i feel your pain musik, Chess.com's skynet is usually unhappy with me.
Though that was a beatiful series of skewers in that game you posted, taking his rook and his queen haha
1.e4 2.Nf3 3.Bc4...Almost Always?
Sort:
bradley348 wrote:
i feel your pain musik, Chess.com's skynet is usually unhappy with me. 
Though that was a beatiful series of skewers in that game you posted, taking his rook and his queen haha
Skynet - I think that's a reference to the Terminator movies. I've always been fascinated by robots. Isaac Asimov's books come to mind as some of my favorites.
I just purchased the Kindle Edition of Looking for Trouble by Dan Heisman. This is definitely the book I need right now. Tactics training alone does not raise one's playing strength. I thought it would, so I spent over 100 hours doing so. I got no boost in my Live Chess rating!
There is another side to the equation that tactics training does not address - seeing threats. In all my hours of tactics training, I only looked for forcing moves that would win material, never looking for threats directed at my position. And most tactics puzzles don't have a threat directed my way. It's always the other side that has made a mistake, and my job to find it and win material. That's it.
-------------------
Looking for Trouble - Dan Heisman
Product Description
This book is written to address an underemphasized area of chess training and study, the identification of and reaction to--threats. For beginner and intermediate-level players, the study of tactics is paramount. Almost all tactics books take the approach of providing a position where there is a forced win, checkmate or draw. However, Looking for Trouble takes a different tack. This book helps players to recognize threats by providing over 200 problems in which players can focus on identifying and meeting threats ranging from extremely easy to fiendishly difficult. The identification of difficult threats how to meet them discussed in a manner that accommodates players of all levels.
About the Author
Dan Heisman is an experienced instructor and author. His previous works include Everyone’s Second Chess Book and A Parent’s Guide to Chess. His monthly column Novice Nook is one of the most popular at ChessCafe.
Move 2 was a mistake. It wasn't a tactical one, but a misunderstanding of the goal. It's much easier to develop the N than to control the center. Black could have given you headaches with 2...d5.
Please, when your opponent gives you d4, take it! 1.e4 e6 2.d4!
Dang, I made a mistake so soon?
Interesting. It is odd that I didn't play 2.d4. In the past, I always played 2.d4 whenever Black defended with the French or the Caro-Kann. It must be my latest obsession with 1.e4 2.Nf3.
The chess.com computer disagrees with your assessment of 2.d4 being a mistake, labeling 2.Nf3 a Book Move - C00: French Defense: Knight Variation. No matter, I like the way you put it, "Please, when your opponent gives you d4, take it!"
The computer found 5 inaccuracies (18.5%), 9 mistakes (33.3%) and 2 blunders (7.4%). So, 59.2 percent of my moves were mistakes. Ouch! That's too many.