Well I guess I should have put more into it, but the idea of f4 and e5 did cross my mind.
I feel like my progress is unnoticeable
Sort:
Honestly there are several ways to get better at chess. The more you do each the faster you will improve.
1) play games - Avoid blitz except for opening practice/repetition. Slow games you think harder/deeper. You can always come back to fast chess after you have increased the depth of your knowledge.
2) Play people better than you religiously. Also talk to as many people as you can if they beat you for their thoughts on the game. If you talk to enough people who are better eventually you will start to understand the ideas they are talking about.
3) Study - books, tactics, and pick out a famous chess player who has a similar style. Go through their games.
4) Looking at the few examples you showed us, it appears you are moving in accordance to what you want to do without consideration of what your opponent is trying to accomplish. After every move ask yourself "What is my opponent trying to do?" Check all the captures and cheapo tactics before making a move. Only proceed with your plan if it is faster/better than your opponents best possible plan.
I like the fourth game a lot, you develop well and control the center. You should post the two 1900s games. What is your otb rating?
yureesystem wrote:
I like the fourth game a lot, you develop well and control the center. You should post the two 1900s games. What is your otb rating?
Well I just registered for US chess last month so currently i'm unrated, I probably wont have a rating until after this tournament.
Here's the other two games.
Round 1- I played as white against a Sicilian
Round 2- I played as black against a Ruy Lopez
Mar 1, 2018
0
#46
I find that 3... Nf6 is a very direct approach as Black vs the Ruy. If he plays 4. Nc3 it transposes to the 4 Knights. If d3, White has lost a tempo if he wants to play d4. 3...a6 is more aggressive in my opinion.
Mar 1, 2018
0
#47
hitthepin wrote:
I find that 3... Nf6 is a very direct approach as Black vs the Ruy. If he plays 4. Nc3 it transposes to the 4 Knights. If d3, White has lost a tempo if he wants to play d4. 3...a6 is more aggressive in my opinion.
White simply plays 4.0-0
There is nothing "agressive" about 3...a6, its a standard reply.
The Lopez game involved making more then one opening mistake. I am more concerned that your considered the illegal 11...f6 in your notes. Also 12...c5 was not stronger then 12...c6, your should have just played 12...Bb7. Try to work out how 12...c5 loses horribly, its fun.
aggressivesociopath wrote:
The Lopez game involved making more then one opening mistake. I am more concerned that your considered the illegal 11...f6 in your notes. Also 12...c5 was not stronger then 12...c6, your should have just played 12...Bb7. Try to work out how 12...c5 loses horribly, its fun.
Yes, I have a lot to study in the Ruy Lopez opening and middle game ideas, I also said that I didn't want to play f6, I just made the analysis from what I could remember from the game. I saw the bishop in the game. Also why not consider the move, even an illegal move? If someone told me not to consider a move I would consider it EVERY SINGLE time even if it was illegal just to spite them.
BasicChess22 wrote:
Also why not consider the move, even an illegal move? If someone told me not to consider a move I would consider it EVERY SINGLE time even if it was illegal just to spite them.
I cannot imagine what possible useful purpose considering illegal moves could serve.
Now I am starting to wonder about your self analysis. If you can remember why you guarded the d5 square on move 12 instead of playing 12...c5, then why would you wonder if 12...c5 was stronger after the game? Try providing actual lines, even short lines are better then waffling with meaningless comments.
One can see some discussion of the pros and cons of Chernev's Logical Chess at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627132019/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman118.pdf
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/logical-chernev
http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2013/01/logical-chess-book-review.html
http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2013/02/chernevs-errors.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104437/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/logichess.pdf
http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/assorted-recent-books
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708091057/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review465.pdf
Here is a review that was, at one time, available online.
