To me what i always do is review all my defeated games and study my mistakes so that the next time i encounter that position again i know what to do, its a good practice if you want to improve you playing style and also constant study of endgames .

yeah thx again

Before knowing it, you must understand it. After knowing it, you live the game. There are a lot of us which still are in the understanding phase - why that plan, why that move, why, why, why ?

When you know it, the question is why not ?

When you live it, you care about the opponent ... among others.

The answer is love.  How much you love it and how much you are willing to sacrafice to become a master.  The point is you must love the journey becoming one, because if you are not, it's just a waste of time.  You become master and you ask yourself: yeah? so? and?

Why did he move there?  Why?  Why? Why?  Find the answer!  Stop!  Why are you moving that piece?  Why? Why? Why?  Find the answer.  Make a plan.  After the game study it and ask Why? Why? Why?  Where was it wrong?  Why?  Your plans will have faults...but the point is to make a plan, to form an idea, to test a theory.  After the game, go back and look.  Why? Why? Why?

You play opponents at your level then stronger and stronger opponents. You are systematic in your study of theory and endgames. You analyse all your games and make notes. You study master games and try to apply at least some principles in your games; especially middle game theory. You play and study solidly for 3 years.  After that, if you are not a master - welcome to world of the average mortal!  

thx guys

You know, many may think that in fact everything about Chess is already known, at least from a theoretical perspective.  Take for instance the fact that there are a little more than 6 billion people on the planet (very few, comparatively speaking, who play Chess however) and that there are a little more than 12 million "directly opposed" games.  Now let's make an assumption that the number of serious chess players in the world number about 1 in 500 and that each serious chess player has played at least 3 (actually the average would be 'e' = 2.718... wouldn't it?) directly opposed games in their chess "career".  I think one can see easily that we at least cover those 12 million games and that many more games may result that are not directly opposed.

The point here is, take the "non" - directly opposed games and ask "why are they not directly opposed?"  The answer is there's not much point in playing a directly opposed game because they have a tendency to end in a Draw - a boring, unfulfilling result...provided the win was all the more important at the time.

What you actually find is that most people - like myself - don't play directly opposed.  In fact you will also find that many "better" players have some kind of individualistic trait about there games that make them that much better a player - but which may also bring them undone at times.

Why you ask?  My article "A few Notes on Principle", posted a couple of days ago may provide a clue.  Also have a look at the article "Are you an Investment Ranker?" to find an individualistic view on the author's view of the humble Pawn.

Cheers 'til then.

Each individual reaches their own 'personal best' level in their chess career. For most of us that will be way below grandmaster level. The individual passionately pursuing all types of training techniques, coaching programmes, books etc will improve their personal best a little but it will still be in the same ball park ( not transforming them into a top-rated player). Improving is a great goal but you shouldn't expect incredible results.

Please, please, please, .... if you find out , please let me know. Even thou I have a great person trying to help me, I continue to lose.