- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

What is the secret to chess success.

#1

At the beginning of 2025 I beat a NM OTB for the first time. I won the event. In March of 2025 I repeated this feat of beating a NM and clinching the tournament victory. Chess is a series of small steps on a treadmill. We stumble when we try to jump or run and if we stop making steps we slowly slide backwards. The higher our rating the steeper the incline, each step is harder and for a lot of use we work so hard just to stay still. Beating a NM does not mean I am a NM. I recognize I am missing something and I do not know what I am missing. Online if I am to play a NM I would say I can beat them 3/10 times. On average. There are of course some NM like the inhuman monsters who are 2900 blitz that I would beat 0/10 times.
In search of what intangible thing I am missing I have tried programs like the Chess Dojo, but there big deal is annotate your games and that sort of helped, not really it did force me to look at the ugly messes that are my loses. They have designated endgames and books to read. But after a year 2023-2024 my understanding of chess really did not improve. My OTB rating actually dropped. I do believe the Chess Dojo has a good program that can help you improve but it was not working for me.
I also hired a GM coach for 50 an hour. He also had me Annotate my games and after a few months I realized he had never even looked at my online games and profile. He asked me what my blitz rating was and said I should be able to reach 2000 blitz if I focus on tactics, I was 2280. If my name was not above my head in the zoom call he may not of even known my name. He would go over my annotation and when we ran out of annotation he showed me his annotated games from an earlier tournament. The games were not related to my games and it more so was him filling time.
I thought about hiring a NM but they either want 80 an hour or have around the same rating online as me. Which I know online ratings do not matter but it feels weird. Maybe an FM would be a better choice as they are almost always higher rated and seem to have the most reasonable rates but would a coach really help? I cannot identify what I am missing. I did the endgame studied, I studied GM and IM games, I competed in tournaments, I did tactics, but still I’m not improving.
In a fit of desperation I completely changed my openings I started playing E4 which I have 0 theory in and I won about the same number of games as if I had played C4. A curiosity for sure, but it proves my chess knowledge is sound if I can play any opening a maintain the same online rating and win lose ratio than my chess knowledge is good enough to hold me here.

What are your thoughts? Have you found an answer to a similar problem? Was I just unlucky with my coach selection?

At the beginning of 2025 I beat a NM OTB for the first time. I won the event. In March of 2025 I repeated this feat of beating a NM and clinching the tournament victory. Chess is a series of small steps on a treadmill. We stumble when we try to jump or run and if we stop making steps we slowly slide backwards. The higher our rating the steeper the incline, each step is harder and for a lot of use we work so hard just to stay still. Beating a NM does not mean I am a NM. I recognize I am missing something and I do not know what I am missing. Online if I am to play a NM I would say I can beat them 3/10 times. On average. There are of course some NM like the inhuman monsters who are 2900 blitz that I would beat 0/10 times. In search of what intangible thing I am missing I have tried programs like the Chess Dojo, but there big deal is annotate your games and that sort of helped, not really it did force me to look at the ugly messes that are my loses. They have designated endgames and books to read. But after a year 2023-2024 my understanding of chess really did not improve. My OTB rating actually dropped. I do believe the Chess Dojo has a good program that can help you improve but it was not working for me. I also hired a GM coach for 50 an hour. He also had me Annotate my games and after a few months I realized he had never even looked at my online games and profile. He asked me what my blitz rating was and said I should be able to reach 2000 blitz if I focus on tactics, I was 2280. If my name was not above my head in the zoom call he may not of even known my name. He would go over my annotation and when we ran out of annotation he showed me his annotated games from an earlier tournament. The games were not related to my games and it more so was him filling time. I thought about hiring a NM but they either want 80 an hour or have around the same rating online as me. Which I know online ratings do not matter but it feels weird. Maybe an FM would be a better choice as they are almost always higher rated and seem to have the most reasonable rates but would a coach really help? I cannot identify what I am missing. I did the endgame studied, I studied GM and IM games, I competed in tournaments, I did tactics, but still I’m not improving. In a fit of desperation I completely changed my openings I started playing E4 which I have 0 theory in and I won about the same number of games as if I had played C4. A curiosity for sure, but it proves my chess knowledge is sound if I can play any opening a maintain the same online rating and win lose ratio than my chess knowledge is good enough to hold me here. What are your thoughts? Have you found an answer to a similar problem? Was I just unlucky with my coach selection?
#3

Maybe you are simply not talented enough?

Anyway, on a higher level it certainly would be foolish to play 1.e4 with zero theory. Since 1.e4 is the move opponents are usually best prepared for it does not make sense to play that move unless you know virtually everything about it.

Do you even know that in master chess 1.c4 scores best?

1.c4 56%
1.e4,1.d4,1.Nf3 55%
1.b3 54%

Of course the master database on Lichess says different but I checked the HIARCS Master database 2024 after deleting the bullet and online blitz games first.

