Yes I thought I'd have dethroned Magnus Carlsen already. Tbf I play like Tal because I sacrifice all my pieces, but unfortunately I lose

“In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else, for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame.” - José Raúl Capablanca (World Champion 1921-1927)

This puzzle thingy is a very recent phenomenon, rarely mentioned by instructors more than a few years ago. It's the lazy coaches approach, (tactics is everything hype), an invented variant, It may be fun to play, but for starting players is of little value when improvement is the goal. You may become better at solving positions where one move is decisive (how often do these positions arise in your games?) But becoming better at playing chess where average games are 40 moves? Suggests not.

Tactics trainers are a different story. They aren't puzzles per say. Good ones provide an excellent tool.

Chernev's books are the best. Reading his short stories included in The Chess Companion will improve your game !

Irving Chernev’s The Most Instructive Games of Chess Every Played was one of my first chess books. Chernev, a witty author and master-level player, originally published this book in 1965. It contains sixty-two well analyzed games, each one possessing both artistic and educational value. Now Batsford has republished Chernev’s book in algebraic format, retaining all the text and features of the original save nine photographs.

What John Collins wrote in his 1966 Chess Review survey – “[i]t is a great book and should be read over and over” – remains true today. Chernev’s annotations are pedagogically precise, eminently readable, and his choice of games is inspired. The errors in analysis, and the computer reveals a few, do not detract greatly from the reading experience.

Most chess teachers will recommend that their students study the great games of the past as part of their training. The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played is ideal for those looking to study beautiful games with clear strategic lessons. If you haven’t already worn out your old, Descriptive copy, you should pick up this new edition. - Copied

To each his own.

Irving Chernev

I suggest anyone starting to play chess today, will learn far more from Chernev's books than current Authors, who get wrapped up in computer analysis. His writing style and anecdotes alone provide inspiration and a love for the game. After all, chess is a hobby, 99%+ of us will never make master, will never become a professional. What is the goal/purpose of study ? Hopefully to gain knowledge that lasts a lifetime, to learn appreciation and respect for the game.

but then you rarely play, for the amount of time spent here. The Thread concerns players just starting out, learning the game. Your image is that of creating a persona of superiority, with the title, yet most of your time can be seen as mocking chess, making few positive suggestions.

That's my perception. Others too. But you have your followers who take part in the negativity, constantly joking about, that imo disrespects our hobby. Uv chosen a muppet icon. Ur profile says it all. Meaningless ? Nonsense. So we have differences of opinions/perspective. That's about it.

But to suggest Chernev's books are not for players starting to play our hobby, that you disagree with most all chess experts and coaches, many who grew up on his books in years past, demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the topic.

Russian school recommands it too.

But, how do you do if you master endgames but never go to it because your openings and middlegames are bad ? If you fall every time into opening traps or durable disadvantage ?

I think that every aspect (opening, endgames, tactics and positionnal motifs) should be worked turn by turn, and gradually, to improve correctly.

Chernev's books are aimed at the beginner to master level. His ranking was NM in Russia, having played many of the world's best, sometimes with success. 

This thread is about a member who's been playing six months, seeking resources. 

Look at sports, people who are apprentices in the professional fields, who the coaches and mentors are. The best coaches are those who best communicate and relate, not necessarily having reached the pinnacle of performance. Certainly Chess Master's would not be reading Chernev's books for instruction. This fact does not make his books bad or ineffective. The opposite is true, they are highly regarded for the player seeking to reach the master level. 

Of what use is teaching the things required for a 2400+ to improve to a 1400? The approach is entirely different. The things to be taught are entirely different. Very few GM's make for good instructors. Performance does not automatically transform itself into the necessary skills in teaching beginning players. 

What is the percentage of players who quit chess, becoming discouraged within a few years because they had not achieved an expected rating ?  High. They view chess as a marker of intelligence. When it's realized 1/2 the players are = in skill, they drop out, seldom to play again.

