Evolution in chess

I feel that in recent years, there has been a great evolution in chess.com players, in Blits I had a rating of 1300 and I managed to beat an opponent with an rating of 1800, but today, even studying themes and tactical moves and learning some openings, I can't reach 1100 rating.
with White I play Italian and with Black I play Sicilian defense.
  any tips for me?
Do you also think there has been an evolution in the players?

@1

"in Blits I had a rating of 1300" ++ Do not play blitz if you want to progress.
Play 15|10 rapid instead and analyse your lost games to learn from your mistakes.

"studying themes" ++ Not very useful.

"and tactical moves" ++ The best tactics to learn are from the mistakes you made in lost games.

"learning some openings" ++ Useless.
You do not win or lose because of the opening, but because of tactical mistakes.

"I can't reach 1100 rating" ++ Always check your intended move is no blunder before you play it. That little mental discipline alone is enough to reach 1500.

"with White I play Italian" ++ Good.

"with Black I play Sicilian defense" ++ Good.

"Do you also think there has been an evolution in the players?" ++ No.

Yes there is an evolution. There are more instructional materials on chess than a few years ago. Videos, books, interactive chess puzzles, etc contributed to the evolution of chess players starting from the intermediate stage.

It took me a while to get to 2000, openings are important to study, the person I find most influential in modern chess (Mikhail Botvinnik) I believe was an avid supported of studying. I guess it would depend on your style of learning, more important would be your understanding of your own knowledgebase. I play the grob (g4) with a space grab on move 3 (Wrong by the book), as an attacking player it works for me, even though I know its wrong I enjoy the challenge of not losing hahaha. But blitz is poor for practicing the long game. I don't have time for a 10min game any longer, every move I make is a pre-move and I watch myself fall for every trap before it has happened in 10min. Play what you enjoy, we all learn better while having fun. As for your question, it's hard to guess, Botvinnik suggests age is a hinderance, the young have more tools at their disposal and as such they perhaps have a better understanding of their own strengths.

Gracias!

I don´t think that players of certain rating level are better than players of the same rating level of the past, but the focus of strengh has shifted: Today some 1900 rated players know some opening theory till move 25, but lose the Philidor rook endgame (the drawing idea is quite easy) without any time pressure in long games.

Very good discussion! Thanks for initiating it @camiladoce and thanks for participating, kind people

I'm waiting for your answer, in Tactics I have more than 2000, but I realize that when it comes to tactics, already knowing I look for tactical themes and forced moves, but in the game I make my moves and realize that a bad or not so good move is too late, colleagues who advised me to play at a slower pace and then come back, it makes sense.
And in the analysis I worry about playing moves that would make me comfortable even if the machine tells me otherwise, because sometimes the machine says that move "x" is the best, but you would have to watch a whole sequence and if you make a mistake you would be in a position uncomfortable.

That's exactly what I also noticed.

There has been massive rating deflation in your range due to the players from 2020 joining and ranking up. It's not an illusion. It's very bad deflation from like 900-1400. Most pronounced at the 1100-1300 range. You are probably more skilled than you used to be. I'd pay more attention to how your game reviews look if you are interested in your true skill.

Anyway at your level the best way to improve is just to grind tactics. Consistency is more important than total time spent. 30 min/day far beats 7 hours in a week, only done on two or three days. When you do tactics don't focus on calculation, focus on intuition and pattern recognition. Unless you're playing classical chess or high rated rapid calculation skills are almost unimportant. It's Far far better to solve 100 puzzles at 50 pct accuracy than it is to solve 10 puzzles at 90 pct accuracy. Not to mention way more fun.

exactly. thanks for the help!

I agree. A great Master once advised me something similar, almost the same, that he would recommend 20 minutes of tactics every day before playing a game. I know that the more you train in tactics, the better, but the obvious thing about tactics is that it's not the time you do the lessons, but the frequency, which is an example from the point of view of this garande master, doing 1 hour or more of tactics in a week, it's worth less than practicing 20 min every day before playing. And the results are a mystery, some evolve faster and others take longer to develop certain skills, but we see a player with a 2300 rating, but we can't imagine how much he dedicated himself to studying, training tactics, people want results as quickly as possible. possible, simply because in today's society they have an idea of success, but they have no idea of the work that went into achieving success.
Here in barsil in an interview on tv Kasparov was asked "I once interviewed a great pianist and he told me that he trained 8 hours a day, then he asked why do you train so much? and he said because on the day I only train 7 hours, The next day there will be a better pianist than me." and Kasparov replied "This topic is interesting, it's difficult to reach the top, but it's even harder to stay there, it requires discipline, dedication"

@12

"It's Far far better to solve 100 puzzles at 50 pct accuracy than it is to solve 10 puzzles at 90 pct accuracy."
++ I disagree. It is better to solve 4 puzzles and have all of them right than to solve 40 puzzles and have 4 wrong. The reason is that missing a tactic for you or for the opponent in a real game means a loss.
The golf champion Tiger Woods used to daily practice putting. He put 100 balls in one streak. Whenever he missed one, he started conting again at 1.

Res ipsa loquitor, the thing speaks for itself. As you aged, your mental acumen will begin to decline.

For OTB chess you are right. Even for Rapid ratings over 1800, I would start to prescribe more calculation exercises, and would start recommending some level of calculation exercises even at like 1200, but not the main focus. 
But what most players who aren't titled lack is pattern recognition, and speed chess doesn't care about your calculation. There isn't time in a 3 min game to calculate more than 3-4 times a game for 20 seconds even. That's still a good deal below what most people spend on any individual puzzle, even if they are just going on intuition.

That said, when you go for a winning move in a game, if you have the time available, you should definitely calculate it. The pattern recognition just gives you the opportunity to even be able to do so.

Improve your endgame skills. Knowing how to convert an advantage in the endgame can turn potential wins into actual wins.

True