Pedantry alert: As ELO ratings follow a logarithmic curve, "gaining 600 points" is a dimensionless metric.
These are good tips for beginner to intermediate growth. The things that definitely help the most are:
* Pattern recognition - the best courses for this level are things like "Common traps in <some random opening>", applied with Woodpecker method. Once you've memorized all the mistakes in the Scandi or London system, you can really crush a lot of people who play haphazardly.
* Study your own games and games of people at or just above your level. Four simple methods:
1) during the game, write down (Lichess has a notes section on the left) 3 candidate moves for every move in the middle and endgame, why you're making a particular move, and what you think the opponent's response will be
2) use the "Learn from your mistakes" button after each game during analysis
3) check the most common moves in the opening that are different than yours, play through a couple of masters' games to see why those positions are preferred.
And my last tip which helped me a lot just with the "meta" of playing chess ...
* Use more time. Be okay with losing games because you run out of time thinking. Always, always, always try to play the best move, even if it means spending a lot of time.
Doesn't gaining 600 points mean that you are able to beat the "old you" (or more precisely, people who you used to be even with) with 99% probability? (Or perhaps more meaningfully, you can now beat someone who could beat someone who could beat someone who could beat someone who can beat the old you, all with 80% probability?)
(I made up the exact numbers, but the idea is there.)
That seems like a meaningful interpretation of "600 points" that applies to anyone -- though the difficulty of actually making this improvement definitely varies with your starting rating.
My only problem with anonymous is you have no idea if the person on the other side is 1100 or 2200 ... I just use Zen mode in Lichess, I know the other person is about my level, but I don't care what the numbers area .....
I once read 'power of mediocrity' or something like that that I saw here on HN. that article talked about the fact that it's ok to do things just to enjoy them as opposed to getting better at them.
since then I don't worry about my rating anymore, just playing on lichess without loggin in, just to have fun.
Yeah this is just as valid. I needed something to sink my teeth into, so I’ve been more interested in the improvement and learning side. The bonus is that games get more fun the better you get, until very recently I just found my own play frustrating, hanging pieces and falling for simple tactics.
Huh. I didnt know you could do anonymous lichess games. I've always gotten very anxious playing chess as despite being very very bad, I've wanted to cling to every point of ELO i had.
I found this interesting in the context of the quote: "Returning to the United States in triumph, Morphy toured the major cities, playing chess on his way back to New Orleans. Returning to New Orleans in late 1859 at the age of 22, he retired from active chess competition to begin his law career.[3][4][5][6] Morphy never established a successful law practice, however, and ultimately lived a life of idleness, living on his family's fortune.[7] Despite appeals from his admirers, Morphy never returned to the game, and died in 1884 from a stroke at the age of 47." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morphy
That kind of reminds me of Dota 2, where knowing your rating tilts you into playing even worse, when you are below average, or makes you toxic when you are above average (because everyone believes they are so good at the game).
There is also an «unranked» mode, where you can play without showing any numbers, but the big difference is that Dota 2 is a team game, and while some people play unranked to be more relaxed and care less about their rating, a lot of players won't try hard to win, because they don't see a point in winning if they don't see their rating get higher anyway.
It's frustrating that community forces you to play ranked if you actually want to win, but you can't relax when you know you are mediocre.
Agree it's more fun without the elo anxiety. Personally 3+0 blitz hits the spot for me, everyone sucks so dropping a piece isnt a big deal. The popular advice is that blitz won't improve your game, but I don't buy it.
Improvement may also matter a bit more. With ELO you always lose half the time because when you improve you get a higher ELO and get to your half-lose rate again. With anonymous, I assume the pool is stable so with getting better you win more. Though your enemies may outclass you sometimes, especially when your prior ELO is too low.
Absolutely. My games are a lot more relaxed, I find that my gameplay is a lot more bold and attacking. This results in games that are much more exciting.
When I played logged in, my overriding concern was always trying not to lose, rather than to win.
I think by far the biggest improvement newbies can make is just not hanging pieces and blundering, honestly. Literally the majority of games at <1600 lichess level will be decided by mistakes. But apart from that, it's openings and tactics. I largely agree with the blog post.
