I was feeling bored so I decided to play a blitz game where I'd just open with a pawn storm then start moving pieces as best as I can, capturing where possible and trying to keep my own pieces safe. Certainly no long term plans or theory.

I wanted to see whether it would be at all possible to have some kind of game this way or whether I'd be slaughtered almost immediately. I ended up playing three such games with 3 different opponents (I'm ignoring the one where a mouse slip threw my castling and by extension the whole game).

Score 2:1 to me.

At your level, the opening means almost nothing as demonstrated in your games you posted. You and your opponent were missing simple tactics all over the place. Now if you're asking if the idea of playing aggressively with no plan or holding to theory is sound, obviously it's not. When you play stronger players, you'll get destroyed before you even make it out of the opening.

So what should you be doing? I'd suggest working on basic tactics. Try looking at all your pawns and pieces before you move to make sure nothing is being directly attacked. Your games showed a complete disregard for attacks on your pawns with no compensation had the opponent simply taken them. Only make a move when you know none of your troops can be taken for free on the opponent's turn. That's the very first basic step in improving your chess. Then you keep building on that concept: Will the piece I move be taken for free? Can I take anything of theirs for free? And so on.

Eventually you can work your way up to basic opening fundamentals like developing to control the center, castling, and organizing your pieces in harmony toward a common goal. For now, you need to stick with learning basic tactics.

Why stop with your pawn avalanche so early?

Push more, and get more crazy games :-D Look at this variation from your game 1 with super-super pawn aggession :-DDD

A true wowooweewa-position
Enjoy chess. Experimenting is awesome :-D

(once you start losing too much, you'll change your play automatically ;-))

@TeraHammer,

Nice. 

I don't normally play like this but I was in a 'what the hell' mood and decided to go for it.

Strangely enough this 'strategy' worked even in a 15|10 game. I started off playing blitz style, and it was only at move 15 that I felt I had  an advantage so I started looking for it and playing properly.

Very nice use of all sorts of tactics, great game!

On move 24 you make a note saying Qc6 might be a move, but then after Nb8 im not sure what the queen is doing. Be2 is a fine move, but i would have casteld on move 25.

Your comment at move 25 makes me a little sad though. How can you want to exchange queens when you are so good with tactics?

Superb game.

Missed 16.Ne7+ Kh8 Then capture rook

Try reading, "Chess Praxis", by Aaron Nimzowitsch.  The section on, 'the relative inefficiency of the massed pawns advance'.  It will explain the disadvantages of pawn storms and how to exploit them in enlightening detail.

Why is 25. g3 forced? what about 25. 0-0 ?

@verygoodman918

Duh!  It didn't even occur to me...

@TeraHammer

If Nb8 I move Qd4 followed by Nd6 and black is in a bit of a pickle. For some reason I forgot all about the possibility of castling.

The reason I wanted to exchange queens even at the cost of some of my advantage is to make sure nothing goes wrong. I often see nice tactics but I{ just as often miss them.

@sujas,

What would be the point of that check? If could anyway take the rook but I wanted to exchange knights in order to expose black's king and double his pawns.

Those are possibly the worst openings I've ever viewed played out. If you were playing against even a 1000 you would be crushed before your 10th move.

I'm not sure if a 1000 would be able to crush these openings, maybe instead get an advantage.  May 1000's don't know too much about opening theory.

But I was playing against a 1300.

It just breaks the fundamentals of chess. Things like developing all your pieces to their best squares, controlling the center, castling, etc. Think of it this way: If your opponent wasn't any stronger than he is now with the exception of adhering to the basic fundamentals of chess in the opening, you'd have most likely lost. In fact, likely crushed.

Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy bro...break the dogmatic grip of Tarrach-style chess sheep, and think for yourself!

your opponents are horrific

These pawn advances are not good opening strategy.  Your opponent in that first game should have played d4 to open the position.  Had he done so you would've most likely been punished for making so many pawn moves.  Not to mention 2. f5?  This is an awful opening idea.  There is no compensation in giving up a center pawn on move 2.  It's simply a mistake.

Instead of 2...d6, better is d5 preventing 3.e4.