Analysis Appreciated

I like your style =), you play very agressive. I think the reason you loose some games is that you make small tactical error's. If you would fix those your rating would be way higher. Maybe it is an idea to practice tactical problems on chess.com or chesstempo ?

Thanks for the advice.

I've only skimmed the game very fast, so I may say some stuff stupid, but bear with me.  :D

1st game:

Move 6: What happened to Qb3?  Qc2 is passive, f3 would've also been better, but I prefer Qb3 (f3 can be played later rather than sooner).  If you're protecting e4, there's really no need.

Move 7: f3 and then move your G-knight to e2 

Move 8: Blunder again?  What about b3, f3, and then Nge2 or Rd1?

Move 18-21: Don't like it.  Almost always bishops and knights wins vs rooks if they are the only pieces besides pawns on the board.

Overall: You're somewhat agressive and majoritively tactical.  It was a good game, but the few mistakes that you made caused you to lose.  Be more careful next time.

2nd Game:

Move 8: Qc2 really isn't developing and protecting.  I would've preferred Bg5 in this position, threatening e5.

You played very well this game.  If you play like that every game, I'll be in no doubt you can ATLEAST reach 1700.  Some of your attacks are a bit slow, but your agressive play really took him down.  Great job. :)

Also, were these blitz games?  It seems like they were.

Get rid of the notion of style at your level.  While I do agree that you do LIKE attacking, you might actually turn out to be a damned good positional player if you look for positional treatments of positions in addition to the tactical/attacking themes(this is coming from someone who LOVES to attack). 

You need to be learning about as much as you can at your level (and maybe even my level) in all different types of positions(if you actually want to get as good as you can at this game). 

 I might even go as far as saying that until you reach an expert level (OTB) you shouldn't be worrying about styles to much and just worry about getting better at EVERYTHING.  As you get better and better your study will  become more focused in certain areas. 

 My tactical study is much less at this point(I just do some tactics trainer to keep myself sharp every day or 2).  My study has shifted more towards working more on my opening and positional play(which I sort of intertwine with my opening study).

My general directory  at lower levels is to find an opening that you DON'T think "suits your style" play it for a while and study how the masters treat the positions.  Don't give up on it until you have tried playing it for AT LEAST 2 months and probably more(You don't need to play it every game but I would say put it as a majority of your game maybe 50-75 percent). Keep in mind this is for someone who is looking at seriously improving their game.

There will be positions which you like to play and positions which you don't like to play coming from whatever opening system this is.  The lines which you have trouble with are the ones where the most learning can occur.  Once again look up how certain masters played this line and try and figure out why on your own.  Actually play the moves out over a board.  If you can't figure out the reasoning on your own ask a better player or come here and ask what the logic behind a certain move or set of moves is. 

Keep in mind that this is the way that I have improved myself I don't claim it to be a fool proof plan.  But, it worked very well for me. 

3four3, these were both correspondence games. Thanks for analysis.

erikido23; I agree that styles may be overrated, but I think mine fits me as I almost always am attacking. I can play positionally, but when I do it seems to lead to more nice draws than wins. On picking an opening, I used to play e4 and either King's Gambit or Ruy Lopez but have used d4 for the past year (which, in theory, really doesn't suit me). I'm definitely no master, but I play on teams and have a USCF rating of 1937 (even though I've only been to 3 rated tourneys, so I'll admit it might be off), so I think styles are within my range. Thanks for the advice. Most of that makes pretty good sense.

Which basically says that you make mistakes in positions where an attack isn't the right plan.

In the first game, you give away an awful amount of material. Several pawns at first. Then you do note that black is trying to simplify, but you do nothing about it (e.g., after 10...Nxe4, you had a few moves in which you could move away the bishop from g5, but didn't).

After 17.Rad1??, both sides miss the hanging knight on e4.

After 34.Kf3??, he could have won your rook with Ne5+.

I believe in game 2 28 Qh6! forces mate. Check my move list.

You have a great position here. Your king is safe and all your pieces are in on teh attack. His king is very exposed and his pieces are all on teh perimeter. In these positions, work hard at finding the right combination. It's almost always there!

 I agree scarblac....

And I think that highlights my point nicely.  You are always attacking and that is probably the reason you can't squeeze out those positional wins.  If you go back and read again I wasn't proposing that your style wasn't necessarily "suited" to you.  To put it in a different way your style is what you have practiced and gotten good at(at this point). 

So the idea is that I became good at tactics and then used them solely to win my games and thus gave up on positional ideas because I could get by without using them? That is oh so correct... thanks for the advice, erikido23.

Except, as pointed out, you drop pawns, a piece and a rook in Game 1.

Actually he had it right (Qh6 works but is slower), but 30. Qg5+ forces mate after Ke6 and then take your pick between Nc5# and Qf6#.

COWARD PIECE OF SHIT