I used to be quite good as a kid, winning championships and whatnot, and I'm actually glad my grandfather didn't teach me opening theory so much, so I could be trained to think more than memorize. Sadly at the highest level, you do just have to memorize the best opening lines which makes it a lot less fun so I'm not too bothered about not being the best I could be. I think games like Fischer random go some way to addressing this and it's a shame they're not more popular.
Some really entertaining Chess youtube channels I like are:
GothamChess:
https://www.youtube.com/c/gothamchess/about
I think the number 1 on YouTube these days. He explains games in a high level, really entertaining way. He also has other playlists like guess the elo, etc. He's a really entertaining guy.
https://www.youtube.com/c/agadmator
I think he number 2 and used to be number 1 most subscribed until very recently. He explains lines in more detail than Gotham, and has quite a few funny meme-able phrases like "captures, captures, captures", "hello everyone!", "bishop pair fully operational", etc. I enjoy his playlists about e.g. the Morphy Saga, AlphaZero, very much.
There's some others I don't watch so much but which are also liked by many too, like the Botez sisters, GM Hikaru, Eric Rosen, etc. It's quite a nice community (barring the usual drama all such communities have).
If people like Gotham/Nakamura/ChessBrahs aren't your style, ChessNetwork is calm and straight forward without all of the youtube/twitch "entertainer" personality I find grating.
I'm a huge fan of Eric Rosen, who plays lots of gambits and aggressive games with highly instructive commentary.I'd highly recommend his content whenever you feel yourself starting to get tired of traditionally high-energy YouTubers -- Eric is lively and funny but also stays incredibly chill and calm 100% of the time. I've watched hundreds of hours of his videos and have never seen him lose his cool ever, it's impressive.
> I think by far the biggest improvement newbies can make is just not hanging pieces and blundering, honestly. Literally the majority of games at <1600 lichess level will be decided by mistakes.
This, in fact, exactly what GM Ben Finegold points out. At anything short of Master-level play, blunders define the winner. "Never resign" is something that he drums into his students.
My biggest issue with chess is that playing chess isn't "fun"--it's hard work. There are a lot of games that I would rather play when I'm against a human socially.
Note that going from 1200 ELO to 1800 ELO is going from 18th percentile to 74th percentile. Pretty much any form of study over 6 months will get you that progress, because you'll have spent more time on chess than ~74% of players.
Going from 1800 ELO to 2400 ELO (74th percentile to 99th percentile) in 6 months would be a lot more interesting, because clearly your study habits are helping you progress faster than others.
A lot of being better than X% of people at something is just about spending more time doing it than X% of participants... Most professional video game players have 5,000 to 10,000 hours of experience in their game.
I gained 200 point when I started practicing blindfolded, also great visualization training! A good way to start this is have someone call out squares on the board and you respond with the color. Next start naming the diagonals. Then start moving around a knight, bishop, and then slowly build up your ability to hold a game in your head. Highly recommend!
Thanks for this article. The woodpecker method seems like a nice opportunity for a slack bot.
I'd say that chess fundamentals is three things: Endgames, tactics, and positional strategy. OP's strategy of studying openings and tactics is a very fun and accessible improvement path for intelligent new players, but it is very fragile, as you become vulnerable the second the opponent gets you out of your opening theory. Studying endgames and positional motifs gives you important decision-making tools in unfamiliar positions. Hiring a chess coach is probably the easiest way to systematically improve in these areas, if you're not a robot immune to the tedium of working through Dvoretsky's endgame manual and Silman's Reassess your Chess.
After getting a handle on the fundamentals, the next step is just the accumulation of ideas. GMs use this word all the time in lectures and their post-mortem interviews. Some are common and obvious -- pressuring f2/f7, or yoloing a pawn storm in oppositely castled positions, or outposting an "octopus knight" on the sixth rank, for example. Other ideas require so much genius to see they become famous -- Fischer's Nh4!! at age 13, or Short's king walk, or Shirov's bishop sacrifice, for example.
Accumulating ideas is why studying openings can be helpful in the beginning -- you will learn common plans as well as the most dangerous ideas and traps by brute force just by looking at enough theory. But rather than this inefficient approach -- since you'll never remember every single possible move -- I would recommend studying books and lectures that cover common ideas in the setups you prefer. Specifically, work through the pawn structures you like from GM Mauricio Flores Rios's Chess Structures book, and then study grandmasters who match your style or otherwise inspires you in some way -- e.g. Fischer/Tal for tactical wizards, Karpov/Kramnik for positional specialists, Carlsen/Capablanca for endgame grinders, or Rapport/Jobava/Larsen if you are a weirdo -- and watch Youtube videos analyzing their games and/or buy a book with GM commentary of their best hits.