Maybe you are simply not talented enough? Anyway, on a higher level it certainly would be foolish to play 1.e4 with zero theory. Since 1.e4 is the move opponents are usually best prepared for it does not make sense to play that move unless you know virtually everything about it. Do you even know that in master chess 1.c4 scores best? 1.c4 56% 1.e4,1.d4,1.Nf3 55% 1.b3 54% Of course the master database on Lichess says different but I checked the HIARCS Master database 2024 after deleting the bullet and online blitz games first.
#4

sounds like he shares a problem with most of us guys: he doesnt listen much. i havent read heisman's post, but suspect he suggests finding one that listens better.

sounds like he shares a problem with most of us guys: he doesnt listen much. i havent read heisman's post, but suspect he suggests finding one that listens better.
#5

Looking at your worst losses and mistakes often helps with the most improvement. Also having the same win rate with e4 and c4 means that 1. Theory doesn't matter at that level or 2. Your opening theory knowledge is flawed.
I also suggest that you play classical chess for best improvement. I plateaued at around 2000 in 2023-mid 2024 but with analysis of my games I managed to improve. And in coach selection, I suggest that you select one that gives you a lot of calculation heavy exercises and overall improve your calculation since this is the factor that decides most games at higher levels. Paying 50 an hour for a GM just to give you the already popular advice of annotating your games seems like a scam. I don't think analysis of IM/GM games are needed unless it is to learn the ideas of an opening as all other parts of the game like calculation, middlegame strategy and endgame training can all be improved upon through exercises. A good coach will help you have a more efficient thought process during calculation.

Looking at your worst losses and mistakes often helps with the most improvement. Also having the same win rate with e4 and c4 means that 1. Theory doesn't matter at that level or 2. Your opening theory knowledge is flawed. I also suggest that you play classical chess for best improvement. I plateaued at around 2000 in 2023-mid 2024 but with analysis of my games I managed to improve. And in coach selection, I suggest that you select one that gives you a lot of calculation heavy exercises and overall improve your calculation since this is the factor that decides most games at higher levels. Paying 50 an hour for a GM just to give you the already popular advice of annotating your games seems like a scam. I don't think analysis of IM/GM games are needed unless it is to learn the ideas of an opening as all other parts of the game like calculation, middlegame strategy and endgame training can all be improved upon through exercises. A good coach will help you have a more efficient thought process during calculation.
#6

@ColossusChess said in #3:

Maybe you are simply not talented enough?

Anyway, on a higher level it certainly would be foolish to play 1.e4 with zero theory. Since 1.e4 is the move opponents are usually best prepared for it does not make sense to play that move unless you know virtually everything about it.

Do you even know that in master chess 1.c4 scores best?

1.c4 56%
1.e4,1.d4,1.Nf3 55%
1.b3 54%

Of course the master database on Lichess says different but I checked the HIARCS Master database 2024 after deleting the bullet and online blitz games first.

I have definitely considered the fact that I am untalented as something that could prevent me from growing as a player. But I do not believe being 2200 takes talent, direction and hard work should be enough.
I must admit being untalented has to restrict my potential but 2200 has to achievable without any special skill or ability. I think the proof is online NM’s are really not good at chess, better than me but not good at chess they will tell you the same thing.

As someone who is around my level or better than me I find it hard to believe you do not understand the question in my post. I doubt you will say you are a talented chess player as you are strong enough to clearly see how unremarkable you are, just like I can see for myself. So what do you believe is that intangible differences between the weakest titled player and a chess expert.

I did not look at your games but it is remarkable how little theory I needed to play e4 and win. Against players at my level online. Everyone avoided mainlines and I played natural moves I was almost never worse out of the opening. My entire life I was scared to play e4 because I thought I would get crushed out of the opening.
Do not take my word for it you can see my profile. A 2200 with 0 theory playing another 2200 and winning sounds stupid. Okay so maybe I do not know nothing about e4 I have seen games of course. I follow some top chess players and watch their games as I think most chess players do. So I have a vague idea of what to play but that should not be enough to win. I was playing the King Gambit! And I was winning. It’s stupid it shows that people at OUR level have no idea what they are doing. In fact I think I already knew this. About 70% of the time when I play someone I am just better out of the opening with little effort. When I lose it’s normally from a middle game tactic or getting flagged. I’m terrible with my clock.
My long winded point is. 2200 have no idea what they are doing and I should have won 0 of my games where I played e4. It takes 0 talent to reach our level and if it take no talent to reach our level and people at our level can beat NM’s than what the hell is the difference between us and them. I am beginning to think there is no difference NM’s are probably just as talentless. They memorized a few more patterns and more than likely they have played A LOT more games. They have access to more tournaments and have more trial and error.
Thats my idea after thinking about it for a day.

