Why is my learning curve so flat?

I am feeling so disappointingly unsuccessful in the same way as many frustrated poets who end up as pipe-smoking teachers. How can I be so lost in the fun of Chess play that I lost sight of my progress? It was only after I became a Premium member and looked at my detailed statistics that my entire chess psyche was blown apart.

I guess I am among the top-10 players who would have so many Live Chess Standard games (approx 900+ games played)... A wild guess. I don't know how many souls I would have touched by my play, but I had respectfully replied to all "gg" comments to with "Get Going". If any other players have more games than me in Live Chess Standard (15|10) then please reply with your statistics.

I guess it would be quiet normal for even a child to be 1600+ rated after playing over 850+ games considering a +50 improvent after every 100 games. But my rating is still 1200~1300. What is wrong? Is there any conceptual problem with the way I play and am not able to improve myself?

As the saying goes, rest you must but stop not, I will continue playing atleast till I cross 1000+ games landmark. Alas, they don't give any trophy for that . I have decided to rest now, and go with Chess Mentor trainings. Any of your experts advice is welcome.

PS: Average opponent rating when I win: 1135

Average opponent rating when I lose: 1272

50+ improvement after 100 games?  You must be dreaming. 

Well considering base rating as 1200, 50+ improvement after every 100 games is natural I think for any person with reasonal analytic ability and concentration levels. So according to my calculations, 1200 + 50 * (800/100) = 1600 rating after 800 games. Am I right?

Nope. Some people never improve.

Hey, don't be so pessimist. If everything always went perfectly, You would feel like, when is the ball going to drop? Because good things don't always last. Maybe you are a pessimistic person. When something just seems too good, You can't believe it.

PS: If the general opinion is pessimistic, fantasy is going to hold its own.

A 50+ improvement after a hundred games might take you to around 1400 (after 200) games, but after that, it will boil down to how you play - not how much you play.

1000 mediocre games is just that and not much more. If you want to actually improve your playing, then you'll need to learn how to play better. Begin reading some articles, using the chess mentor, and watching some of the instructional videos.

http://www.chess.com/article/view/study-plan-directory

This is relatively new and what I'm using now. I've definitely seen improvement so far.

Good Luck!

The mist has started to slowly vaporise now. I get this thing now. Thanks. Just for my curiosity? How many actual games does a GM plays approximately before he becomes a GM? 

A chess game not analyzed is a chess game not played!

I don't think it would be wise to analyze drunken games filled with rising smoke. Although they were some of the best games I had played 

Assuming that they're not some sort of savant or otherwise highly unusual person, the sort of GM that becomes a GM through study and practice probably has thousands of games under their belt....

I'm far from it, although it's a goal, and I can only guess based on the age of many GMs and the age that they started playing seriously... Given that I play a dozen games a day (15 | 5 typically) on average and I'm not consistently over 1400, you can extrapolate how many games a master would have. Then again, I only started taking chess study seriously this past summer, so I'm right at square two...

Don't be disheartened that you first thousand games didn't get you very far, if you weren't studying at the time then simply playing doesn't often make your skill/rating go up. You have to play with some sort of a purpose in mind. Are you attempting to apply principles that you've learned? Once you start doing that, you'll see your skill and rating rise. Apply princples, apply plans, and apply strategy through sound positions, and you'll get where you want to be.

Cheers!

Okay, let me do some math with overtly optimistic values. Assuming, number of games analyzed and played is about ten dozens per day, total years taken to become a GM with +5 rating improvement after every 1000 games is

[(2500 -1200) * 1000/5] / [12 * 10 * 365] =  5.93 years

i.e. approximately Six years to be a GM. LOL!

Please correct me if I am wrong in this calculations. I think the margin of error would be +/- 2 years. And as always, Bobby Fischer is an exceptional case !!

I think improving one's chess play is just like any other skill- you get to a certain point where you're competent and able to get by, and you stop actually improving. It's like some kind of plateau.

It might be kind of a funny analogy, but I think a comparison can be made with body-building. Anybody who's ever worked out knows that you ultimately get to a plateau and you don't get any gains until you overcome this plateau.

Try focusing on specific parts of your game, finding patterns of weaknesses, and then working to improve them. Many out there will reccomend the chess videos- for me personally, I watch them for more entertainment purposes, and while I do learn from them, I don't really think they offer the only road to success.

p.s. I usually don't comment on such posts, being an amateur myself and not thinking myself worthy of offering advice, but since I am engaged in the exact same quest as you, I thought I'd share what I think

Does overcoming this plateau requires some kind of paradigm shift !? Lets say, at the beginner level, we would always consider our games as lost when we loose our queen. But, as I have progressed it seems loss of queen doesn't always means losing the game given good positional advantage.

A more subtle paradigm shift occurs when you start recognising patterns on the board.

I think that it is possible to play thousands of games and improve very little in the absence of honest study -- simply playing only helps to a point. Make sure you are getting a steady diet of tactics as well as opening, middlegame, and endgame knowledge, and try to apply the ideas in your games. Further, after each slow game, spend some time analyzing the game and seeing what you did right and what you did wrong. Focus especially on losses and weak points, and try to root out your weaknesses and never make the same mistake twice.

We've all heard that we have to learn from our mistakes, but I think it's more important to learn from successes. If you learn only from your mistakes, you are inclined to learn only errors.

I'm not trying to throw people any curves. Cultivate your curves - they may be dangerous but they won't be avoided.

I don't agree. The point of focusing on your errors is to find out the right ways of handling the situations you don't currently handle well, so the idea that you will learn only errors by giving them your attention seems very, very wrong. Successes reinforcing further successes is only natural: I said in my post that you should pay attention to what you did right, as well, but there is no need to spend undue time on it, even though it surely feels better than acknowledging what was done incorrectly!

At your level, definitely. Think of making moves with a particular plan or purpose in play. Ask yourself why you're making those moves and if they will lead to an overall plan or idea. Find a purpose to your moves, then determine if those moves are sound - does the plan you want to implement actually work with the moves you make, or does it fail somewhere because of something you didn't see? Look for patterns that can lead to traps or mating nets, etc, and build those into your plans.

The "everything you need to know" series of videos by IM Rensch is very good for that. If you don't have video access, then at least take a look at this article: 

http://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-tactics--definitions-and-examples

I think attitude and mindset during a game are just as important as tactical skills- you have to figure out what kind of playing suits you best; for example, the famous GM Tigran Petrosian was a defensive player, and he was comfortable with a certain type of playing, allowing his opponent to bring the attack to him; Fischer and Tal were  attackers.Everybody sees those black and white squares differently.

Me personally, I think one of the most important things I've learned that has helped me move into more advanced levels, is sacrificing a piece to gain tempo or open up a position. We all know the situation when your position is locked in with lots of material in the way, and neither you nor your opponent is comfortable/wants to draw first blood. I think great players can see past a few simple sacrifices in order to really gain the advantage. Seeing past the roadblocks is a valuable skill, in my opinion)

Every person seems to acknowledge his greatness. He blends together the profound politician with the scholar. But what I will do is I'll acknowledge it and if it can be of any help the fact that I do acknowledge it then maybe other people will benefit from it because I do have somewhat of a public forum being in the line of work I am.

I would reinforce my point from the fact that so many players showcase their best games in these forum threads. What they actually analyze is not their mistakes, but the mistakes made by the defeated players. I would agree with you, disregarding political correctness, that this thing should be avoided by players at beginning stage. But it is a much needed advice at advanced stages to become a Class chess player. You do not mate him, you exterminate him.

Just my 75 cents !!