Still too afraid to play against humans, i finally beat xQc bot(1200) without any mistakes!

Play bots if you want, but playing people is what the game is all about.
So, play people and let the chips fall where they may.

Playing bots is great........they don't cheat, and I just beat a 2200 one

I can only speak for myself.  But I was pretty nervous playing my first games, and the more I played the less my nerves were a factor (not that they've gone away, just that they are more manageable).  I play chess because I enjoy it, and I enjoy it a lot more playing real people.  I think your chess level and your ability to manage fear are two different things.  For me, I don't know how to get better at managing fear without doing the thing I'm afraid of. 

Why don't you play some 15/10 or 30 minute unrated games and see how it goes?  Just take it one move at a time and let the chips fall where they may. 

Just my two cents. 

1. I already explained that time is only one reason. It's not always the time on the clock, but it can be the time you have available in the day. I actually didn't know there were time controls as long as a day, that's neat and I may try it.

2. "Never" was a bit of an exaggeration. Hikaru even says at ratings as low as mine you shouldn't even touch bullet. It makes sense because the game is literally more about time than moves. As long as you don't completely blunder and keep moving quick you will win every game at my rating. The reason I have some losses in bullet is because I was either just learning this fact or trying to play more strategically.

3. The reason I can't do it in human games is because the positions are always terrible. At my rating opponents play wild careless strategies and I'm simply less interested in learning how to counter carelessness. You could say this is a lack of interest in improving, and that may be true. But I simply care more about understanding high level strategies than I do about being good myself. I'd rather develop the next Stockfish than be a master player myself.

4. I can agree to some extent that human intuition plays a big part. However, what is truly the difference between a random blunder and a missed tactic blunder? Often they will overlap. Humans can also make random blunders, and computers can randomly blunder on tactics. 

5. Again the point is simply that it's not about time. It's about how low rated players are anti-educational to play against because they allow you to blunder without punishment. You think you have clever tactics but in reality it's just your opponent being really bad. I sometimes win games against humans and think "Wow, I played that great." but when I analyze the game I'm actually embarrassed how bad my tactics really were, and then just laugh at my opponent for missing it too. When I started out about a year ago I was only playing bots, and I could sense my tactics improving. Lately I've been playing more human games, and while it's more fun sometimes, it's definitely hindered my educational progression.

6. Reading full posts and not taking small quotes here and there could be a start.

7. It's more a creative instinct thing. I'm an artist more than a chess player. So I'm always looking for uniqueness. If I see my opponent has made a careless move that exploits self-weaknesses, my mistake is coming up with creative ways to dance around their weakness instead of simply defending soundly or counter attacking immediately. If I could analyze every human game I played I might be able to develop stronger counter play more efficiently, but because you only get 1 free game report a day it makes learning against humans extremely time consuming. We all know it takes years of practice and study to become a truly good chess player. Not everyone has that kind of time. To some, it's more efficient and desirable to remain a bad player, while learning the principles and strategies to the highest degree in order to at least understand the game to your best degree. In other words, education won't make you a good player, practice will, and since there are only so many personalized bots, there isn't enough practice with bot play. On the other hand, education is still valuable, and learning the bot's styles can be educational in its own way, in the same way that doing puzzles can be more educational than practical. Puzzles are great though because they're kinda both in one, tiny amount of practice with very instructional lessons.

8. Nope, not bots, humans in unrated matches. I much enjoy playing games against 1000+ players. I've played against 1500s and 1100s, wasn't a large difference at all. Maybe you're also one to think that ratings define players. I'll get to that point.

9. LOL. Looks like we're getting to that point now. Let me start by saying that ratings are not determined by your playing. You don't get points for good tactics, you don't get points for turning a loss into a draw, you literally don't even get points for making good moves. You ONLY get points for winning. So now I want you to imagine someone who's never played a game in their life, but who has studied chess since they were a toddler. This person is not going to have a set-in-stone rating. This person will make blunder moves because of a lack of experience and practice, even if they realize it immediately after. It doesn't mean they are a bad player. In fact, this person could be 25 years old, and lose to a trained 10 year old very easily. Practice makes perfect, but practice requires dedication, and not everyone is dedicated. Just because you aren't dedicated to something doesn't make you bad at it. There is a huge difference between being bad at something (not understanding how it works), and being unpracticed. This actually goes with any game as well, not just chess. Take for example FPS games. A console player could be a lot better than a PC player because they are used to playing the game with aim assist so they are used to high level tactics and positions, but when they switch to PC to play competitively, they are going to have zero practice with the mouse and keyboard, and will probably rate extremely low. It doesn't mean they are bad at the game, it means they are not practiced mechanically. There are different ways to define "good" and "bad". Your lack of understanding that is what makes it sociopathic.

