How to get through this 1200 wall

Hey everyone, I was wondering what you guys did to improve when you guys were my level rating. All I ever hear is tactics, tactics, tactics and I study them quite often (chesstempo rating: 1500) but it doesn't seem to be translating into my games. I occasionally analyze my games with an engine (Stockfish), but I seem to hardly miss any forcible tactics, according to Stockfish. I know I'm lacking, I just don't know where.

That's why I'm asking you advanced players how you guys improved from this level, I haven't really studied endgames extensively, I've read My System and Fischer's book. What should I, or any other 1200 player, do? More tactics? More games? Endgame study? Strategic study? Opening theory?

For me it was mainly playing . studying materials will bring little result if you are not constantly playing to implement the ideas . I recommend you just play a ton of games and I think you will get over it , I think this is true for the lower levels , but studying tactics cant hurt . Look at all the checks captures and threats before making every move .

You should look up a local chess club and ask for an assessment of your play. Let them pair you with an OTB 1200 player, and you might be surprised over the difference.

I ususually kick ass with OTB 1200 players, but not here.

This, to a certain degree ... OTB i'm hovering about 1450, here i'm swinging between 1300-1350 on live chess and somwhere above 1550 on Online

It's not knowing how to do tactics. It's seeing them when you aren't looking for them. Or actually, always looking for them.

A 1200 player should probably be expected to find a simple 3 move combination in 5 minutes about 80% of the time (which is about what I'd expect of a 1500 OTB, hence the 1500 tactics rating). But the problem that 1200s have is that they would never see that same tactic in a game.

In my experience, the winning player between two 1200s is the one that spots a 2 move tactic. Probably an intermezzo, where one player assumed that a series of trades was forced. That's usually what I see. So it's not the ability to find tactics you're looking for, it's the ability to find tactics even when you know there is about a 5% chance of one being there.

What I did to break 1200 was the look at every position as if it were a tactics trainer puzzle. I don't do so well in blitz because I simply don't have that much time, but I tend to perform about 400 points better in game 45 than in blitz.

What might help is to compile a whole bunch of simple tactics and a whole bunch of positions where there is no tactic, and try to figure out which ones have something and which ones don't. Give yourself as much time per "puzzle" as your average time per move in whatever time control you have (probably 30 seconds to 1 minute). And be sure to do like 30-60 at a time. You might be surprised at how poorly you do compared to when you know there is a solution and it's just a matter of time until you find it.

Really? I don't play OTB . 1550 online might be because the online (turn based) ratings can be inflated at times , but 1300 on live chess(assuming your not talking about blitz) is strange since they have boosted the standard ratings in the past .

I have a slightly different attitude.

In every position, real game or puzzle, there is always a good move. It may be a tactic or combination. But it also may be a positional move, or a winning exchange, or developing a piece. The winning move might be as simple as improving the position of an inactive piece. I had issues getting above 1200 because I was lost as to what to do when positions had no combinations. When I started thinking in terms of good moves instead of just combinations, it helped my play.

The reason why this helps is because it changes the way of thinking. Before I was 1200, my reasoning was always "There is a winning move in this position" or "there isn't a winning move". But the truth is I disagree with the statement that some positions have nothing to find. Just like in a puzzle, you can always look at a position and eventually you will find something good. It just might not be a tactic.

Currently, I am having problems because I stopped playing chess for a couple of weeks, and I am trying to get my endurance back. Once I stop making simple blunders because of lack of mental endurance, I can resume improvement.

I hope this gives you an example of the kind of tactics that 1200s miss in a game, but would easily get in an isolated scenario. I didn't give this a ton of thought, these are just the things I saw in 10 minutes that y'all missed.

My only advice would be never to lose focus in any position. Usually, with those aspiring to break 1200, one usually misses a tactic they would have spotted had they been looking for it. However, every position has hidden resources, and being in a position to start making observations (I.e., how do I take advantage of this weak square? Is there something I'm missing? This move threatens checkmate and the win of a piece... does my opponent have a defense) of this sort will help one make the right decision. Always always always be concrete! Use general principles as a guide, not as examples of absolute truth. This should be enough.

Spend a few months playing against a stronger computer opponent, where you can take back moves and immediately see where you went wrong and try different things. If you have a pc get Fritz or Chessmaster. If you're on Android, get Shredder, it gives you an ELO and automatically adjusts it's strength to yours. The advantage of this is you are not restricted by time and you can play any moves you want. And you can let the computer blunder check any move at any time and show a good one.

Besides improving your tactics, this will vastly improved your openings and Endgames.

One thing that helps me is this: Often when I am playing a move I think "Is this a good move?" But before I play the move, I imagine that I am doing a tactics problem and after I play my intended move, it says the move I played is wrong. In short, I ask myself "Why is this move bad?" Often, that move sparks completely different instincts and I immediately find a problem with a move, rather than "why is this move good" which usually leaves me calculating the same unforced opponent responses over and over. Thinking "What is bad about this move" will help avoid a lot of blunders, because it triggers you to look for mate in 1s and opponent tactics in response to your own moves.

Often, people blunder because they only ask themselves whether or not a move is good and do not ask themselves whether the move they played is bad. Simply assumming the move you are about to play is bad goes a long way, because you very effectively and easily look for opponent responses that refute your move rather than support your move.

Think about when you are in the tactics trainer and you play a move that is wrong. After it tells you the move is wrong, you often immediately see the problem. Just use this same psychological effect in real games to help avoid blunders.

Definitely re-read jackfast step 5. Because you can't let yourself easily dismiss an idea or plan just because you don't readily see the tactical maneuver.

Regarding that BMHS game, not my finest moment, I'm well aware. Thank you for the advice. Can it really be that simple? Just trying to change my approach with tactics in my game? And what about endgames? Chess books?

Endgames and chessbooks? Basically, all of the above, but here's how it works; you read the books to learn about the techniques, concepts and strategies. Then, you play and analyze endless games to learn how to use everything in your own practice. I am an eclectic person so it's hard for me to stay focused on a specific opening in order to learn it well, but you need to focus your learning, otherwise the myriad variety of everything will overwhelm you, lol. The secret to openings is to understand the subtleties of the move orders and piece placements, and know the typical plans of pawn breaks and advances. Ask yourself, why do stronger players and engines beat you? Because they identify a weakness and then attack it, with coordinated force, whether it's a square, a pawn or a piece. That's what you need to do, all the while keeping your own position together.

The only thing you require is determination. If you have it then it may need some time to cross that barrier. You must be patient in this period. I have seen so many junior players in Pakistan that took too long to cross the 1200 line but later on they progressed extremely quickly.

I remember learning that even Fischer was just a very decent chess player for a long time, until something happened and he reached super GM levels of improvement around 12 or 13.

That is, when he was 10, it was pretty common for him to get beaten by other normal skilled 10 year olds who never became GMs.

This might be getting a little off topic, but in an interview, Fischer himself stated that he was not a chess prodigy, but rather a highly intelligent person that decided to make chess his career. That explains the above post. You can check further, but his IQ was incredibly high. Together with endless work and determination is how Fischer succeeded at Chess.

I'd echo what a few have said above. Yes, you need to look for the tactics because winning material and seeing mating threats is important, but really, the end result of any one "move" or tactic is supposed to be to improve your position. - you read "my System" - have another look there. That really is a good place to start. I think the next question you should work on answering is the same as the one I'm focused on... "how do I know whio's 'position' is better, and what do I do to make mine better?" Tactics are a tool that you use to make positional changes to the game - or the "terrain" as Nimzowitzch would say...