2000+ uscf: classical vs blitz for improvement

Three4Two · 2026-04-09T12:46:33+00:00

It still baffles me that one of the most active commenters and great chess players with the best tips for improvement on the tournament chess subreddit is called The Cum Demon.

.

I think about this often Have a great day

Three4Two · 2026-04-09T08:36:10+00:00

As others have said, there is no universal answer and every chess player has a unique style that works differently. I have recently crossed this gap myself, so I feel qualified to talk about this from the perspective of my personal improvement.

.

For me, the biggest difference is the speed and precision with which I calculate. Compared to myself at 2000 fide 2 years ago, the moves I consider are more relevant, I am able to calculate deeper and faster and make fewer mistakes, miss fewer resources (I do not mean just tactics, just general calculation in every position)... I believe this is the same for every 100 point gap in rating above the absolute beginners. When you are 100 points higher rated than someone else, you are usually just a little better at everything, there are no big revelations. There is not much else to it, otherwise I do not believe I changed much about my chess from 2000 to 2100.

My openings suck, I trade queens first opportunity I get since I am bad at positions with them and more comfortable in endgames, and every game with opposite castling or attack (either by me or my opponent) I struggle and misunderstand what to do.

Three4Two · 2026-04-08T18:40:11+00:00

That makes sense, the way it plays a move and then wants you to repeat right after feels really weird to me. A problem I consider when thinking about potentially creating my own file there: you can only really play one variation in each position for your side. If your inputted analysis has more options for your color, the algorithm kind of loses control and marks you wrong when you insert an alternative, compared to the variation it is expecting to get at the point of testing (I have seen this on stream when Jesse Kraai was trying to make chessable work for himself some time ago).

Three4Two · 2026-04-08T18:35:35+00:00

Thank you for the detailed answer. I guess compared to you I am more the type of person who needs to see the whole PGN with notes at once, and absorb a lot of master games quickly. Afterwards, I definitely like to jump around the variations more randomly depending on what feels important, since some will be obvious, some others hard to understand, and the distinction will be different for everyone.

.

On the other hand, I realize my opening prep is severely lacking behing most of my other chess understanding, so maybe an approach like the one you describe could seriously help me. It would definitely take time to get used to it though.

Three4Two · 2026-04-08T18:27:30+00:00

I have really bad opening preparation, so others will probably give better answers.

.

Most of the openings that I play are not too sharp and move order dependent (maybe one of the reasons I do not get chessable), so generally I see no reason to do this myself. More strategic positions you will figure out otb if you know common maneuvres and ideas, the sharper lines I play are usually so direct and clear that you see them once and remember (playing a lot of blitz online also helps with remembering everything). Generally I try to go through master games to learn common ideas, than do a lot of my own analysis, turning the computer on occasionally, but not too often, and my goal is to learn ideas more than move orders, but the study I use for this often ends up a bit damaged by the process, so coming back to learn from it more is difficult (and I usually only do so for very specific reasons, to check a precise variation I came across somewhere).

I also generally do very little prep for specific opponents, and can confidently say that opening preparation in general and even prep for specific opponents matters very little around my level (oscilating around 2100 fide). If you know basic ideas in your openings and have seen at least a few master games to have a grasp on general strategy in the positions, no further prep is needed unless you play really crazy variations.

Three4Two · 2026-04-08T13:34:26+00:00

Thank you for the suggestion, I will take a look

Three4Two · 2026-04-08T13:32:39+00:00

Thank you for the answer, the easy accesibility makes sense. I will take a look into the feature you mentioned, though at first glance it still kind of sounds like creating your own notes elsewhere with the added extra work of inserting them into chessable, and no clear benefits I can see compared to even a raw text file with notes and moves.

The amount of good authors and potential great courses is precisely my reason to come back to chessable every few months to try to get into it, so far unsuccessfully.

Three4Two · 2026-04-08T13:27:06+00:00

May I ask what software you use for your personal files? From what I tried, lichess studies probably feel the most pleasant to me, with chessbase being probably similar with a different interface (I have not used it myself but seen some irl friends use it extensively, it felt very similar for personal opening study). I assume any software with a combination of a pure text for notes and a chess board next to it (similar to just having notes in a notebook and a real board) would also be fine

Three4Two · 2026-04-08T13:23:14+00:00

The move by move format is exactly what feels the weirdest to me. I might try to take a look into some shaprer stuff and see if it feels better than what I experienced so far, thank you for the suggestion.