I have no access to hiarcs. I believe you that c4 scores best and without access to the data I would bet e4 has more draws and c4 has more loses. In other words it’s more double edged. If I was going to guess I would say that 1% greater win probably has 2% increase in loses or maybe more. But I could be wrong. C4 always gives black a chance to play for the win or that has been my experience.

@ColossusChess said in #3: > Maybe you are simply not talented enough? > > Anyway, on a higher level it certainly would be foolish to play 1.e4 with zero theory. Since 1.e4 is the move opponents are usually best prepared for it does not make sense to play that move unless you know virtually everything about it. > > Do you even know that in master chess 1.c4 scores best? > > 1.c4 56% > 1.e4,1.d4,1.Nf3 55% > 1.b3 54% > > Of course the master database on Lichess says different but I checked the HIARCS Master database 2024 after deleting the bullet and online blitz games first. I have definitely considered the fact that I am untalented as something that could prevent me from growing as a player. But I do not believe being 2200 takes talent, direction and hard work should be enough. I must admit being untalented has to restrict my potential but 2200 has to achievable without any special skill or ability. I think the proof is online NM’s are really not good at chess, better than me but not good at chess they will tell you the same thing. As someone who is around my level or better than me I find it hard to believe you do not understand the question in my post. I doubt you will say you are a talented chess player as you are strong enough to clearly see how unremarkable you are, just like I can see for myself. So what do you believe is that intangible differences between the weakest titled player and a chess expert. I did not look at your games but it is remarkable how little theory I needed to play e4 and win. Against players at my level online. Everyone avoided mainlines and I played natural moves I was almost never worse out of the opening. My entire life I was scared to play e4 because I thought I would get crushed out of the opening. Do not take my word for it you can see my profile. A 2200 with 0 theory playing another 2200 and winning sounds stupid. Okay so maybe I do not know nothing about e4 I have seen games of course. I follow some top chess players and watch their games as I think most chess players do. So I have a vague idea of what to play but that should not be enough to win. I was playing the King Gambit! And I was winning. It’s stupid it shows that people at OUR level have no idea what they are doing. In fact I think I already knew this. About 70% of the time when I play someone I am just better out of the opening with little effort. When I lose it’s normally from a middle game tactic or getting flagged. I’m terrible with my clock. My long winded point is. 2200 have no idea what they are doing and I should have won 0 of my games where I played e4. It takes 0 talent to reach our level and if it take no talent to reach our level and people at our level can beat NM’s than what the hell is the difference between us and them. I am beginning to think there is no difference NM’s are probably just as talentless. They memorized a few more patterns and more than likely they have played A LOT more games. They have access to more tournaments and have more trial and error. Thats my idea after thinking about it for a day. I have no access to hiarcs. I believe you that c4 scores best and without access to the data I would bet e4 has more draws and c4 has more loses. In other words it’s more double edged. If I was going to guess I would say that 1% greater win probably has 2% increase in loses or maybe more. But I could be wrong. C4 always gives black a chance to play for the win or that has been my experience.
#7

I don't know what 2200 means? 2200 online is most of the time not 2200 OTB. 2200 OTB definitely know opening theory where I come from and sometimes know what they are doing.

Of course you can always play unambitious and play four knights game against 1...e5 and exchange against Caro-Kann and French and so on but then you will also not score very good on average.

The advantage of 1.e4 compared to other moves is that you can win forced out of the opening sometimes while 1.c4 is rarely very forcing.

You have to know how to refute 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 and 2...f5, how to nearly refute the various Scandinavians (and that isn't easy findable OTB and requires very specific move orders), how to refute various "bad" Sicilians like the Pin Variation for example, how to win against the Philidor defence and against the Pirc defence, how to refute the Czech Pirc... If you don't know this you can't ever hope to be overly successful with 1.e4.

I don't know what 2200 means? 2200 online is most of the time not 2200 OTB. 2200 OTB definitely know opening theory where I come from and sometimes know what they are doing. Of course you can always play unambitious and play four knights game against 1...e5 and exchange against Caro-Kann and French and so on but then you will also not score very good on average. The advantage of 1.e4 compared to other moves is that you can win forced out of the opening sometimes while 1.c4 is rarely very forcing. You have to know how to refute 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 and 2...f5, how to nearly refute the various Scandinavians (and that isn't easy findable OTB and requires very specific move orders), how to refute various "bad" Sicilians like the Pin Variation for example, how to win against the Philidor defence and against the Pirc defence, how to refute the Czech Pirc... If you don't know this you can't ever hope to be overly successful with 1.e4.
#8

Like WOPR , is not to play,how about a nice game of naughts and crosses . You'll only get that if you're drunk , human and in a certain place and age xxx

Like WOPR , is not to play,how about a nice game of naughts and crosses . You'll only get that if you're drunk , human and in a certain place and age xxx
#10

Have a solid opening repertoire in serious, well established openings, and know how to handle the typical middlegames that arise from these openings.

Have a solid opening repertoire in serious, well established openings, and know how to handle the typical middlegames that arise from these openings.

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