I took your advice and won quite handily by the way. I kind of wish he hadn't resigned though
That was a very nice win! 
You seem to be much sharper than opponents of your rating. I recommend playing through some master games from your opening, so that you can understand the long term plans. You can do this in a database, or on chessgames.com. Besides, your rating isn't that low . Good luck in your games.
You play a much better game here, but 2...Qe7 blocking the Bishop is the same mistake as ...Bd6 or Be6 that you often make, blocking your P and your other Bishop in.
However, luckily you got the Q moving later with the nice Qh4+ and Qxc4, this was a well-spotted tactic.
I guess they resigned because of the N fork, forgetting that your Q is en prise. Most 800 players would carry on in this position !
How else do I defend against mate in one (Qg7) though? I guess Nh6 does the trick. I wasn't sure which was worse, blocking the bishop or putting the knight on a bad square.
... Yusupov's "Build Up Your Chess" books are modern and excellent. ...
Strange as it may seem, those particular books are parts, 1, 5, and 8 of what is currently a ten book series. That series of books seems to be pretty demanding, so I suggest that you look carefully at available samples and reviews before buying.
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Build-up-Your-Chess-1-exceprt.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708103321/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review699.pdf
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Build-up-your-chess-2-excerpt.pdf
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Build-up-Your-Chess-3-exceprt.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708103659/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review778.pdf
http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Boost-Your-Chess-1-77p3744.htm
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Boost-Your-Chess-1-excerpt.pdf
http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Boost-Your-Chess-2-77p3745.htm
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/BoostYourChess2-excerpt.pdf
http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Boost-Your-Chess-3-77p3746.htm
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/BoostYourChess3.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708103149/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review834.pdf
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Chess-Evolution-1-excerpt.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708085817/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review843.pdf
http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Chess-Evolution-2-77p3643.htm
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Chess_Evolution_2-excerpt.pdf
http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Chess-Evolution-3-Mastery-77p3753.htm
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Chess_Evolution_3-excerpt.pdf
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/QandAwithArturYusupovQualityChessAugust2013.pdf
https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Revision&Exam1-excerpt.pdf
You play a much better game here, but 2...Qe7 blocking the Bishop is the same mistake as ...Bd6 or Be6 that you often make, blocking your P and your other Bishop in.
However, luckily you got the Q moving later with the nice Qh4+ and Qxc4, this was a well-spotted tactic.
I guess they resigned because of the N fork, forgetting that your Q is en prise. Most 800 players would carry on in this position !
How else do I defend against mate in one (Qg7) though? I guess Nh6 does the trick. I wasn't sure which was worse, blocking the bishop or putting the knight on a bad square.
Your move is fine or you could play pawn to g6 ,develop the knight to f3, fianchetto the bishop and then castle.
You play a much better game here, but 2...Qe7 blocking the Bishop is the same mistake as ...Bd6 or Be6 that you often make, blocking your P and your other Bishop in.
However, luckily you got the Q moving later with the nice Qh4+ and Qxc4, this was a well-spotted tactic.
I guess they resigned because of the N fork, forgetting that your Q is en prise. Most 800 players would carry on in this position !
How else do I defend against mate in one (Qg7) though? I guess Nh6 does the trick. I wasn't sure which was worse, blocking the bishop or putting the knight on a bad square.
Your move is fine or you could play pawn to g6 ,develop the knight to f3, fianchetto the bishop and then castle.
Oooo I like g6. Always nice accomplishing two things at once lol
... you would learn a lot even from something even older like ..., Lasker's "Manual of Chess" or ...
"... If it’s instruction, you look for an author that addresses players at your level (buying something that’s too advanced won’t help you at all). This means that a classic book that is revered by many people might not be useful for you. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (2015)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever
I do not remember ever seeing the Lasker book suggested to a below-1000 player. To come to one's own conclusion, it would perhaps be a good idea to look at a sample from the book.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5856bd64ff7c50433c3803db/t/5a0dcda2ec212de097e22482/1510854051856/lasker%27s_manual_excerpt.pdf
... Capablanca's "Chess Fundamentals", ...
"... 'Chess Fundamentals' ... does not deal so minutely as this book will with the things that beginners need to know. ..." - from Capablanca's A Primer of Chess
"... For let’s make no mistake, what ground Capablanca covers, he covers well. I enjoyed reading Capablanca’s presentation of even well-worn and standard positions. ...
Still, when compared with other instructional books for beginners and intermediate players, Capablanca’s Chess Fundamentals would not be my first choice. Other books cover the same or similar ground with a less confusing structure and more thoroughness. The following works come to mind as equal or in some ways superior: Lasker’s Common Sense in Chess; Znosko-Borovsky’s series of books; and Edward Lasker’s Chess Strategy. Later works that equal or surpass Chess Fundamentals would include Reuben Fine’s Chess the Easy Way and any number of Horowitz tomes.
