lichess.org
Donate

What are my next steps to improve?

I have collected some of my rapid games in a study, and provided my own comments on them. Judging by these games (and any other bits of chess advice), what would you suggest my next steps to improve my game be?

Feel free to give any comments on any particular game.



@WasteMan #1
Nice that you made those studies with your thoughts. It gives an excellent view in your way of thinking. Great.
I've quickly looking through some of them.
Two things were obvious to me :
1) You play for either attack or winning material, where it seems that your chess plan making is sometimes a little bit chaotic rather than step by step logic.
You can improve your play by learning to also play based on pawn structure, and open lines.
2) You can learn to appreciate the bishop pair.
Bishop pair can be very strong in open position, and in endgames. And having the bishop pair can be compensation for being a pawn down in some positions.
You could learn more about these things by going through annotated chess games, chess videos or chess books which teach about these topics.
Looking at your ratings and the amount of games you have played, I would suggest :
1) Only play bullet for fun, and don't take the chess from that serious.
2) Start playing more Rapid, Classical and Correspondence chess, and set yourself a rating goal e.g. 1900+ for all these three in six months time.
After playing those slower time control games, use the analysis option to check how many mistakes you made, and see if you agree with the Stockfish suggestions, and whether you can grasp the ideas or variations, and learn from that.
Also, try to keep an eye on the amount of mistakes you make in the slower time control games (Ignore bullet). Check the acpl.
Here an example from my own "Chess insights" :
lichess.org/insights/achja/acpl/date/variant:classical
You can see that the acpl fluctuates but never went over 60.
You can also use the Chess insights to see how well you score with certain openings.
If you play an opening line because you think you like it, or you think you are good at it, those numbers might be insightful and show you the facts.
Playing for fun is one thing, but if you need to play in an otb team match, and your team members expect you to not lose, then it is important to be able to get solid results :)
And your tactics rating is not bad, but leaves room for improvement. Do tactics puzzles daily, during at least a few months, and not just on one chess website. Use a few, compare them, and see how it works for you.

HTH
@achja Thanks for the advice. I guess getting a bit more comfortable with more openings can help me learn to play different pawn structures a bit better. As of blitz/bullet games, I really just play them for fun and only really take time to analyze rapid games. I'm definitely going to try and take a look at some examples of the power of the two bishops
More openings knowledge will not help you in any way. It is a pitfall. You can study openings 8 hours per day and still not get any better at all.
Look at the last, 13th game gmmona - WasteMan. You opponent plays the non-developing move 2 d5 to get you out of theory and then outplays you.
Already your 2nd move 2...e6 is subpar. Better 2...d6 block the advanced pawn d5, or 2...c6 trade his central d-pawn for your c-wing pawn. Indeed as you write 3...fxe6 would have been better, not so much to avoid trading queens, but rather to develop ...Be7, ...o-o and take advantage of the open f-file. The problem with your 3...dxe6 is not that queens get traded, but that your king is insecure and he gains time by putting a rook on the d-file first.
Advice: think longer on your opening moves.
Players under 2100 should NOT be playing bullet or blitz.

Your brain will take a long time to adjust and will have to re-adapt to longer time controls.

You'll have to trade the epinephrine addiction of time trouble, for the epinephrine addiction of appreciating a complex position on the same level that art fans appreciate a Monet or Van Gogh.

And believe me...the adrenaline involved with time trouble has NOTHING on good chess.

Leave blitz and bullet, and don't return until you're 2100.

You've shaped your brain a certain way, and that needs to be undone and redone properly for you to progress.

I have 10,000 blitz/bullet on another site.
I know exactly what your mind does playing bullet/blitz, and I know exactly what your mind does when you take 2 minutes to contemplate the fundamentals of a single position.

If you doubt me...then answer me this one single question:

WHY IS IT...THAT SUPER GRANDMASTERS WOULD EVER SPEND 15 MINUTES ON A SINGLE MOVE?!?!?

WHY IS IT...THAT SUPER GRANDMASTERS WOULD SPEND 5 MINUTES ON A MOVE OUT OF THE OPENING?!?!?

These are absolutely BRILLIANT minds.

Shouldn't they be able to sum up pretty much any position in a matter of seconds?
Shouldn't they be able to find the best move in any given position within no more than a minute?

