When to pursue simpler chess goals?

It is not good sense to try to bite off too much at once, which is why we often break big problems into little problems to solve them.  Consequently, you need to assess where you are as a chess player as what you need to learn to make progress and set goals of 100 at a time instead of huge gains.

TACTICS is where it's at and a great place to start.  I see from your player page you've only gotten 103 of 160 tactics problems right at the 1000-1100 level and you've dropped recently. That is not good for such easy problems!  For comparison, note that I'm trying to improve my tactics skills, which are not strong, and I've gotten 116 out of 120 right - and the four I got wrong were cases where I found a good answer but not the best one.

Can you name the Tactical Motifs?  Do you know the mating patterns?  Can you distinguish Interference from Blocking?  How about a Dove Tail Mate from a Swallow's Tail Mate?

I am also weak at tactics and have been working on improving with books like Heisman's Back to Basics: Tactics and Seirawan's Winning Chess Tactics.  There are also excellent videos on tactics like the 6-part series here at chess.com on The Technique of Calculation.  There are also videos on analysis.  More than that, I suggest you look at the Standard Tactics problems at chesstempo.com and solve them for at least 1 hr/day.  After you solve or fail each one, look at the comments if you got it wrong and don't know why and look at the tags at lower left saying what tactics were involved. Memorize the Tactical Motifs at: http://chesstempo.com/tactical-motifs.html

Another thing about setting goals to improve in smaller bites is that you don't get as frustrated when you hit a plateau for a while.  For example. I've been seriously working tactics problems at chesstempo since January 10. Here my tactics summary there:

I was getting about 60% right throughout January.  As January progressed, I found it was taking me less time to figure out new problems but I wasn't improving my rating significantly - for a few weeks it stayed very close to 1500.  Then, right around when February began, I broke through: I began seeing more on the board. Here is my graph at chesstempo where horizontal lines represent, from the bottom, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, and 1700:

As you can see, I was stuck at a plateau for a while but I'm moving up. I will surely hit a new plateau.  At that point, I'll have to reassess my skills and decide how to move on to the next level, each level being a little higher than before!

Thanks for the support Mick. I'll keep working on my tactics. 

My rating has surged in recent days. I think I'm optimistic about becoming a GM again. 

Today while at work I just happened to be thinking about all the people who post here who want to become GMs in a hurry. That got me thinking about an analogy I experienced when I was younger and played guitar, when I was trying to get fast in a hurry.

In those years the fastest guitarist I'd ever heard was John McLaughlin, a jazz fusion player, so my goal was to play as fast as he did. To make a long story short, I finally achieved that goal, but it took me 5-10 years of accumulated practice to get there. In retrospect I was impressed that it seemed to be nothing more than investing years of time into a pursuit, especially when doing things right (in this case focusing on proper technique), rather than doing anything special, to reach the goal. I guess difficult goals just require years of immersion to train the body and/or brain for how to react properly to every possible nuance of variation that might be encountered. That's what one would call "mastery": complete control of a skill, regardless of the context or unexpected problems. In retrospect I saw how foolish it was to think anyone could reach such a goal in less than five years. It blew me away when one night after taking up guitar again after years of cessation that I seemed to be playing awfully darned fast, faster than before, so I listened to myself on a recording and couldn't believe how much I sounded like John McLaughlin in every way! Incredibly, I had finally arrived at my lofty goal! The moral: Lofty goals really can be reached. You just have to invest the required years of time of proper practice.

A great point that that excellence isn't put on like a coat: you build it day-by-day over years in any skill-requiring endeavor.  I've been pointing out the same thing on those "can I be a master in one year" posts. It took me years to be competent in piano and even in the "simple" activity of running, it takes years of building endurance, etc. to become a semi-elite track or cross country runner.

When my 5 year-old brother used to sit and listed to my high school rock & roll band practice, he started learning guitar and it took him years to be the locally-well-known bass player he is today.

I don't know your age, so if you are very young, then ignore what I'm going to say.  But if you are older (e.g. say older than 12), then it might help you in life.

When setting any goal, it is important to also have a plan on how to achieve it.  This generally translates to breaking down the big goal into smaller, measurable (i.e. achievable in reasonable time kind of thing) sub-goals.

So rather than just setting your goal to become a chess grandmaster, outline the path you plan to take to get there.  I'm pretty new to chess so I'm not too familiar with the real process or how even a grandmaster is determined.  But, just for example, if I want to become a grandmaster, and assuming the grandmaster is determined by having a certain rating, I'd first get rated and join tournaments.  This gives me a baseline on how the rating changes based on effort/time/etc, then I can make some projections.  As time goes on, the projections should become more accurate.

If my guess that GM is just IM with more rating points, then why would you want to change to your goal to IM if you really want GM?  Just aim for GM and pick up the IM on the way.

Well at 1200 now. The climb to the top is, slow but rewarding, tough but fulfilling, frustrating but satisfying. 

Keep dreaming.