Logical Chess
Move by Move
Author: Irving Chernev
256 pages
Batsford (2002, reprint)
Reviewed by Randy Bauer
Randy's Rating: 9
In the search for understanding in chess, this book has been a beacon for aspiring players for decades, and Batsford's reprint provides an opportunity for another generation to learn from the author. Perhaps the best testament to its greatness is the fact that Grandmaster John Nunn's outstanding book UNDERSTANDING CHESS MOVE BY MOVE (Click to see Donaldson's and Watson's reviews of Nunn's book.) is recognized as patterned after Chernev's work.
For those who didn't grow up in the era of descriptive notation, Irving Chernev wrote books that mostly appealed to the mainstream player. One of the first books I owned, Chernev's THE FIRESIDE BOOK OF CHESS guided me through the many facets of chess during my formative years. Even though he wrote many other good books (for example, every aspiring player should also own THE MOST INSTRUCTIVE GAMES OF CHESS EVER PLAYED), this is widely recognized as his best.
In this book, Chernev annotates 33 games and comments on each move for both players. His goal is to explain what each player was thinking while making his move. In this way, the reader gets an insight into the rationale behind the moves of and the thought processes of a master player. The author splits the games into three chapters, dealing with kingside attacks (16 games), queen's pawn openings (7 games), and other concepts (10 games). Given the book's original 1957 copyright, it is not surprising that the earliest game is from 1889 and the latest was played in 1952.
The author does a great job of connecting with the reader - one feels that they really are inside the head of the players and that Chernev is explaining what they were thinking while deciding upon their moves. As a result, the games are absorbing and the lessons learned (at least in my case) tend to stick with the player.
I first came across this book at an early stage in my chess career, and I believe that it helped form my understanding of what chess mastery is all about. In fact, one of the games, Blackburne-Blanchard, probably gained me 100 rating points in my class days. I used the structure and natural kingside attack from that game in many, many of my own encounters.
While not a world-class player, Chernev was a prolific writer, and that combination serves the reader well in this book. The author can better relate to the reader and provide them the sort of insight that may be lost on stronger players.
While this is a great book, there are some areas where it is showing its age (having first been issued nearly a half century ago). It is notable, for example, that by far the most popular opening represented is the Queen's Gambit Declined; by contrast, today's favorite Sicilian Defense is found in just one game. There is just one Queen's Indian and one Nimzo-Indian included; there are no games featuring the popular King's Indian, Grunfeld, or Benoni Defenses. The players you will encounter are Capablanca, Tarrasch, and Rubinstein rather than Karpov, Kasparov, and Kramnik.
I had a few quibbles not related to the age of the book as well. I found the print in this reprint to be a little light for my taste, and the diagrams a bit too small. Finally, why oh why are the Chapter headers for each game the site where the game was played rather than the players? "Lodz 1908" doesn't really tell me as much as "Rubinstein-Salwe."
Regardless of these types of issues, this is a very good book. Perhaps it isn't as timeless as it once appeared to me, but it should prove useful to any aspiring player wanting to better understand how to develop logical plans, moves, and thought processes in chess.
Mar 1, 2018
0
#53
You are fine, Basic. Don’t worry. The way you are going, you will certainly get better.
Klauer wrote:
Don't buy the book "Logical chess move by move" from Chernev!!! Take the book of John Nunn "Understanding Chess Move By Move".
Nunn is stronger and his annotations are more correct. Nunn is more recent.
Maybe you don't like the style of John Nunn. To test this look at an excerpt here: http://gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Understanding_Chess_Move_by_Move.pdf ...
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708092945/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review269.pdf
aggressivesociopath wrote:
BasicChess22 wrote:
Also why not consider the move, even an illegal move? If someone told me not to consider a move I would consider it EVERY SINGLE time even if it was illegal just to spite them.
I cannot imagine what possible useful purpose considering illegal moves could serve.
Now I am starting to wonder about your self analysis. If you can remember why you guarded the d5 square on move 12 instead of playing 12...c5, then why would you wonder if 12...c5 was stronger after the game? Try providing actual lines, even short lines are better then waffling with meaningless comments.
