Yeah, but, at least diakonia's advice doesn't put a knight on the edge... yes lots of times a move like this is best (and here I think it's good both positionally and tactically) but this gets really confusing for a player only 5 days old.
Advice like "improve your worst piece" or maybe "try to move all your pieces off their original squares" may actually be more beneficial (or even the most beneficial) even if in that specific position it's not technically the best move.
I don't think that last position is any good at all for white. Black just takes on f5 and plays e4 and white is busted
Agreed, and depedning on who i was playing. If i had white i would probably resign. My response to the OP was simply to help him get a better understanidng of the position, and not so much how he got there. That would be an entirely different post.
Sorry if my posts were confusing or unhelpful. Certainly feeling at a loss for how to even approach the position isn't something solved in a short time.
It's hard to know what advice is useful. Perhaps incorrectly I shy away from advice like "never do this" or "always do that" because inevitably you'll run into positions in the future where the very best move is the opposite of that advice which can be frustrating.
I do think pawn breaks are fundamental though. If they seem arbitrary or you're still not even sure what a pawn break is, that's ok. I think it's useful in any case to introduce these ideas and terms. As you continue to play and learn you'll run into these ideas again eventually, and if you've seen them before it gives you a little bit of a head start
If you only took one thing away from my post, I guess I'd want you to remember that bishops like long diagonals (that are not obstructed by friendly pawns) and rooks like half open files (again notice, at least in this case, a long line not obstructed by friendly pawns).
I really appreciate yours and everyone else's input on this thread. Your wording about open lines was nothing I was aware of, so I did benefit from your post. I'm new to the game though, so understanding certain things comes with time.
Thanks again, everyone.
Yes, It was your post on the "constantly blundering" thread where I learned about looking for the 5/6th ranks etc;
Your experience is not unusual. In the opening phase of the game the opening principles are a considerable help towards finding sensible moves and while you still have pieces to develop it is not to hard to come up with a move by applying those principles. But as you come out of the opening those principles are no longer a help and you must find moves partly by developing some strategic understanding (pawn structures, what constitutes a weakness, the importance of open files, king safety etc. etc.) but mostly by concrete analysis along the lines you expect the game to follow. With limited experience to guide you this is difficult. Knowing how to evaluate a position comes with experience and is difficult to teach and having an idea about what your opponent is likely to do, again, depends on having enough experience.
So the first point to make is that the more you play the sooner the experience will build.
A couple of very general tips. Firstly try to move your pieces forward not backwards. Secondly, when moving a pawn spend a moment looking at the two squares the pawn will no longer attack and the square that it vacates. Thirdly, once you have a candidate move always look at moves your opponent could make which put you in check or which take a piece or a pawn and, if you can manage it, look at any moves your opponent can make which create a threat. The single biggest reason beginners lose is because they put a piece where it can be taken or leave it on a square where it can be taken. Getting into the habbit (when time allows) of making those checks helps eliminate that aspect from your game.
Good luck.
BIB, is there a reason in particular for this? Thanks
try to move your pieces forward not backwards.
is there a reason in particular for this? Thanks
Two general ideas:
1) Trying to be as efficient as possible with your moves. Sometimes the best move is to retreat a piece and redeploy it to a new and better square... but do this carelessly and you may end up spending twice as many moves as your opponent to find good squares for your pieces.
2) Centralized pieces, and pieces in enemy territory, tend to be the most active. More often than not you don't retreat into the center or into enemy territory. So other than losing time, moving backwards often involves a loss of activity too.
IMO a tricky tip for a new player who may literally try to play a whole game without moving pieces backwards... which would be terrible 
What? You have been playing for only 5 days and you expect to be able to find plans based on such ideas as weak squares. That is not realistic.
Chess is a complex, rich, diverse and difficult game. That is how it has remained interesting for over 500 years and is still popular in this age of flatworm-like attention spans and elaborate video games.
Before casting around for advice on a site like this you should get an introductory book and study it thoroughly and just play a few dozen more games.
With the exception of rare and unusual people that seem to have their brains wired differently than the rest of us it takes years to become competent and more years to become truly strong.