The 1900 rated player who told me I played like a 1750 was playing me in a variant of Chaturanga. Something I've grown more fond of than normal chess. We were a very good match, he beat me 3 out of 5 games, which was surprising to me because I never lose this variant since nobody is technically a master at it. He sniffed out all my tactics and actually forced me to develop some better openings. Eventually I asked him his rating and told him mine. He was flabbergasted that I was only 400. If you want to prove rating is really set-in-stone, play me in my variant. If rating is truly accurate you should win 100% right? Let's go.

10. How do I study? I study puzzles and high rated games. I play unrated challenges against higher rated players if I want to study reputable positions that feel natural to me because I just played them. Occasionally I also self study with Stockfish. I might make some moves on my own and then see how Stockfish counters it. There are lots of ways to study reputable positions, and in my opinion it is more fun than studying stupid positions.

11. The chess.com bots are literally based on real people though...

12. I very much do think that GMs study engines... correct me if I'm wrong with proof.

13. Maybe you're the kind of person who does one thing in life and one thing only. I play maybe 1 chess game every 2 days tops, and it's been a year since I got back into chess since I was a kid with zero strategic understanding. In my life 3 things come WAY before chess: producing my album, creating a fun Overwatch lobby, and innovating photonic technology. Don't get me wrong though, I like chess, I'm just not dedicated to it. I know what I want out of chess, and I know how to get there, and it's not by playing <750 players.

14. If you don't get it by now then you never will. Take care.

That depends on the methodology. You can merge playing and studying if you know how your own brain works. 

Also, Levy has a point for sure. It all depends on the person and how their brain works. If you're more of a memorization learner, then studying bots will not work. If you're more of a practical learner, then studying bots is not nearly useless at all. It won't cover all angles, as I've said, but you can definitely make it help.

I don't think I'm up for a high rated game today, but add me as a friend, we can play one some time soon. Also you can try me in my Chaturanga variant, I usually open those challenges in customs around midnight EST.

There's loads of ways. You can play a self game, moving both sides and using the engine when you want help. You can play Stockfish itself. You can set up a position and see what lines the engine suggests. The ways of merging studying and playing are endless.

Levy didn't say that because Levy is not a world class professor. Levy is not a teacher. He doesn't know how people learn. Everyone learns differently. If you want to study learning methods be my guest.

Can you get the computer on here to play against you after a certain number of moves you put in manually ?

Yes, on the Stockfish app you can edit position in a game. You can also analyze any position.

Thank you, but I don't really want one of them things...I might get tempted

No problem, the Stockfish app is really handy for studying imo.

Ok 

bro show us the game play

Im still the same that im afraid to play against humans

NOBODY plays perfect!!!! Even Carlson makes mistakes. I was watching a video today in which he made an amateurish mistake in a king's gambit game after just a few moves. He's the best in the world!

When you play inaccurate moves, so will your OPPONENTS because you're being unpredictable! When I look at my games, if my accuracy is 60%, so is my opponent's! Equal rated players will make the same amount of mistakes as you on average. Sure, you'll run into some players who have a playing style you just can't beat, but once you start

Tlearning, there'll be players that can't beat you too.

Positional players drive me nuts, but I've faced a ton of players that can't counter tactics to save their lives, and find that higher rated players are actually EASIER to play often because they play it too safe and aren't used to kamikazes anymore.

If you're afraid of losing, then play tic tac toe. I WISH I had opportunities to play in my youth. I knew the rules when I was about 10, but never had anyone to play. It wasn't until I was in my 30s that I started playing on the internet. I could be a much better player had I practiced and learned.

People don't play like computers. I agree with everyone telling you to jump right in and learn how to swim. The longer you put if off, the longer it will take you to adapt, and the more frustrated you might get, which will also hold you back.

There's plenty of more experienced players here happy to teach you what they know. If you make mistakes and don't understand what they are, a real person can explain it better than a computer, and if you ask me, I don't trust stockfish advice as much as looking at what other humans do to win when very often, stockfish lines perform terribly in the real world.

Even if you study chess your whole life, you'll NEVER know everything. Losing is frustrating, but it happens half of the time. If your rating goes down at first, so what? It's just a number that tells you your progress. If you think your rating will drop, then you're only fooling yourself with a fake rating based on learning patterns from bots that always play the same move. You're holding yourself back while the rest of us are out here swimming with sharks. You can't beat sharks standing on the shore pooping indo your trunks.

Also, you'll learn a whole lot faster analyzing your games after the fact her or with an engine than trying to figure it out on your own with your limited understanding. Make your mistakes then LEARN from them, preferably from a person who can explain things clearly.

Right now, if you're REALLY a 1200, then you have a 1200 as your coach until you climb out of your hobbit hole and into the sunshine.

Don't be afraid... the last time I checked, only 2 people have ever been killed playing chess, and those were face to face, and at least one of them involved a gun. Who brings a gun to a chess fight?!!!!