The KID? Huh?
Any tips for a 1607 chess player who is trying to improve?
Sort:
"Tactical motif research"? Wow.
Alivallo wrote:
Also chess engine analysis will not give you a 'winning idea' and will give you chess engine answeres. learn to properly analyze your games. there is a WGM discussion posted on analysis
Thought I'd have a look at this, checked on the front page and the first few pages of blog posts but didn't see it. Could you point me in the right direction kind Sir?
Looks like you need to do a little Analytical Direction-Finding Research. 
splitleaf wrote:
Alivallo wrote:
Also chess engine analysis will not give you a 'winning idea' and will give you chess engine answeres. learn to properly analyze your games. there is a WGM discussion posted on analysis
Thought I'd have a look at this, checked on the front page and the first few pages of blog posts but didn't see it. Could you point me in the right direction kind Sir?
http://www.chess.com/article/view/game-analysis
AndyClifton wrote:
Looks like you need to do a little Analytical Direction-Finding Research.
Not having the WGM's name, I'll throw in the towel with clear conscience (besides, am always one of the first ones to ask for directions and last to finish at meals anyway).
Ha! Was a click away from tossing in the above comment as is when I caught the hint and double meaning of "discussion posted on analysis."
[EDIT] Thank you gambiteer. Now the link is here for anyone who might lose their way in the years ahead (better learn to navigate my way around a bit or one of them might catch me, muttering to myself incoherently as I try to find the way out of some dead end corridor in the attic of chess.com).
AndyClifton wrote:
The KID? Huh?
Yes, I think I will try the King's Indian and Queen's indian a few times and see how those work for me. I am younger than most players on this site who are my rating or better, and have plenty of time to invest in chess, which is cause for optimism
any thoughts on the KID or QID? Do you play them often?
Weren't we talking about what you would do with White?
Yep. Since I was there last year: read a good chess book. Silman's HTRYC helped me a ton.
It seems I've been all over the map today lol. But yes I believe we were talking about alternatives to c4 for white.
e4 for white,
I play king's indian myself, but I find it a very hard opening to play, I probably misplay it more often than not, so many variations, it's ridiculous.
I wouldn't reccomend it, I juts stick with it because I have played it probably from the start and want to have at least one decent game with it :P. Queens gambit declined or slav defense are probably a lot easier to get a grasp of
bigyugi9 wrote:
I just looked at one of your recent game against random1st. In the first 10moves you made a lot of inaccuracies...here we go: first playing ridiculously passives (d4 e3)..be a man and play qg or atleast a more active d4 sideline, blocking your c pawn when it is needed as a pawn lever or structural reinforcement (nc3 without c4 isn't very good in d4 openings unless you are playing veresov), moving a piece twice( bishop) without being threatened to and then trading it off for blacks horrible light squared bishop (french pawn structure).
What I just commented on was about the opening, but I think a big part of improving is understanding different positional concepts which apply to not just openings but middle and endgame as well. Now the real question is how to learn all of these positional nuances and apply them to your game. I've learned of these inaccuracies that I mentioned above long ago and now they are virtually nonexistent in my games, but for lower rated players it is easy to identify these mistakes in their games. But as you get stronger the mistakes will be less obvious and that is where people plateau, so it will be necessary to get help from stronger players to help identify your mistakes ( I hope someone can help me with that too!)
Anyways I hope this helped
2.e3 is the stonewall and a pretty solid opening for white though he didn't play it correctly it is not an inaccuracy and while it may look passive it has aggressive intentions with a kingside attack
KIA as White to play against Sicilian Defense systems is an interesting one that does not requre a lot of study though playing it against openings that hit back with an early d5 can be susceptible to it. If you like to play the Sicilian as White, the Smith-Morra is fun but has a lot of sidelines to work on as well.
Also, bigyugi9, do you think 1. d4 d5 2. bf4 is a good alternative to playing 2. c4? And, if white does play bf4 and black responds with c5, do you think trading the bishop for the knight is good for white?
2. bf4 is certainly better than 2. e3 since it gets your bishop out of the pawn chain of d4-e3. However, the positions tend to be dry and black equalizes pretty easily. Often black has easy play on the queenside in these london-like systems while white doesn't have much of a clear plan (maybe some kingside tries, but not really). About trading a bishop for a knight...if the knight is better ( for example, controls more squares) than sure exchange your bishop for a knight. But usually the positions that arise from london-like setups are open, so you want to preserve the bishop pair. Honestly, though I don't see the problem with 2. c4 it's just more active and better in my opinion. You've got to learn to play actively! it's good for your development as a chess player.
Hope that helps
It does! Thanks very much! I might just stick with the KID though. idk. I'll figure out something. With the amount of skill I have now, I should at least be able to make it to 1700, which would be a significant improvement.