After reviewing some of your games, youre losinig for the same reason all beginners lose:
Missing simple tactics.
Hanging pieces.
Your time would be better spent following opening principles. Studying openings isnt going to help you not hang pieces, and miss tactics.
Learning opening principles is important but most games of lower rated players are not decided out of the opening. They are often decided by mistakes in the middlegame, often related to tactics. Studying openings is going to do very little to fix that.
@God’sPawn2016
You are a most impressive individual, You found my post, read it, reviewed some of my game and wrote a response all in less than 2 minutes. Perhaps if you read just a little slower you will see that I agree with you that Tactics study is more important than opening study.
4 minutes in fact.
Attention to detail, i like that!
Nothing wrong with studying openings, especially if you enjoy it.
At some stage you have to take stock though, and look what works and doesn't work in your games. It's true that for most beginners, it's board vision mistakes rather than opening mistakes that hurt them the most.
https://www.chess.com/blog/hicetnunc/too-much-opening-study
Play opening principles and stick with classical opening, absolutely no hyper-modern opening and eliminate one move blunders and study tactics and some simple endgame and go through Logical Chess Move by Move by Chernev; do this and your rating will go up. In my correspondence games, I won ten games straight, I avoid opening that require too much theory (any player can become an opening expert by using a opening data base) and play on opening principles and play sound, I rely heavily on tactics, strategy and endgame technique to win my games. I was looking at Lasker 1900 games, he plays beautiful chess and very sound play, he stick to opening principle and wins his games by taking advantage of opponents mistakes.
I became 1800 uscf by very little opening study, doing a lot tactics studying, studying Morphy's games, I always played 1.e4 against any defense and went through Logical Chess Move By Move by Chernev, Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur, these two books alone get you to at least 1500 uscf or even higher ( 1600 uscf and 1700 uscf).
I became 1800 uscf by very little opening study, doing a lot tactics studying, studying Morphy's games, I always played 1.e4 against any defense and went through Logical Chess Move By Move by Chernev, Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur, these two books alone get you to at least 1500 uscf or even higher ( 1600 uscf and uscf).
Same here. Got to USCF A class on opening principles.
@ GodsPawn2016, what is you current rating?
@ GodsPawn2016, what is you current rating?
Somewhere in the B 's
I dont keep track of it, and took a break for awhile. Now i hired a coach and trying to make Expert.
@ GodsPawn2016, I am at 2011 uscf and trying to go back to 2100. Study the books you list on your page, you should go back easily to 1800 and higher. I make a point to study tactics every day, never miss a day, I think its essential for every chess player.
@ GodsPawn2016, I am at 2011 uscf and trying to go back to 2100. Study the books you list on your page, you should go back easily to 1800 and higher. I make a point to study tactics every day, never miss a day, I think its essential for every chess player.
Ive beaten Master, Experts, etc.
My issue is, and it amazes people. I will offer a draw in winning positions for the following reasons:
Go to lunch with friends.
Want to watch the Dodgers.
Had enough chess for that day.
And there are others.
A few years ago at the National open in Vegas i was the exchange, and a passed pawn up against a 1900+ player. I leaned over and asked him if he had kids. he said yes, so i offered him a draw. He asked why, and i said that its fathers day, and as a father that is my gift to you.
Couple of months ago, I beat a Master, and then 3 days later i lost to a player rated 500. You cant make this stuff up :-)
I play purely for the enjoyment of the game. But as i have now hired a coach and have a goal, that mindset needs to change.
The OP is clueless.
If "studying" and "memorizing" were one in the same thing, he'd have a valid point, but they aren't. If you are "memorizing" endgames, you are missing the point completely!
You don't study opening theory first because your opponents won't be staying in book anyway, and you will never truly understand the Najdorf or any other opening. If you "truly understand" the Najdorf, then you ought to know instantly what is wrong with White's move when White goes out of book, and why the move normally played is played.
The purpose for studying endgames first has NOTHING to do with memorizing endings. It has to do with learning the concept of calculation, piece coordination, etc.
Take the following example. A beginner should be experimenting with moves, moving the pieces, and once he gets accustommed to how they move, he should then try to visualize the moves he made in his head, staring at the original position.
There is no way in hell that a beginner can do this with 32 pieces on the board. Studying openings first is like having your 6-year old pick up the 150 pound dumb bell as the first weight he ever lifted instead of say, one of your 5 pound weights.
ThrillerFan, your criticism of the OP is needless.
In which world is 'lower rated player' synonymous with 'pure beginner'?
Fischer was "your 6-year old" when he started chess. You underestimate kids.
I agree with Lasker above, "learn openings" is indeed flexible. Just like saying "learn geometry" or "play Beethoven".
My experience is that learning endgames is really good. Against players my rating, I can almost count on winning equal rook endgmaes, especially in blitz. Players just think it's not important and play some of the most antipositional moves ever. Thinks like allowing me to cut off their king, trading off a pawn that allows me to get a passed pawn, allowing me to attack all their pawns etc.) It's not like I have memorized an endgame manual, I just learned some basic things about endgames and I do incredibly well for little to know effort. In openings where I can trade down to an endgame, I win disproportionately because people aren't even used to endgames and think chess without queens is boring.
