4 questions from a noob

Ok. I would have a top question: i decided to play on lichess and watching youtube,both italian and english,keeping my opening repertoire.for all my life,but what is the fact or the special training that separates a big champion from a normal medium player?Do they have secret trainings or they simply worked hard? Or also from your points of view,when and how you became a better chess player?Share your secrets(if you want to reveal). Thank you so much for all help you gave and are giving to me with these complete answer of this post.

@Drod83000 that's what people say ---- find what you like and stick w it... i think that's kind of misleading. i've only been playing about 7 or 8 years....several years of e4.... and being exposed to the HUGE variety of openings with that - some open, some closed... then some months w c4, the english... a SLOW opening, usually. finally - d4, and i'm trying to play nothing but d4, (previously, i only defended against d4.) i figure i'll play d4 for a year or so... see what i think.

i'm saying it's taken me this long to get to finally trying c4, d4, and e4.... i'm finally getting to where i prefer open openings. but only after exploring some c4 and d4 stuff. i don't see how anyone can know what opening they like unless they spend a lot of time exploring the gamut, more or less... and eventually, some preference can come thru. i guess the best thing is to merely do statistics on all your games, and figure out what you win with........... that'll take awhile, tho. you'll have to be proficient in a wide variety of openings........

You start with a rating over 2000, just getting warmed up, and you are asking for advice?? You already exceed my aspirations. It seems like false advertising to call yourself a noob.

@pawnmulch I agree with you that it does take a lot time. I guess it’s easy for me to say because I’ve been playing for so long. I’ve personally never spent time studying but I’ve played a crap-load of games since 5 years old. I did exclusively play e4 for more than 20 years before landing on nf3, d3 which I’ve played for the past few years. Which really came from getting comfortable with modern/Indian games for black. As I got older I guess I just prefer tighter spaces.

I ha ve one last question then i promise i don't disturb you morely. Sometimes i like to play(and so lose) against computer at max strenght.Someone told me it is useless to play versus engine and focus on playing exclusively against men or women. What do you think about it?Can i slightly improve by playing some games versus engine or i must play versus men 100% of my games? Thank you and have a good day.

Playing against an engine is good training, but you get beaten. It makes you humble and attentive.
It is more useful to train against a strong engine than against a weak human.
I used to train against an engine before winning over the board blitz tournaments.
One thing that is missing in training against an engine is psychology. The way a human plays, moves his pieces, looks etc. can sometimes intimidate you or trick you. An engine does not do that.

#21 "what is the fact or the special training that separates a big champion from a normal medium player?"
I think it lies in two aspects.

1) Endgame study. All great champions were proficient in endgames: Capablanca, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Carlsen. They win seemingly equal positions and they manage to draw seemingly lost positions. They know what to aim for and what to avoid. Their endgame knowledge helps them in their strategic decisions: what pawn to move or not, what piece to trade or not. It also allows them to think longer and thus play stronger in the first 30 moves of the game in full confidence that they can convert a won position or hold a bad position in little minutes of time.

2) Analysis of the own games, especially the lost games. Fischer was much stronger in 1970-1972 than before. However, he did not play at all in 1969. Instead he then analysed his own games for his book "My 60 Memorable Games". Kasparov also gained strength from his analysis for "My Great Predecessors". Former USSR champion Lev Psakhis explained he gained his strength from analysing all of Fischer's games, to the extent he knew all of them by heart. Carlsen said he got stronger from playing games against himself and also from analysing games of Alekhine against Capablanca. Kramnik got stronger from analysing with Kasparov as his second.

@Trageku @tpr i hate playing against engines, and so never do. so i'm speaking from a position of.......... um... ignorance when i say it's not helpful to play against one. my understanding of them is you can set them at computer strength (then it will play like the silicon beast it is, wipe you out, and in the process play ...well, like a machine. not a person. maybe not even a GM, but like a machine), or set it at your strength (moron, essentially, and it makes idiotic moves, then monster moves, then more monster moves, then sudden keel over and lose the game in some bizarre manner).

unless you're a masochist, i just don't see why one would compete against a machine. however, i ALWAYS use an engine for analysis - in games i win, games i lose. analysis with an engine is eye opening, fun, a terrific learning tool. you also kind of learn how the computer thinks, since you can follow its analysis. to me, the best use of the beast, computer.

@sparowe14

I know some GM's that tell 2000 players like myself that we are just learning the game. So in a sense. He "could" say noob. But then you have 1200-1600 players who give advice like they are 2500+. I would rather sit in the camp that I am still a beginner compared to a GM.