How are you suppose to play Middle Game?

That's not true. I don't have to make any changes, except to learn more about chess and fix bad chess habits. Perhaps I should also become better at time pressure too, that seems to lead me to problems in some games.

RainbowRising, don't call it free lessons then, from the moment I saw your first post to some random forum dude "I can give you free lessons", I knew it wasn't free. You should call it "Buy an annual contract for 12$ a month, get the first month FREE!"... It's a gimmick, not an actual free lesson. Telling people the pricing on your profile would probably get you more customers too, trust me, I own many businesses, good pricing helps.

And you should really sort out your psychological problem. Just because someone questions you on the guarantee your chess lessons/coaching provides, doesn't mean you should become hostile. Instead you should prove how you can guarantee some improvement, for example, provide examples of students you trained, that would have been very convincing.

I hope this won't anger you in any way, but you've already taken offense from me, so I'm not sure how much worse it can get.

Well at least, I didn't start it (for the record: RR said "Free lesson with no obligations", and then said "I dont have the luxury..." and then insulted with "I'm quite glad you didn't come for a free lesson", "people are such scroungers", "you'd have to make some changes before anyone coaches you", and then continued with some curse words after I pinpointed his problem) .

I'm just glad I didn't buy your coaching beforehand... Coaches with tempers aren't very helpful.

Well when you lie and claim "free lesson with no obligation" and then not give it because I said I don't want to, at the moment, buy further lessons... You should pretty much expect an argument.

And when tonydal said "10. ed Nxd5", it should be expected that some amateur players like myself might be confused by the notation. I assumed he meant 10. Nxd5, and I was wrong, but justified because I cannot know what ed meant if I have never seen/heard of it before (I assumed it was typo). I wasn't arguing, I thought he simply confused game 1 with 2, or that he made a typo... It was a simple misunderstanding and I have no ill feelings about anyone.

Everyone in this forum has learned a few things: 1) RR is lying when he says free lessons with no obligation. 2) RR has a big temper 3) make sure you write correct notation to avoid any confusion. 4) That I like general rules and exceptions and some of us believe that we can't make general rules all the time.

You're right, there is a short-hand way of writing it, where when there is a pawn capture you can simply name the files. I wasn't aware of this, I hadn't seen an example of it, since it seems pretty uncommon. A simple explanation would have sufficed, but instead you have gone to great lengths to insult me about it (accusing me of drugs, telling me I don't know anything etc). But that's expected, high rated players in any game not just chess like to shove it to people who know less all the time.

Btw nice poem, I'm glad I can motivate you to waste your time in such a way...

Like I said about the reason for me calling it impossible, I thought you were referring to some other game and simply got confused or perhaps you made a typo maybe meant 11. etc. All possibilities that are just as likely as me not knowing some notation. I hope you know it wasn't meant to offend you, but in any case, I see you don't like me anyway.

I think there are three ways to look at the midgame.

1) Think of what positions you'll end up with in the endgame. Destroying your castled structure (i.e. your ability to castle or your f, g, and h pawn island) tends to be a bad idea because it allows your opponent to more easily go for the throat. Other important pawn structure memes to always be thinking about are passed pawns, doubled pawns, pawn islands, and what colored squares are being controlled. Also think about what minor pieces you want in an endgame. I liking trading away for an opponent's bishop first because facing a bishop pair later in the game can be deadly. Then, I go for knights because I don't like getting forked. Try to play positionally and control as much of the board as you safely can.

2) Mount an attack. It is a difficult concept to learn, but after much tactical practice, material sacrifice can be converted into victory. At our level of play, midgame mates are fairly common, so always be on the lookout for one - be it receiving or giving.

3) Estsablish a defensive fortress. I'm not a fan of doing it because it tends to draw, but if you can set up your pieces and control enough space with well-placed pawns and minor piece, your opponent can't attack. Then, your opponent will end up in a positional mess and you can mount an attack. Ideally you can manage to win a small amount of material (most often a pawn or two) and win the game simply off of that, but that usually takes careful calculation and positional play.

Huh. Wish I could learn how to do that. I seem to be pretty bad at using bishop pairs.

I want to look at the first game's ending...

Thank you for your very helpful advice JG and Ham. I do seem to have trouble mounting an attack. I see lots of tactics via tactics trainer, but I never see the chance to implement them (occasionally I do, and I forget to implement).

JG your endgame idea was very good indeed, it's definitely cool idea to force white to trade away rook, I probably wouldn't have thought of it. I was going for a checkmate, and I just very stupidly walked into a mate in 1.

Focus on a specific area of your games, such as closed games vs open games knowing and understanding how to play the  pieces in each type of game. Play for a small advantage like an extra pawn or two and then try to simplify into a winning endgame. Once you understand how to do this, then focus on a dfferent area such as good and bad pawn islands, there is a lot to learn but taking it on one at a time makes it more manageable.

Would winning the f-pawn be enough to win the game though? I'm just curious (I suck at endgames), since it looks like the White king is near enough to the queening square to hinder promotion attempts. The Black king does have a nice position though.