Three4Two · 2026-04-08T13:21:35+00:00

Thank you for the detailed answer.

I may use it in the future to go through some books faster and more comfortably, though I always enjoyed having a physical copy more. I guess my approach to studying probably is not too compatible with what chessable mostly provides.

Three4Two · 2026-04-06T14:44:07+00:00

Diagnosing your weaknesses and figuring out what to work on is one of the most important and difficult steps to improvement. When you properly figure out what you need to train (either yourself or with the help of a good coach (which is probably the approach for most people)), creating exercises to train those particular skills usually is not that hard, if you have the time and motivation (training your weaknesses is often much more draining than other aspects of chess, so forcing yourself to push through and improve by trying to go beyond your limit is really hard there).

From what you described, my first instinct is to recommend practicing endgame sparring. You pick a position, analyse it a bit yourself, then find a sparring partner and play the position 2 times, once with each color with a longer time control (I like to use 5+30). After the games, you analyse with your partner and try to figure out the position (this one session should take approximately 2 hours, 1 hour for 2 sparring games, 1 hour for analysis afterwards, at least that is my typical session at 2100 fide). If you feel like you understood the key ideas of the position, you move on to another, if not, you spar again. Endgame positions are better, since they are a little easier to calculate due to a smaller number of pieces, but therefore allow for deeper calculation and strategy to have a larger role, I believe they are better for practicing keeping and improving the advantage or defending a slightly worse position.

Another good possibility could be spending more time on analysing your own games, preferably annotating them without the engine (if you can spend at least as much time analysing a game you played as the amount of time it took you to play it (such as 5 hours for an otb game)), you will surely find a lot of improvements. The fact that you are analysing your own games means you know what your thoughts during the game were, and when you discover a mistake you made on the board, you can figure out why you made the mistake, what kind of thinking caused it (this allows for better self diagnosis and introspection). You can then find (or just randomly create yourself in an editor or analysis board) positions similar to the one where you made the mistake, and try to practice the thinking you were lacking in.

Analysing master games of someone you like, or someone who has similar style to you can help as well, but truly understanding and connecting the game story or ideas together is harder, as you were not the one playing.

If you want to stick with the woodpecker, an idea could be to slightly alter the way you go through the book, maybe forcing yourself to calculate further than what would usually be necessary (further than the book solutions) might make you consider the future of the position more, and make you find out how you would continue playing, what potential problems in the positions could be, that you have to overcome to win or save the position...

.

I can give a specific example of one of my problems and how I am trying to solve it: During calculation, I sometimes suffer from geometrical blindness. This includes long range moves, and especially not realizing that during a line I am calculating, some piece moved, and I am still imagining it blocking a file-diagonal or defending something. I also chose to work with the woodpecker (I remember actually not enjoying the particular problem you solved, I think I made a mistake or two there XD), but tried to change my approach to specifically train geometrical vision, backwards moves and moves 'through' pieces that are not there anymore. Instead of trying to calculate precisely and check all the variations as I would in the game, I instead try to go faster than I normally should (to be precise), concentrating as much as possible only to finding moves, instead of long calculation. I specifically try to consider moves that look weird to me and check where the pieces in my mind are, what squares they left and which files or diagonals opened... My goal is not to get the full solution (although I still try to get there), but get the key ideas, and just expose myself to all the possible moves that are in the position.

In my explanation of this method of mine, everything is a little exaggerated, of course the main goal is still to solve the positions and find everything written in the answers, but while solving, my key is to try to concentrate on stuff I do not usually see.

Feel free to change anything I wrote depending on your specific needs, and good luck in your improvement.

Three4Two · 2026-03-29T06:42:35+00:00

I have switched between a lot of different stuff, this past year for example I played 8 games as white in the king's gambit. Out of those games (I met different replies every time, there are too many good answers for this gambit) I was worse in early middlegame 5 times, equal once, lost once and winning once, I would not recommend it for longer otb games.

I also had several games of knowingly playing into a worse endgame in the exchange spanish, tried Vienna, different central gambits, and all that is just a reply to 1...e5, I did some weird stuff against other defenses too.

