about improving for beginner .

@Pro_Chess47
Seriously, I too opened my reply tab and was about to almost start typing some tips, after which i saw he is higher rated than me.
No worries , I will give my tips to someone else
╮(╯▽╰)╭

Ya I don't know why he called himself a bigginer

Beginner is a relative term. To a GM I am a beginner. There is nothing wrong with thinking you are a beginner even as an A class player. But I am not sure it would be advisable to advertise it all the time, as some people who have trouble with 1200 might get upset.

I don't know some of these tips. They look so long winded and so crazy. Like I know several people who did what one person said and study for 3 years. He didn't understand why when he finally got to the board that he couldn't break 1300. I told him that you can only study so much and then you start dipping into losing ground. Eventually you MUST play or all the studying does nothing for you.

Some of the older books? Sure those can help I suppose. I never once in my life read Chess Fundamentals, nor did I read Chess Praxis or My system. I was always told I should, but never got around to it. Probably by syldexia. To be honest what you need is a system, and then play a lot with analysis. What I mean by system is.. Get yourself a basic strategy book set and study it while you play. What ever speaks to you. It doesn't matter. I usually recommend the play winning chess series by Yasser Seirawan, or "The comprehensive chess course" by Lev Alburt. Once you are through with those, I tend to recommend one book on tactics, maybe two. Then the Silman endgame course. Aside from that it's playing and analysis. I would stay away from engine analysis until you have exhausted human analysis. And exhaust means, you "should" spend as much time with several meat boxes at several different time intervals for several hours at a time before going to silicon boxes. If I could change something with how I trained it would only be three things. 1. I would stay away from engines like I said. 2. I would go to as many tournaments as I could. And 3. I would hopefully ask everyone I could for feedback. Chess improvement is like any other thing you want to master. You surround yourself with the people you want to be. You want to be 1800? Start hanging out with as many A class players as you can. Ask them questions if they let you. Play them if they let you. Same with everyone else. Want to be 2300? I would say you should go through stages of course, set goals. Like get from 1200- 1600, then 1600 - 1800, but when you get to 2000, you do the same thing. Just get yourself a bunch of buddies 2300+ and hope they will answer your questions or play you. It gets harder the higher you go, but the principle is the same. Reading the books are important, but not as important as getting out of your comfort zone and play and analyse results.

It seems that the term beginner should be only used to describe new players who just had learnt the moves. If they play over 100 games they become intermediate, no matter what their rating is. In fact, the rating has nothing to do with how many games somebody has played. You can be for example 1500 rated after 5 games or 5000. Beginner is an empty word. Avoid it at all cost.

thank you everybody for giving your time for many kind and helpful suggestions. And sorry if I offended anyone by using the term beginner (the thing is the more I play the more I think my skills are lacking and I was compelled to refer me as a beginner).
but all those beautiful and instructive experiences ,thoughts and ideas you all have given me and others means a lot . THANKYOU

@Prastab
Maybe this is useful for you :
https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/i-cannot-reach-1900?page=2#14
Then the books by IM Silman could be good for you. It is a matter of taste maybe. I like the Yusupov books better.
For children there is the Steps tutor method which is very good.

@pointlesswindows

I completely disagree with you.
Someone can have played thousands of games and his or her understanding of this deep game may still be so shallow that it is quite justified to qualify it as "beginner".
Furthermore, playing over 100 games most certainly does not qualify one for "intermediate" understanding, ability or skill in chess.
Using words or concepts in such a manner certainly removes any useful meaning from them.
But "beginner", "intermediate", "advanced", "expert", etc. do have meaning in plain English and can certainly be useful generalizations when attempting to give people a framework for understanding one's needs as the OP did.
Now, some may consider the OP as an "intermediate" but I would say that they have a very limited appreciation of how far one must develop as a player to become an "intermediate"...
What you have described as the criterion to be considered a beginner is in fact a "rank beginner".
The lowest possible level in a chess journey.
But one remains a beginner far, far beyond simply learning how to move the pieces around, how to capture, and certain other rules of the game.
I have played many seemingly "strong players" who have very little conception of the purpose of the opening phase of the game or how structural elements of a position serve piece activity and mobility yet has "strong ratings" because they are tactically superior to the pool of players they are evolving in.
Notwithstanding this tactical superiority, these players are still "beginners" because they have yet to understand and apply very fundamental concepts without which they will most certainly never become truly good chess players.

@PixelatedParcel so you basically say that Capabanca after playing 100 games was below intermediate in understanding, ability or skill in chess.

@pointlesswindows

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I was trying to enlighten but since you have no use for it, please don't waste my time.
I will refrain from further communications with you in the future.

@PixelatedParcel I don't care boy.