I can only play chess at the lower levels. I suck big time. And the sad part is , no matter how much I play, I don’t get no better. I am convinced that you are either born with a brain that can input and execute chess moves or you are not.
Anyone can get good at chess. But unless you are a natural, you won’t improve much by just playing a lot of games. We mere mortals need to study the game. At the beginning, that means studying tactics, tactics, and more tactics. When you get to the point that you are no longer routinely blundering away your pieces through tactical oversights, then get a book on strategy, one on endgames, and one on general opening principles. But until you reach master level, the majority of your study time should be spent on tactics.
Two books that are likely to improve your game are Larry Evans’ “New Ideas in Chess”, and Horwitz and Reinfeld’s “How to Think Ahead in Chess”.
Larry Evans was Fisher’s second at Rekyvik. Many have said master this book, makes the transition from a beginner to a medium level chess play. You have to learn to think differently, this book will get you there.
The later book proposes always playing the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian defense with the black pieces. Bobby Fisher pretty much permanently slew the Dragon in higher level play, but it works well with less competitive players.
I remember when I was in the Army, I happened to be kibutzing a game between a couple of guys, over in another unit, where I had pulled some duty that night. The winner asked me if I cared to play. I offered to spot him a rook, to make it fair. He seemed offended by my offer, but accepted. I dispatched him easily. He then sent for the local expert. I drew black and settled comfortably into my familar Dragon. Well this kid had read Bobby Fisher’s book. He pried open the king’s rook file and filleted me like flounder. Still, it generally worked against the great mass of patzers and wood pushers.
“I am convinced that you are either born with a brain that can input and execute chess moves or you are not.”
Hmmmm. I halfway agree, that in order to get really good, you have to have gone through a very intense training period when you were fairly young, just because the way a young brain absorbs stuff versus the way us cabbageheads absorb stuff. And at a time when it didn’t bother you to blow off so many hours of time. By the time you are 40-50, I definitely believe that internally, 99%+ of people cannot justify the expenditure of time and effort it takes to be really good. I was quite strong when I was young. Now, I just get bored with the game and am definitely weaker. I can’t justify squandering the time.
Upthread, you are advised by another poster to study tactics. While I think you cannot be without that knowledge, I also think you have to study openings, positional chess, and endgames and get a feel for what types of games the top say dozen openings lead to.
The various Reinfeld books are terrific, and as I said, you cannot not know that stuff, traps and burns and swindles, but those books really do not delve too deeply into positional-type, more modern positions. Which are frankly much more dense and generally less fun.
And endgames...are a very rarefied study all in themselves. If you are very good at endgames, you can get by playing “draw” chess and working towards winning endgames. With a few notable exceptions, this was the Russian postwar modus operandi, and they dominated for many years. If all you know is swindles and traps, a good player will practically never allow you to spring them and you will expend energy, position, and material working (in vain) to spring them. Leaving your throat wide open for a good endgame opponent.