Most low rated player lose because they breaking basic opening principles, one move blunders and weak on tactics, missing oportunities to win a piece or mate or simple tactical motifs. Tactics and books like Logical Move by Move or Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur by Euwe will do more for a player in winning game than memorize the Najdorf or Dragon lines, player below 1700 uscf should not play the Sicilian, you learn more from a double e-pawn 1.e4 e5 or double d-pawn defense 1.d4 d5, classical opening you learn how to play proper chess. I think I attain a decent rating and I still studying tactics every day and planning doing endgame study, why do I spend time doing tactics and endgame, because by doing them you win more games.
Often when lower rated players asks for advice about opening, they are told that they should not study openings. I on the other hand believe, based on my experience, that lack of opening understanding is one of the things that prevent lower rated players from advancing. Before getting into opening studies lets deal with a few typical objections.
Some people say that lower rated players should study endgames. Spending a lot of time studying endgames would be a major waste of time for this group. The vast majority of games by lower ranked players do not reach the end game, and even when they do, one side normally will have a major material advantage. This does not mean that endgame theory is useless. Everyone should now have to mate with two rooks vs kind, queen, vs king, and rook and king vs king. Learning the above may require a few hours. Openings and endings are similar in that the higher your rank the more you need to know.
Some people say that lower rated players should study tactics. These are smart people and I agree with them. The lower your rank, the larger role tactics play, and the larger the percentage of your study time should be spent on tactics.
Some people say that lower rated players should study games of maters. These are also smart people and I agree with them as long as the games studied are tactical in nature.
The fact that lower rated players should study tactics and the games of classical masters, dose not exclude them studying some openings.
Some people say that lower level players should study opening theory and or principles, and not specific openings.
Can you study a specific opening and not being studying opening theory at the same time?
Can applying opening principles consistently lead you to the best move during the opening phase of a game between two low rated players? For example what move is suggested by opening principles for whites 3 move in the Dominion’s Gambit? Surely not moving the knight for a second time. Likewise can you make the best moves in the Two Knight’s defense without going against opening theory? And we are only talking about the first 4 to 5 moves.
The problem with opening principles for lower rated players is that they are build on the assumption that each player will engage in a struggle for control of the center at the start of the game. At the lower levels of play, combatants are more interested in the fact that 1.e4 release the Queen and Kings Bishop, than the fact that it establishes a foot hold in the center, and often their second move is more about attacking f7 than trying to control the center.
I’m not suggesting that lower rated players learn multiple openings 20 moves deep. The fact is that players at lower level don’t stay in the book very long. For example players rated below 1000 frequently play book openings but only for 1 to 4 moves. I’ve noticed that most game between these players do start out e4,e5.
In the early days of modern chess it was generally agreed that the best moves for white were 1 e4, 2 Nf3 and 3 Bc4. It is my opinion that these are still the best moves for white for lower rated players who naturally play tactual chess. During that time there was a major debate over what move Black should play in response to 2 Nf3. As I recall there are 8 possible moves. Eventually it was agreed that 2 Nc6 was best. I believe that the best way to learn to play the opening phase of a chess game well, is to memorize the first 5 to 10 moves of a line in the Italian Game, for both sides, and then learn why moves not consistent with the main line are not as strong. You have to learn how to take advantage of the lesser moves. Some will be so weak as to lose almost at once, others will be nearly as strong as the main line. It is also very important to analyze the first 10 moves of every game you play with the help of a stronger player or a computer. In this way you will build your knowledge of common positions, and as everyone knows it is often the player who understands the position best who wins, and not the person with the best position. For example those rated below 1000 by playing 1 e5 will need to learn how to follow up on the 3 positions that result from the following move sets.
1. 1 e4 2 Nf3 3 Bc4
2. 1 e4 2 d4 (not very common, but for when your opponent dose not seize part of the center or plays the French etc.)
3. 1 e4 2Nf3 3 d4 ( Philidor, Petroff, etc.)
Black and to some extent White will also need to learn how to respond to early Queen attacks such as 2 Qh5.
When your opponent does deviate from the main line first look at the resulting tactical threats and then opening principles to guide you in responding.
In summary to improve your opening play select an opening, memorize the first 5 to 10 moves, understand why the non-book moves are not as strong and now to take advantage of these weaker moves. Play your chosen opening as much as possible and analyze each and every game preferably with help.
Following the above method I went from well below 1000 to the low 1200. I also studied a lot of tactics and played over many master games. The line I chose to play as Black or White is:
1 e4,e5 2 Nf3, Nc6 3 Bc4, Bc5 (I believe that Bc4 is more understandable than Bb5) 4 Nc3, Nf6 5 d3, d6 (I chose d3 because I can play it if Black plays 3 Nf6 as well and get to the same position) 6 Be3, Bb3. If you exchange on e3 it opens the f file for white. If you exchange on b3 it opens the a file for Black.
It was very rare against players rated below 1200 to play all 6 of these moves, however I normally was able to play the first two.