Shameless plug: In case you want to track your chess progress and see more statistics on your openings (win rates, etc.), I'm developing a website where you can link your accounts to view stats for all of your games. It's free and currently in Beta: https://www.chessmonitor.com/
I’ve been watching this YouTube “speed run” by a GM who is a great teacher and have gone from 1000 to 1300 so far. He does a great job explaining some basic theory and giving advice for newcomers.
I was thinking of developing a website that helps you analyze your games vs naroditsky's games. let me know if you have any ideas on what would be useful.
Surprised you didn't mention "analyzing games I played to find viable alternatives or understand opponent blunders." The greatest improvements to my score came from reviewing every game and using the "Computer Analysis" feature on Lichess to see other, stronger moves. This helped a lot in breaking out of old patterns and not making the same mistakes twice.
There is a famous series of chess textbooks they use to teach kids in Russia, and two of the important "commandments of chess" if you will, are: be able to visualize the board (seems crazy to me, still) and review/learn from your games.
Interesting article. Wish I had time to try even some of those. I'm nowadays quite casual but still serious player. Have been grinding in Lichess since 2019 but played consistently since highschool (so 15 years now!). I'm bit over 1800 in rapid and around 1700 in blitz. I don't care that much about my rating but it sure feels nice to break my records every now and then. I think my biggest problem is that my work (coding) exhausts my thinking energy and I'm quite tired most of times I play so I make stupid blunders which makes me lose many many winning positions. I don't know what would help here? Lately I've just played mostly 3 minute games. It's not so serious to lose a knight or bishop there because the time factor is there always. I'm dreaming of attending the local chess club once my kids are older but until them, see you on Lichess! Boy I love chess :)
you can play "sound" chess using general rules and get to about master level on lichess :
* trade a piece (bishop for knight and vice versa) when it's being less effective than the opponent's piece
* block opponents bishops
* block opponents pawns
* don't give opponent's knights a perch (supported by a pawn) on your side of the board, especially near the middle
* try to promote edge pawns to the middle or clear the path out of the way of your pawns
..there are many other rules, but you can apply these much more quickly (esp in speed chess) thinking "statistically" to improve your position. The end game is where it gets hard for humans and you actually have to think, especially if there are knights still jumping around, rooks and bishops are easier to visualize and block.
I have a genuine question. My long time peeve has been that I suck at Chess and every time I play against anyone/anything, I just lose. It demoralizes me and then after sometime I try again, only to have the experience repeat. I have had decent grades, I code for a living and have been told that the quality of my work isn't bad so I guess I'll risk coming across as arrogant when I think that I'm not absolutely dumb.
So the question is, is there anyone who has had the same experience? If so, what did you do to improve? Mind you, I'm not asking folks who put in moderate effort and got results. I'm talking to the ones that keep failing and failing spectacularly but eventually improved. Is it even possible to have anyone like that? If so, what did you do? Is it about just keeping at it?
A bit of an aside, I love chess because it forces you to think several moves ahead including game-theorizing what your opponent will do. I want to teach it to my kid for this reason.
I never got into timed chess but I can see it be valuable because it forces you to trade off between over-thinking and running out of time and under-thinking and making bad moves. This is also a real life skill.
But I know that my personal game will always stay amateur because once you're in the timed game space, you can't get too far without memorizing opening and to me that crosses the line from "fun and overall developmental" to "work."
Maybe you'd like 960 aka Fischer Random Chess, with 960 starting positions there's no opening theory to memorize, just principles and tactics from move one.
Not as popular as regular chess but usually no problem finding a game.
I wish the author had discussed a bit about what worked and didn't at a higher level. I don't have the time to get into chess, but I'm quite curious about how I could translate his learning into other games and domains.
One that was mentioned as a breakthrough was in learning to think like the opponent. That's quite interesting.
I'm not sure what I can takeaway from the puzzle stuff without knowing more about chess. It seemed like some of the puzzles worked better than others, for whatever reason. I'd definitely like to know more.
Anyone have any tips for someone who's a bit interested in chess but is a complete beginner? As in, I know how the pieces move but I couldn't win a game against a blindfolded dachshund puppy. My ELO would be negative (I'd be so improbably bad that it breaks mathematics). It's just not clear where to start.
Drill tactics, like practicing pawns-only exercises and others that get you to use a small group of pieces in concert and without the distraction of a full game, to quickly get a feel for the kinds of moves & patterns that are good for them, and the kinds that are bad. Then, in actual games, apply that while focusing on advancing while keeping all your pieces guarded by at least one other, nearly all the time, while projecting lines of attack as far as possible (queen, bishops, rooks). Then focus on getting good at checkmating—it can be weirdly hard to pin down a king in the late game without practice, and getting better at spotting and exploiting early mate opportunities is one of the biggest level-ups you can get, early on.
I wouldn't worry about memorizing openings and such until after you feel like you're hitting a wall with all that.
I'm surprised how smooth the curve is, the author never has streaks where he loses a few hundred rating points. In fact I'm struggling to see he ever dips more than 50.
I've been on a similar journey over the past year, where I'm now around 1500 rapid on chess.com but in that time I've had streaks where I've been down 250 rating from my peak.
I don't know if I tilt super hard or if the author is remarkably resilient to tilt. It might also be a difference in how the different sites do match-making or adjust ratings and k-values.
I'd echo the benefit in learning some basic opening theory. It's not worth rote learning theory but it is worth having a consistent approach to games so you learn from the same patterns and can avoid opening traps.
If you play the same opening moves then over time you build up a memory of moves that you like in those positions and which will get deeper as you get more experience.
One piece of advice I hear a lot is "review your games", but how do you actually do that without a stronger player? I'd sometimes use an engine and it'll point out moves I hadn't considered before, but without understanding the plan or positional ideas behind them, I often find this pretty opaque.
I'm quite good at puzzles now, but it doesn't seem to affect my ranking in actual play.
I might be asking for the impossible here, but is there a way to get better without turning this into a part-time job, where I have to read a lot of books, study and memorize openings, and so on?
At 1700-1800 I hit a point where I had to study more seriously in order to improve so I lost interest and pretty much stopped playing. Up to that point I could improve just by playing more (with the occasional youtube video but that was more for entertaintment).
I would meet with a chess tutor every week for 6 months some years ago. The biggest thing that contributed to my games getting better (which the author didn’t mention as a method they tried) was analyzing my own game.
Thinking back on the moves you made, why you made them (ie gaining material, tempo, position), opportunities missed, and blunders made. It did help to have a coach go over my games with me, helps identify what to work on, what to think about when playing and focus on.
The biggest thing I wasn’t thinking about is how the moves I made moved the board into the position I wanted to checkmate in — I was too worried about losing the pieces themselves.
[+] [-] kthejoker2|4 years ago|reply
These are good tips for beginner to intermediate growth. The things that definitely help the most are:
* Pattern recognition - the best courses for this level are things like "Common traps in <some random opening>", applied with Woodpecker method. Once you've memorized all the mistakes in the Scandi or London system, you can really crush a lot of people who play haphazardly.
* Study your own games and games of people at or just above your level. Four simple methods:
1) during the game, write down (Lichess has a notes section on the left) 3 candidate moves for every move in the middle and endgame, why you're making a particular move, and what you think the opponent's response will be
2) use the "Learn from your mistakes" button after each game during analysis
3) check the most common moves in the opening that are different than yours, play through a couple of masters' games to see why those positions are preferred.
And my last tip which helped me a lot just with the "meta" of playing chess ...
* Use more time. Be okay with losing games because you run out of time thinking. Always, always, always try to play the best move, even if it means spending a lot of time.
[+] [-] anandoza|4 years ago|reply
(I made up the exact numbers, but the idea is there.)
That seems like a meaningful interpretation of "600 points" that applies to anyone -- though the difficulty of actually making this improvement definitely varies with your starting rating.
[+] [-] Mizza|4 years ago|reply
I started playing anonymous games on LiChess, and playing without ELO anxiety is way, way more fun. It's a game, this is all I need out of it.
