I think I'm improving but still keep losing.

[J T Melsom]

I've been having an exchange of messages with a club member this week following a recent loss. He is new to our club this year, keen to improve and has sought out other events to play, but has difficulty clocking up those confidence building wins, and getting over the line. We are trying to understand his in game thought processes, but I'd be happy with most of his moves, its simply the outcome that is so frustrating.

Any thoughts on this, and what measurements of improvement might be used other than the final result.

[Nick Ivell]

We could do with knowing the causes of the losses.

Poor opening play? Outright blunders? Lack of stamina?

I agree that wins are nice for building up confidence, but we learn more from our losses, if we have the stomach to analyse them.

[Nick Burrows]

Improvement occurs sporadically and unevenly. It takes time from the first exposure to a concept to it being integrated into understanding, and often needs to be reinforced several times.

Sometimes we are in the process of learning but there is no "improvement" yet to be measured.

A healthy relationship with losing is crucial. The only important thing is enjoyment of the process. Exposure to good training material. Play lots. Review the games. Repeat. Improvement is guaranteed.

[J T Melsom]

Nick Ivell

The cause of the losses is very much what is being explored. In the specific game there was solid opening play with pieces going to the right squares, good play out of the opening and then his opponent went astray, my club member built a winning advantage and then blundered. He can identify the mistakes but we haven't yet worked out how to reduce the likelihood of the same arising again. It seemed to me a reminder of how difficult and by extension how discouraging chess can be, when you can do all the right things for so long and then toss it all away. Hence why as well as trying to consider the cause of the defeat I was trying to find a way to measure improvement, which went beyond the superficial. You do sometimes hear people congratulate themselves on taking a long time to lose, ignoring the obvious point that much of their resistance was futile and doomed from an early stage.

Nick Burrows

That makes sense especially the 'healthy relationship with losing'. Thanks

[Thomas Rendle]

Maybe concentrate on improving one or two areas of the game at a time, and judge yourself on those:

e.g. 1) Opening play (pieces to sensible squares, remembering key moves of theory etc.)

2) Blunder checks: completing checklists in critical positions - especially important in winning positions.

It's important to enjoy the 'process' of winning, and not rush to the finish line. it might not be very helpful, but once you've won a few games you get a feel for how it happens. If I'm in poor form I'm often searching for ways to end the game rather than just playing good moves.

Chess is tough!

[Roger de Coverly]

Maybe concentrate on improving one or two areas of the game at a time, and judge yourself on those:

Perhaps a sample game could be posted, so the collective wisdom (?) of the forum could make concrete suggestions.

It is something you see in club matches, that the higher rated the player, the more confidence you feel in their ability to control a position with a winning advantage and find the simplest method of winning.

[Nick Ivell]

Healthy relationship with losing? Now that's the tricky thing.

For most players, I suspect, winning will always be paramount - almost irrespective of how the result is achieved. The adrenalin rush is so fantastic!

[J T Melsom]

Roger

I'm not posting the game, because we've gone beyond that point in my discussion with the relevant club-mate. Discussing his essentially sound thought processes has been illuminating. I was really raising the topic because it was a striking reminder that as Tom Rendle said 'chess is tough'. Hence as some have suggested we need to look for positives in phases of the game even when the final result is dispiriting. Chess is also 'fun' but as I've realised lately as the games get tougher and more of a grind, the fun or satisfaction is measured differently. With the influx of new players, its important to have ideas about how best to assist the transition from social to match chess, if that is what they want.

[Joey Stewart]

Best tip I always give is tactics trainers, no one is ever too good to brush up on their tactics and I strongly believe volume is key - unfortunately chess.com and lichess have filled their sites with a huge amount of garbage "puzzles" created by machines (which have no concept of hard or easy) but chesstempo is still pretty decent for clean straightforward winning tactics which is most definitely what you want for fast improvement.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Wow - I agree with Joey! Quite apart from tactics being the priority in this case judging from the anecdote of the game thrown away towards the end, they are likely the easiest way of practical improvement for most people. I like the anecdote of Korchnoi missing a clean win, discovered after the game. "Oh no, now I must spend another two hours per day on tactical training!" cried the septuagenarian.

[Nick Ivell]

We can certainly all gain from tactical training. Even people as good as Korchnoi.

[Nick Ivell]

However, I think we are being asked for a more philosophical discussion. And that's tricky.

What measure of improvement is there, apart from the brutality of winning and losing? Was it Peter Wells who said that as his understanding of chess increases, his rating goes down?

[Matt Mackenzie]

I think I have expressed it before as - with the passage of time you understand chess better, but don't play it as well.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"In the specific game there was solid opening play with pieces going to the right squares, good play out of the opening and then his opponent went astray, my club member built a winning advantage and then blundered."

Did he rush? I always record the time taken for each move, as it's useful info when you blunder. An ex-chairman of Redhill CC said, "Always sit on your hands" if you're winning. Admittedly, he did lose a game on time straight after saying it, but you get the idea.

Did he over-complicate? It's nice to sacrifice both rooks for mate, but if you can just win a couple of pawns and hence the ending, go for that.

It may just be experience - if you play for years, you just know what to do, although you will still lose games.

One new club colleague started off losing in the opening, then by Christmas he was losing by move 30, then later mainly losing, but in long games (as everyone knew they were better than him, so kept playing in level positions). Luckily, he recognised that he was playing better, even if the results were not inspiring and he stuck at it, and improved a lot. It sounds as if your player has the right attitude, and obviously, support.

[NickFaulks]

It's nice to sacrifice both rooks for mate, but if you can just win a couple of pawns and hence the ending, go for that.

Nah, if you've seen the rooks thing you have to do it.