... 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.
Aren't beginners routinely encouraged to look at sample games? What would be wrong with looking at some sample games in a book like First Steps: 1 e4 e5 ?
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7790.pdf
Couldn't it help to see some opening principles in action?
While being unfamiliar with the opening did contribute to the issues that you had this game (2...Be6), your main problem was hanging too much material (The rook on a8 and the knight on d4).
The reason why the majority of the forum is suggesting to minimize the amount of blitz games that you play is because we understand how difficult it is to play chess well, when you don't have a sufficient amount of time to analyze a position. You can only gain a superficial understanding of a position and minimal improvement by playing quick chess. You will gain a more thorough understanding of the game and greater improvement by playing longer games and putting in the work to play the best move possible.
While being unfamiliar with the opening did contribute to the issues that you had this game (2...Be6), your main problem was hanging too much material (The rook on a8 and the knight on d4).
The reason why the majority of the forum is suggesting to minimize the amount of blitz games that you play is because we understand how difficult it is to play chess well, when you don't have a sufficient amount of time to analyze a position. You can only gain a superficial understanding of a position and minimal improvement by playing quick chess. You will gain a more thorough understanding of the game and greater improvement by playing longer games and putting in the work to play the best move possible.
That was very interesting analysis. I didn't see that move to save my rook, I just decided I couldn't let him develop any more without developing myself and I was better off down a rook. I also saw a path to mate so I decided to just castle and start going for mate. I was very lucky with his pawn blunder at the end, but the moves that seemed strange after I castled were basically to get into position to deliver checkmate, because I felt that I couldn't push his attacks away anyways. I did not notice that I was hanging a knight at first though lol.
Start playing longer games and analyze them as much as you can so that you don't repeat those mistakes.
Why do you always develop your bishop to Be6 or Bd3 ? Every forum member has told you its bad move, multiple times.
Start playing longer games and analyze them as much as you can so that you don't repeat those mistakes.
Why do you always develop your bishop to Be6 or Bd3 ? Every forum member has told you its bad move, multiple times.
Noone told me Be6 was bad actually 
. Usually I develop them to those squares because they are the only ones available or I'm under pressure and I forget. Especially sometimes I block a pawn threat with that move and then immediately realize I shouldn't have lol.
... 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.
Aren't beginners routinely encouraged to look at sample games? What would be wrong with looking at some sample games in a book like First Steps: 1 e4 e5 ?
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7790.pdf
Couldn't it help to see some opening principles in action?
There is nothing wrong with playing through a good game collection. It will give a beginning player instruction on how to play different types of chess positions and a good idea of the types of moves not to be made during a game.
But for most higher rated players, when we hear the words "I'm going to work on studying openings," we get this preconceived notion that the player is going to take a repertoire book of an opening and try and memorize variations without understanding why those moves are played.
Start playing longer games and analyze them as much as you can so that you don't repeat those mistakes.
Why do you always develop your bishop to Be6 or Bd3 ? Every forum member has told you its bad move, multiple times.
Noone told me Be6 was bad actually . Usually I develop them to those squares because they are the only ones available or I'm under pressure and I forget. Especially sometimes I block a pawn threat with that move and then immediately realize I shouldn't have lol.
You should always develop your pieces in a way that they do not hinder the development of the other pieces.
Watch these videos, will help you tremendously:
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLl9uuRYQ-6MCBnhtCk_bTZsD8GxeWP6BV
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLl9uuRYQ-6MBwqkmwT42l1fI7Z0bYuwwO
... 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.
Aren't beginners routinely encouraged to look at sample games? What would be wrong with looking at some sample games in a book like First Steps: 1 e4 e5 ?
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7790.pdf
Couldn't it help to see some opening principles in action?
There is nothing wrong with playing through a good game collection. It will give a beginning player instruction on how to play different types of chess positions and a good idea of the types of moves not to be made during a game.
But for most higher rated players, when we hear the words "I'm going to work on studying openings," we get this preconceived notion that the player is going to take a repertoire book of an opening and try and memorize variations without understanding why those moves are played.
I think we agree about memorizing-variations-without-understanding, but it seems to me to be inappropriate to ignore other possible ways to read about openings.
Start playing longer games and analyze them as much as you can so that you don't repeat those mistakes.
Why do you always develop your bishop to Be6 or Bd3 ? Every forum member has told you its bad move, multiple times.
Noone told me Be6 was bad actually . Usually I develop them to those squares because they are the only ones available or I'm under pressure and I forget. Especially sometimes I block a pawn threat with that move and then immediately realize I shouldn't have lol.
