I feel like im pretty good at chess, but my rating is 400

Hi,

I feel like I keep up well with my chess counterparts in the mid 1000's for most of the game. I usually lose the endgame but can hold my own for quite a while. As for people in my rating range, I am winning most of the time. However, my rating is only 400. What should I study to boost my elo quickly?

Try doing the puzzles. They kinda help me. Im not as good as you though so idk

Forget your rating.

If you've been holding your own most of the game but lose in the endgame, then your most immediate problems must reside in how you handle the middle-game or endgame.

Don't bother studying opening lines at this point. You seem to survive the opening in reasonable shape. Focus on the later stages.

Study endgames... not just simple stuff like K+R vs K, but more practical endgames like K+pawns vs K+pawns, or K+R+pawns vs K+R+pawns.

Play over a few OLD Master games, from the 1850s to about 1950 (ie: from Morphy to Botvinnik) and try to figure out WHY each move was made.

This is in no way meant to sound harsh but if you’re 400 - pretty much everything you could possibly be doing wrong, you are doing. 
But the biggest factor is certainly: hanging pieces, missing basic threats/mates, failing to take free pieces and basically everything you can think of to do with board vision.

If you can improve board awareness / safety / threats / vision - even just a little bit, you’ll definitely see gains in your rating.

True. But the site is full of players at 1000 elo and lower, who can easily play matches at 40, 30 average centipawn loss - or even lower.

To me, that's not an accuracy level someone who is 900 elo in chess.com's rating ladder should be able to achieve if they are indeed 900 elo. So you can't really say someone who played at, let's say, average 25 centipawn loss in 30 moves, is doing pretty much everything wrong or dont even know the basics.

I don’t know what you’re talking about tbh. If the guy is 400 it’s blunder after blunder after blunder. Pretty similar if someone’s 1000. There’s no other way you can be that low. You don’t need centipawn jargon to tell you that.

Put another way: take ANY 400 player and show me ANYTHING they’re doing right, consistently…

Engines such as Stockfish dont suffer from Dunning Kruger, and if you have players under 1000 elo playing at 30 centipawn loss or less, it clearly means they are not doing blunder after blunder after blunder like #9 post claims.

https://lichess.org/HcJALiYd#53

or

https://lichess.org/6a62xN95#8

(average 15 centipawn loss in 32 moves btw on that last one, I resigned because it royally pisses me off to play these kind of players... Im 1700-1800 strong at Daily on another site and it's inconceivable the elo ladder on this site is so bad that someone who can play at 20 centipawn loss is stuck at 980 elo and I have to play them).

Yeah it shouldn't have been posted under game analysis since there's no game to analyse.

I think OP should stop playing speed chess and go play slower time controls, where he's got more time to think and actually learn. No one really cares about speed chess except for the new generation of chess players who have started playing chess under Naka's disingenuous shenanigans.

And obviously Naka being the P.O.S he is, he really does not care a dime about whether the new crowd learns to play chess or not.

Bruh. Black had his rook hanging for FIVE moves and white didn't take! And Black didn't take the white rook when he had the chance to. Funny thing about Nakamura, he is a super GM who knows how to play fast. Trying to copy him when you are 400 elo is just not going to work.

If you beat people who are much stronger than you, forget what chess.com says your rating is, you might just be good enough to be called a 1200 rated player.

Is this suppost to be some prank? I was playing games consistently with accuracies of 60-70 % when I was 200. Nowadays My usual accuracy is 75 to 80. I do not agree with this at all

Question? Why are you seeing it from The perspective of hudyfa? You would have got access to it from Mclovins perspective but there is no need to flip the board

I completely agree. I have analyzed some of his games and he is in great shape in the opening. Learn a lot middlegame and endgame plans and you should see a massive improvment in your abilities.

I always find it funny when 900's argue against a 2400 master

Accuracies are not the same across all elo ratings. Most of your games are against 500s. It's very easy to have high scores against them. Your usual accuracy of 75 would drop be more like 20 if you regularly played stronger players. So @BoredErica is completely right. Be humble and listen to stronger players than you. Thinking that you know more than a titled player when you're 600 is insane

Your weak point appears to be the endgame, you said you tend to lose against higher ranked players in the endgame, study the endgame.

To illustrate the above, here is a recent game. After looking at the game, it is hard to decide whether Neethudas123 is just trolling or not.

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/73141498241?tab=review

Just play more games you'll get to 1200 in no time

erica is definitely very bored

I had written a post about how this is so wrong but for some reason it violates community guidelines, probably because I mentioned another site and this site gets really paranoid about that.

Not going to write it again, but just some clarification.

Here's an example of a timeout of mine against a player around 500-600 points higher in strength than me in daily:

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/daily/458046327?tab=review

Im really sorry, but, while I had no chance to avoid losing this game in the long run since my opponent was so much better, my accuracy would have never dropped below 80, let alone 70.

Here's another example from a 10+0 game:

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/72992900807?tab=review

Definitely not dropping to 20 as the other poster said earlier, lol.

CAPS is a chess.com propietary system. The world of chess uses centipawn loss compared against the best engine move. You can do it per move - you already do it when you analyse your game and you see your move moves the evaluation bar by a certain amount - calculate the difference, multiply by 100, and that's your centipawn loss. For example, if the position is 1.0 and your move moves it to 1.2 towards the opponent advantage (because it's not the engine's best move), the difference is 0.2, so it's 20 centipawn loss. It's called centipawn because a pawn is considered to be valued at 100 centipawns, that is, 1.0 in the eval bar.

So, if you grab all those differences, and average them, you get what's commonly known as "average centipawn loss". They used to show it in the "Details" tab in the Analysis feature, but they have recently removed it for some reason, so the "Details" tab is empty now. 

So that's why Im saying a player who goes 20-40 AVERAGE centipawn loss across a full game is not doing "blunder after blunder after blunder", and would have to know "something" about chess in order for the average to be that low. 

Of course OP should still go play longer time control games where he's got more room for thinking about a position, and analyse his games afterwards for around the same time, till he's familiar with certain patterns that he will recognise them more easily when they show up again in their future games.