It serves to be fun and nothing else, I also dont understand your comments or criticism. I literally wrote down the analysis 5 minuets before i posted it. I had an inital analysis after the game but i didnt have anything written down and i obviously didnt write one down on my move card during the game. Your starting to come off as pretty rude and unhelpful, please find someone else to bother if your just here to make fun of me. Your wasting my time
Mar 2, 2018
0
#56
BasicChess22 wrote:
Hey guys, i'm feeling a bit frustrated my games and i don't know what to do to improve anymore. I feel like with how much i put in and how much i try to understand the game i should at least be able to get around 1600. However, i feel trapped at my rating. I practice every day, i do all the tactics and all the lessons i can. I watch as much content as possible on chess (really love the Saint Louis chess Club). I joined a chess club and started trying my hand in the tournament they offer....but yet no matter how well i feel l play i cant seem to push past my position. My daily games go okay, but I feel like i should be able to do well in 15|10 and 30 minute games.
I feel like i out play most of my opponents but then lose like patzer every time. Now it could be that i just really suck and im ignorant, i can understand that. But its not like im trying to become a master i just want to know what its like to understand the game like 2000 rated players do. I just want to be a decent chess club player and have fun. This losing and feeling like i dont understand anything really hits my self confidence hard. I feel like i can be good at this game but i feel also like even though i study hard and understand it more and more everyday i dont get anywhere.
I have tried to reach out for free coaches, and i have made some decent friends who have played some daily games with me to help me learn but even with the little bit of guidance i still feel so stupid at this game. Here some examples and ill try to explain in them my thoughts.
Than i play another game and all of a sudden its like my brain works, or my opponent was just terrible and i got lucky....idk how do i get better, why do i suck so much
I play black in the game above.
Am i really that bad, should i just give up, do i even deserve to try and be good at this game....
Ssome people are devoid of talent so I guess its up to you on how you want to waste your time. 
Kai_sa wrote:
BasicChess22 wrote:
Hey guys, i'm feeling a bit frustrated my games and i don't know what to do to improve anymore. I feel like with how much i put in and how much i try to understand the game i should at least be able to get around 1600. However, i feel trapped at my rating. I practice every day, i do all the tactics and all the lessons i can. I watch as much content as possible on chess (really love the Saint Louis chess Club). I joined a chess club and started trying my hand in the tournament they offer....but yet no matter how well i feel l play i cant seem to push past my position. My daily games go okay, but I feel like i should be able to do well in 15|10 and 30 minute games.
I feel like i out play most of my opponents but then lose like patzer every time. Now it could be that i just really suck and im ignorant, i can understand that. But its not like im trying to become a master i just want to know what its like to understand the game like 2000 rated players do. I just want to be a decent chess club player and have fun. This losing and feeling like i dont understand anything really hits my self confidence hard. I feel like i can be good at this game but i feel also like even though i study hard and understand it more and more everyday i dont get anywhere.
I have tried to reach out for free coaches, and i have made some decent friends who have played some daily games with me to help me learn but even with the little bit of guidance i still feel so stupid at this game. Here some examples and ill try to explain in them my thoughts.
Than i play another game and all of a sudden its like my brain works, or my opponent was just terrible and i got lucky....idk how do i get better, why do i suck so much
I play black in the game above.
Am i really that bad, should i just give up, do i even deserve to try and be good at this game....
Ssome people are devoid of talent so I guess its up to you on how you want to waste your time.
And some people are void of grammar and respect, whats your point douchebag
DeirdreSkye wrote:
BasicChess22 wrote:
Kai_sa wrote:
BasicChess22 wrote:
Hey guys, i'm feeling a bit frustrated my games and i don't know what to do to improve anymore. I feel like with how much i put in and how much i try to understand the game i should at least be able to get around 1600. However, i feel trapped at my rating. I practice every day, i do all the tactics and all the lessons i can. I watch as much content as possible on chess (really love the Saint Louis chess Club). I joined a chess club and started trying my hand in the tournament they offer....but yet no matter how well i feel l play i cant seem to push past my position. My daily games go okay, but I feel like i should be able to do well in 15|10 and 30 minute games.
