last games/analysis-I think I'm getting better?

so ive recently discovered the art of memorizing strategies, or at least enough to be able to use my intuition in game to finish it up, I was wondering if any of you could look at my most recent games, and tell me if what im doing is a decent approach. im on a 6 win streak... hopefully it keeps going.

A 6 win streak is nice but probably means little. Your archive says you previously had a 14 win streak.

Your recent streak still leaves you short of your peak rating last month. (>1100)

I doubt that anyone is going to take the hours needed to look over your six most recent games and to compare and contrast them with what came previously. 

The only person who can do that sensibly is you.

Tell us the strategies you recently memorized, the games you used them in and what you did right or wrong.

If you do that work, it may help you get better. If someone else does it, it probably will go in one ear and out the other.

 

Yes, asking us to look at 6 games is just too much.  Besides, the computer shows you allowed a mate in one in the first game that your opponent missed.  

Pick a game where you played well but still lost, do some thinking about it on your own and add your thoughts in, and post it for suggestions and advice.  

If by memorizing strategies, you mean practicing tactics and learning tactical patterns like forks, pins and skewers, that is great stuff.  If you mean memorizing openings, I don't think you are strong enough to get much mileage out of that yet.  At your rating, you memorize a 6 or 8 moves deap, but your opponent varies on move 4, you aren't certain what to do, and you really have gained nothing from memorizing that stuff.  

I'm actually fairing well, I use the london system when I play white, and either sicillian, or certain openings that have a trap in them.

I mean my games are just me dominating people, it would be pretty easy to compare and contrast.

What was going through your mind when you were playing this game?

You managed to:

1) Misplace your queen

2) Break opening principles by not developing fast enough

3) Not castle soon enough

4) Blunder pawns recklessly

5) Completely ignore your own king safety

 

Moves 6, 8, 10, 13 and 17 stand out the most.

I want you to:

1) Tell me what your thought process was when you played those moves.

2) Find a better alternative.

I admit I wasnt paying attention to the possibilty of getting misplaced, but I thought 6.f3 was a good positional move for moving up the f file. My thought process on 8.e5 was that it would help me control thw center, and it was a free pawn... I dont see why 8.dxe5 is better in this situation, unlike most where the wings takes towards the center. 10.c5 I thought i could trick him into taking since the variation was quick enough, thought id catch him off guard. 13.g4 I thought was a fundamental fork, but apparently not. I mean I was up a knight 17.) hxg6 I assumed I could open up the f or h file. 18.Qg3 was greedy for c7. I didnt pay attention to his rook

I picked up a game- not a random one, but 1. a game you won, and 2. under a very long time control.

 

 

There is not much to comment here- some poor moves in the opening, showing limited positional understanding, and lack of knowledge of the opening fundamentals. Both not that bad, but... then at move 9, completely ignoring the opponent's threat against the c3 knight, and dropping a piece for nothing. Your win came just because of the lemming-like approach of your opponent.

How come you did not care to protect the threatened piece at c3?

Mind you, " I wasn't paying attention" is not acceptable for a 3-days-per-move correspondence game. If you don't pay attention at such time controls, then in all likelihood chess is not a game for you.

Memorizing is a very regular topic around here. Roughly, I think the two common positions are:

(1) Memorization should have no role in one's chess study.

(2) Memorizing should have little role in one's chess study.

To some degree, I think disagreements have been the result of different conceptions of what is meant by memorizing, but, in any event, I think that there has been much general sympathy with these sentiments, expressed somewhere around a century ago:

"... Memory is too valuable to be stocked with trifles. Of my fifty-seven years I have applied at least thirty to forgetting most of what I had learned or read, and since I succeeded in this I have acquired a certain ease and cheer which I should never again like to be without. If need be, I can increase my skill in Chess, if need be I can do that of which I have no idea at present. I have stored little in my memory, but I can apply that little, and it is of good use in many and varied emergencies. I keep it in order, but resist every attempt to increase its dead weight. ..." — Emanuel Lasker, Lasker’s Manual of Chess

"... In my experience the majority of books on the openings are concerned more with giving numberless variations than with giving such explanations of the game as would lead the beginner really to understand the why and the wherefore of the moves he sees made; and in this way encourage the development of his Chess sense, thus enabling him to think his own thoughts in Chess, based as they will then be on the wide principles underlying the game. As it is, the reader, after wading through these endless variations, has probably really understood but a very small number of the moves given. He sets out to memorise the variations. And what will be the result? There can be only one. In a couple of weeks most of these variations will have been entirely forgotten; the moves which he does succeed in remembering will have probably got into their wrong order, or otherwise be confused in his mind. As he never really understood them, he remembers only that such-and-such moves are made in a given opening, and the odds are on his making them at the wrong moment, or in the wrong variation. ..."

http://store.doverpublications.com/0486209202.html

I think youre taking this out of proportion I had a set idea, at the start of the match, and then decided the left side of the board was of less importance than developing my knight, and guess what it opened up the file and I won, it threw him off guard, like I knew it would.

It might be worthwhile to be aware that it is IM pfren. I agree that it was a bit over-the-top to start writing about chess not being a game for you, but it strikes me as likely that you were not in a position to know that 9 Ne5 would be followed by a victory for you.

"... Each time I reached a goal, I would sit down and honestly look at my strengths and weaknesses. I didn’t have a regular coach, so I had to be quite brutal with myself. Self-delusion is common in chess, so you need to make sure you don’t fall into that trap. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (September 16, 2016)

https://www.chess.com/article/view/can-anyone-be-an-im-or-gm