You used the word triangulate in the wrong context. Triangulation (in chess) means to intentionally waste a move -- usually in endgames -- to put your opponent in zugzwang.
Your game is a reflection
Sort:
Apr 8, 2020
0
#5
ty. fortunately these days we have autocorrect 
...and google xD You wont believe the number of times i've spelled the word "the" wrong. i always typo it to "teh" xD
Apr 8, 2020
0
#7
FeLiX_X_X wrote:
METHODS Tried:
1) Defend everything - I played with one rule. Always defend all pieces. If you want to move forward with your knight, you defend the square first. Or, after an attack, I would defend all the pieces first. Some games I dominated the player, but some I was overrun. The drawback here was the play was too slow. These games also had bad accuracy, since you are wasting time defending when you have initiative.
2) Focus on my play only - I played not caring what you are doing. Just so long you stay there on your side. Only looking out for main attack ideas you have. Meaning my development was sort of random. This obviously ended with me looking up after development and realizing my opponent has a superior placement and my pieces are uncoordinated.
3) Not attacking until all pieces, plus the rooks, are developed. Only defending and kicking your pieces away. This is a good one, but again it is too slow and you give your opponent the chance also, to develop. So the game turns out bland and equalized. No tricks or action.
4) Tempo and break - This one has the best accuracy, mostly about 90-95%, depending on the middle and end game. Which gives the idea that this is the correct way to play chess. Meaning, with speed. The difference between 3 and 5 moves is huge. I move one pawn and develop as many minor pieces as I can. Then another pawn usually to bring out the bishop, Castle and pawn break towards the king. Obviously if your opponent does not see the trend you will have 4 pieces out where he/she has 1-2 out and get ready, here I come. I think many would say, yes this is the way to start playing chess well. However with a closed center, your opponent can easily make your speed pointless, turning the game into a positional structure and gaining enough time to develop.
Personally, I think that chess is a combination of these. 
If you wouldn't mind though, I would love to see the games
Apr 8, 2020
0
#8
Personally, I think that chess is a combination of these. If you wouldn't mind though, I would love to see the games.
O yes, no doubt. I mean you have to defend all your pieces (which are relevant), also focus on your play, not attack too early and yes, speed is key. What I was referring to was I solely used only that one method.
Haha, I would not know which games are which since I did not save it, but would have been cool to give an example game under each method.
Yeah "triangulation" should probably be replaced with coordination.
Apr 8, 2020
0
#9
FeLiX_X_X wrote:
Personally, I think that chess is a combination of these. If you wouldn't mind though, I would love to see the games.
Haha, I would not know which games are which since I did not save it, but would have been cool to give an example game under each method.
definitely
Hi guys
I have played chess for a few years now. I see myself as an innovative player, always looking for different methods and styles of chess. Never really spent the time to learn massive theory and memorize lines. I find it kind of pointless, because if everyone knows the theory, then we are really just copying games already played. I do feel you need to know good starting points at least, like what to play against D4, E4 etc. I try to keep the game creative.
Playing games and solving tactics is one of the best ways to improve, but I always felt there was some kind of obvious secret I am missing. So I tried many styles and methods which all kind of failed in it's own way, until I found something so simple it felt idiotic that I missed it.
METHODS Tried:
1) Defend everything - I played with one rule. Always defend all pieces. If you want to move forward with your knight, you defend the square first. Or, after an attack, I would defend all the pieces first. Some games I dominated the player, but some I was overrun. The drawback here was the play was too slow. These games also had bad accuracy, since you are wasting time defending when you have initiative.
2) Focus on my play only - I played not caring what you are doing. Just so long you stay there on your side. Only looking out for main attack ideas you have. Meaning my development was sort of random. This obviously ended with me looking up after development and realizing my opponent has a superior placement and my pieces are uncoordinated.
3) Not attacking until all pieces, plus the rooks, are developed. Only defending and kicking your pieces away. This is a good one, but again it is too slow and you give your opponent the chance also, to develop. So the game turns out bland and equalized. No tricks or action.
4) Tempo and break - This one has the best accuracy, mostly about 90-95%, depending on the middle and end game. Which gives the idea that this is the correct way to play chess. Meaning, with speed. The difference between 3 and 5 moves is huge. I move one pawn and develop as many minor pieces as I can. Then another pawn usually to bring out the bishop, Castle and pawn break towards the king. Obviously if your opponent does not see the trend you will have 4 pieces out where he/she has 1-2 out and get ready, here I come. I think many would say, yes this is the way to start playing chess well. However with a closed center, your opponent can easily make your speed pointless, turning the game into a positional structure and gaining enough time to develop.
Anyway, I soon realized that the bridge going over to 1500-1800 is in strategic ideas. A basic one would be a fianchetto queen side bishop aiming at a king side castle. Then triangulate all you pieces to attack the square your bishop is aiming for. I think the lower rated players, myself included, tend to only use like 2 pieces for an attack, then when you get there and see you need a 3rd, it is too late to wait for support, as your opponent just reinforce. I think the main idea is to move in the background, pieces looking innocent and suddenly everyone is aimed at your weak square and boom,,, you lose.
So after all of it I started thinking. There must be something I am missing here. Then a while back the realization hit me and I felt so stupid.
"Your opponent's game is in front of you."
Any plans/secrets are visible for you to see. All the methods I tried were all about me, my game. I played chess by myself with an opponent on the other side of the board, asking at the end, how did I lose.
Today I am playing chess in a different way. I only look at your pieces as I play. My game is a mere reflection. The strategic plan is not decided, but revealed automatically. Haha, obviously I am not going to jump to 2000 or something. There are still many other factors to consider. Preventing blunders, playing to correct order of moves, knowing tactical ideas and pattern recognition, which can only come with experience.
Still I felt I wanted to share this with you guys. Maybe it gives insight to some also struggling to jump to the next level.
Cheers and have a great day.