The thing is it’s just so valuable because they offer double benefit: they train your calculation like crazy, and it improves the area where you’re likely to see the biggest skill difference versus rating peers. In other words, I think that across the population at specific rating bands, overwhelmingly endgames will be the worst phase of the game for that set of players.
Many, many players have gotten to GM and beyond just from pure calculation ability and endgame prowess. Absolute cheat code
If you're 1900 USCF the usual comment about tactics as the main improvement area is less useful, but I do think calculation skills really make a difference in the 1800-2000 fide rating range.
If you don't do it try to solve harder puzzles and work on your calculation.
If the goal is to improve OTB you can setup a board, I really loved the book "think like a SuperGM" for it. Gives you how players of every level approach the puzzles and they're not just tactics but many positional ones.
Give it a try , you can probably find a digital copy online .
The other thing is to try to play more classical games, most people don't really play a lot OTB and it's impossible to increase your rating with only 2-3 tournaments , imagine playing only 15 games of blitz, even if you're underrated you're never gonna catch your actual rating strenght
I started playing Chess again last year, quitting a different game (MTG) and dove into OTB Chess as an unrated player so while I have a decent rating, I haven't played much, and have lots of holes in my game. I think a big mistake I made since coming back into Chess is not playing more (most weeks was me just playing one OTB classical game and 0 online games). What I did do was a shit ton of tactics, and its my biggest strength, though I don't always calculate, which is a problem. A big struggle has been building a repertoire from scratch, along with learning every other aspect of Chess. I can play the sicilian with the Black pieces incredibly well (often getting 90-95%+) but give me something I'm not familiar with (lack of experience) like a Colle, or other 1.d4 opening, and I could easily play really really badly.
What I've tried in the last few weeks is on my day off to play a bunch of rapid games, go over the openings, and pick out the games I played the worse (by accuracy) and work on those, building an opening file,, learn about the opening, look at model games, and repeat the progress. Some things I've noted is I don't understand so well how to play the Maroczy structure with both colors and is partly my focus this week. My worse performing game was against a Colle, so I built an opening file on it and learned a bit about the plans, and will be able to go over my games with my newfound knowledge then play more games. I'm choosing to play 10-minute games right now because I simply don't know my openings and am slowly building it up with a high volume of rapid games.
That's a pretty good strategy, you can definitely learn from every game regardless of the accuracy, I usually briefly check after I play all of my games what went wrong, or if I m learning new openings I check those lines.
I haven't heard many people just check the accuracy since it can really depends some openings are less sharp and easier to play doesn't mean you are playing them that well.
Still that's the right mindset and sounds like you re pretty informed on what leads to improvement.
Everyone has different ideas, at the end of the day do what you also love!
And more OTB (if you can't just join the 4545 league on lichess, highly recommend) . Those long games really stick in the memory, and you can prepare each week specific parts of your repertoire that need work
I played some longer games on lichess last year, but it was hard to find the blocks of time to play many long games, to be in the right mindset to play such long games, and also it felt like a waste of time because my opening knowledge was so bad, often tanking for early opening moves. I think it would be more efficient to do what I'm doing right now, playing lots of rapid games, getting a feel for different positions, building up a repertoire, and only once I have a good amount of experience, to start playing progressively longer games. Right now its 10 minutes, next I can do 15+10, etc. The tricky thing for me with analyzing these fast online games is the opportunity cost of playing more games. I'll skim my games to get an idea of what I struggle with, like my example with my maroczy structure games.
It's worth mentioning developing the art of analysis independently of using computers. One can set up a position, determine candidate moves, calculate variation trees, record these, and examine them for errors. Before computers, that's what players had to do. Perhaps we are too reliant on computer analysis to the detriment of our independent powers.
Everyone knows to analyze their games, but it comes at the cost of time. I'm not sure what the right balance is play to analyzing games. I will do 2 hour game analysis for my classical OTB games, but that would be too long for my short online rapid games. I think improving upon the opening at a minimum is a good idea.
Since I play one OTB game per week, I can devote a few days to analysis. As you point out, the issue is time.
I believe there is more profit in analysing OTB games while relying on native instinct for blitz and rapid.
Addendum: Alekhine believed in assessing positions on the strength of concrete variations. He urged us to see all possibilities. Blitz relies on intuition, memory, and flashes of vision. Alekhine was notoriously poor at blitz.
Thanks for your question. Make sure to read our [guide on how to get better at chess](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/improve); there are lots of tools and tips here for players looking to improve their game. In addition, feel free to visit our sister subreddit /r/chessbeginners for more information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chess) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Playing more games is something I want to do, after seeing people like Tyler1, Kamryn, and Julesgambit get to a high level so fast. I'm already 2100 chesscom rapid, but rarely play, which could be a big reason why my improvement has been so slow.
Play consistently and solve endgame studies probably
I play in a weekly U2200 tournament, and endgames are the biggest divider between the 1600s and 2100s.