*****Seek the answer to this question.*****
WHAT.
ARE.
THEY.
LOOKING.
AT?
*****Seek the answer to this question.*****

Put away bullet and blitz until you find it.
Depending on how long you've played blitz, and how long you've played chess...it will take year(s).

15 0 MINIMUM.
I completely disagree. Blitz and bullet don't affect my classical/rapid chess at all, and I've played them since I was a beginner just under 2 years ago. There's a mindset shift you must undergo from fast chess to slow chess, but my brain clicks into gear for each pretty quickly.
Yeah, the degree (and direction) to which bullet/blitz affects your slow chess is a highly variable and personal thing.

I know people who play tremendous amounts of bullet online, and then have the issues @DeeVeeOss mentions when they play slower games.

I also know people who play just as much bullet, and have no problem using their time appropriately and thinking deeply about positions in slow games, to the point @Rrhyddhad made.

It just depends. Honestly, I think the more common pitfall with playing a lot of blitz/bullet is less that it does weird things to your brain and more that it encourages long sessions of play, play, play, play (which for having fun is fine, of course).

While you can improve somewhat just from playing a lot of games and picking up things via a sort of osmosis, most improvement will come between games, when you go over your games and compare what you were thinking and what you saw during the game with something closer to the "truth" (feedback from strong players, etc.), and then figure out what you need to do to fix your biggest weaknesses.

In the cycle of play, feedback, correct, play, feedback, correct, etc., it's really the feedback and correct that do the heavy lifting. You play games just to expose your thinking.

On that note, as I indicated above, I think the more common problem with developing players playing a lot of blitz and bullet is that those time controls tend to encourage cycles with a lot of playing, and no feedback or correction.

People are more likely to take a few moments to review a longer game after it's played, in my experience; in blitz and bullet you're more likely just to click "New Game" :)

Just my $0.02

@a_pleasant_illusion

More to an objective absolute, compare our progress (mine and Rrhyddhad) on the rating graphs. It wasn't too much more than a year ago where 1800 (on another site) was a big deal for me.

All this after a 10 year plateau.

Now that I can finally choose to think about something for more than 3 seconds at a time, I'm seeing the pitfalls of what I was doing, what caused my stagnation, and exactly what's changed in my mind to break through what was my ceiling.

I read Reassess over a decade ago, and I thought that I could implement the information in that book at that point...but it's only a decade later where I see what that book is about and the line that it draws in the sand.

It's almost as though I couldn't take a macro look at the game until recently, and I can see EXACTLY why bullet and blitz are noxious to the cause of improvement for underrated players. It's not really up for discussion.

I know all about the addiction of time trouble and rating improvements. I know all about playing 10s of 1000s of bullet games, thinking with each and everyone, "OK now I'll start playing perfect and make a permanent improvement run."

-

Illusion, at +2100, you have to remember that there is something that you do at the chess board that the underrated have absolutely no idea about and don't know exists.

There is a good reason I drew the line at "2100".

You can not get to 2100 without strong fundamentals.
Aside from Einsteinish type brains, that's just about an absolute.

When you learn strong fundamentals, and learn to implement those fundamentals, 2100 is almost unavoidable (even with the tactical handicap of a brain damaged mind).

-

So the question really only becomes "can underrated learn the fundamentals in bullet time controls?"

-

You state a very valid reason where that interruption occurs, but it's definitely not the only reason as to where and why that interruption occurs.

_

Addiction and drugs are a funny thing. Drugs don't get you high, they make your brain release chemicals that get you high.

Epinephrine (speed) is produced by the adrenal glands on the kidneys.

Here are a few triggers:

-rollercoasters

-accidents (even almost fumbling and dropping an egg will release a certain amount)

-cocaine

-gambling

-time trouble < - - - bullet

-realizing that you're looking at one of the most amazing, complex, and elegant works of art that you ever made. < - - - standard

-

So since we have about 99% of smokers on this planet talking about, "I wish I had never started, I wish I could quit," and gamblers talking about, "I really miss my kneecaps," we can see that this addiction is a dominant factor and consideration, conscious and sub-consciously.

-

Again. When YOU, Illusion, sit down at the board to play some fast-clock, you are bringing your entire wealth of fundamental understanding. You are playing fundamentally and plugging in tactical calculations when applicable. And that is chess. Fundamental -> Tactics - > Fundamental -> Tactics like a synergetic snowball of efficiency.

