Get used to what specifically?
Anyway - Fischer had a good idea there for how to go at a position.
What I call a 'shortcut'.
There are several of them.
Yes - some things there don't appear to be a shortcut.
You have to go through a long process to improve ...
but if that 'process' is too long and its going to take 200 years ... 2000 years ...
Idea: Take shortcuts to move more quickly up the ladder of improvement.
Like here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h4KLNqvLWws
s
I keep losing constantly now...


Revisit the basics of chess strategy and tactics, such as controlling the center, developing your pieces and avoiding weaknesses in your position. Strengthening your foundation can help you make better decisions during games.
Yeah, I kinda get it now. I think my problem is that when I analyse the games that I lose, I fail to understand in depth as to why I made the move which makes other times I play more at risk with blunders and mistakes. I feel like it is also the time that stresses me while also if I don't know any move to make, I just waste time thinking especially in rapid games.
there could be a lot to that. Like who are you losing to?
Most moves in most games are not tactical.
Sometimes - those are called 'positional' moves. Or positional situations.
You're not taking something - you're not checking - you're not threatening to take something or win something next move with your move now - plus you're not responding to 'tactics' by your opponent because he hasn't made a tactical move just then. Plus it isn't a tactical situation at the time.
But you still have to move.
Although:
'Always assume there's tactics in a position until you've become sure there's not'
'When you know there's tactics - you've still got to find all the tactics'
To evaluate tactics properly and efficiently - then its logical to start with the two Kings and their situations. Then the Queens rooks bishops knights and finish with the pawns - the least tactical piece but they can still be very tactical. Saves an enormous amount of time starting with the most important or powerful pieces and working down.
Both with the position in front of you and on lookahead too.
Those Observations can then blend into the next step.
Calculations. Which is different.
A player very booked on the opening and the endgame is matched with a tactician who doesn't Book much or not at all.
The tactician has the advantage.
All moves are tactical. Humans just use positional and strategic understanding to cover our massive gaps in calculation and tactical ability. The more you understand the tactical features of any given position, the more likely you are to make the correct or at least a good move regardless of the positional factors. Positional factors themselves stem from tactical ones. Ie, the major differences between 1.e4 and 1.d4 is that the pawn is undefended in one and defended in the other and one move opens diagonals for the lsb and the queen while the other move only opens a diagonal for the dsb. These are tactical factors that change the entire strategic and positional nature of the game on move one. Even the most famous opening, the Ruy Lopez or Spanish is rooted in tactical tension that shapes the entire position and directs the strategic concepts.

I used to be able to win decently here and there, but it seems like I haven't been able to get a good win in on a rated game for the past month. I'm getting really discouraged and starting to feel like I'm dumb or something...
Should I just stop playing? =/
If you were winning before - your rating would have moved up - and then you're playing stronger opponents. Then its harder to win.
Regarding who you're paired with - to play against -
consider using rating filters.
For example - set the filters so you're playing people up to 200 points above you down to 200 points below you.
///////////////////////////////////
Ratings systems are organized something like this: (no I don't claim its exactly like this) - the player 200 points stronger will win three out of four games against other players 200 points weaker on average. Those other players would draw or win the other game.
Ratings classes of players are organized around 200 point intervals.
Many players get to 1600 USCF and then stop. That's it. Class C.
Most 1400 players will never reach 2000 USCF or anywhere near it.
////////////////
Point:
That's one of the rationales behind rating systems:
So that when players play in the rating Sections of tournaments - they can have an expectation of winning some games - but not winning too easily. But will lose some too or only get a draw.
In other words - of having some good games!
If you are in the process of learning new concepts, than its expected that your results will temporarly suffer. There are two reasons for this. First while your mind is coping with the new concepts it overlooks tactical shots. Second, it takes experience to know when the new concept works and often timing is crucial factor. Once the new concept becomes second nature your ability will take a sudden leap. Euwe actually warned about this in his book on the middlegame. I have found that improvement is not a gradual thing, but suddenly a light turns on and you leap to a new plateau.
This is may be the best, or at least the most encouraging, explanation I've heard for why this happens. So much advice is: "you need to do more tactics" or "you should have seen what you didn't see" and is really just people who are better than you not understanding, and then not explaining well the challenges of a lower level lower than them. I mean, of course those things are true, but they don't explain WHY you can be at one rating now, and 200 points lower a month later and you have no idea where the slide is coming from.

It's okay. I know it's a difficult period (because I keep losing too) and it's frustrating. But it won't be like that forever. You'll get over the rough spot. You'll improve with time. Everyone does. You got to where you are now because you practised.

Another thing that happens is that as you play and win - opponents can study your games and methods - whether they played you and lost to you - or didn't do either.
Then they're ready.
And won't make the mistakes of previously.
I've had that happen to me.
I play Nf3 with white but not a Reti.
Can take stronger opponents some time to adapt to it.
I play 1) - c6 with black. Whether a Caro Kann or Slav or 'other'.
I know white has no good way to stop me playing d5 on my second move with black.
I do better with the Caro Kann than with the Slav.
But the point is that so many players with white are much better prepared for the Sicilian or e5 or the French than they are for c6.
But then they adapt.
And then - well then I'm not going to score as many points. If any.
-----------------------------------
There's kind of a joke about two great players.
And the Caro Kann.
Look at the expression on Tal's face as he 'messed' with serious Bobby F. on move 1.
Fischer had apparently lost to some Caro Kanns earlier in the tournament.
Tal so Intense! The video isn't a loop - it does change in its last half.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj7bcxaN4qMThey became pals.

Maybe that was part of Tal's success.
Happy in the game.
And the 'artist' of chess.
Want to see 'outrageous' wins? Look at Tal's games. Yes Fischer had some of those too.

I have started to lose interest in playing chess because I never win anymore. I used to enjoy playing but have lost my confidence now as I always get beat. Is there something that will help me get back my winning streak again?
Same. I also lost interest because I keep on losing games and I always feel discouraged.

I have started to lose interest in playing chess because I never win anymore. I used to enjoy playing but have lost my confidence now as I always get beat. Is there something that will help me get back my winning streak again?
Same. I also lost interest because I keep on losing games and I always feel discouraged.
I used to be 1400 then after like 3 months or something, I went below 1200. And I also play like 2 games per day

@Axmann I recommend you working through the lessons here on Chess.com (repeat any you haven't grasped, and take your time to understand them), and then doing the puzzles every day. Something like 10 a day, if you have time. It'll hopefully train your brain to spot the right moves. I think you also need a bit of confidence, so play against a few lower rated bots once you've done some lessons and puzzles, win a few times, then increase the bot difficulty and so on. At some point you'll hopefully be ready to play real people and win against them. I find a lot of people on here have ratings which don't reflect their ability (they are way better than their rating suggests they should be), so don't get frustrated with yourself if you lose quite a percentage of your games. So long as you can see your own rating slowly improving and feel that you're gaining skill and confidence, ... Best wishes. Have sent you a friend request.
well if you make bad moves you most certainly lose.
so have a look at the games where you felt you didnt make wrong moves first and find out which moves actually made you lose.
try to figure out wrong moves in every game (also the ones you won) and figure out better moves you shouldve made.
I just don’t have money.
The rest of the time he wasn't. happens to
'em all, even Ding in due course.
I think Fischer was the only one that went that way.