Now, I recently touched 1800 in blitz and now I am targeting 1900 and 2000. So what approach do these players (2000 or above) take regarding the game? Like, any tips to improve? I would love if someone would help analyse my games and tell my strengths and weaknesses (or any free software for it) as I don't understand how to analyse games properly.
I'm about 2000 classical, but I almost never play blitz, so take this for what it's worth (< $0.02). What has helped me the most are:
Tactics:
-Doing a lot of easy tactics by theme to improve pattern recognition
-Doing a small number of hard problems to improve calculation
-Importantly, after I mess up a tactic, I think about what went wrong in my calculation process. Kind of like analyzing a mini-game of chess, it is immensely helpful.
Strategy:
-Studying a good strategy book. Most recently, I have gotten a lot out of Silman's The Amateur's Mind. I skim through it before every OTB chess club night, and it helps keep me grounded with good ideas.
Endgames:
-I have seen many people say that studying the endgame really ramped up their rating due to improvements in visualization and calculation and, of course, greater confidence during the endgame.
-First I worked through most of Silman's Complete Endgame Course.
-Then I did what most people say you shouldn't do and bought Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. About 30 pages in so far and loving how it is rewiring my chess brain. Although most people say it is too advanced (and the exercises clearly are), others have said it took them from 1600 to 2000 OTB. I am determined to get through it. Last night, at my OTB chess club, I won all my games, including one that went into the endgame. I felt tremendous confidence calculating that endgame. Definitely read Silman first if you haven't studied endgames much.
Openings:
-I don't spend a lot of time here. I look stuff up in the Chessbase app on my phone when I get curious or wonder how I might have done better in the previous game. A little playing around on free chessable courses. Nothing too serious.
-Don't play trick openings too often. They limit your chess progression. Some people see a lot of early success with tricky openings and gambits and then hit a wall when they start playing people who defend better. Play openings that expose you to a lot of pawn structures. For example, if you're an e4 player playing the Danish gambit a lot (been there), try the Ruy Lopez. If you're a d4 player playing the London a lot (been there), try the Queen's gambit. You'll learn a lot more and take the artificial limit off of your rating ceiling (if that's what might be limiting you).
Playing and Analyzing:
-Play more OTB slow (or at least rapid) chess. It makes a tremendous difference and is more fun (for me at least).
-Play more classical games here, e.g., 30 10.
-Analyze your slow games without an engine. Open a Lichess study for each slow game and annotate your strategy mistakes, note what went well, etc. Only after you've analyzed it a bit yourself should you turn the engine on and look for blunders.
-Pay more attention to chess psychology. The Amateur's Mind is really good at improving psychology over the board--a very underrated skill, but vital. For instance, do you find yourself switching into a defensive mindset when you get attacked, or are you determined to carry on with a counterattack? Do you assert your will over the chessboard and fight for the initiative, or do you play too passively?
Good luck!
Tactics:
-Doing a lot of easy tactics by theme to improve pattern recognition
-Doing a small number of hard problems to improve calculation
-Importantly, after I mess up a tactic, I think about what went wrong in my calculation process. Kind of like analyzing a mini-game of chess, it is immensely helpful.
Strategy:
-Studying a good strategy book. Most recently, I have gotten a lot out of Silman's The Amateur's Mind. I skim through it before every OTB chess club night, and it helps keep me grounded with good ideas.
Endgames:
-I have seen many people say that studying the endgame really ramped up their rating due to improvements in visualization and calculation and, of course, greater confidence during the endgame.
-First I worked through most of Silman's Complete Endgame Course.
-Then I did what most people say you shouldn't do and bought Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. About 30 pages in so far and loving how it is rewiring my chess brain. Although most people say it is too advanced (and the exercises clearly are), others have said it took them from 1600 to 2000 OTB. I am determined to get through it. Last night, at my OTB chess club, I won all my games, including one that went into the endgame. I felt tremendous confidence calculating that endgame. Definitely read Silman first if you haven't studied endgames much.
Openings:
-I don't spend a lot of time here. I look stuff up in the Chessbase app on my phone when I get curious or wonder how I might have done better in the previous game. A little playing around on free chessable courses. Nothing too serious.
-Don't play trick openings too often. They limit your chess progression. Some people see a lot of early success with tricky openings and gambits and then hit a wall when they start playing people who defend better. Play openings that expose you to a lot of pawn structures. For example, if you're an e4 player playing the Danish gambit a lot (been there), try the Ruy Lopez. If you're a d4 player playing the London a lot (been there), try the Queen's gambit. You'll learn a lot more and take the artificial limit off of your rating ceiling (if that's what might be limiting you).
Playing and Analyzing:
-Play more OTB slow (or at least rapid) chess. It makes a tremendous difference and is more fun (for me at least).
-Play more classical games here, e.g., 30 10.
-Analyze your slow games without an engine. Open a Lichess study for each slow game and annotate your strategy mistakes, note what went well, etc. Only after you've analyzed it a bit yourself should you turn the engine on and look for blunders.
-Pay more attention to chess psychology. The Amateur's Mind is really good at improving psychology over the board--a very underrated skill, but vital. For instance, do you find yourself switching into a defensive mindset when you get attacked, or are you determined to carry on with a counterattack? Do you assert your will over the chessboard and fight for the initiative, or do you play too passively?