I usually never come across people, who de-escalate the situation instead of escalating it, like you just did with this post (you are truly unique). Thank you for that, usually people prefer to continue the debate, but I can tell you are a truly experienced master. Sorry I didn't know the proper notation but thanks for teaching me something new (multiple things actually; the Legalls mate was seriously awesome too, I have actually never seen someone post a game analysis and someone else find a pure mate so early in the game when it isn't even obvious)

I'm quite impressed...

Hey I'm sorry if your reading comprehension is that of a 3rd grader, but if you actually read the thread, you'd realize RainbowRising flat out refused to give free lessons unless you promise to buy further lessons, in other words, it's not a free lesson. So please, stop insulting me when you obviously can't read.

I accept help all the time, few people will give help without money (and a lot of times it's expensive and there's no guarantee of success or the ability of the coach to actually be helpful; it needs to be a well tested coach who has had successful previous students [if he doesn't have any students to show, then free lessons much like trial software are important in establishing a reputation, WITHOUT obligations]).

Btw nice job of ressurecting an old thread.

I deleted my comment because it makes no sense in the context of being on the fifth page.

Ooo, this is getting to be a good battle. For the record, I'm on Rainbow's side!

@Rainbow, You never gave me a free lesson, though you did in fact, play me once or twice, ---wait does 1-2 games count as a lesson? Or does that thing that you once said about one of my games like "oh you shouldn't do that", does that count as the free lesson? Well if so, I'm glad I didn't pay you for any lessons then, not much of a teacher.

And you admitted in this very thread, that you don't give away free lessons without obligation for further lessons.

but if you're hurt that I didn't thank you for the games, I'm sorry, I apologize. Thank you so much for playing 1-2 games with me your highness.

Grow the hell up kid. And since you've been so insulting and shown clearly, that you are incapable of being a teacher, let's see what your students think of how quickly you turned a winning position into a loss:

@check2008, taking sides already? Is it because he is higher rated and you want a free lesson as well?

@ilikefags, yep, you're welcome.

This thread is actually about how to properly play middle game and plan an attack. RisingRainbow hijacked it by implying, I shouldn't start these kinds of threads, and instead I should pay him for lessons and that he has a "Free lesson without obligation," and then he got angry and started going on a rampage with insults because I pointed out that his free lesson was with obligation of buying further lessons, which he reluctantly admitted.

So I'm not sure why your post makes any sense, in fact, I think you make a lot of posts that make very little rational sense. Are you planning on growing up at any point, or would you like to continue your childish insults?

I have plenty of intention of listening to others, and if you had a higher reading comprehension, you'd see that I listened to everyone who made comments about strategy and middlegame (in fact you can go through the history of my posts to see I take advice quite well and thank each person for their contribution).

Yes, an NM told me ideas, and I agreed with his strategies, except he used a notation I was not familiar with, so I thought he made a typo and said that it wasn't possible. Once I figured out what he meant, I saw his advice was sound, as anyone would expect from an NM. 

The only person I "fought" here is RainbowRising, and if you go back, you'd see that he started it. '

Again, please go back to elementary school where you can learn how to read properly.

RainbowRising wasn't rude from the start-"Are you sure you cant afford my coaching :P" that was his first post.

That was his first post. And my response to him was cordial as well. In fact I told him "And don't get me wrong, I'm sure you're a great coach and raised many other 1800s" Complimenting him.

I simply told him that he cannot guarantee that his coaching ability will make me improve. So he said he wasn't going to debate me about his coaching ability. And that was it.

Then he made the claim of free lesson with no obligation.

Then RR made the comments "Im so glad you didn't come for my lesson now" -- admitting (1) he never gave me a free lesson [like he just said in this page], (2) insulting me for simply not understanding what 10. ed Nxd5 meant. To follow that, he says "people are such scroungers", implying that I am greedy and everyone wants a free lesson.

Then he admitted that he cannot afford to give out free lessons to everyone unless they promise to buy his lessons (hence the 'free' adjective here is moot). Then he added another insult to his post "you'd have to make some changes before anyone coaches you." Like as if he didn't approve of my behavior or something.

Then, afterwards, he just started yelling at me with curse words, a moderator deleted his offensive remarks.

Hence, he was angry that I pointed out his free lessons weren't free at all. And he lied about giving out free lessons without obligation. And several times in this thread he insulted me without provocation.

Have I made that CLEAR ENOUGH for you kco????

it wasn't but. It was "yes, thank you, why would d5 or ___ move be good?"

That was my response. Any other interpretation, is a misinterpretation.

If you think asking "why" a move is made is offensive. Then obviously you have distorted and irrational views of what is offensive.

Of course, I will ask why of any moves I should have made, because I clearly did not see why that move would have been good. A bad student would have said "Ok, I guess d5 is better", and moved on, and they wouldn't be able to apply that principle in some other game.

A good way to explain it would have been "If enemy knight is on square f3, and there is a pawn next to it here, and then if you do d5, you are applying indirect pressure here, _____, which will force him to play ____" -- that's the kind of response I was awaiting.