Capablanca’s work has historical interest and value, of course, and for that reason alone belongs in any chess lover’s library. But there are better instructional books on the market. Certainly the works of Seirawan, Silman, Pandolfini, Polgar, Alburt, etc. are more accessible, speak a more modern idiom, and utilize advances in chess teaching and general pedagogy, etc. ..." - David Kaufman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20131010102057/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review564.pdf
... Capablanca's "Chess Fundamentals", ...
"... 'Chess Fundamentals' ... does not deal so minutely as this book will with the things that beginners need to know. ..." - from Capablanca's A Primer of Chess
"... For let’s make no mistake, what ground Capablanca covers, he covers well. I enjoyed reading Capablanca’s presentation of even well-worn and standard positions. ...
Still, when compared with other instructional books for beginners and intermediate players, Capablanca’s Chess Fundamentals would not be my first choice. Other books cover the same or similar ground with a less confusing structure and more thoroughness. The following works come to mind as equal or in some ways superior: Lasker’s Common Sense in Chess; Znosko-Borovsky’s series of books; and Edward Lasker’s Chess Strategy. Later works that equal or surpass Chess Fundamentals would include Reuben Fine’s Chess the Easy Way and any number of Horowitz tomes.
Capablanca’s work has historical interest and value, of course, and for that reason alone belongs in any chess lover’s library. But there are better instructional books on the market. Certainly the works of Seirawan, Silman, Pandolfini, Polgar, Alburt, etc. are more accessible, speak a more modern idiom, and utilize advances in chess teaching and general pedagogy, etc. ..." - David Kaufman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20131010102057/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review564.pdf
I have a couple chess books and I found them to be fairly useless because the presentation was so confusing. They'd have a ton of inline text describing positions and the minutiae of why one choice was better than the other going into extreme detail with very few pictures of the board that you would get completely lost and come out having learned absolutely nothing. For me personally, I've found analysis of my games and just talking to people here like I am now to be a lot more useful. Tactics also.
I'll definitely look into those books and see if they help though.
"... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)
You might find it helpful to take another look at the reviews and samples for the books that I mentioned here:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/for-beginners/why-is-my-rating-so-low?page=1
Here is a passage from Discovering Chess Openings:
"The study of chess openings is difficult and never-ending. It’s like Pandora’s box: the more you study, the more there is to learn; and the more you learn, the more you realize how little you know. If that’s the opinion of someone who’s been trying for nearly 30 years to get to grips with openings, how does a newcomer to chess find this ever-spiralling science? Intimidating, or is that too mild a description?
… Of course it goes without saying that opening encyclopaedias are an important part of chess literature, but I do wonder how I would have found the experience as a junior player of ploughing through the latest volume of intense opening theory. A bit bewildering, perhaps?
This book is a bit different and is mainly aimed at those who know nothing or very little about chess openings. It’s also for those who do know some moves of opening theory, who have happily played these moves in their own games, but are perhaps not quite sure why they play them! One of my main aims was to give the reader enough confidence to face the unknown; to be able to play good, logical moves in the opening despite in many cases having a lack of concrete knowledge of the theory. After all, even in grandmaster games there comes a point when one or both players runs out of theory and has to rely on general opening principles and sometimes this is sooner than you would think. …"
I have a couple chess books and I found them to be fairly useless because the presentation was so confusing. They'd have a ton of inline text describing positions and the minutiae of why one choice was better than the other going into extreme detail with very few pictures of the board that you would get completely lost and come out having learned absolutely nothing. For me personally, I've found analysis of my games and just talking to people here like I am now to be a lot more useful. Tactics also.
I'll definitely look into those books and see if they help though.
I also have a chess book. It is hard to read the notations. You have to concentrate, Read the move and put it in your mental board, this thing worked for me, I understood the details after putting the peice on the correct square in my mental chess board.
Here is a book that I used, it contains beginner tactics that occur frequently in one's games. It also easy to read with many diagrams.
https://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/free-tactics-e-book
Yeah everyone's games have mistakes I could probably do the same thing to one of your games. My point is I developed everything to the center and a certain user here claimed that at this level all you have to do is follow basic principles and you'll win, and that's just not the case, the players are stronger than that.
I don't think anyone said that is all you have to do. It is just that looking at your game it is obvious that you could have played better moves if you had followed those priniciples. This doesn't mean that you will get a free win and that you should never respond agressively if the opponent makes a mistake. Your problem is that you agressively play bad moves in the hope your opponent blunders.
Yeah everyone's games have mistakes I could probably do the same thing to one of your games. My point is I developed everything to the center and a certain user here claimed that at this level all you have to do is follow basic principles and you'll win, and that's just not the case, the players are stronger than that.
