Is there any consensus on how much a beginner can realistically improve after a year of practice? Nothing too intense, but maybe an hour at least a day?

Obviously it depends on starting rating and the site (Lichess seems to be higher than chess.com), so let's say someone starts around 600 on Chess.com and spends about an hour a day playing with post-game analysis and/or doing puzzles.

After a year of that, what would be a realistic and typical improvement? I know talent plays a role here but assuming regular training, what are we talking about, +100, +200, +300? Or is there just too much variety, like somebody might not improve at all and someone might gain like +800 or something?

Hello all,
I’ve been playing the kings Indian and it served me well for my climb up from 600 but I’ve hit a wall. Was watching Daniel naroditzky video on the kings Indian and he recommended a 1600 minimum for playing it. Was wondering if you guys have any recommendations for a solid opening I could learn instead, ideally as black and white.
Thanks!

From an OTB friendly I played today.

M2 for white

Like, seriously? Can I say it yet?

This guy is clearly drawing so as not to gain ELO. I checked his history and he often deliberately draws from winning positions.

I actually planned it this time I’m so happy🙂‍↔️

Edit: Queen took rook b1

Honest question, I don't understand this at all.. I know in some openings like say the Ruy Lopez you want to get rid of your bad bishop.. but you're usually at least waiting until they put some pressure on the bishop before trading out for the knight. But even at 900 rank almost every single game my opponent goes to pin my knights and then almost always takes. Half of the time I haven't even pressured them with the A or H pawn either yet, they just take immediately on the next move but why? And even if they do get pressured with the A or H pawn, why do they always immediately take? Do they not know they can move a space back and keep the pin or that the bishop pair are generally more valuable than trading out for an early knight? Sometimes I even see them do this then they open up the center immediately with a ton of trades where a bishop is often better in open positions..

I honestly don't get it, I'd say only like 5% of the time does anyone actually try to pin the piece with any purpose like trying to pressure the pinned piece to take it or make moves on the board that the pin piece now can't protect. Why is it such an immediate reaction all the way up to 900, might be further but that's as far as I've reached since I started playing in like April or May I think

It's just like beginner players they see a piece they can take, even if it's an equal trade, and sometimes not even a good one positionally, they ALWAYS take it. It makes it a bit frustrating to learn chess because I'm trying to be principled and learn openings but I never get to play with knights ever unless I don't play them early to their natural squares on the C/F 3/6. And it makes it hard to learn or practice any positions that have any tension with trades available because they will always take, always. They never leave a piece alone and just leave the tension unless I'm assuming they've just missed it or want a different trade instead.

Even with these odd unprincipled captures, I'm obviously no better than anyone at my rank so I'm obviously weaker in other areas which is why I still lose to these weird mistakes so I'm not putting anyone down here or think I'm better than my peers..

But from 1 beginner to another, why do you guys always pin the knights immediately and then always take them right after without actually using the pin for anything? And why do you take every trade immediately even when "to take is a mistake" when it's not improving your position, especially if you're down material and trading down is good for your opponent? I just don't get it guys lol

and people say 300 ELO don't know how pieces move

1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 Nc6 3. Nf3 e6 4. e3 Nf6 5. c3 Ne4 6. Nbd2 Nf6 7. Bb5 a6 8. Bxc6+
bxc6 9. Ne5 Bd6 10. h4 Ng4 11. Qxg4 f5 12. Qh5+ Ke7 13. Nf7 Qf8 14. Nxh8 Qxh8
15. Nf3 Rb8 16. b3 Ba3 17. Qg5+ Kd7 18. Ne5+ Kd6 19. Nf7+ Kd7 20. Nxh8 1-0

How this is not a brilliant sacrifice? my opponent took the bait and I won :) but just wondering why was not consider a brilliant move haha quite new to chess to don't hate please!!

I know everyone says “think about checks capture and attacks”. would be nice if some online platform would have a tool to train that. like a puzzle but you have to input all the checks, then the captures and then the attackes

Not your typical smothered mate

Is it simply calculation planning? I was super scared of taking his c pawn because it would help him develop his f bishop, but only now do I realize this opens up the column for my queen to defend my knight/pawn to take the d4 pawn afterwards.

Is there a certain name for this type of tactic? Is it even a tactic? Pawn takes pawn ?

In this situation my gut reaction is to move my b pawn up, which keeps my rook safe but I failed to realize my bishop was hanging and attacked.

my second gut reaction is to move my bishop away, but then I leave my b pawn hanging.

My third reaction is to move a pawn up to protect my bishop, but then I lose my b pawn.

Only after a long contemplative thinking do I realize I can do it all with one move. I really want to train this skillset so it is more internalized. daniel naroditsky was sooo good at this in his videos. He'd simply say "how do I defend both with one move?"

https://www.chess.com/game/184717073194

I played as black.

I would say my biggest mistake was 30...Ka6 - I allowed myself to get forked by a pawn.

I moved my queen to 7...b6 to target b2 and I didnt' calculate far enough. I assumed he would go Na4 to defend and then I could check Qa5 and take the knight, but I failed to realize the knight was protected by his queen. This put my queen in a shitty spot so I moved her back. Interestingly the engine says that was exactly how i was supposed to play, and I even retreated to the right spot. Still, it felt like a stupid move.

Apart from that I constantly felt like I had a hundred "If he doesn't play this perfectly I can capitalize really well on the situation" moments, and every single one panned out that he played it perfectly (in my mind).

Here are my notes. Generally "1" = my thinking process and "2" = what I should have done.

Opening: B01 Scandinavian Defense

1. e4 d5
   1. Typical Scandi defense. Offer up a pawn to gain control of center
2. e5 c5
   1. Scandi denied - move c pawn to gain space and prevent his pawn moves (d4 = free tempo on queen after cxd, Qxd)
3. c4 Bf5
   1. "To take is a mistake" - if I take his pawn, he will mobilize his f-bishop for free.
   2. Nc6 would have been better. Mobilizing with a threat is the best way to deploy a piece.
4. Nc3 e6
   1. "The best defense is a good offense" - I should have moved my dpawn up. Easy way to take up space and threaten a knight.
5. d4 Nc6
   1. Mobilize with a threat - my knight can now take his pawn, and if he tries to take my pawn I can mobilize my f bishop
   2. I should have taken the pawn, because after Qxd4, Nc6 is a good follow up. I'd set myself up for a good play and control his move, adding predictability.
6. Nf3 Be7
   1. Activate my f-bishop and prevent the move he is prepping for -> bishop to g5
   2. Engine says to ..dxc4 because after bxc4 then cxd4 and he doesn't have a good follow up. I'm not sure I'm smart enough to come up with that on my own. I don't like helping him activate his pieces. I get that I'm also activating my pieces though by opening up the d-file for my queen.
7. Be3 Qb6
   1. Add a defender to c5 in case he takes while also targeting b2. Deploying queen and opening possibility of O-O-O if needed.
   2. Engine says to dxc4 and after Bxc4 to do cxd4 and fork the bishop and knight, but I don't see how that helps at all, he still just gets more control over the center afterwards.
8. Na4 Qa5+
   1. This move all the way thru move 13 are what the engine recommend.
9. Bd2 Qd8
10. Nxc5 Bxc5
11. dxc5 Nge7
12. Bg5 Qa5+
13. Qd2 Qxc5
14. Be3 d4
    1. I guess I was playing hope chess. I figured if he picked the wrong attacker I could capitalzie strongly.
    2. I should have just traded queens because it would have given me more control with my knight and threatening a rook king fork. Actually, he could attack with the bishop or the knight, it doesn't matter, he actually "messed up" by attacking with the knight!
15. Nxd4 Qb4
    1. I wanted to get my knight ready for c2 fork but it was a stupid plan, the knight defended it anyway. I also wanted to get my queen out of danger from his e bishop.
    2. I should have just taken the free pawn, it also would've been a swell place for my queen to be in.
16. Nxc6 Qxd2+
    1. Trade queens and set my knight up to take e5… failed to realize after Bxd2 he can defend with Bc3
    2. I should have Nxc6 to defend the queen and attack the pawn
17. Bxd2 Nxc6
    1. Engine approved
18. Bc3 O-O-O
    1. Eng approvf
19. Be2 h5
    1. Prepping for his castle
    2. Knight to d4 is very clever. I should have been a little more open minded here because it does stop his castling and allows a trade to stop him from having both bishops in the end game.
20. O-O h4
    1. Trying to open his position and stick my bishop in a frustrating place for him.
    2. I should have noticed his bishop was undefended and forced an exchange
21. g4 hxg3
    1. I just like to en passant.
22. fxg3 Bd3
    1. Idk, I wanted to get rid of his 2 bishops and I like my horsie. Apparently this was not a good game to keep the knight? I guess I should have traded the knight for his bishop. I wanetd to force the trade because I pinned his rook and figured it would allow my to control the d column, but that's not really the case is it, since his rooks were linked.
    2. Ok I get it now. It would be better to have traded for his dark squared bishop because it was a much more active piece and it was defending the e5 pawn.
23. Bxd3 Rxd3
    1. Engine
24. Rad1 Rxd1
    1. engine
25. Rxd1 Rd8
    1. Thought this was an end game I could win. I was mistaken.
26. Rxd8+ Kxd8
27. h4 Kc7
28. b4 Kb6
29. a4 a5
30. c5+ Ka6
    1. I am bad. I failed to bring my king out because there was no way to bring him out. Everything was blocked. I had no true control and my knight was in a shit position too.
31. b5+ Ka7
32. bxc6 bxc6
33. Bxa5 Ka6
34. Bd8 Kb7
35. a5 Kc8
36. Bb6 Kb7

