How to get better at chess: fix the mistake that keeps returning

There is no single opening or app that guarantees a rating increase. A practical improvement process is to play, identify a recurring problem, practise that skill, and check whether your decisions change in later games.

Reduce avoidable losses first

Before moving, look for the opponent’s checks, captures, and direct threats. After choosing your move, imagine it on the board and ask what becomes undefended. Preventing a one-move loss of material often matters more than learning a subtle strategic concept you rarely reach.

Use a time control that gives you room to apply that routine. Fast games can be enjoyable, but a series of rushed decisions provides little practice at deliberate calculation.

Study ideas in context

Learn a small set of opening principles, practise basic mates, and work on tactics with full replies. Add annotated master games to see how those skills connect across an entire game.

The Chernev-inspired approach is particularly helpful for ordinary moves. Explain why a knight develops to one square rather than another, or why a rook belongs on a file. Those decisions occur far more often than queen sacrifices.

Measure behaviour as well as results

Track whether you noticed threats, used your time sensibly, and could explain your plan. Ratings fluctuate and opponents vary. A concrete habit gives you something to evaluate even after a loss.

After a few reviewed games, choose one weakness for the next week. Avoid changing your entire training routine because of one bad evening.

Diagnose before changing your study plan

Take your last few reviewed games and find the earliest substantial problem in each. Write it as an action: “I left a rook undefended,” “I traded into a drawn pawn ending,” or “I used most of my time before leaving the opening.” These are different skills, even if all three games ended in losses.

If loose pieces dominate the list, practise threat recognition and the final safety check. If you reach favourable endings but cannot finish, study a small group of exact endings and play them from both sides. If you cannot form a plan after development, use complete games in the structures you actually reach.

You do not need a precise rating category to make this decision. The positions themselves provide evidence about what is currently limiting your play.

Test learning under slightly different conditions

After learning a fork, move the targets to different squares. After studying a rook ending, switch colours or change whose turn it is. After understanding an opening plan, examine a game where the opponent chooses a different pawn break.

The task is to preserve the reason while adapting the move. If you can only reproduce the original sequence, return to the explanation and identify the condition that made it work.

Keep your improvement plan small enough to revisit. One recurring error, a few relevant positions, and several thoughtful games create a loop you can evaluate. Add complexity when the evidence points to another need, rather than because a new resource promises a universal shortcut.