Good luck!
@opampman How do I realise when I switch into defense or attack mode?
I'm not 2000 yet but the hard lesson I've learned is that there is no substitute for s l o w calculation. Classical games at a club are the best way to improve and the least convenient. If it feels inconvenient it's probably good for your chess. Mate-in-two puzzles, working with a coach on visualization. The consistency of your thought process is likely the long pole in the tent.
@Technobyte1 Here are few things Silman says in The Amateur's Mind:
"Try to notice when the transition between thinking of your own ideas and reacting to the opponent takes place."
"Take note of the transition between positive thoughts involving active plans and negative thoughts revolving around reactions and defense."
"If you find yourself reacting to the opponent's ideas, you're walking the road to doom and destruction."
"Always have a plan and never forget that the only plan that matters is yours. The opponent's ideas should be treated as nothing more than minor annoyances; swat them away if they start to sting, and then go back to what you were doing."
I'll give a somewhat more concrete example. In one memorable game (OTB), my opponent had a crushing kingside attack brewing. It was strong enough that I was tempted to resign. But I decided to press on the opposite wing and almost ignore his attack. The amazing thing that happened is when I started pushing hard on the queenside, my opponent (shockingly!) gave up his kingside attack and started reacting to my queenside attack. It wasn't long before I forced a win out of a position that looked hopeless. Ever since then, I try to pay attention to when I feel like I'm losing and just reacting to moves, and then I look even harder for counterplay instead of giving up. Silman says it better:
"If you find yourself in a lost position, tighten everything up and hang on like grim death--don't play one last cheap shot and resign. Play the move that you would hate to see if you were in his situation. Extending the game in this manner will make him work hard for the point and, if he gets tired or frustrated, may even lead to a mistake on his part and a success for you."
"Try to notice when the transition between thinking of your own ideas and reacting to the opponent takes place."
"Take note of the transition between positive thoughts involving active plans and negative thoughts revolving around reactions and defense."
"If you find yourself reacting to the opponent's ideas, you're walking the road to doom and destruction."
"Always have a plan and never forget that the only plan that matters is yours. The opponent's ideas should be treated as nothing more than minor annoyances; swat them away if they start to sting, and then go back to what you were doing."
I'll give a somewhat more concrete example. In one memorable game (OTB), my opponent had a crushing kingside attack brewing. It was strong enough that I was tempted to resign. But I decided to press on the opposite wing and almost ignore his attack. The amazing thing that happened is when I started pushing hard on the queenside, my opponent (shockingly!) gave up his kingside attack and started reacting to my queenside attack. It wasn't long before I forced a win out of a position that looked hopeless. Ever since then, I try to pay attention to when I feel like I'm losing and just reacting to moves, and then I look even harder for counterplay instead of giving up. Silman says it better:
"If you find yourself in a lost position, tighten everything up and hang on like grim death--don't play one last cheap shot and resign. Play the move that you would hate to see if you were in his situation. Extending the game in this manner will make him work hard for the point and, if he gets tired or frustrated, may even lead to a mistake on his part and a success for you."
Good Stuff.
What helped me take the leap to 2000+ was to play more games and do more puzzles.
I started playing more chess (10-15 games a day of slower time controls, such as rapid / classical), spending more time analyzing certain positions / structures that I struggled with, and, overtime (years) this significantly boosted my understanding of the intricates of the structures I was playing, as well as learning typical plans for said structures / positions.
Puzzles I started doing roughly 20 a day, sometimes more, the majority of the puzzles would be something easy (just typical pattern reinforcing puzzles), and I would choose a few (3-5 mostly) really hard to improve my calculation depth.
Eventually as I was crossing the 2000 barrier I started reading a bit more in depth about strategic concepts and seek new ideas from stronger players.
Regarding game analysis I can only say, do what works best for you, as long as you get the point why something is wrong or why it has to be done certain way it doesn't matter how you analyse in my opinion.
I did this consistently for a few years with some stops here and there due to burnouts.
I started playing more chess (10-15 games a day of slower time controls, such as rapid / classical), spending more time analyzing certain positions / structures that I struggled with, and, overtime (years) this significantly boosted my understanding of the intricates of the structures I was playing, as well as learning typical plans for said structures / positions.
Puzzles I started doing roughly 20 a day, sometimes more, the majority of the puzzles would be something easy (just typical pattern reinforcing puzzles), and I would choose a few (3-5 mostly) really hard to improve my calculation depth.
Eventually as I was crossing the 2000 barrier I started reading a bit more in depth about strategic concepts and seek new ideas from stronger players.
Regarding game analysis I can only say, do what works best for you, as long as you get the point why something is wrong or why it has to be done certain way it doesn't matter how you analyse in my opinion.
I did this consistently for a few years with some stops here and there due to burnouts.
When your ratings are inverted, as yours are @Technobyte1 - bullet >blitz> standard, there is most likely a fundamental problem in how you approach the game. The shallow tactics and strategy that wins fast time controls, but are unsound is where I would look first in your journey. That means unwinding some bad habits.. ouch. Good luck.
I want to be 2000 too. @opampman where is your classical 2000. In 3 games? Or in another website. @NeoAurelius only has 9 games
I wanna be 2002.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.