Possibly of interest:
"... the NM title is an honor that only one percent of USCF members attain. ..." - IM John Donaldson (2015)
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Reaching-the-Top-77p3905.htm
What It Takes to Become a Chess Master by Andrew Soltis
"... going from good at tactics to great at tactics ... doesn't translate into much greater strength. ... You need a relatively good memory to reach average strength. But a much better memory isn't going to make you a master. ... there's a powerful law of diminishing returns in chess calculation, ... Your rating may have been steadily rising when suddenly it stops. ... One explanation for the wall is that most players got to where they are by learning how to not lose. ... Mastering chess ... requires a new set of skills and traits. ... Many of these attributes are kinds of know-how, such as understanding when to change the pawn structure or what a positionally won game looks like and how to deal with it. Some are habits, like always looking for targets. Others are refined senses, like recognizing a critical middlegame moment or feeling when time is on your side and when it isn't. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2012)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093409/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review857.pdf
100 Chess Master Trade Secrets by Andrew Soltis
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708094523/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review916.pdf
Reaching the Top?! by Peter Kurzdorfer
"... On the one hand, your play needs to be purposeful much of the time; the ability to navigate through many different types of positions needs to be yours; your ability to calculate variations and find candidate moves needs to be present in at least an embryonic stage. On the other hand, it will be heart-warming and perhaps inspiring to realize that you do not need to give up blunders or misconceptions or a poor memory or sloppy calculating habits; that you do not need to know all the latest opening variations, or even know what they are called. You do not have to memorize hundreds of endgame positions or instantly recognize the proper procedure in a variety of pawn structures.
[To play at a master level consistently] is not an easy task, to be sure ..., but it is a possible one. ..." - NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2015)
http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2015/11/16/book-notice-kurzdorfers-reaching-the-top.html
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Reaching-the-Top-77p3905.htm
"Yes, you can easily become a master. All you need to do is some serious, focused work on your play.
That 'chess is 99% tactics and blah-blah' thing is crap. Chess is several things (opening, endgame, middlegame strategy, positional play, tactics, psychology, time management...) which should be treated properly as a whole. getting just one element of lay and working exclusively on it is of very doubtful value, and at worst it may well turn out being a waste of time." - IM pfren (August 21, 2017)
"Every now and then someone advances the idea that one may gain success in chess by using shortcuts. 'Chess is 99% tactics' - proclaims one expert, suggesting that strategic understanding is overrated; 'Improvement in chess is all about opening knowledge' - declares another. A third self-appointed authority asserts that a thorough knowledge of endings is the key to becoming a master; while his expert-friend is puzzled by the mere thought that a player can achieve anything at all without championing pawn structures.
To me, such statements seem futile. You can't hope to gain mastery of any subject by specializing in only parts of it. ..." - FM Amatzia Avni (2008)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/can-anyone-be-an-im-or-gm
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-fight-stereotypes-using-chess-in-rural-mississippi/
http://brooklyncastle.com/
https://www.chess.com/article/view/don-t-worry-about-your-rating
https://www.chess.com/article/view/am-i-too-old-for-chess
https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-can-older-players-improve
Train Like a Grandmaster by Kotov
Becoming a Grandmaster by Keene
What It Takes to Become a Grandmaster by GM Andrew Soltis
"BENJAMIN FINEGOLD (born Sep-06-1969 ...) ... Ben became a USCF Life Master at 15, USCF Senior Master at 16, an International Master in 1989, and achieved his final GM norm at the SPICE Cup B Section in September, 2009. ..."
http://www.chessgames.com/player/benjamin_finegold.html
"MARK IZRAILOVICH DVORETSKY (... died Sep-26-2016 ...) ... He was ... awarded the IM title in 1975. Dvoretsky was also a FIDE Senior Trainer and noted author. ... During the 1970s, Mark was widely regarded by the strongest IM in the world, ..."
http://www.chessgames.com/player/mark_izrailovich_dvoretsky.html
"To become a grandmaster is very difficult and can take quite a long time! ... you need to ... solve many exercises, analyse your games, study classic games, modern games, have an opening repertoire and so on. Basically, it is hard work ... It takes a lot more than just reading books to become a grandmaster I am afraid." - GM Artur Yusupov (2013)
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/QandAwithArturYusupovQualityChessAugust2013.pdf
https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/book-review-insanity-passion-and-addiction
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/26/books/books-of-the-times-when-the-child-chess-genius-becomes-the-pawn.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2017/05/05/making-a-living-in-chess-is-tough-but-the-internet-is-making-it-easier/#4284e4814850