We might not have said to not play Be6/e3 in this position specifically, but I'm sure that we have strongly encouraged you to avoid this type of move because it typically hinders your development and causes more problems than it solves.
What you just said is a prime example of why we continually suggest avoiding or GREATLY minimizing the amount of blitz games that you play. You need to gain good experience, put in good work, and develop good habits in order to improve as a player. A steady diet of blitz games will only develop the habit of superficially looking at a position, being more likely to miss easy moves and having no good habits to fall back on when looking at a position.
… Noone told me Be6 was bad actually . …
This sort of thing is discussed in Discovering Chess Openings.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
I know this is starting to get off topic but what the heck happened here? The guy played like a complete idiot and got checkmate. Is this just bad luck or did this guy have a strategy I couldn't see? lol. Im white.
I know this is starting to get off topic but what the heck happened here? The guy played like a complete idiot and got checkmate. Is this just bad luck or did this guy have a strategy I couldn't see? lol. Im white.
At that rating, I'm not surprised to see that kind of mistakes, in fact, I bet you have hanged many pieces before and you'll keep doing it, I know that because I was like him just a year or two ago.
I know this is starting to get off topic but what the heck happened here? The guy played like a complete idiot and got checkmate. Is this just bad luck or did this guy have a strategy I couldn't see? lol. Im white.
You might be right in the fact that it might be off topic (Might be best placed in the game analysis forum).
On move 5 I would have played 5.d4 over 5.d3. 5.d4 puts pressure on the e5 pawn and on blacks position.
I do feel that 7.Bd5 was a wasted move that played into blacks hands. 7...c6 does have the benefit of placing another defender of the b5 pawn.
I like 15.f4. It has the benefits of undoubling your f-pawns thus improving your pawn structure and your chances in the endgame.
Pawn grabbing with 18.Bxg5 was what put you in the most trouble. Your king structure was damaged thanks to the semi-open g-file. Opening it up completely only benefits the other side. When defending against an attack, you need to remember that the other side needs open lines to greatly improve their attacking chances against your king. Don't make their job easier by accepting "poisoned pawns." Find a way to use their pawns as a shield on defense.
… On move 5 I would have played 5.d4 over 5.d3. ...
After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6, Morphy played 3 d4.
Tactics really doesn't seem to be my issue, although I'll try practicing them for awhile and see if I improve. As far as I can tell, my opponents aren't leaving much in the way of tactics for me to try. When they do, I get them. And it's just suspicious as far as the ratings go, because once I break 950 or so the games start getting much easier. Maybe it's just because very low rated players do some weird unexpected things?
On the contrary every game you posted was decided by tactics. There is no point in learning openings or strategy if you keep hanging pieces or fail to punish your opponent's mistakes. You don't need to know anything beyond basic opening rules.
Also you make many one move threats which can easily be defended. So my advise would be to really calculate your opponent's response before you make a move and don't play hope chess.
the answer to your question is that tiny skill gaps result to big elo gaps. It is as simple as that. If you don’t believe me, then just play players with much higher elo and you will notice that they are not much harder than the ones you currently play. They will actually feel as hard as your current competition, but they are actually just a little better.
I know this is starting to get off topic but what the heck happened here? The guy played like a complete idiot and got checkmate. Is this just bad luck or did this guy have a strategy I couldn't see? lol. Im white.
7. Nxe5 Bxd1 8. Bxf7+ Ke7 9. Nd5 checkmate.
You feel that your games aren't decided by tactics? Is that what you claimed?
I know this is starting to get off topic but what the heck happened here? The guy played like a complete idiot and got checkmate. Is this just bad luck or did this guy have a strategy I couldn't see? lol. Im white.
7. Nxe5 Bxd1 8. Bxf7+ Ke7 9. Nd5 checkmate.
You feel that your games aren't decided by tactics? Is that what you claimed?
It does not mate, but it wins a pawn (and eventually the game). 7. Nxe5 dxe5 8. Qxg4. But yes MUCH better than Bd5, and a standard combination in this sort of position (Legal's Mate) that has been known since the mid 1700s !
I bet you kthprog would have taken the queen.
... Studying nothing but openings might give you some cheap wins against clueless opponents but it is not the best way to become much stronger.
In this thread, is anyone advocating studying nothing but openings?
"... for those that want to be as good as they can be, they'll have to work hard.
Play opponents who are better than you … . Learn basic endgames. Create a simple opening repertoire (understanding the moves are far more important than memorizing them). Study tactics. And pick up tons of patterns. That’s the drumbeat of success. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (December 27, 2018)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/little-things-that-help-your-game