Forums

This Website Sucks For Beginners

Sort:
llama36

Haha, yeah, sometimes I'm playing against a French or Sicilian, and thinking to myself (jokingly) "look at this garbage player, I'm so far ahead in development I should just sac a piece"

Typically we're in some main line though, so I don't do that wink.png

oranmilne420
Ziryab wrote:
oranmilne420 wrote:

I've been playing for a bit and following all the opening principles, reading the guides, doing lessons and puzzles, and even analyzing my games when I get a chance to use a free analysis. Even still I couldn't break 500. It really doesn't help when so much of the community then turns around and says "well if you're under 1000 you're clearly blundering all the time." Like that doesn't help me at all.

I also have pretty even and well done games with people of higher scores and also tend to get knocked down by people of lower score as well. It's like I literally can't progress. And when I ask for help all I get is the same responses with a link to some blog or the opening principles or the "Analyze every game and see where you missed." 

For One thing, I can't afford the analysis after every game. I don't have the money to pay for premium and I'm playing to enjoy myself and not be reminded of my financial situation. Second off It'd be nice to actually have somebody to at least guide me or try to give me some advice for where i'm falling and not just be brushed off as a "blunderfest" just because my rank is so low. And when you do get advice it always boils down to "stop Blundering" and "think 2 moves ahead of your opponent".

Like how? If I knew how to stop blundering, I wouldn't be asking you how to stop blundering. And I wish I had the psychic power to know what my opponent is going to do 2 moves ahead. I guess that's just something Chess players can do that I haven't picked up yet or something. 

And the worst response is "Keep playing, you'll learn from playing." That's what I've been trying to do but the more I play, the more I lose. I find I'll go on, have a good couple games, then start dropping in quality and getting my butt kicked shortly after out of nowhere. The only thing I've learned from this is that people like to taunt you into resigning when you start losing, and nobody is actually willing to help you unless you pay them or subscribe to their youtube channel.

 

There are many things beginners can do to improve. When you ask for help in this manner, you get help. Pay special attention to the comments by @pfren. He is a titled player and quite generously took a look at your games and made some perceptive observations.

It is quite possible that you are not implementing opening principles as well as you think. I looked at your most recent game over 30 moves and saw that you inflicted a lot of weaknesses on yourself. Your opponent took advantage. It is an opening principle to reduce your vulnerabilities, not create new ones. Specifically, when your opponent puts a bishop on g2, you want to be careful what you do on that diagonal. In order to protect a bishop, you exposed your rook.

As for blunders, these do decide almost all of your games. Some blunders are hanging pieces. Some are weakening a diagonal where you have a rook and your opponent has a bishop.

My games, too, are decided by blunders.

 A coach would do you some good, but if you cannot afford a premium membership that’s not going to happen. Do what lessons that you can. I think you get a couple per day with a free membership. Find a video series that you like aimed at beginners. There are lots of them on YouTube. I prefer books myself, and if that is your approach to learning, I can make some recommendations. One of my top recommendations is available free online: https://chesstempo.com/chess-books/chess-fundamentals/book/165 and also at https://www.chessable.com/chess-fundamentals-by-jose-raul-capablanca/course/66428/

ChessTempo presents his book as he wrote, but silently correcting one error, as did Batsford when they issued the book in algebraic notation. Chessable seems to have altered it a bit.

 

I was about to respond to this saying "I reverted my initial opinion on this post pages ago", but I have to say I heavily appreciate this too. as @nMsALpg said, I myself am recognizing some of these faults even in my more refined gameplay now as well. And have found that the principles have definitely helped me as well in mid and endgames. You guys are dope and I appreciate you.

Ziryab
nMsALpg wrote:

Haha, yeah, sometimes I'm playing against a French or Sicilian, and thinking to myself (jokingly) "look at this garbage player, I'm so far ahead in development I should just sac a piece"

Typically we're in some main line though, so I don't do that

 

Don’t mess with the French. The French Foreign Legion was the model for the Navy SEALS.

Just lock up their dark bishop. One of the first positions in Pachman, Modern Chess Strategy highlights what can go wrong in the French.

 

I play the French, which sometimes transposes into the Kan when White spurns 2.d4.

llama36
Ziryab wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:

Haha, yeah, sometimes I'm playing against a French or Sicilian, and thinking to myself (jokingly) "look at this garbage player, I'm so far ahead in development I should just sac a piece"

Typically we're in some main line though, so I don't do that

 

Don’t mess with the French. The French Foreign Legion was the model for the Navy SEALS.

Just lock up their dark bishop. One of the first positions in Pachman, Modern Chess Strategy highlights what can go wrong in the French.

 

I play the French, which sometimes transposes into the Kan when White spurns 2.d4.

Sooner or later, I'm often goaded into trying some big attack against the French. Part of that is just because it's blitz and I want something to happen.

Now if only I were brave enough to start doing that in Sicilians... but I get afraid of running into massive theory.