I suggest this is because of their initial exposure, unreasonable expectations and not really knowing why they were playing. Too often , they quit having not experienced how the game can be enjoyed. Chernev brings a spirit, communicates in a manner that makes chess enjoyable. Reading his short stories alone is enough to inspire some. 

I think the title confirms these thoughts. 6 months of study and a 1400 rating is is quite respectable, yet he expected to sport a higher rating. Perhaps he's playing for the wrong reasons, perhaps studying material not best suited to his learning profile. Hope he doesn't become just another statistic of those who become discouraged, give up on the hobby. With a good foundation, chess is meant to be enjoyed a lifetime.

lol GOP

6 decades there, mop top?

Having looked only quickly at your first game it seems to me you were far too passive on the king side, making the fight about the center, and the dark central diagonal where black's fianchettoed bishop dominated. But the fianchettoed position opened your opponent to pawn advances by weaknesses of squares in front of the king required by the g pawn push to establish the fianchetto position.

More broadly, about your rating there is coincidentally a thread about how mediocre, how advanced beginner a 1400 rating is here, that I found discouraging.  I have played intermittently and studied even less intermittently for decades.  Just for fun, no club.  (garbage in, garbage out you know).

Then I joined chess.com a couple of years ago and thought I'd get real serious.  Predictably, I didn't.  played a lot of silly blitz games, watched the lessons here, they were good.  but I don't know that I improved all that much. will say this: I got VERY frustrated with my "rating", on this site.  see topic ridiculous rating fluctuations.  but the lemon llama made me realize a few things.  first I was focusing on my ratings in 3 minutes games, which is mostly what I play in blitz.  in fact, I play much better in 10 minute and even five minute games. and I'm around 1600 in daily, usually.  I think the art to enjoying this is to care more about the quality of your games than anything else.  you can run down someone's clock in blitz with clever premoves, flagging and such.  the joy of this stuff to me is learning itself, pure thought, strategy and mental combat. plus a chance rlto associate with some real weirdos you would never meet doing normal regular stuff like every other boring person here on earth.

7.Bd3
If you're not going to retreat the bishop then h3 was a waste of time, but in any case you should because Nxf4 not only will damage your structure it also weakens d4. Also Nh5 is what I like to call a single purpose move... which when it's a low rated player usually means they put a piece on a bad square because they're hoping you let them trade. So just by retreating the bishop to h2 you make his knight look foolish, and black loses tempo.

As for the placement of the bishop on d3, it's usually not so impressive when it's being blunted by a pawn that's protected by two pawns... i.e. g6. So just develop it to e2. This way your d file stays clear for a heavy piece later.

8.Qd2
This is awkward. The queen usually likes to go to a color opposite of the central pawns (that way the queen wont be blocked by them). You're also blocking your knights from using d2. I know this isn't a big deal in the current position, but it's a good habit to keep your pieces from blocking each other, so Qd2 just looks a little off.

15.0-0-0
This feels like the wrong side.

Lets look at each sector and gauge white's potential play. First of all you have no pieces on the kingside, so it doesn't feel like you can generate much play there. The center is not bad, you already have some pieces there and potential for further infiltration. The queenside isn't bad either, that's where all your pieces and and where your pawns are more advanced.

But by castling queenside any play you generate will be in danger of suffering blowback against your king. So it was better to 0-0 and then play a pawn break with f3. Maybe you're hoping for mutual pawn storms, but like I said with so many pieces on the queenside it doesn't feel like black's king is in any danger.

Moves 17, 18, 19
You retreat your best piece, weaken a diagonal to your king, then place your king on that same diagonal. This is like the positional version of help mate, every move is just helping the opponent. Again the pawn break f3 comes to mind for white.

22.f3
Even though the game is over at this point I'm glad f3 was at least on your radar.

