I need advice about lack of knowlodge from strong players (2200+)


I'm a 2000+ player, if I work hard, my limit is 2100! 2200 is like an unreachable goal with my current skills. (in classic I think I can reach 2200, 2250 with very hard work, by playing not tired, etc..)

I would like to know if I have some pattern, some lack of knowlodge which is visible for strong players... Something I would star today learn and correct it i next few games! But I need someone smart enough to know what is a really lack of knowlodge and what is just a lack of attention... If I'm a piece down because I did not see 'Nc4-fork' that is not because I dont know 'Nc4' fork my queen... I think you got the point...

Thanks in advance...

im not strong enough, but i'm in similar boat and would like to know the answer as well XD

actually i don't think there's an answer to this. Just play to your best and if you improve u improve if you don't u not meant for it.

1.b3!!! i'm just kidding that's not the best move but i use it sometimes in bullet.

If you can afford this get a trainer with elo > 2500 and analyze some of your games. You will detect your weaknesses and he will give you some advice.

Good luck on your journey!

Well, I don't think, this forum is the place, where you will get far with your requests ;-)

Just like @jupp53 said - get a coach or some OTB friends with an appropriate strength (master level, idk).

Anyway, since I don't think you deserve the trolling treatment, I can try with some quick suggestions. [Disclaimer, I'm not that good + analysis won't be THAT deep because of time constraints]

Some things which I noticed from skimming through your blitz games:

1) Openings are pretty solid, way above average for 2000 blitz, as far as I can tell (both concete variations+piece placements)

2) you seem to have an issue with weak squares + weak square color complexes.
you play well in the opening prior to taking on d5 and then play f4?? weakening f2+e3 and blundering the exchange

the next game
exactly the same pattern, even more clear: very good opening with clear advantage + complete neglection of the e6-f7 weakness after 16..f5?? 17. Ng5 + 18. Ne6 is completely crushing -- 11...e5 weakens d5 and f5 for little reason

Other than that, idk. From the gut feeling I'd say that you blunder slightly more cheapos than you should - hard to tell if it's random variance, your performance at faster time controls or an issue with prophylactic thinking.

To be honest, I'm in the same place. I've always taught myself or worked with friends to learn, but I feel like I'm at my limit now. I've thought a lot about this in the last few months, and here are my thoughts:

1. Trainer -- it's a pretty obvious one. We can try to analyze our own weaknesses but the process has diminishing returns because we're biased by years of business as usual. Strong GM's would be like a goldmine for players like us. Others have recommended other relatively strong players as partners. In my opinion, the best choice would be a grandmaster. If you've made it this far and are really interested in continuing, may as well do it the most professional, correct way possible.

The caveat that I've attached to that solution is that I'd have to invest a lot of time dutifully studying chess in order to justify that. A good trainer works best with a good worker, and I'm not prepared to take that step at this time. But if I were able to commit more to chess and less to real life, this would be my path forward.

2. Really learning endgames -- this is something that I've started to do a little at a time. If we can understand and memorize 50% of the positions in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, we would likely be much stronger players, especially in long time controls. At least personally one of the major traps I fall into when evaluating games is looking at what happened in the middlegame instead of analyzing where I missed opportunities to get into a good endgame. Engines don't really help that much with this either -- they won't necessarily give a major plus when your position is modest but will be unconditionally stronger in twenty moves after deliberate play (as you'd learn from Dvoretsky's book).

There's no doubt in my mind that if I had the confidence to make snap decisions like "this endgame is winning because I bring the king to e4 and the rook to a2 and create this kingside pawn structure" instead of "it looks like I'll have a little more activity in an otherwise equal rook endgame", I believe I would be a much stronger player.

3. Middlegame accuracy -- the vast, vast majority of my mistakes are made in the middlegame (verified with lichess insights). I'd be willing to bet this is consistent for players of all skill levels since it's where the most pivotal decisions tend to be made; including of course transitions to endgames. Given the high number of errors I commit in the middlegame, it seems like a pretty logical conclusion to draw that studying advanced tactics (Encyclopedia of Chess Combinations is my favorite) is always going to be of benefit. I can calculate better than a 1600, but I can't calculate better than a 2600. There's obviously room for improvement there.

4. Ignore openings except those that cause you real problems -- we know the mainlines at this point and plenty of side variations. At the GM level, strong opening preparation is very important. At our level, other factors like middlegame and endgames (which tend to be richer in instructional value and deeper in ideas) are likely the areas with more unexplored depths.

There are two caveats: first, specific openings that you have a very low win rate against. Sometimes this just takes a refresher. Maybe it's the something specific like the Schliemann or maybe something more generic like the Caro-Kann. I've been able to pick some low hanging fruit just by looking at my lichess insights and seeing which openings I perform poorly in.

The other caveat is that it's probably a good idea to check in every once in awhile and see if your preferred lines are played in strong GM tournaments. Opening repertoires need a little maintenance and while changing them every time a fashionable variation comes into play, it's sometimes evident that a previous main line is replaced by something better. This one's pretty easy since it's never too bad reading the chess news.

It's worth mentioning that at our level we can fairly well sink into a think when we're out of book and figure out a reasonable path forward. Learning openings to survive traps is no longer vital to surviving the gambit gauntlet (hopefully).

TL;DR -- a GM will give the best advice. Endgames and middlegames improve judgment at this level more than constantly refreshing opening knowledge.