Ziryab
nMsALpg wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:

Haha, yeah, sometimes I'm playing against a French or Sicilian, and thinking to myself (jokingly) "look at this garbage player, I'm so far ahead in development I should just sac a piece"

Typically we're in some main line though, so I don't do that

 

Don’t mess with the French. The French Foreign Legion was the model for the Navy SEALS.

Just lock up their dark bishop. One of the first positions in Pachman, Modern Chess Strategy highlights what can go wrong in the French.

 

I play the French, which sometimes transposes into the Kan when White spurns 2.d4.

Sooner or later, I'm often goaded into trying some big attack against the French. Part of that is just because it's blitz and I want something to happen.

Now if only I were brave enough to start doing that in Sicilians... but I get afraid of running into massive theory.

 

No opening is more prone to the classic bishop sacrifice than the French. When I play White, sometimes I get to do it. Once in awhile, I’m the victim.

NervesofButter
ChessFlair01 wrote:

If you have an issue with chess.com, please contact the staff instead on announcing this in forums. Thank you.

True but if done that way.  The person whining misses out on all the attention they will receive.

DrSpudnik

Page 19, but no items on page 19...someone has been zapped!

Ziryab
Mr-Mudd wrote:
Jalex13 wrote:
It was funny at first but the photo is kind of rude…

Using someone else’s photo for your own purposes is a lack of netiquette.

Using your own photo for your own purposes to exploit for humor is profitable.  

 

Is this humor, prophet, or hubris?


DrSpudnik

It sounds like some nonsense from Franklin K Young's nutty grand ouvre.

Ziryab
DrSpudnik wrote:

It sounds like some nonsense from Franklin K Young's nutty grand ouvre.

 

Absolutely not. George Walker, A New Treatise on Chess (1841). Unlike Young, who is rightly ignored, Walker is referenced by today’s authors. This position and analysis appears in many books. Alas, White can win and Walker did not know that. On move 5 White should play K. to Q. second. Allegedly, Joseph Kling pointed out the win a few years later, but I have not found the position in Kling and Horwitz (1851).

ShouldBreezi
nMsALpg wrote:

Haha, yeah, sometimes I'm playing against a French or Sicilian, and thinking to myself (jokingly) "look at this garbage player, I'm so far ahead in development I should just sac a piece"

Typically we're in some main line though, so I don't do that

You have ridiculously high win rate against both, so I can respect that even though I play the french LOL

Roughly 80% win rate with e4, 90% against the french, 81.8% against the sicilian

Better watch out for this guy

DrSpudnik
Ziryab wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:

It sounds like some nonsense from Franklin K Young's nutty grand ouvre.

 

Absolutely not. George Walker, A New Treatise on Chess (1841). Unlike Young, who is rightly ignored, Walker is referenced by today’s authors. This position and analysis appears in many books. Alas, White can win and Walker did not know that. On move 5 White should play K. to Q. second. Allegedly, Joseph Kling pointed out the win a few years later, but I have not found the position in Kling and Horwitz (1851).

I may have directed a Franklin K Young Memorial tournament at the old Boylston Club in the early 80s. I certainly played in a few. Years later, I came across a book of his in the University of Kansas library (of all places) that had his signature on the blank front page before the title. The book was on Austro-Hungarian artillery strategy in the Great War.

I never could understand all his chess gibberish about "enfilade lefts" and all sorts of kooky nomenclature to describe simple things.

Ziryab
DrSpudnik wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:

It sounds like some nonsense from Franklin K Young's nutty grand ouvre.

 

Absolutely not. George Walker, A New Treatise on Chess (1841). Unlike Young, who is rightly ignored, Walker is referenced by today’s authors. This position and analysis appears in many books. Alas, White can win and Walker did not know that. On move 5 White should play K. to Q. second. Allegedly, Joseph Kling pointed out the win a few years later, but I have not found the position in Kling and Horwitz (1851).

I may have directed a Franklin K Young Memorial tournament at the old Boylston Club in the early 80s. I certainly played in a few. Years later, I came across a book of his in the University of Kansas library (of all places) that had his signature on the blank front page before the title. The book was on Austro-Hungarian artillery strategy in the Great War.

I never could understand all his chess gibberish about "enfilade lefts" and all sorts of kooky nomenclature to describe simple things.

 

Young has the reputation as by far the worst chess writer in history. Worse than the serial plagiarists, like Raymond Keene; the data dumpers, like Eric Schiller.

That there are memorial tournaments in his name shocks me.

DrSpudnik
Ziryab wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:

It sounds like some nonsense from Franklin K Young's nutty grand ouvre.

 

Absolutely not. George Walker, A New Treatise on Chess (1841). Unlike Young, who is rightly ignored, Walker is referenced by today’s authors. This position and analysis appears in many books. Alas, White can win and Walker did not know that. On move 5 White should play K. to Q. second. Allegedly, Joseph Kling pointed out the win a few years later, but I have not found the position in Kling and Horwitz (1851).

I may have directed a Franklin K Young Memorial tournament at the old Boylston Club in the early 80s. I certainly played in a few. Years later, I came across a book of his in the University of Kansas library (of all places) that had his signature on the blank front page before the title. The book was on Austro-Hungarian artillery strategy in the Great War.