I don't think anyone said that is all you have to do. It is just that looking at your game it is obvious that you could have played better moves if you had followed those priniciples. This doesn't mean that you will get a free win and that you should never respond agressively if the opponent makes a mistake. Your problem is that you agressively play bad moves in the hope your opponent blunders.
lostpawn247 literally said if I followed opening principles that's all I'd need to beat 800 rated players. I guess he was actually right since I'm rated 920 now. But I need to keep learning if I'm gonna push past that rating too 
Btw I'm rated 950 and climbing. I've been getting a lot of good mates and every other game is drawn. My tactics is up to 700 (I can only do 5 a day here it's 1135 on chess tempo) and I've been completing puzzles in the 1100 range. So I am doing much better having taken everyone's advice. I think the next thing for me is to study openings. Thanks for all the help.
Btw I'm rated 950 and climbing. I've been getting a lot of good mates and every other game is drawn. My tactics is up to 700 (I can only do 5 a day here it's 1135 on chess tempo) and I've been completing puzzles in the 1100 range. So I am doing much better having taken everyone's advice. I think the next thing for me is to study openings. Thanks for all the help.
Post a game, or games where the opening decided the outcome.
https://www.chess.com/live/game/3606483582
This game was definitely decided by my poor response to the opening. (im white)
This one I won despite the opening lol (im black)
And this was just a clean game where the opponent made mistakes (im black)
Uuuuuuuuh I mean I don't see how the two are exclusive. Me hanging my knight and not realizing I needed to protect it seemed to be part of the opening. It's an opening principle to develop your pieces to the best squares where they *are not under attack and undefended* right?
Also I made that mistake because the opening was unfamiliar and I didn't know how to handle it. Now if what you mean is that learning specific openings isn't going to decide games then I'm sure it would decide less games than reducing blunders or improving tactics, but that's not a good reason to ignore it right?
Or do you think I should not study any openings and focus on tactics?
Uuuuuuuuh I mean I don't see how the two are exclusive. Me hanging my knight and not realizing I needed to protect it seemed to be part of the opening. It's an opening principle to develop your pieces to the best squares where they *are not under attack and undefended* right?
Also I made that mistake because the opening was unfamiliar and I didn't know how to handle it. Now if what you mean is that learning specific openings isn't going to decide games then I'm sure it would decide less games than reducing blunders or improving tactics, but that's not a good reason to ignore it right?
Or do you think I should not study any openings and focus on tactics?
How you decide to improve is obviously up to you. You will get a million different answers to your question. I am simply giving you one answer. But honestly? Studying openings is the last thing you should be studying. As long as your games are being decided by blunders, missed tactics, and not following opening principles. The basics are what you should be studying.
Good point. I still miss a lot of those things. I wouldn't mind if you want to point out what mistakes I made. Other than the hanging knight I'm not actually aware of them lol.
Absolutely nothing to do with knowing or not knowing the opening. You need to stop hanging pieces. Until you do that you will simply lose to any good player. You need to play slow chess and take the time, at each move, to see what is protected, what is not, and what is attacking what. When you can see what is possible tactically on the next move you can go on to get familiar with two and three move manoeuvers and little combinations. Gradually you will develop a sense of danger and when a possibility is "on" without having to consciously look for it.
You should not stop studying openings, but right now they are far from the most important thing. If you enjoy studying openings then go ahead. We are supposed to do this for enjoyment ... right? But if you are deadly serious about improving you have to find out what is the worst flaw in the way you handle chess positions and then do whatever it takes to put it right.
Stop hanging pieces!!
When you have mastered that: Stop creating weaknesses for no reason.
" I wouldn't mind if you want to point out what mistakes I made. "
Put the games through chess.com's computer analysis. The quick level is good enough. It will point out all the big blunders and mistakes, and suggest a better move in each case.
It is *usually* but not always clear why the computer thinks one move is better than another. Especially with things like pawn moves. Sometimes having someone that knows the game explain the moves can clear things up.
That being said I should spend more time analyzing my games.
Uuuuuuuuh I mean I don't see how the two are exclusive. Me hanging my knight and not realizing I needed to protect it seemed to be part of the opening. It's an opening principle to develop your pieces to the best squares where they *are not under attack and undefended* right?
Also I made that mistake because the opening was unfamiliar and I didn't know how to handle it. Now if what you mean is that learning specific openings isn't going to decide games then I'm sure it would decide less games than reducing blunders or improving tactics, but that's not a good reason to ignore it right?
Or do you think I should not study any openings and focus on tactics?
Hanging material in the opening is more of a deficiency in tactical vision. Starting off with 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 Be6 is an issue of being unfamiliar with the opening. Studying the opening can help you avoid miscues like the latter example but ultimately your time is better off spent studying tactics.
Right now, I'd say that it is more important to understand why moves are played over trying to memorize what the best move is. You might not be able to know every opening but you can still evaluate the position and assess what moves are best and what moves simply don't fit based on the features of the position.
I find sticking with a few openings and learning them by playing them exclusively and analyzing your games to see at what crucial points you made a mistake will be most helpful, it allows you to see a lot of the same positions over and over and learn how to respond and when maybe your opponent made a mistake and you can gain an advantage, you will stall have to wing it once late middle and end games come around, but it will allow you to play long more closely played games against opponents who play well and give you an opportunity late game to outthink your opponent
"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf