Anyone here an adult improver?

Well, considering I only have 5 recorded games on file and this is most chess I played in a good long time, I can safely say I'm still in the beginner phase.

I'm an adult non-improver. 64 years old, and entering late youth.

[This is a duplicate post.  I posted it on my "I'm surviving longer" topic.)

I think I was winning this game. (Noahstarr's connection must have broken just as we were moving into the end game....)

The analysis engine is telling me "better moves" existed for me ... but I don't agree with some of what the engine is telling me. Maybe someone more knowledgeable (which is nearly everybody on these forums) can explain this to me?

I learned a lot (I think!) from John Bartholomew's videos on youtube. In one he discusses being smart about trades.  Don't use higher valued pieces to capture / trade with lower valued pieces ... you don't ALWAYS need to go for a trade, etc. I thought these concepts were really helping me get a better grasp on improving.  Especially with trying to have fewer instances of undefended pieces.

I clearly missed an opportunity to capture his Q with my B ... but many moves later I got her with that same Bishop.

I was planning to bring my e1 Rook to the 3rd rank and add him to the attack on his King (maybe at g3 if I captured his Knight with my Queen first(?). 

Suddenly I was the "winner" ... but I wish we'd really finished.

https://www.chess.com/a/2f5zkrB3423pwY

Hi Pop, could you please be more specificaly about wich moves you don´t agree with the engines suggestion, and why? 

Besides that, on move 2, e5 is a better choice when facing 1...Nf6, because you gain more space with your pawn (wich means winning more control of the central squares), and wins a tempo with it, forcing his knight to move again.

Regards.

specifical* Sorry for bad English =) 

BlitzKrieg, I understand what you mean about gaining tempo on his Knight ... but I resisted doing that because I hadn't yet achieved any substantive control of the middle. (And would that be leaving my pawn all the way up on e5 with no defending pieces?)

Thanks for asking for more specifics....

5 d3, the engine wanted me to move N d5 instead ... inviting a N-for-N trade which doesn't seem to really help me.

9 0-0.  The engine NEVER seems to like when I castle.  I thought castling early was a "good thing???" Engine wanted me to capture his Q with my B ... which I did do ... eventually.

10 Qe2, the engine wanted me to xe5. (I thought connecting my Rooks at that point made more sense.)

11 Nxe5 (Knight defended by the d4 Pawn seemed like a good move to strengthen my center control.) The engine wanted me to exchange my B for his N ... and bring his Q into the fray.  I *liked* him keeping his Q on the back rank.)

17 Qxf4, defending my B and adding pressure to his K (Yes?). Engine wanted me to waste taking his Knight (and have his Q take mine).

20 Re5. Planning to have my Q take his N and be defended by my R.... Engine wanted me to Qxc7 and fork his B & R ... but I wonder why I should go for material when I was closing in for the kill?

@11PopPop 

Good morning from Brasil. Ok, let´s go.

1) after e5 you can easily defend the pawn with d4, and maybe continue with f4 or Nf3. But not wrong with 2.Nc3, as you played as well. 

2) 5.d3 is an ok move, is just Nd5 is more active and agressive move, in more of the spirit of the position. But not wrongly with 5.d3. Is a bit of a matter of taste.

3) 9.0-0: Ok, here he gave up his queen for a bishop. If you capture it, you are winning the game. Every time you don´t do a move that doesn´t win the game when you have the opportunity, it is considered a blunder by an engine. 

4) 10. Qe2 is not a bad move in principle, but concretely, is a blunder, because you lose your light squared bishop, as the following variation shows: 10...Nxg5 11.Nxg5 d5! and if you retreat your bishop to 12.Bb3 he has a4, winning it, and if 12.Bd3, he has e4, winning it as well. The bishop has no squares. A lot of times we have to calculate and be concrete in chess, principles are not enough in some positions. You have to mix principles and concrete calculation while evaluating a position.

4) 11.Nxe5: This is a blunder, because he has the simple answer 11...Nxg5, winning your dark squared bishop, while defending the f7 square too! That´s why 11.Bxe7 is stronger there, then follows 11...Qxe7 12.Nxe5 (and your knight is threatening Ng6 already and controlling a lot of squares. Besides that, his king is exposed and the e-file became open, you can put a rook on e1 with "thousands" of threats. 

17. Qxf4: this is a mistake because you are a piece down, if you take the knight (17. Qxe7) you recover the piece and have more prospects of surviving. Taking on f4 you don´t have enough attack and compensation for the missing piece, as he is capable of protecting his king and consolidate his position, for example, he could simply answer with 17...Rf8 and put his king on a safe square. 

20. Re5: Here there is no problem with your move =). You continue with a decisive advantage and we don´t need to be extremely precise in this type of position, that we are crushing. 

Best regards,
Otto

49 and except for a brief period in middle school, just started playing regularly. I'm steadily improving in daily chess, but my thought process is too slow for Rapid & Blitz at the moment (or maybe forever, lol). My decisions are getting faster as, I assume, pattern recognition is working. Committed to get learn as much as I can. It is now or never.

Otto, it makes so much more sense when I read your explanation(!). I still have SO MUCH to learn....

Thank you!

You´re welcome Popo!! 
Keep going =)

I turn fifty next week and while I used to play a little here and there, I am literally re-learning the game after an accident. I don't have hopes of becoming "good," but I do enjoy, and want to keep enjoying the game...and its history. I fell in love with chess in the mid-90s, spending more time on the history than playing

I am terrible at daily chess. But even MORE terrible at faster time controls!

Hi Mike. Calling yourself "ogbumblingpatzer" seems a bit harsh. Especially since you're rated way higher than me.  (So what's that make ME??!!!)

Welcome!  Have fun!

I'm still riding the initial rating when I joined!

If it helps any, research shows that learning a language as an adult isn't really (or possibly) any harder. The real difference is in time, immersion and approach. See, for example, some of the research linked here: https://www.rocketlanguages.com/blog/language-learning-myths-adults-and-language-learning

Practically, this may be a distinction without a difference since, as an adult, we don't usually have the luxury of learning a 2nd language in the way children learn their first...but it gives me hope that the ceiling on improvement for an adult is probably a lot higher than we tend to think (or feel after losing )

I just turned 30 and I've played since I was young but never had a systematic learning approach to chess. I never read any books or had any coaching. I also didn't particularly enjoy solving puzzles (although I did do some). I mostly learned by playing, analyzing games, and watching youtube videos.

Over the last few years I've made a point to focus on my weak areas and I've seen very noticeable improvement, particularly in tactical ability. I attribute a lot of this improvement to Puzzle Rush (which makes solving puzzles more fun and enjoyable) and the fact that I played the very tactical chess variant 3 Check almost exclusively for over a year. I have also finally gotten around to reading some chess books to fill in the gaps in my opening and endgame knowledge. Improving as an adult is very possible if you put in the time.

Hmm.  If someone starts a club for "Senile decliners" then look me up!

Ha-ha!  THAT is funny!!!