https://www.chess.com/news/view/is-there-good-money-in-chess-1838
"... Many aspiring young chess players dream of one day becoming a grandmaster and a professional. ... But ... a profession must bring in at least a certain regular income even if one is not too demanding. ... The usual prize money in Open tournaments is meagre. ... The higher the prizes, the greater the competition. ... With a possibly not very high and irregular income for several decades the amount of money one can save for old age remains really modest. ... Anyone who wants to reach his maximum must concentrate totally on chess. That involves important compromises with or giving up on his education. ... it is a question of personal life planning and when deciding it is necessary to be fully conscious of the various possibilities, limitations and risks. ... a future professional must really love chess and ... be prepared to work very hard for it. ... It is all too frequent that a wrong evaluation is made of what a talented player can achieve. ... Most players have the potential for a certain level; once they have reached it they can only make further progress with a great effort. ... anyone who is unlikely to attain a high playing strength should on no account turn professional. ... Anyone who does not meet these top criteria can only try to earn his living with public appearances, chess publishing or activity as a trainer. But there is a lack of offers and these are not particularly well paid. For jobs which involve appearing in public, moreover, certain non-chess qualities are required. ... a relevant 'stage presence' and required sociability. ... All these jobs and existences, moreover, have hanging above them the sword of Damocles of general economic conditions. ... around [age] 40 chess players ... find that their performances are noticeably tailing off. ..." - from a 12 page chapter on becoming a chess professional in the book, Luther's Chess Reformation by GM Thomas Luther (2016)
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/LuthersChessReformation-excerpt.pdf

Forget about GM or IM or NM. Focus in improving all phases of your game. Have fun playing and learning, this is much more important.

Here a simple plan how to improve:

1. Learn chess by spaced repetition (you can google it). I doesn't work to spend 5 hour learning chess in one day and stop learning for the next 3 weeks. You will simply forget most things you learned. If you learn by spaced repetition you will  be efficient. This is the key number one for success.

2. Learn every day. I mean, really every day, not free days. I began to learn consequently since 27 July 2017, and since then I missed only one day. 

3. Divide your study time to learn all aspects of the game: tactics, endgames and openings. Pick up one repertoire for white and one for black and learn it - do not change your repertoire just because you lost a bullet game. Take serious lines, not things like Englund Gambit or the Grob. 

One of the few websites where you can learn by spaced repetition in Chessable. There you find everything you need to reach a decent level like 1800 or 1900 OTB, probably even higher. Not in two months, probably also not in two years, don't focus too much on the time needed, but realise that your improvement depends from a lot of things, as for example talent, the possibility to analyse your games with stronger players, the time you invest to learn, to play and to analyse your games. 

I recommend following books in Chessable:

1. For endgames you can start with 

1. "Essential R+P vs. R Endings" and "Basic Endgames", both for free. Later you can buy "100 Endgames You Must Know".

For openings you have to decide if you want to play 1.d4, 1.e4, 1.c4, 1.Nf2, 1.b3 or something else. I think 1.d4 is not bad. I recommend you the book 

"IM John Bartholomew's 1.d4 Repertoire for White"

For black you have to know what do you want to play against 1.e4 (I play the Scandinavian, which is rather solid). With black against 1.d4 I suggest to buy the books written by the GM Alex Colovic, they are amazing, but probably too difficult for your level of game. Actually it is a repertoire against everything but 1.e4. 

For strategy you have a lot of good books to choose. Jeremy Silman's books are not bad, for example "How to Reassess Your Chess". But again, you have to work on a daily basis with this book if you want to improve, and you have to repeat what you learned. 

And probably the most important thing: analyse your games. If you can get someone to help you with the analyses, this would be great. 

Well, one of the meaning of a forum is to seek for help, or not?

But in one point I agree with you: he should stop thinking too much on his rating and do something about his game.

Nice rating Klauer. How strong was you OTB? And how did you improve so much? Just by playing online and analysing you games? Did you had help from other people? Danke für die Antwort.

Right... I guess "attention" is the word i meant.

 Also if you can't improve your chess yourself, by your own mistakes. Just give up hope on achieving a title, OP.

Since long I am planning to go to a chess club and begin to play more seriously. I mean, I cannot take a chess coach and show him my games played here, they are just not good enough. I even contacted already two chess clubs. I think my biggest problem is that I have too many hobbies, I also like tennis and painting. It is a matter of priority, I guess. In any case, not 1800 to 2000 in your age is really impressive. By the way, I am 55, also not that young.

Thanks Klauer. I have a lot of chess books, but I didn't work regularly with them. My main training is opening, tactics and endgames. I worked through some chapter of Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess and other books on strategy, so I have an idea about strategy too. I was thinking to take a coach who is the author of a repertoire book I am learning, a GM, but I am still working with his repertoire. But I will only ask him after I am through his books (a repertoire for black against everything but 1.e4). 

@VladimirHerceg91, never give up on your chess goals! Through analyzing your own games, playing the best openings, and studying chess through books, you can improve your rating!

Hi Klauer, I'm really impressed with your achievement too.  I have similar aims but I just got sciatica earlier this year and it's painful to sit for an extended period of time.   In fact most of the time I just read and post on chess.com from my smartphone while reclining.  This physical impairment is really frustrating me!

Anyways, if you had to make a rough estimate, how much time did you invest studying chess per day or per week including your OTB chess games but not including your travel time to tournaments?

Lastly, have you ever lost a rated game to someone less than 13 years old?  If so, what is that like?