-

This is WAY different than making 10 moves to open a game, putting the pieces on reflexive squares, and then keeping the dial stuck on "tactical calculation", hopefully into time trouble where we can get another dose of epinephrine, rinse and repeat.

Where we then, what, want to learn about the "art" and "creation" that we just made? ... OR ... where we want another "hit" of adrenaline and simply start a new game?

See how an addiction to chess is conducive with improvement?
See how an addiction to time trouble is not?

-

You see Illusion, the point that I'm making is absolute right?

Because I'm only talking to people that are seeking to improve and state that to be their mission and intention, who are usually between 1000 and 1800.

If they knew what they needed to know to improve, they would be +2100.

So there is no doubt that they are missing what amounts to the entire "engine" of chess-playing mind...

...and there is no doubt that what they're doing will not, and could not possibly, install that engine.

-

Further, like those people that grow kittens in jugs and containers, it's the exact same with <2100 chess. Your mind simply circles tactics, because that's all you know, in a loop. This is empirical with an extremely LARGE amount of chess players.

What Rrhyddhad might be trying to say is, "I agree, that's obvious, but for me, I'm an anomaly."

When you take an underrated bullet mind and set it in a 45 45 time control, the capacity to efficiently use the time productively simply wouldn't be there.

For instance...

If you or I sat down and played a 30 30 against our clone with 1 0, our 30 30 self would win 100% of the time.

If someone underrated, who doesn't have a grip on the fundamentals and isn't yet addicted to chess, sat down and played a 30 30 against their clone with a 1 0, that 1 0 'self' would probably take down, what, 10% of the games?

-

In Rrhyddhad's case, I would argue that he's got a well above average, natural, tactical/calculation ability, and I suspect that with some fundamental study, he could be titled OTB.

-

In almost all cases, there is very little room to deny the damage that fast-clock produces in underrated players. We don't start with this assumption, we end with this conclusion.
I made a list. There is a coaches page that you should check out, since any of the coaches on there could walk you through this stuff.

1. 2 rooks vs queen - 2 rooks side of it
2. Opening Theory Guioco Piano - 5. d3
3. Opening Theory Itallian 2 knights defense - 6… c6
4. Tactics - Trapped Pieces
5. Opening Theory Ruy Lopez 3. a6
6. Basic Tactics
7. Iterative process - break tunnel vision
8. Opening Theory - Caro-Kahn panov (3. d4 or 3. d3)
9. Basic pawn structures - Carlsbad
10. Openings - Fried Liver Knight Sac - 8.Nc3
11. Fundamentals - when to trade pieces
12. Opening Italian 2 knights defense - Bobby Fischer Var 12. 0-0
13. Fundamentals - Opening lines of attack/closing lines of defense.
14. Opening Theory 4. d4 Scandinavian
15. Basic Value of the pieces - tactics of promoting a pawn?
16. Opening Theory Italian 2 knights defense 8. Nd5
17. Intermediate Tactic - decoy to fork 10. Bxf2+
18. Fundamentals - Capture toward center with pawns is the rule, not the exception
@tpr When I was referring to getting more comfortable with openings, I did not mean memorizing opening lines, but understanding the themes and how to play different pawn structures. The last few games on the study had no increment, as they were from the rapid tournament, so I was too quick to play thinking I would need the time later in the game. On the games with the increment I spend more time on my opening. Thanks for the help anyways.

@DeeVeeOss Thanks for your input. Although you advise against it, I doubt I will stop playing faster time controls entirely. I play chess just as a hobby. I would like to get better, but cutting out bullet/blitz seems drastic. I do shy away from those time controls, and I do understand that there isn't much to learn from them, so I don't spend time analyzing those games. I understand that playing blitz/bullet and playing longer games requires a different mindset. Often when playing longer time controls I do the time per move calculation, like assuming 40-60 moves per game etc. so I think adjusting for me doesn't take as long as you suggest.

Most of my time management problems come from games where there is no or very little increment. My main time control for rapid is 10+5 which has significant increment to cover for spending a bit too much time in an opening

@DrHack Thanks for your advice, I will take a look at these at some point.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.