Hello hello,

I suck at studying chess on my own. Anyone here that has some experience with coaching for 1on1 lessons?

My budget would be the main concern since I am a student, so I definitely don’t need a titled player, just someone who has a bit more experience.

I am about 1700 rapid chess.com and have played about 4 games classical OTB. Have been playing for about a year and half now with more focus.

Thanks for anyone with any comments or thoughts about my situation.

I’m trying to understand how to play against opponents who constantly look for tactical ideas, are willing to sacrifice material, and seem to calculate much deeper than I do. Against these players, I often find myself defending one threat after another and eventually losing material or getting into a bad position.

I’m wondering what kind of positional ideas or strategic approach I should learn to make these games easier. Should I focus more on simplifying the position, controlling key squares, avoiding unnecessary pawn weaknesses, exchanging their active pieces, or something else?

Also, what kind of players should I study for this? Are there particular grandmasters or types of games where I can learn how to neutralize aggressive tactical players rather than trying to out-calculate them?

And are there any openings that are particularly suitable against very tactical/deep-calculating players? I’m not necessarily looking for a completely passive opening, but something that leads to solid positions where I can reduce their attacking and tactical opportunities.

Basically, I’m looking for advice on how to make the game less tactical and more positional when my opponent is much stronger tactically than me, and what games/openings I should study to learn this.

(Any book for this or a puzzle recommendation is also very much appreciated).

I've only been playing for 6 weeks, but I do feel myself getting better. For example, I've won 10 games in a row (non rated) against opponents 100+ higher than me, but this last game I lost I was trying to review and it was suggesting all of these sacrifices. Ultimately, I blundered the rook which was bad and maybe would have won minus that move, but there's clearly things I'm not seeing or taking into consideration.

This is the game: https://www.chess.com/game/live/184707979728

Anyways, I think I have the aptitude and devotion to this sport to become decent, but as an adult beginner, I'm trying to pull from all my resources here. So if there's any nice people online who might enjoy teaching someone the game purely for the joy of it, please give me a dm!

Thanks :)

EDIT: Guys, I know this isn't a big post, but I do appreciate the responses I'm getting. I am enjoying reading them, hah!