[+] [-] kthejoker2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amotinga|4 years ago|reply
since then I don't worry about my rating anymore, just playing on lichess without loggin in, just to have fun.
I'm not improving much, but i have fun.
[+] [-] marcusbuffett|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mttabout|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gerijdeth|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vort3|4 years ago|reply
There is also an «unranked» mode, where you can play without showing any numbers, but the big difference is that Dota 2 is a team game, and while some people play unranked to be more relaxed and care less about their rating, a lot of players won't try hard to win, because they don't see a point in winning if they don't see their rating get higher anyway.
It's frustrating that community forces you to play ranked if you actually want to win, but you can't relax when you know you are mediocre.
[+] [-] gnarcoregrizz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] X6S1x6Okd1st|4 years ago|reply
He also gave that quote when chess wasn't respected like it is today.
[+] [-] DelightOne|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] starik36|4 years ago|reply
Absolutely. My games are a lot more relaxed, I find that my gameplay is a lot more bold and attacking. This results in games that are much more exciting.
When I played logged in, my overriding concern was always trying not to lose, rather than to win.
[+] [-] Moodles|4 years ago|reply
I used to be quite good as a kid, winning championships and whatnot, and I'm actually glad my grandfather didn't teach me opening theory so much, so I could be trained to think more than memorize. Sadly at the highest level, you do just have to memorize the best opening lines which makes it a lot less fun so I'm not too bothered about not being the best I could be. I think games like Fischer random go some way to addressing this and it's a shame they're not more popular.
Some really entertaining Chess youtube channels I like are:
GothamChess: https://www.youtube.com/c/gothamchess/about I think the number 1 on YouTube these days. He explains games in a high level, really entertaining way. He also has other playlists like guess the elo, etc. He's a really entertaining guy.
https://www.youtube.com/c/agadmator I think he number 2 and used to be number 1 most subscribed until very recently. He explains lines in more detail than Gotham, and has quite a few funny meme-able phrases like "captures, captures, captures", "hello everyone!", "bishop pair fully operational", etc. I enjoy his playlists about e.g. the Morphy Saga, AlphaZero, very much.
ChessBrah: Kind of broey funny with house music, challenges and whatnot, and actually very high quality chess from GMs too https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvXxdkt1d8Uu08NAQP2IUTw
There's some others I don't watch so much but which are also liked by many too, like the Botez sisters, GM Hikaru, Eric Rosen, etc. It's quite a nice community (barring the usual drama all such communities have).
[+] [-] cven714|4 years ago|reply
If people like Gotham/Nakamura/ChessBrahs aren't your style, ChessNetwork is calm and straight forward without all of the youtube/twitch "entertainer" personality I find grating.
[+] [-] mushishi|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkaic|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jiggunjer|4 years ago|reply
The st louis chess club lectures are also very good.
[+] [-] FPGAhacker|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsder|4 years ago|reply
This, in fact, exactly what GM Ben Finegold points out. At anything short of Master-level play, blunders define the winner. "Never resign" is something that he drums into his students.
My biggest issue with chess is that playing chess isn't "fun"--it's hard work. There are a lot of games that I would rather play when I'm against a human socially.
[+] [-] keyb0ardninja|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WalterBright|4 years ago|reply
At that level, might as well just use a computer to play the game for you.
[+] [-] a13n|4 years ago|reply
Going from 1800 ELO to 2400 ELO (74th percentile to 99th percentile) in 6 months would be a lot more interesting, because clearly your study habits are helping you progress faster than others.
A lot of being better than X% of people at something is just about spending more time doing it than X% of participants... Most professional video game players have 5,000 to 10,000 hours of experience in their game.
Source: https://lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/rapid
[+] [-] someguy101010|4 years ago|reply
Thanks for this article. The woodpecker method seems like a nice opportunity for a slack bot.
[+] [-] ex3xu|4 years ago|reply
After getting a handle on the fundamentals, the next step is just the accumulation of ideas. GMs use this word all the time in lectures and their post-mortem interviews. Some are common and obvious -- pressuring f2/f7, or yoloing a pawn storm in oppositely castled positions, or outposting an "octopus knight" on the sixth rank, for example. Other ideas require so much genius to see they become famous -- Fischer's Nh4!! at age 13, or Short's king walk, or Shirov's bishop sacrifice, for example.