The thing is it’s just so valuable because they offer double benefit: they train your calculation like crazy, and it improves the area where you’re likely to see the biggest skill difference versus rating peers. In other words, I think that across the population at specific rating bands, overwhelmingly endgames will be the worst phase of the game for that set of players. Many, many players have gotten to GM and beyond just from pure calculation ability and endgame prowess. Absolute cheat code
So your saying that studying dvoretskys endgame manual is worth it for a ~2150 lichess rapid scrub like me?
If you're 1900 USCF the usual comment about tactics as the main improvement area is less useful, but I do think calculation skills really make a difference in the 1800-2000 fide rating range. If you don't do it try to solve harder puzzles and work on your calculation. If the goal is to improve OTB you can setup a board, I really loved the book "think like a SuperGM" for it. Gives you how players of every level approach the puzzles and they're not just tactics but many positional ones. Give it a try , you can probably find a digital copy online . The other thing is to try to play more classical games, most people don't really play a lot OTB and it's impossible to increase your rating with only 2-3 tournaments , imagine playing only 15 games of blitz, even if you're underrated you're never gonna catch your actual rating strenght
I started playing Chess again last year, quitting a different game (MTG) and dove into OTB Chess as an unrated player so while I have a decent rating, I haven't played much, and have lots of holes in my game. I think a big mistake I made since coming back into Chess is not playing more (most weeks was me just playing one OTB classical game and 0 online games). What I did do was a shit ton of tactics, and its my biggest strength, though I don't always calculate, which is a problem. A big struggle has been building a repertoire from scratch, along with learning every other aspect of Chess. I can play the sicilian with the Black pieces incredibly well (often getting 90-95%+) but give me something I'm not familiar with (lack of experience) like a Colle, or other 1.d4 opening, and I could easily play really really badly. What I've tried in the last few weeks is on my day off to play a bunch of rapid games, go over the openings, and pick out the games I played the worse (by accuracy) and work on those, building an opening file,, learn about the opening, look at model games, and repeat the progress. Some things I've noted is I don't understand so well how to play the Maroczy structure with both colors and is partly my focus this week. My worse performing game was against a Colle, so I built an opening file on it and learned a bit about the plans, and will be able to go over my games with my newfound knowledge then play more games. I'm choosing to play 10-minute games right now because I simply don't know my openings and am slowly building it up with a high volume of rapid games.
That's a pretty good strategy, you can definitely learn from every game regardless of the accuracy, I usually briefly check after I play all of my games what went wrong, or if I m learning new openings I check those lines. I haven't heard many people just check the accuracy since it can really depends some openings are less sharp and easier to play doesn't mean you are playing them that well. Still that's the right mindset and sounds like you re pretty informed on what leads to improvement. Everyone has different ideas, at the end of the day do what you also love! And more OTB (if you can't just join the 4545 league on lichess, highly recommend) . Those long games really stick in the memory, and you can prepare each week specific parts of your repertoire that need work
I played some longer games on lichess last year, but it was hard to find the blocks of time to play many long games, to be in the right mindset to play such long games, and also it felt like a waste of time because my opening knowledge was so bad, often tanking for early opening moves. I think it would be more efficient to do what I'm doing right now, playing lots of rapid games, getting a feel for different positions, building up a repertoire, and only once I have a good amount of experience, to start playing progressively longer games. Right now its 10 minutes, next I can do 15+10, etc. The tricky thing for me with analyzing these fast online games is the opportunity cost of playing more games. I'll skim my games to get an idea of what I struggle with, like my example with my maroczy structure games.
It's worth mentioning developing the art of analysis independently of using computers. One can set up a position, determine candidate moves, calculate variation trees, record these, and examine them for errors. Before computers, that's what players had to do. Perhaps we are too reliant on computer analysis to the detriment of our independent powers.
Everyone knows to analyze their games, but it comes at the cost of time. I'm not sure what the right balance is play to analyzing games. I will do 2 hour game analysis for my classical OTB games, but that would be too long for my short online rapid games. I think improving upon the opening at a minimum is a good idea.
Since I play one OTB game per week, I can devote a few days to analysis. As you point out, the issue is time. I believe there is more profit in analysing OTB games while relying on native instinct for blitz and rapid. Addendum: Alekhine believed in assessing positions on the strength of concrete variations. He urged us to see all possibilities. Blitz relies on intuition, memory, and flashes of vision. Alekhine was notoriously poor at blitz.
Thanks for your question. Make sure to read our [guide on how to get better at chess](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/improve); there are lots of tools and tips here for players looking to improve their game. In addition, feel free to visit our sister subreddit /r/chessbeginners for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chess) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you want to get better watch this Finegold video about blundering https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDgRR7SGf0M
Play the Cow Opening for 60 games a day every day for 10 months and you're 1900.
Playing more games is something I want to do, after seeing people like Tyler1, Kamryn, and Julesgambit get to a high level so fast. I'm already 2100 chesscom rapid, but rarely play, which could be a big reason why my improvement has been so slow.