improving: what is the next step?

Contrary to popular believe here on these forums: most clubplayers at the 1300-1400 elo level play pretty decent chess otb. (please note: i am talking true otb elo, not lichess ratings). Defeating them is not just gobbling up hanging pieces and is not just executing combinations that are just waiting to be found.

Since I discovered chess one year ago and joined the local chessclub this summer, I have now played 13 classical otb games against opponents in the 1300-1500 elo range. All of those games i analysed off course using Lichess studie analysis. Only 2 contained clearly missed tactical opportunities. Still, I lost 7 of those games. And i lost moet of them without missing any tactics and without hanging my own pieces or falling for traps.

So my question is this.
When you are at that level where you and your opponents are no longer hanging pieces, and both defend pieces adequatly and both of you spot (the danger of) arising tactics....

THEN what is the next step of improving? Are there ways to push your opponent towards tactical mistakes (maybe sharpen up te position or something? - Let's use metaphor of tennis: by hitting harder and sharper, chances of your opponent making 'unforced errors' increase drastically. )

Or should i be looking in another direction? Pawn structures, endgames? How does your average 1600 elo player normally defeat the average 1400 player?

Advice of experienced otb players would be appreciated!

(As you might have noticed, English is not my native language and i am an autodidact in chess. Apologies if i am not aware of any obvious chess-idiom)

Two books meant a lot to me:

Modern Chess Strategy (Pachman)
Pawn Structure Chess (Soltis)

I've never heard anyone say what you think is a popular belief.

Personally I could study 24 hours a day and not cover a small fraction of what I'm interested in learning.

If there's nothing you're interested in learning, no weaknesses you'd like to improve, no questions you want answered, etc. then I'd suggest you hire a coach.

"... Logical Chess [(Batsford edition by Chernev)] ... a collection of 33 games ... is definitely for beginners and players who are just starting to learn about development, weak squares, the centre, standard attacking ideas, and the like. In many ways, it would [be] a wonderful 'first' book (or first 'serious' book, after the ones which teach the rules and elementary mates, for example), and a nice gift for a young player just taking up chess. ..." - IM John Watson (1999)
http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/assorted-recent-books

Everyone falls to tactics.
However. First you have to focus on your basic endgame positions (you need to know how to close games at any stage of your development, so endgame positions are a must). Nothing too extraordinary, opposition, rkvk, 2bkvk, some draw and stalemate positions, etc.

Once you do that, you have to focus on your openings. Until you are able to get some +-.5 or so on a constant basis, or getting ahead preferably, you have to study them.

Once you are ok in the opening on a consistent basis, its time for mid game, this is where you have to learn about activity, double pawns, positioning, outposts, blockades, initiative, and of course, tactics with pins, skewers, forks, discovered attacks, etc.

At a certain point, you will start to get paired with players who wont fall for tactics that easy, but at the end of the day, setting up tactics is setting up problems for your opponent to solve, if you have superior strategic knowledge, and the initiative, you will eventually will set up many problems at the same time that he either wont be able to solve all of them, or if he does, he will end up with a worse position, to a degree (from totally lost to slightly worst) after the resolution because you are the one with the initiative and you are the one calculating first how his position is gonna end and initiating the exchanges with forced responses to aim for that position.

Then the endgame training takes over.

So yes, you need superior strategy knowledge to both, parry his intent and to advance your own plans.

"Pawns are the soul of the game. They alone create attack and defense, the way they are deployed decides the fate of the game."

Looking at a couple of your games, you're creating bad pawn structures for temporary advantage (chasing a bishop away by destroying your ability to castle) or just leaving pawns undefended. Respect your pawns. Know when a pawn break is good for you and when it's good for your opponent.

Closed positions benefit the more skilled player. Tactics don't just come from your opponent's blunders, they come from choking up your opponent's position.. The more good moves you make impossible, the more likely they are to make a bad one. The difference between the higher ratings is mostly how far ahead they can block their opponent's moves.

@Alientcp said in #6:

Once you do that, you have to focus on your openings. Until you are able to get some +-.5 or so on a constant basis, or getting ahead preferably, you have to study them.

is this true? This is exact the opposite of what i've been reading? Every serious topic or website on improving, written by teachers tell: don't studie openings until >2000 elo (perhaps ther exagerate a bit, but i am talking imrpoving from 1400 elo). \Btw. thank you for your answer. I can see (the rest of) your point...@dnowmects said in #7:

@dnowmects said in #7:

Looking at a couple of your games, you're creating bad pawn structures for temporary advantage (chasing a bishop away by destroying your ability to castle)

Thanks for the effort but Yeah. I play mostly blitz here, i don't take that too seriously. Most of the time i play with my 2,5 year old son on my lap etc. And most of the time my mindset in Blitz is: Let's see what happens. :-)

Tactics don't just come from your opponent's blunders, they come from choking up your opponent's position.. The more good moves you make impossible, the more likely they are to make a bad one. The difference between the higher ratings is mostly how far ahead they can block their opponent's moves.

Thanks! This really helps! Do I understand correctly that, once you're oeyond hanging-pieces-blundering level, that improving is basically the same for all levels, 'just' looking farther ahead?

@JodyUmmels said in #8:

is this true? This is exact the opposite of what i've been reading? Every serious topic or website on improving, written by teachers tell: don't studie openings until >2000 elo (perhaps ther exagerate a bit, but i am talking imrpoving from 1400 elo). \Btw. thank you for your answer. I can see (the rest of) your point...

You dont have to learn 25 moves deep or something, just some 10 moves or so, just enough to get you out of the opening with chances to win. It doesnt matter how much you focus on the mid game, if you are already losing or in a hopeless position, you cant win. You just need a stable position as a launchpad, which should reinforce your basic knowledge, develop pieces, get a decent pawn structure, castle, not losing a piece, etc.

The mid game is the actual crucial part you have to need most of your focus to actually improve, but you cant properly train your midgame each game when you are behind before reaching it. So you need a good opening set up just to get it out of the way and start the real training on equal ground.

So get 1 main opening, pick a couple more as back up in case they play something else. Dont learn them all at the same time, its a gradual process and you should have them in a month or 2 (pay attention to the main responses you get with your opening and search the antidote for each, but again, not that deep, just some basic set up). So you may end up with about 4-5 openings for each color, 1 as a main, 3-4 as alternate set ups.

@JodyUmmels said in #1:

THEN what is the next step of improving?

how about this logic: you analyze your games and then you will focus on part of the game where the stockfish starts giving you bad evaluation. So if your openings are +/- 0.5 for example, that means, you have no problems with them, so there is no point in studying them. If its +/- 0-0 till endgame and you loose, you know, you must study endgames. If you are losing before endgame, you should study positional play and tactics i guess?

btw i agree with what dnowmects wrote - i heard that many times from various youtube IM/GM streamers ...that tactics is not only for spoting pieces that hangs in one/two moves, but also for creating / forcing positional weaknesses.

Also, if you are good at tactics, i think maybe you could try playing more messy/complicated openings / positions so you can capitalize from your ability. When the position is "boring" (too solid, few pieces), it is easier to not hang pieces, not only for you, but for your opponent too.