. It's really "that simple".
If you want to become a successful MMA fighter your goal is not to just randomly or semi-deliberately lift heavy weights all day. You practice certain things for certain reasons. In any competition that reason is to win.
All of chess study beyond purely philosophizing is just preparation for winning. Creating and training a set of tools and skills with the express purpose of beating other players. It's not some abstract thing. It's just "this is what I do so I can win".
As you enter this zone, you'll start enjoying more because you will find yourself more capable of actually thinking effectively in a chess position. "It's like a muscle!" as they say about almost anything nowadays.
And if that doesn't work for you, write another post. Tag me in it, even, if you think I can help.
@creeffryer
I had a look at some of your recent classical games that you lost. One thing I immediately notice is that you are not actually playing classical. You are playing blitz, maybe rapid, with classical time controls. The games you lose, you have used like 3-5 minutes of your time. Often you end up in a winning position, and then make a one-move blunder and lose. This might have to do with the mental fatigue of doing SO MUCH CHESS all the time, but just taking 20 seconds per move to just stop and just blunder check that you aren't hanging a piece and you will win many more games. Your play isn't bad, you just aren't focused, especially when you are winning. You could probably gain 300+ rating points just by slowing down and making sure you aren't making a losing move. Many of your games are super short (20-25 moves) for this reason.
I also feel you tend to resign too early. You blunder and then you immediately resign. Sometimes this is fine if you're obviously in a losing position, but, for example, in this game
https://lichess.org/NLLbyDYu#60
You resigned when you are at +3??? Yes, you blundered a piece and went from +9 to +3, but you were still winning. This is the kind of position you should at least try to grind out for a win. You aren't playing at grandmaster level. Even if you are behind at like -3 or whatever, you should still be trying to play those games out more. Maybe your opponent will blunder the piece back, or you'll get counterplay somehow, or you'll be able to at least save a draw. Giving up as soon as you start losing won't help you get better... playing a long, scrappy, persistent, defensive game EVEN IF YOU LOSE is going to be much better training for you. Endgames are hard, lots of people, especially at your rating level, are awful at converting them. Make them earn their wins.
Don't be too hard on yourself. Enjoy the game and play with people that are supportive and can teach you some lesson. These kinds of plateau are common in any game, sport, or even academia life. Decide now that you play chess because you are happy and appreciate it. Have fun
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.