I feel like i out play most of my opponents but then lose like patzer every time. Now it could be that i just really suck and im ignorant, i can understand that. But its not like im trying to become a master i just want to know what its like to understand the game like 2000 rated players do. I just want to be a decent chess club player and have fun. This losing and feeling like i dont understand anything really hits my self confidence hard. I feel like i can be good at this game but i feel also like even though i study hard and understand it more and more everyday i dont get anywhere.
I have tried to reach out for free coaches, and i have made some decent friends who have played some daily games with me to help me learn but even with the little bit of guidance i still feel so stupid at this game. Here some examples and ill try to explain in them my thoughts.
Than i play another game and all of a sudden its like my brain works, or my opponent was just terrible and i got lucky....idk how do i get better, why do i suck so much
I play black in the game above.
Am i really that bad, should i just give up, do i even deserve to try and be good at this game....
Ssome people are devoid of talent so I guess its up to you on how you want to waste your time.
And some people are void of grammar and respect, whats your point douchebag
Don't bother with him.
An untalented guy with no life has nothing esle to do except try to make others feel like he feels every moment of his pathetic miserable life.
Your probably right, just having one of those days. I think somtimes i just have to turn the chess for a while and focus on other stuff. This game is addicting hahaha
Study tactics, chess problems from books with a real chess board in front of you. Review masters games, as well as looking at games you have lost and find the imbalances that you ended up coming out on the losing side of, try to understand what you should have done. They say it takes 10000 hours to become an expert at something so with more play and analysis you will gain experience with certain positions and ideas, and don't give up. I haven't been able to improve my play in a long time, its very frustrating, in fact I am going through the same thing right now, I want to play at 23-2400 but am stuck in the 20-2100 range most of the time
BasicChess22 wrote:
It serves to be fun and nothing else, I also dont understand your comments or criticism. I literally wrote down the analysis 5 minuets before i posted it. I had an inital analysis after the game but i didnt have anything written down and i obviously didnt write one down on my move card during the game. Your starting to come off as pretty rude and unhelpful, please find someone else to bother if your just here to make fun of me. Your wasting my time
This explains why you are not getting better: you're not making an effort to get better and you consider criticism "rude" and "unhelpful." If you can't be bothered to preserve or remember your own work, you will not improve.
I am still not convinced that you do any analytical work whatsoever on your chess games, but if you insist that you do, but can't remember it and didn't bother to write it down, then so be it.
Possibly of interest:
Simple Attacking Plans by Fred Wilson (2012)https://web.archive.org/web/20140708090402/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review874.pdf
http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Simple-Attacking-Plans-77p3731.htm
Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev (1957)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104437/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/logichess.pdf
The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played by Irving Chernev (1965)
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/most-instructive-games-of-chess-ever-played/
Winning Chess by Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld (1948)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093415/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review919.pdf
Back to Basics: Tactics by Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708233537/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review585.pdf
https://www.chess.com/article/view/book-review-back-to-basics-tactics
Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014)
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/openings-for-amateurs/
https://www.mongoosepress.com/catalog/excerpts/openings_amateurs.pdf
Chess Endgames for Kids by Karsten Müller (2015)
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/chess-endgames-for-kids/
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Chess_Endgames_for_Kids.pdf
A Guide to Chess Improvement by Dan Heisman (2010)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708105628/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review781.pdf
Studying Chess Made Easy by Andrew Soltis
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708090448/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review750.pdf
Seirawan stuff:
http://seagaard.dk/review/eng/bo_beginner/ev_winning_chess.asp?KATID=BO&ID=BO-Beginner
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708092617/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review560.pdf
https://www.chess.com/article/view/book-review-winning-chess-endings
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627132508/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen173.pdf
http://www.nystar.com/tamarkin/review1.htm