KeSetoKaiba AMA but not really...

I actually began writing that post thinking of just an example player learning; it wasn't until after halfway writing it which I admittingly did think of you. However, what I said specifically with "tactical genius" and later "positional concepts" wasn't directed at you per se; I was simply naming a common trend that happens with beginning players slowly transforming to the intermediate range.

I know we've talked one on one several times before @chesslover0_0 but your case of sticking with opening principles and basics and then later studying tactics a lot (and wanting to become good at tactics specifically) is SUPER common because so many higher rated players tell newer chess players the value of practicing tactics/puzzles.

In summary, I was thinking of several chess players I know in creating this sample; it very well may apply accurately for you, but it also does for many others too

I wouldn't put it like that per se and I'd rather you not have put that on a public forum here but I guess??.  I think for me it's more then just because that's the "advice" they give beginners.  I'm probably more of an intermediate player any way but we won't go there, or at least an "advanced beginner", I'm not a beginner per se.   My decision to study tactics is because that's how I win most of my games, and that is "super common" in the games of lower rated players such as myself, so I'm really doing it based on my own personal experiences in my own games, not just because someone said it valuable, but you're right, that is the general advice given to most "amateur" players which most of us fit into that category. 

Also, I know a bit more then just "Opening Principles" and "Tactics"...I mean I'm just saying, I'm no Patzer!.....................I'm a Grand-Patzer, I beg that there is a difference lol

Well humor aside, I'd say "advanced beginner" is accurate for you. I believe your rating is misleading and lower because you have a TON more knowledge than true "beginners", yet don't have the practiced "ability" (experience from playing games) to translate that knowledge into games. This takes time to do for everyone; years of playing usually.

When we analyze a position @chesslover0_0 I know that you fully grasp concepts a true "beginner" would seldom be familiar with (things like pawn structure basics, concept of imbalances like space and things like "judging the time factor" [Neil McDonald]). I'd say "advanced beginner" is accurate for the time being.

Yes, anything more specific we can discuss in private messages instead.

Any other questions people have, feel free to ask

I can agree with this, I understand the concepts but I have a hard time putting them into practice and part of that is, I think because I still lack understanding in other areas.  It ties into what I've said for years and years and will continue to say because I believe it to be the truth.  In order to play a good game of Chess, you have to first have a good understanding of Chess.  

As far as you believing I'm an advanced beginner, I think an intermediate player is probably more accurate.  I'm not exactly new to Chess, I guess the titles are subjective, what would qualify as an advanced beginner and an intermediate player.  The word "beginner" is what bothers me because I'm not a beginner, to me, it's a little hard to be a beginner in a game I've been playing for over a decade and a half......but that's just my own rational and before you or anyone asks or wonders, no I'm not offended by the title, I just don't think it fits me or more specifically where I'm at in Chess right now. 

We can tell what you really care about at the end of the day lol:

Been a while since I saw a roast as good as this one 

lol Some of the best roasts are subliminal and not necessarily on the surface, you know it's just another person being rude to someone he doesn't even know so it begs the question, but why? 

That "non-titled" player, happens to be a very strong Chess player (I know this for a fact folks!), generally a good guy and I doubt Mr. So and So couldn't LEARN from this "non-titled" player! 

Stop hankering for attention gained from people hating you.

Back to the point of the thread, what's the best game of chess you've ever played?

I don't know if I've ever had an "immortal" game, but mainly because I'm very selective and the game must be near perfect AND have an interesting element to it. I have however had some really nice games I remember which I am particularly happy with, but no single "immortal" game yet...maybe one day I'll get a game I like enough

Here are some close "immortal" stories (in no particular order)...

- A rare type of checkmate pattern in a miniature I got OTB with a chess friend of mine (casual game) where I won with a type of smothered mate; would be closer to an "immortal" if my rating/ability wasn't much higher than theirs at the time of the game.

- First time I won against a childhood chess "boss" of mine. I want to say "rival" but it was more like a goal of me wanting to win against them once than anything close. I was probably less than 1000 rating when I met them and their chess seemed like a GM to me; I eventually did win against them and that game was "special" to me for the many years-long-pursuit. By the way, their rating/ability was around 1700 (so you can see how "boss" level that feels to a sub-1000 who didn't even know ratings existed at the time).

- First time I played a titled player (online). It was part of a simul against IM @AttilaTurzo and despite me falling for an opening trap (which I knew and forgot in the moment/me face-palming in the game), I was able to hang in there and eventually made a comeback victory as they overlooked a tactic which won me their Queen. Clearly, they were the better player and wouldn't blunder this if not in a simul playing so many players at once, but my first ever titled player opponent being a win for me was still special.