Accumulating ideas is why studying openings can be helpful in the beginning -- you will learn common plans as well as the most dangerous ideas and traps by brute force just by looking at enough theory. But rather than this inefficient approach -- since you'll never remember every single possible move -- I would recommend studying books and lectures that cover common ideas in the setups you prefer. Specifically, work through the pawn structures you like from GM Mauricio Flores Rios's Chess Structures book, and then study grandmasters who match your style or otherwise inspires you in some way -- e.g. Fischer/Tal for tactical wizards, Karpov/Kramnik for positional specialists, Carlsen/Capablanca for endgame grinders, or Rapport/Jobava/Larsen if you are a weirdo -- and watch Youtube videos analyzing their games and/or buy a book with GM commentary of their best hits.
[+] [-] ThomasCM|4 years ago|reply
Here is an example for the current world champion: https://www.chessmonitor.com/u/kcc58R9eeGY09ey5Rmoj
[+] [-] macrael|4 years ago|reply
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytkf3qZTj74
[+] [-] seanwessmith|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sova|4 years ago|reply
There is a famous series of chess textbooks they use to teach kids in Russia, and two of the important "commandments of chess" if you will, are: be able to visualize the board (seems crazy to me, still) and review/learn from your games.
[+] [-] raptorraver|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sabujp|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bootvis|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lupire|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] noisy_boy|4 years ago|reply
So the question is, is there anyone who has had the same experience? If so, what did you do to improve? Mind you, I'm not asking folks who put in moderate effort and got results. I'm talking to the ones that keep failing and failing spectacularly but eventually improved. Is it even possible to have anyone like that? If so, what did you do? Is it about just keeping at it?
[+] [-] xyzelement|4 years ago|reply
I never got into timed chess but I can see it be valuable because it forces you to trade off between over-thinking and running out of time and under-thinking and making bad moves. This is also a real life skill.
But I know that my personal game will always stay amateur because once you're in the timed game space, you can't get too far without memorizing opening and to me that crosses the line from "fun and overall developmental" to "work."
[+] [-] mrbungie|4 years ago|reply
Disclaimer: I was a kid that lived my mother's dreams/hopes for a time and now I dread every second of that period.
[+] [-] retzkek|4 years ago|reply
Not as popular as regular chess but usually no problem finding a game.
[+] [-] d23|4 years ago|reply
One that was mentioned as a breakthrough was in learning to think like the opponent. That's quite interesting.
I'm not sure what I can takeaway from the puzzle stuff without knowing more about chess. It seemed like some of the puzzles worked better than others, for whatever reason. I'd definitely like to know more.
[+] [-] mrtranscendence|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sb636|4 years ago|reply
2) Play along with some beginner chess tutorials on sites like chess.com or Lichess
3) Watch this youtube series https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao9iOeK_jvU
[+] [-] handrous|4 years ago|reply
I wouldn't worry about memorizing openings and such until after you feel like you're hitting a wall with all that.
[+] [-] wingerlang|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eterm|4 years ago|reply
I've been on a similar journey over the past year, where I'm now around 1500 rapid on chess.com but in that time I've had streaks where I've been down 250 rating from my peak.
I don't know if I tilt super hard or if the author is remarkably resilient to tilt. It might also be a difference in how the different sites do match-making or adjust ratings and k-values.
I'd echo the benefit in learning some basic opening theory. It's not worth rote learning theory but it is worth having a consistent approach to games so you learn from the same patterns and can avoid opening traps.
If you play the same opening moves then over time you build up a memory of moves that you like in those positions and which will get deeper as you get more experience.
[+] [-] dragon96|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neilk|4 years ago|reply
I might be asking for the impossible here, but is there a way to get better without turning this into a part-time job, where I have to read a lot of books, study and memorize openings, and so on?
[+] [-] rantanplan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jstx1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlturner|4 years ago|reply
Thinking back on the moves you made, why you made them (ie gaining material, tempo, position), opportunities missed, and blunders made. It did help to have a coach go over my games with me, helps identify what to work on, what to think about when playing and focus on.
The biggest thing I wasn’t thinking about is how the moves I made moved the board into the position I wanted to checkmate in — I was too worried about losing the pieces themselves.