How are you suppose to play Middle Game?

Yes you have made that very clear by being silly as well.

Here is some value- FREE I might add- from a non-OTB 1300-rated chess genius.

I can understand Mr. eXecute's frustration, perhaps even moreso because I am far weaker than he is at this game.  

But I think I can understand the plight...the reason why nobody can explain to you why your moves lost is because they don't know...or more accurately, they don't know why they know and simply can't explain it.  More advanced players often simply don't know the reasons for what they take for granted as a "bad" or "good" move...they simply "recognize" that it is so, and those who do it better are better chess players.  

The computer analysis can immediately tell you of tactical refutations and opening inaccuracies, but as far as "middlegame concepts", this is a vague abstraction for which many have attempted to simplify verbally (Nimzovitsch, Pachman, Stean, Watson, Silman, Soltis, etc.), but for which verbal translation is nearly a meaningless concept at the class-level (not enough of a foundation to link the explanations with logical experience, let alone apply it to future play)

You want someone to "tell" you what they simply "recognize"...try seeing if a 2-year-old can recognize a dog...if the toddler can recognize a dog, then try asking him/her how they are sure.  Chances are you'll get a blank stare and an incoherent illogical unrelated response, but they will nonetheless be 100% correct, all thanks to subconscious "analysis" (which is visual, much like chess middlegames).

Now in chess, let's use the simple example of a knight fork...it doesn't matter how many books tell me how to recognize a threatened knight fork: they can talk about my weak king position, poor piece placement, and the relationship of my king and a piece relative to the enemy's knight, but reading about such a concept is rather useless compared to actually doing 50 knight-fork problems, because after doing 50 problems, such concepts unfold automatically and far more efficiently than occurs with attempted verbal explanation of the same concept or the trial-and-error method of playing games, in which such a situation may sparsely occur.

Expertise theory notes that much higher-level analysis is subconscious, so such players are quickly able to eliminate "bad" moves without really knowing why or being able to explain it to class players..."why was this a bad move?" --> "because you ended up in a crappy position."  This is why Silman says to go through master games at warp speed and you will subconsciously absorb high-level play. This is why "thinking method" books and verbose tactics books are largely a waste for the amateur...you just need to "see" more patterns in the books, software, and play.  A coach may be able to identify your weaknesses, but then they will simply direct you to more practice material, which is just another way of getting you to "see" more concrete examples that address your weaknesses in a more time-efficient manner than the trial-and-error method of playing games and asking for verbal explanations.

I would take all explanations (except from lower-rated players who give sound advice) with a grain of salt and, even if accurate, hardly any of it will burn into your subconsciousness until you "see" enough of the same concept repeatedly for your brain to link it with the words they use.  But even if you didn't hear words, you'd learn much of it from your experience and study...words at best are a friendly reminder which may or may not help you more quickly recall what you have already learned/"seen" many times).  

So read all the middlegame/strategy/positional books/software you can, play through the examples and master-games and move on, and over time you will get much better if you are consistent.   

Why is computer analysis useless for players below expert (some say 2400) level?

1) opening inaccuracies --> memorizing opening moves at this stage supposedly will hinder long-term chess development;

2) missed tactics--> there is no point in playing through the many computer-generated variations over an hour just for the computer to tell you: "you missed a few 2-6 move tactics...so you better work on your f---ing tactics", when alternatively in that time you could have done 50 tactics problems (remember de la Maza) or plowed through 20 examples of successful middlegame play.

I don't expect anyone to take me seriously, but perhaps in a year my improved rating will give credence to some of my hypotheses, which are really other peoples' hypotheses applied to different aspects of chess.   

Thanks for this phenomenal thread, everyone.

Very funny dannyhume very funny...but I am pretty sure that tonydal had tried to explained it 'why' to eXecute clearly.

Yes and I thanked him for his advice.

I think you're just angry at me about the other thread and are trying to start something.

trying to start what execute (you are just putting words in my mouth) ?  and where have I been angry in this thread ?

Let's see, you've defended RainbowRising, knowing he's wrong and rude. You've said that I am silly, without any provocation. And you've attacked someone who sympathized with me.

Reads like someone who's angry at me. If not, what motivation would one have for criticizing others without grounds for criticism? Hence, I assumed you are trying to start something, a valid observation.

Trying to be clever are you ? Yes I called you silly but that doesn't mean I am angry. And whom did I attacked who was sympathized with you ?

"Very funny dannyhume very funny" --- you were mocking him for simply analyzing my posts.

Absolutely, I agree.

hmm you have a very misunderstanding of me then execute, what I was saying that I liked dannyhume's comment very much.

execute BorgQueen was referring to you that you are 'unreal' am I right BorgQueen ?