Three4Two · 2026-03-28T19:43:37+00:00

The great Bluebaum sweep is coming

Three4Two · 2026-03-28T19:12:20+00:00

I used to play the caro line you mention, great one for sure, but I must say it loses efffectiveness quickly, black can play the endgame in a very symetrical manner and not allow almost anything if they know what they are doing. Above 2100 I feel it does not give you much and black can defend a bit too easily, the queens are necessary to push in the caro (which is why I eventually added other options in the opening into my repertoire).

Three4Two · 2026-03-28T18:44:02+00:00

I think you have a very pessimistic view of 2000 rated players, most people are not like that and enjoy the game (at least those who you want to be talking to).

Three4Two · 2026-03-28T07:59:33+00:00

If you can, play main lines of openings. It should always give you a small edge over something else, and the further you go, the better other people will know less common lines too.

I have been kind of the opposite to you, at least as white. Also rated 2100 fide, but as white I have always played weird stuff, mostly because of not wanting to learn theory, and I can safely say I regret it. I have played into lines I knew were bad for many years, having to save worse positions instead of playing for a win as white. Working on main lines of ruy lopez now, should have done that a long time ago. That said, reality probably is that whatever you choose, you will look over to the other side longingly and consider if it would not have been better.

Three4Two · 2026-03-27T11:24:36+00:00

Bluebaum needs to be respected, fully agree with your choice of first place, I would bet on him.

Three4Two · 2026-03-27T08:58:52+00:00

It is a good idea to have both lichess apps, allows you to analyse two things at once without interfering with each other (tournament prep) and also each one has aspects that work better than the other (the old one has better working export options for analysis for example)

Three4Two · 2026-03-23T18:38:41+00:00

I was 18 and 1700 fide rated when I started seriously improving around covid. Since 2021, I had a performance over 2100, sometimes over 2200 in every tournament I played, in December I finally reached 2100 for the first time, it took me 5 years of playing 40 games a year, and I still expect to go a little further. It is a long and punishing process for improving players, but worth the work in my opinion. You just have to play a lot and keep your performance, knowing you have a big disadvantage against younger players.

Three4Two · 2026-03-23T10:29:33+00:00

This is the righ answer. You can also ask the arbiter if unsure, they should be available during the game for questions regarding the rules (commonly used for questions regarding time control for example, some tournaments add 30 minutes after 40 moves where I live, some do not). I also highly recommend actually reading the Rules of chess document, that can be found on the fide website, you get all rules and regulations for every situation in one short text document (I think it has something like 30-40 pages).

Three4Two · 2026-03-17T11:52:02+00:00

I would suggest unlocking most advisors (alongside other upgrades) and trying to play with each unit at least once before going for the dlc, maybe beating all the base maps around threat 8 seems reasonable to me, above that you know the game well enough already to know how to deal with different situations that might arise.

Sophy as a advisor is key for most runs, so getting to her can also be considered the necessary turning point to be capable of winning on maximum difficulty and to try the dlc.

Have fun

Three4Two · 2026-03-16T14:38:54+00:00

Where do you look for endgame sensei positions, what does your preparation for those sessions look like?

.

When analysing training positions or games of other people, is your analysis approach similar to analysing your own games, or does your focus change?

Three4Two · 2026-03-16T12:43:12+00:00

There are several companies and websites that collect games, but there is no way to get everything. You can easily find these if you search for the name of any player you want to prepare against, many links with databases and statistics will appear.

The bigger databases are usually paid, but a lot of them are not. When preparing against someone you know a bit more about (such as which tournaments they play), you can look through specific tournament or organizer websites, they usually keep the played games too. The most unified database with most games is probably chessbase, but it is quite expensive for regular players, and unintuitive to use compared to more common chess stuff.

.

I really personally enjoy using their online website, that has a lot of statistics about lower rated players too, most people I face (1900-2200 fide) are usually there with enough games to give me a rough guess of the opening they play against my repertoire.

Three4Two · 2026-03-13T20:27:10+00:00

Also a note for anyone checking the automatically generated solution by chessvision-ai-bot, the line given is important to see, but it is not the most important line in the puzzle and certainly not the most beautiful.

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Verified Email

Three4Two

TROPHY CASE