Slovensik wrote:
Because your rated 600.
No I wasn't ever rated that.
Why do I always lose to Scandinavian Defense?
Sort:
Sep 28, 2013
0
#3
Slovensik wrote:
Because you're rated 601
My lowest rating on here was 728 and I was just starting on here.
Sep 28, 2013
0
#4
It's merely a coincidence. It has nothing to do with the opening, unless you have some weird hangup about Scandinavians.
Well, in the first game, the main reason you lost is probably that you left your rook hanging on move 26, letting black gain material with a check that leads to a king chase.
I haven't looked at the other games, but your problem is not that you are losing to the Scandinavian; it's that you are making blunders in the middle game.
Focus on tactics.
Sep 28, 2013
0
#6
EscherehcsE wrote:
It's merely a coincidence. It has nothing to do with the opening, unless you have some weird hangup about Scandinavians.
Thanks. I think now that it's because I don't like playing against it so I mess up because I'm already thinking it will be a hard game so I end up trying to do some fancy moves sometimes because I feel that I need to win against a hard game. That just helped me realize why I keep leaving pieces en prise, because I'm trying to find a good move and get distracted away from big threats.
Sep 28, 2013
0
#7
markgravitygood wrote:
I'm from the government. I'm here to help!
I looked (briefly) at your first two games you posted. You are not losing because of your opening play, no matter how atrocious it may be. You seem to have a feel for getting your pieces out on reasonable squares for the most part, king safety, etc., etc.
But, subsequently, you play aimlessly, without setting any goals or targets. Your opponents, on the other hand, do (somewhat, in a relative sense). you end up playing reaction chess, responding to threats and not making any yourself. Eventually you miss a threat, drop a piece, see ya later, gator.
That is why.
Read Jeremy Silman, Horowitz, Reinfeld. Everybody does at some point. Pay attention to what they say about developing a plan, middlegame play, etc. Don't play bullet, and play blitz sparingly.
If you can't play well slowly, you can't play well quickly.
Good Luck. I believe any mucky-muck can get to 1600 on pure basic principled chess alone. you should be no different.
I feel like I actually play like a 1200 player but am not there because of my reaction chess problem. Your post really helped by the way.
Sep 28, 2013
0
#8
markgravitygood wrote:
I'm from the government. I'm here to help!
I looked (briefly) at your first two games you posted. You are not losing because of your opening play, no matter how atrocious it may be. You seem to have a feel for getting your pieces out on reasonable squares for the most part, king safety, etc., etc.
But, subsequently, you play aimlessly, without setting any goals or targets. Your opponents, on the other hand, do (somewhat, in a relative sense). you end up playing reaction chess, responding to threats and not making any yourself. Eventually you miss a threat, drop a piece, see ya later, gator.
That is why.
Read Jeremy Silman, Horowitz, Reinfeld. Everybody does at some point. Pay attention to what they say about developing a plan, middlegame play, etc. Don't play bullet, and play blitz sparingly.
If you can't play well slowly, you can't play well quickly.
Good Luck. I believe any mucky-muck can get to 1600 on pure basic principled chess alone. you should be no different.
Could also check the rest of my games since you've been pretty helpful. I don't always have that problem, but get stuck at this level because of my reaction chess problem that happens every once in a while. I think I actually do pretty well sometimes to be honest.
Games archive:
http://www.chess.com/members/view/DarknisMetalDragon#games
DarknisMetalDragon wrote:
I started trying to transpose it into the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit ...
lol I never expected to hear that coming from a 950 rated player (no offesne).
Sep 28, 2013
0
#10
macer75 wrote:
DarknisMetalDragon wrote:
I started trying to transpose it into the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit ...
lol I never expected to hear that coming from a 950 rated player (no offesne).
It isn't offensive.
Rachellybean wrote:
macer75 wrote:
DarknisMetalDragon wrote:
I started trying to transpose it into the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit ...
lol I never expected to hear that coming from a 950 rated player (no offesne).
That's funny because your bullet is even worse. LOL
um... 950 is his standard, not bullet. And that's not really the point. When I read that line I just quoted, I thought the OP was at least like 1600 or something.
DarknisMetalDragon wrote:
macer75 wrote:
DarknisMetalDragon wrote:
I started trying to transpose it into the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit ...
lol I never expected to hear that coming from a 950 rated player (no offesne).
It isn't offensive.
lol glad to hear that. How do u know about the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit? I've never even heard of it.
Sep 28, 2013
0
#13
macer75 wrote:
DarknisMetalDragon wrote:
macer75 wrote:
DarknisMetalDragon wrote:
I started trying to transpose it into the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit ...
lol I never expected to hear that coming from a 950 rated player (no offesne).
It isn't offensive.
lol glad to hear that. How do u know about the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit? I've never even heard of it.
I learned it from thechesswebsite.com. I actually study a lot of chess, but just am stuck at this level for reasons explained above.
The Scandinavian or Center Counter defense, seems to take white out of what he wants to do. You know, it might not be a bad option for black.
You don't lose because of the opening but because you make mistakes.
Here are those games:
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=595390651
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=606672252
(I started trying to transpose it into the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit because I didn't know how to go against it with the regular line. I didn't know it was called that at first. I honestly thought I had invented an opening.) Here's that game:
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=610817921
I won this game below against an opponent because this opponent was leaving pieces en prise and allowing forks to happen:
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=608267550
Go ahead and analyze all these games and then answer.