I never could understand all his chess gibberish about "enfilade lefts" and all sorts of kooky nomenclature to describe simple things.

 

Young has the reputation as by far the worst chess writer in history. Worse than the serial plagiarists, like Raymond Keene; the data dumpers, like Eric Schiller.

That there are memorial tournaments in his name shocks me.

He used to be a "prominent" Boston chess player and was only vaguely remembered by anyone as of 1980 or so. I half think, now that I've heard more of his exploits, that the naming of the tournaments may have been an exercise in sarcasm.

Ziryab
DrSpudnik wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:

It sounds like some nonsense from Franklin K Young's nutty grand ouvre.

 

Absolutely not. George Walker, A New Treatise on Chess (1841). Unlike Young, who is rightly ignored, Walker is referenced by today’s authors. This position and analysis appears in many books. Alas, White can win and Walker did not know that. On move 5 White should play K. to Q. second. Allegedly, Joseph Kling pointed out the win a few years later, but I have not found the position in Kling and Horwitz (1851).

I may have directed a Franklin K Young Memorial tournament at the old Boylston Club in the early 80s. I certainly played in a few. Years later, I came across a book of his in the University of Kansas library (of all places) that had his signature on the blank front page before the title. The book was on Austro-Hungarian artillery strategy in the Great War.

I never could understand all his chess gibberish about "enfilade lefts" and all sorts of kooky nomenclature to describe simple things.

 

Young has the reputation as by far the worst chess writer in history. Worse than the serial plagiarists, like Raymond Keene; the data dumpers, like Eric Schiller.

That there are memorial tournaments in his name shocks me.

He used to be a "prominent" Boston chess player and was only vaguely remembered by anyone as of 1980 or so. I half think, now that I've heard more of his exploits, that the naming of the tournaments may have been an exercise in sarcasm.


When I was doing a centenary series on the 1921 World Championship, I read half a year’s worth of American Chess Bulletin. Young contributed regularly, including articles on the match. His articles contributed nothing of value.

Ziryab
Ziryab wrote:
yZiryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

BTW you know who else is not 2000 rated even though chess is their life?   @ziryab.  You gonna tell me that guy didn't put in the work for the past 20 years?  😂🤣   

 

Chess is not my life. Yes, I’ve played it for more than 50 years. I’ve played it almost every day since the mid-1990s. I’ve been an online blitz junkie since 1998. I have something over 400 chess books and I’ve spent a lot of time reading them. I’ve been coaching children for 22 years. I’ve written some chess books. I’ve spent more time on chess than most people. More time has been spent playing than teaching. More time has been spent teaching than learning. I learned the game before the age of 10, but improved my game substantially in my 40s. Now in my 60s, I’m still learning, but my skill overall is not improving much, if at all. My blitz ability suffers even more. In my 40s, I could play 120 moves in a one minute game using the touch pad on my laptop computer. I struggle to play half that many today.

As for my life: this is a chess site, so that’s the side you see. I prefer the river, the lake, the woods. I fish. I hunt. I shoot targets for fun. I bought an old gun just because it would be fun to work on it and to shoot it. I rebuilt some parts that were missing. It was manufactured as a military rifle, then drastically modified as a sporting arm. Might be getting a lead furnace so I can cast bullets for this antique, but in the meantime, Montana Bullet Works can sell me what I need.

I’m a history teacher. That’s my life.

If my life had been devoted to reaching a 2000 blitz rating on a chess site, I would have done it.

 

Oh, wait. It wasn’t my goal, but I did get over 2000 in blitz on this site less than two years ago. Since then, most of my blitz has been when I’m not focused and just killing time.

 

 

@CooloutAC said I was 1700 in blitz. Over the past 90 days, I was almost there. Hadn’t been paying attention until he mentioned it.

PawnTsunami
Ziryab wrote:

@CooloutAC said I was 1700 in blitz. Over the past 90 days, I was almost there. Hadn’t been paying attention until he mentioned it.

He had been so quiet the last few days.  I was wondering if sense had finally broken through.  That does not seem to be the case.

NervesofButter
PawnTsunami wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

@CooloutAC said I was 1700 in blitz. Over the past 90 days, I was almost there. Hadn’t been paying attention until he mentioned it.

He had been so quiet the last few days.  I was wondering if sense had finally broken through.  That does not seem to be the case.

CooloutAC

 
 
Closed: Abuse

This account has been closed for not following our Community Guidelines
These guidelines help keep Chess.com fun and friendly for everyone.

Dmfed
PawnTsunami skrev:
Ziryab wrote:

@CooloutAC said I was 1700 in blitz. Over the past 90 days, I was almost there. Hadn’t been paying attention until he mentioned it.

He had been so quiet the last few days.  I was wondering if sense had finally broken through.  That does not seem to be the case.

Banned, probably self-ejection by mod. He was tired of this place and had enough of treacherous world of chess. Here is his in memoriam thread: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/cooloutac-closed-for-abuse?newCommentCount=18&page=6#first_new_comment