-------------

6.Be5
Other than the issue of wasting time in the opening, I don't think you understand the value of that bishop on f4 and since you seem to play this often as white I think it's important. In the first game you let it be traded off (which isn't always bad, but again, h3 is inexplicable if you weren't going to retreat) and now you're gesturing as if you'll trade it on f6 (otherwise this is just a waste of time in the opening).

The ideal life of the f4 bishop in a position like this is controlling some of black's queenside squares. In particular having squares like c7 and b8 can be annoying for black when you start shoving the b and c pawns down the board and opening lines there.

Alternatively black could trade off his "good" bishop for your "bad" bishop which is also not fun for black.

7.c5
This is a common inaccuracy/mistake from lower rated players and it's important to understand why black should be happy to see this move... mostly it's because black's pawn break (b6) is faster than anything white has (like b5) but also a pawn break so far away (like b5) requires a lot of development / organization to take advantage of but b6 is right near black's home. His pieces are ready right now.

So c5 is not necessarily a bad move for this type of structure, but when it's good, you'll (usually) be playing it closer to move 20 than move 10. Also since black never has to think about cxd again he has more options.

10.Qd3
I was going to say this blocks your bishop, but I guess if you use the 3rd rank to go to the g or h files maybe the queen will be part of an attack.

11.b4
But if you're going for the b5 break you should have left the f1-a6 diagonal clear for your bishop.
If the purpose of b4 is to solidify your center this feels slow. You need to develop and get castled before doing stuff like this.

13.h4
It seems white can't decide what he wants. First of all he should want to develop and castle, but lets pretend that already happened, why is he shoving pawns on both sides? I can't tell what white is aiming for, in other words your moves are inefficient.

Pick a side, and go for it. Trying to own the whole board with pawns advanced on the queenside, center, and kingside, usually results in  leaving behind tons of weaknesses and your opponent will get a big attack one way or another.

15.0-0-0
This move is fine, but just to reiterate, black has the b6 break, black has the e5 break. Black can make use of your loose king, and pretty much all your pawns are loose.

Sure black's minors don't look too good, but your knight is dominated by black's structure (it needs to be re positioned) and your bishop is blocked by friendly pawns.

18.dxe
Maybe not a bad move, but now your e pawn is backward and on a half open file.

20...Bf5
Notice this usual progression of a chess game
development and castling -> pawn break to open lines -> pieces use those lines and infiltration

Black played the e5 break, has a rook infiltrated on f2, and is making use of the e file along with other lines in that area.

The rest of the game looks pretty normal.

You said this was roughly equal, but to be honest it looked to me like black was fairly dominant through the whole game... even so, you can improve your performance a lot by keeping what I said in mind about the normal progression of a chess game (development, pawn break, piece activity, infiltration) and then also focus more on satisfying the fundamentals in the opening phase. Obviously you know the opening principals, but you should challenge yourself to be even more rigorous.

1) Be fast and efficient with your development.
2) Choose an area where you'll seek play (kingside center or queenside)
2a) Usually this area is where you have more pieces/development or further advanced pawns
3) Play a pawn break, increase the activity of your pieces, and ideally infiltrate
4) And this is the point of 1-3... you can skip any or all of 1-3 as long as you can do 4 which is... you come into contact with weak pieces... typically pawns or the enemy king (the slowest pieces tend to be the most vulnerable).

And that's the normal progression of a chess game from a strategic point of view. Of course in a real game you have to balance this with all the demands of short term tactics, which makes chess really challenging and fun, but right now what stood out to me the most was you seemed to be unaware of some of the larger themes that tie moves together.

It's flashback Friday, going back to the days of old when honda would write novels

According to one member, llamonade2 just wasted his breath. I'd point out, all the the observations were spot on, relevant to the subject's level of play. Such assumptions can slow progress. It's not necessary that coaching/advice come from an IM or GM but rather what works. There are many resources, too many, muddling up choices.

Lol, tactics are everywhere and you cannot become a good player without them.

He was full of himself and given the work he put in, he was a rather bad chess player.

A My System sample can be seen at:

https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/MySystem-excerpt.pdf