- First OTB rated game I played (very similar to the titled player story above actually) was against a USCF player rated 1950 and I fell into an opening trap (different opening than the story above and this trap I had never seen before) and hung a Bishop...I kept determined, put up as much resistance as I could and also made a comeback victory in that game to win my first OTB rated game as well! (At this point in time, I was roughly 1600 chess.com rating, so 1950 USCF was still much higher than I was)

- Another game close to "immortal" for me was an OTB casual blitz game with a USCF 2200 player (I was rated almost 1900 USCF at the time, so they were much stronger). We played two casual blitz games (one with each color) and they won the first, but I won the second. (Ironically, we both won with the black pieces). That first game I played well, but they just played better. That second game is close to immortal level (too bad it was casual blitz and not recorded) as I positionally crushed my opponent and converted the game decisively. 

I've had some exciting moments on my chess journey (and also many sad/down/emotionally tough moments too). Still no single "immortal" caliber game though...at least not yet

Interesting fun fact too is that I've NEVER played a titled GM (online or OTB). I've played competitive chess for over 5 years now, but never encountered this type of opponent. Perhaps one day I will, but I'm also not in a rush to play against a GM as I know they'll have overwhelming resistance for me to test

Perhaps a video about how to stop playing games when your tilted before you gambit all your points away would be nice

Yep that's something I have trouble with as well but "tilt" is a personal issue, each person has to deal with it in their own way.  I mean he can make a video about it giving tips on it......maybe that will help. 

This is actually a useful idea which I might consider in the future

I feel like this is more of a "conversational topic" which would be better with a webcam though (which I don't have). I'd be open to making a video on this topic if there was "something" I could share on screen though.

Short answer (just so you aren't left hanging @Marcyful) is that implementing a stop-loss system (and generally sticking to it with discipline) can help "save" you rating points before you tilt them all away. However, based on how willing you are to fluctuate rating, you may "risk" tilt more often to encounter higher variance and give more of a chance at also improving to a higher rating too. 

It then becomes a game of risk management and trying to balance playing chess when in good form (not tilted) and when you are able and willing to play (motivation, schedule, balancing with chess study/improvement etc.)

Agreed, the video would have to have general tips and much like general Chess principles, some of those tips may or may not apply to a given person, therefore it's better to deal with that from a personal point of view, meaning, dealing with individuals.  Marcyful, I might be inclined to help as well because like I said, I know a thing or two about "tilt" and salt and all of that. 

My forum response in this thread was "Learning How To Learn" (if that makes sense ). My upcoming YouTube videos planned, hope to address this. Yes, that was plural "videos."   

Check this club announcement for more details for those curious of my streaming "update" and progress so far: https://www.chess.com/announcements/view/2022-08-23-stream-update 

You could then make a video titled "Learn how to learn learning"

Ironically, the video I just mentioned regarding "Learning How To Learn" I was just working on now. I have confidence it should be uploaded to YouTube in time for Wednesday as planned, but wasn't sure if I'd have time to work on the video as I just got back from my OTB local chess club a few hours ago tonight.

I'm excited for these upcoming videos which I went more "in-depth" with (only way to do true analysis justice) although I'm still intending to make most of my YouTube videos on the shorter side; I'm just not compromising quality for length on these next few videos regarding this analysis "learning how to learn" subject

That reminds me of Josh Waitzkin's book "The Art of Learning".   I don't know if it's an art per se but different people learn in different ways.  For example, there are tons of videos on Chess, even on this website, behind a paywall but that's a different topic for a different time.  My point is, I am a bit old fashioned when it comes to learning Chess.  I don't believe much can be gained from "Chess videos", most of the people doing these videos go way too fast and you'll miss alot of the nuances, subtleties that they are trying to convey to you along the way, even if you do get the lesson they are trying to teach, why would you want to miss out on these little things here and there, at least I know I wouldn't want to. 

I believe Chess is a subject to be studied, no different then say for example you would study Science or History or any other academic subject.   I believe the best way to learn Chess is to open up a book, get out your board and pieces and go over the material until you digest it,...slowly.  Kaiba you and I have touched on some of this briefly but that's just my two cents on the matter.   

Lastly, of course, I speak of players who wish to improve their play slowly but surely over time,  if you're casual then this doesn't apply to you, as not everyone seeks to improve.