Advice on a tutor.

@BlotterFan said in #9:
> Nice try, we know thats you voja
I wish. Back when Trump was elected and I seriously considered leaving the US, Voja offered to find me an inexpensive apartment in Belgrade. I considered it, but my medical needs are such that the Serbian medical system would not have been especially good for me as an expat living there. So, here I am in Northern Vermont, not Serbia.

@ShreksGonGiveItToYa

Kings would be ideal, quite expensive though.

@VTWood Thanks, I'll have a look.

@MrPushwood BS. Yes it is on me to stop playing bullet.
But you can also get a tutor as part of the process to enjoy learning chess again.

Whomever you decide to work with, do your best to make sure they've never been banned for cheating ...

@boilingFrog

Is that a GM Dlugy joke?

@RickRenegade said in #14
>Is that a GM Dlugy joke?

Dude, what was your first clue bro ?

Sadly, 100-150 points per year seems to be considered good. I bet it depends how much time you study though. I hope I climb much faster. But everyone wants a perfect beach body by summer.

@Chesserroo2 said in #16:
> Sadly, 100-150 points per year seems to be considered good. I bet it depends how much time you study though. I hope I climb much faster. But everyone wants a perfect beach body by summer.

It also depends on where you play and the types of games. One of the problems I've seen here is that games timed at G-30, G-45 and G-60 are rated the same as much longer classical games. We have a player here in Vermont who is truly excellent at times of G-60 or less all the way down to blitz. Their rating now is just over 2100 based mainly on G-60+5 games. When they play longer games they are more like a 1700 player. I used to play quite a few games casually with this person getting beaten all the time until, after five years of lessons with an IM, I started beating them and drawing them in longer games.

IMO, anything played at longer times than G-60 should be rated as a different rating category.

I agree about the different rating categories.

As for which to specialize in, I want to get best at the area most people play. I don't cross paths with many people who want to play long. I think the winner is whoever is enthusiastic enough to sit through it and use all their time. I'd rather show off blindfold or simultaneous chess. I will do longer time controls for learning though, but I think correspondence covers that.

Firstly, you don't necessarily need a coach. That part depends on your personality but for me this has never worked. If you do decide to go for a coach, I would say that being a titled player is of little importance. Just my 0.02 dollars.

For self study, its so obvious thats this may be redundant to even write about, but calculation (different from tactics) and endgame studies is the usual way to go. If you really want to test yourself something like Perfect Your Chess by Volokitin is a book I went through. Note you will not be able to solve many (most) of these calculation problems, the point is to put the time into calculation. I gave myself 15min for each problem before a hard stop. All of these things will take an incredible amount of patience and will perhaps feel more like work than passion. This too is normal.

Ill only touch on openings because there are so many different strategies but one thing you may want to consider is playing the type of game you are least comfortable with. For you that might be playing something more positional etc.

Lastly, practice. Practice with friends. These can be as short as game in 15 and you guys should talk about it after and exchange thoughts. We all know everything I mentioned here. Maybe Im just writing to myself (been out of chess for a while now). Always like to see you around tho. Lemme know if you want to play a longer one sometime.

The main thing a coach can do is look over your games and tell you your weaknesses, especially if you anotate why you made each more. They will then tell you what to study that is at your level. The right book for your level is key.

This is of course a best case scenario. Even then, you have to put in the time.

Coaches can show you cool tricks, but hopefully they are good for your games. Being a master at one area might not help you if something more fundamental is holding you back. No need to learn the Philodors position if you are blundering lots of material or don't know how to promote pawns.

If OP is near 2200, then Philidor is needed.

I'm a math tutor.