Unlike many other things in life where anti vaxxers, flat earthers and many other conspiracy theorists can thrive, chess is something where we can immediately test who is better at. Flat earthers can claim they are better physicists than physics professors and some people will believe them. There aren't easy way to test their knowledge so that everyone (even flat earthers) see who is better at physics as flat earthers will claim that every physics problem is created by physicists and thus the solution in the textbook is also wrong (in their mind you have to be brainwashed into believing mainstream physics in order to give answers on the physics problems from your textbook). Same goes for medicine and anti vaxxers. However, when it comes to chess, when newbies like you claim they are better than people more experienced than yourself, you can immediatelly test such a hypothesis. Play 10 games against people rated above 1700 and see how it goes. If you believe you can challenge people rated 1000 points higher than you, go ahead, challenge us to a couple of games and try not to lose 10 times in a row. Even if you do, that's not going to be enough for people like you. On another forum thread you have claimed that you made blunders based on "sound logic" and didn't want to listen to higher rated players trying to help you. If higher rated players say this or that is a horrible move and stockfish says this or that is a terrible move and you still think that your logic was sound (while being rated 900) and that stockfish & players rated 1000 points higher than you are wrong, than you are not only delusional, but you are one of the biggest Dunning Krugers that I have seen in my life.
Defending Pieces
I'm not interested in following your toff nonsense anymore, I'm only here to demonstrate my morals, the things you pricks don't have. Unlike you, I care about newer players. I don't want chess to become a club for the elite.
:0
@20
Dear @YellowVenom,
"this entire community is full of upper class-holes"
++ What do you mean? Better players are not allowed to help weaker players for free?
"you toffs believe whole-heartedly that advice counts as spamming the same four sentences"
++ Good advice is good advice. Should we give different advice each time so it is not the same? Should we write 4 words or 4 paragraphs?
"meaningless quotes from people I've never heard of and couldn't care about"
++ Advice is more credible if quoting a grandmaster. None of us here are grandmasters.
"endless tirade of insults" ++ Is not that what you do here?
"I am so tempted to ditch chess" ++ If you have no fun playing chess, then quit.
If you do not find forum advice helpful, then do not read it.
I know that one of my biggest weaknesses is that I end up with undefended pieces. I usually do all right during the opening moves, but then I go downhill from there. Yes, I understand how important it is to defend my pieces, but I don't know how to do it!
Are there any tips anyone can give me for learning how to advance my pieces and begin an attack while still keeping them safely defended?
This is the game on which I based my earlier advice https://www.chess.com/game/live/57100727515?username=judikay
On move 5 you played f6, so on move 6 when you wanted to develop a knight you couldn't develop it to f6 which is where the knight usually belongs. I assume that's why on move 7 you played Ne7, that move blocks your dark square bishop, it makes it harder to develop your bishop in the future. If there is no reason to develop your knight to a square where it blocks your bishop then you shouldn't do it. So, what could have you done instead? You shouldn't have played f6 (that move really sabotaged development of your knight and dark square bishop) and you can remember that if you play e5, then you should try not to play f6, at least not earlier in the game. You should have played Nf6 instead of f6 and then developed your dark square bishop to e7. I think this can be a very helpful lesson, when the game starts with e4 e5, play Nf6 and develop your dark square bishop to some of the following squares: e7, d6, c5, b4 and don't play the move pawn to f6.
In the game you played g5 and Bh6 to develop your dark square bishop. That's not a good square for the bishop because it is blocked by the g5 pawn and you can't move the g5 pawn in the future because your bishop on h6 was undefended so it could be captured by your opponents bishop on c1. By going for more conventional style development moves (not playing f6 and instead playing Nf6, Be7) you keep your pieces defended and on better squares.
On move 12 you blundered, the way you minimize blunders like this is when you want to move a piece, you double check whether your piece can be captured after you move it. How do you do that? You go over all of your opponent's pieces and see whether they control the square to which you want to move your queen, your rook, your bishop etc. Here is a tip, if there are no enemy knights 2 squares away then that square is not controlled by enemy knights. Then, check for diagonals from the square to which you want to move the piece for enemy bishop or enemy queen. After checking diagonals check the file and rank on which the square is situated for enemy rook or enemy queen.
On move 13 it was a similar blunder. When you are capturing something, make sure to see whether that piece that you want to capture is defended (you do that by looking at all of your opponent's pieces and seeing whether any of them defends the piece that you want to capture). If the piece that you want to capture is defended, then you need to establish what you win and what you lose in that trade. If you lose more material than you win, that's not a good trade.
On move 15 a very similar blunder, you took a pawn which was defended 2 times and that you were attacking twice. Here is a shorthand that can help you, you need more attackers than your opponent has defenders in order to be able to win a pawn. Otherwise, you are losing a piece.
On move 17 you blundered the bishop on a2. You probably forgot that it was hanging. You can minimize mistakes of this type by looking at your opponent's pieces and seeing all the things that they can capture before you move. Take your time to do this before every one of your moves and with practice, mistakes like this will evaporate.
On move 22 you didn't see that your opponent was attacking your bishop. The advice is the same as for the previous paragraph, so I will not repeat it.
There were more mistakes in this game, for instance, you left your queen hanging for several moves but I only counted it as one blunder, but these are the most important ones. Fixing mistakes like the ones that I have mentioned here will have the most impact on your strength and on your rating.
#11 You know, that comment makes me realise more than ever that this entire community is full of upper class-holes. That's how you respond when I'm pledging to help newer players with my intelligence and innovation. Meanwhile, you toffs believe whole-heartedly that advice counts as spamming the same four sentences, so-called 'guides' without context, meaningless quotes from people I've never heard of and couldn't care about, and an endless tirade of insults when people challenge you. I am so tempted to ditch chess, because I don't want to be involved with this pathetic community any longer. You're like a bunch of used tampons with severe autism.
"That's how you respond when I'm pledging to help newer players with my intelligence and innovation." You are the only pretentious person here, mister 900. You have never given any advice to new players, all that you have done is say to them "don't study, don't try to improve, don't analyse your games, don't listen to advice of players that are much better than you". You haven't said all of that in this forum thread, you said it in several forum threads. Also, you are a newer player yourself, you haven't even crossed the 1000 mark.
"and an endless tirade of insults when people challenge you." It is generous to call that challenging us, the only way experienced players get "challenged" in the forums by newbies iss when newbies are overconfident Dunning Krugers saying nonsense. They are not much better than flat earhters. These newbies are convinced that when they argue with people much better than them, they are consistently right and people better than them are consistently wrong. Newbies tend to be way more insulting as well and that's when experienced players respond back. Overconfident Dunning Krugers who insult people deserve nothing but contempt and to be insulted back and put in their place.
We are giving advice based on specific games. Explaining bad moves, how to avoid such bad moves in the future, what you could do instead etc. Unlike you, we are actually trying to be helpful. We are not like you, we are not giving destructive "advice" to beginners that all effort they put into improvement is worthless and that they should give up trying to improve.
People who give such advice and also think of themselves as highly intelligent and competent at chess while being rated 900 are not welcome here and they are probably not welcome in any other community either. Nobody likes pretentious Dunning Krugers full of destructive advice.