How do you actually get better at chess?

Pedagogy question. I love it. How about asking this question: Where are the knowledge gateways and threshold concepts in chess? After I know what they are, how can I take the knowledge and incorporate it into my own performance?

Play higher rated opponents and supplement with theory. DONT play bullet. Check out the Chess Network or find vids of "Romans Lab" online

How do humans learn? By using the human senses and using role models.
Apply critical thinking methods to chess. Recognize the chess position and locate the threats. Prove that they are threats and find more than one solution to correct the position. Pick the better solution. All this takes time. Without critical thinking, you are relying only on memorized patterns. Memorizing is not good enough. A good chess player must be able to react to a chess position. Principles help maintain order and point you in the right direction. Methods are a solid foundation. The applied response does not mean it's the best answer, but it should never be a blunder. When a move is considered a blunder, it proves that we have not mastered the critical thinking process. Why was a piece played? Maybe a solution to getting a bit better results is as simple as applying what we learn from a teaching video about "Critical thinking process".

Search for new study techniques to improve your present study habits.

There is an entire body of chess wealth that has NOTHING to do with tactics training.

Primarily you need to know which questions to ask and answer (chess/fundamentals).
Secondary you need to know how to "write them down" (tactics).

Most chess players under 1700-1800 have no idea of chess or chess-fundamentals.
They are basically playing a version of "Advanced Checkers".

GMs might spend 30 minutes looking at a single move. Why?
These are people that can play an entire chess game without a board!

So what are they thinking about for 30 minutes?!

They are asking and answering questions.
They are debating an expansive body of information to suss out raw efficiency.

Obviously I'm not going to say there is NO tactical calculation going on, but that's not the focus and that's not the point.

Tactics are not chess.
Tactics merely serve the chess.

The fundamentals are the goal.
The fundamentals are the chess.

The tactics are merely the method.

Chess is the cabin/beach/resort.
Tactics are merely the car ride to get there.

Your reasoning and rationale for making one move instead of another...
Your reasoning and rationale for justifying why the move you're making is the best one in the position...

...this is the point.

Yes. Chess is the combination of the fundamentals and the tactics.

But "chess" can also be used interchangeably with "fundamentals".

"Chess" can never be used interchangeably with "tactics".

--

Fundamentals: Everything...E-VER-Y-THING...that a piece influences where it sits.

Tactics: Everything that happens/changes when a piece is moved.

--
-

"Which tactically justified idea is the best for my position?"

or

"We dream/create as far as the tactics allow."

*You need ask yourself what a Grandmaster would need 30 minutes to consider.

*You need to consider that "tactics" are the least of it.

**You need to be uplifted and encouraged in knowing that much of it has nothing to do with the savant capacity to calculate 25 moves deep and instantaneously recall and apply 1000s of separate chess positions/tactics puzzles.

Getting to 2000 is much simpler than you might think!
(Not GM. That's harder than you can imagine.)

But 2000 is definitely something that anyone can achieve with minimal study and mostly just playing.

Overnight? No.
Eventually? Yes. Absolutely.

As for the GMs that recommend daily tactics training, they're assuming that you've read their books, other books, know about what open files mean to a position, know about what Ns or Bs mean to a position, know about the differences between the many different pawn structures, know how to assess these and many^10 more features of a position, and how to create and/ adjust a plan/creative idea to encompass and reflect the different features of a position to best effect.

So all talk about, "But GMs say tactical training is the only way," is moot.

FIRST Assuming that you've learned all there is to know...THEN diligent tactics training is all that's left.

Until then, tactics training actually has very little to do with your improvement.

There are many things that you need to know and apply, that when you do not know them, much less apply them, you can't win; no matter how strong your tactics are.

These things are called "the fundamentals".
These things are "chess".

We NEVER start with, "What happens when I move this piece here?"
We ALWAYS start with, "What many things does each piece affect/influence/do where it sits?"

It's the latter that GMs will spend 30 minutes analyzing the meaning behind.
It's what you will need to start doing if you want to break your plateau.

I like Anna Rudolf's course: https://www.ichess.net/shop/basic-chess-strategy-anna-rudolf/
It covers a wide range of topics and the presentation style is good.

Also, the "Learn from your mistakes" feature might be helpful for you. For openings there are lots of free sites (and a Lichess feature) where you can at least see what others play.

You don’t. Your set with a limit when your born and that’s it.

@FMScuzzBall - Maybe it Maybelline.

Read chess books and study the games of the masters.
And then study your own games. And with this I mean the games that you lose, not the games that you win.
Then correct your errors in your thinking process. Try to understand why did you commit them. You will improve if you persevere doing this.

1. Analyze every game with a strong engine and don't quit the analysis unless you're satisfied with every suggested mistake/blunder.

2. Check your own game insights (https://lichess.org/blog/VmZbaigAABACtXQC/chess-insights). This seems to be one of the most underutilized features of this site.

3. Play the longest time control you possibly can. Those positional patterns you learned won't help you if you're not able to identify them in-game. Besides, if you don't find yourself leveraging them, then there's always the risk of forgetting them over a period of time.

4. Don't worry too much on playing a lot of games. There are lots of folks who have played hundreds of thousands of games without demonstrating an iota of improvement. Remember quality over quantity.

Easy to follow courses, yes, but chess improvement in itself is usually not easy, it takes a lot of time, determination,focus and energy t keep studying every day. So let's say you have 3hrs per day to study chess. You might join at chessmasterschool.com for their first year of study, the so called GM course. I have it myself, it is effective but at a quite high level. Another thing you might do is self study from books, basically get : 1.1 thick book about tactics and positions to solve. 2. 1 big book about strategy 3. One about endgames 4. A couple of game collections, 2-3, no more. You'd study any book at a time for a minimum of 2 hrs, and the third hour always the tactic book. So a good session is about 2hrs worth of study from one book. Especially seeing good examples of whole chessgames, from the game collections, is very important for learning "to speak chess". I have a book with Tarrasch games(gives you the classical style of play), one with Keres games(gives you strategy and strong attacks) and one with Bronstein games(gives you a view to more modern chess style). Honestly if I had to dump all my books exept 3 of them, I would keep only the game collections and learn from them. Other than that, focus on playing slower games, 15+10 or 30+10, analyze your losses with a stronger player if possible(not computer). So the total toll of daily hours devoted to chess might easily rise to 5 or 6. But that is what is needed. It's the path of hard work that works. Forget everything that sounds like "How to win in 20 moves" or "become grandmaster overnight,quick this and that etc...