Browse the internet, gather opinions on beginner's books, and try to choose one that is both well regarded by strong players and beginners a like and is up-to-date.
In the opening position the two armies are not in touch with each other. There are no immediate tactics to consider. Because it is generally a bad idea to attack with only a small number of pieces the opening phase of the game is mainly about getting all your pieces into active places while trying to exert as much control over the centre (the four squares in the very middle of the board) as possible.
But once the middle game is reached much of what happens becomes about tactics. Each player looks for moves which threaten their opponent with adverse consequences, usually the loss of a piece or a pawn but sometimes also, checkmate. In most games each player will have had an eye to the safety of their king and will have placed that king as far from the action and the enemy pieces as possible.
Moving your pieces forwards gets them closer to the enemy king, expands the number of threats available and creates the chance to make stronger threats - your opponent is wasting their time getting into a position to take off your queen if meanwhile you get into a position to deliver checkmate. So threats against the enemy king are desirable.
Your pieces (other than the knights) can exert influence over the squares on your opponents side of the board from a distance but they exert more influence by getting far advanced and onto your opponent's side of the board.
Many games develop with pawns restricting the ability of each side's pieces to advance into the other side of the board and each player manoevres aiming to "break through", often enough with a "pawn break", that is an advance by a pawn which forces pawns to be exchanged off and opens up lines for the pieces to advance along.
So move forward not backwards.
I will offer you an aditional idea. It is called "defending actively". When you start to play and you see that one of your pieces or pawns is under attack you look for a piece or a pawn which you can move which defends it. And there is nothing wrong with that. However there is another way to defend the attacked piece. It is by making an attack of your own. Thus if your bishop is attacked by the enemy queen you may be able to attack an enemy rook with your queen. Your opponent can now only take off your bishop if s/he is willing for you to take of their rook.
In some games, often enough the most exciting ones, threats and counter threats build up all over the board with pieces en prise ("hanging") left and right.
Moving forwards not backwards tends to help in creating the chance to defend actively, as well as increasing your chance to make effective attacks yourself.
Of course these, very general, ideas must give way to the concrete requirements of the position. An army which cannot recognise the need to retreat is heading for destruction. But if you are looking at two closely balanced moves for a piece, one involving an advance and one involving a retreat have a predilection for the advance.
I have been playing chess for about 5 days now and learned the basics of openings etc; I read on another part of the forum to look at your opponents 5th and 6th ranks to look for weak pawns and squares etc; to get involved in the middle game after opening. Unfortunately this is where I tend to get stuck. This is a game I'm playing against level 3 on the computer. There have been 14 moves so far and I feel like I always hit a brick wall at this point in my game.
I look in the 5th and 6th ranks for weak squares but there is none that I can see. The only thing I feel like I can do is move my pieces back and fourth trying to push my way to the centre of the board.
I feel like I'm always being bullied. Please advise a newbie.
Im only rated 800. But it seems like I would launch a kingside attack. I would push h3 and remaneuver my night to h2 to back the pawn push.
No. All the highly advanced strategies and imbalances blah blah blah are not suitable for him yet. Just take care, don't hang pieces, notice your opponent's free pieces, gobble up, win.
Once you reached a level aroung 1400 on chess.com, try some Chess Mentor on Strategy. Silman's is recommended.
To be fair, everyone's got to have some sort of plan in the game besides waiting for your opponent to mess up - I would be defeated quickly if I simply moved my pieces to a "good" square then moving them aimlessly until my opponent blunders.
That's exactly what I do, and why I suck.
Sorry if my posts were confusing or unhelpful. Certainly feeling at a loss for how to even approach the position isn't something solved in a short time.
It's hard to know what advice is useful. Perhaps incorrectly I shy away from advice like "never do this" or "always do that" because inevitably you'll run into positions in the future where the very best move is the opposite of that advice which can be frustrating.
I do think pawn breaks are fundamental though. If they seem arbitrary or you're still not even sure what a pawn break is, that's ok. I think it's useful in any case to introduce these ideas and terms. As you continue to play and learn you'll run into these ideas again eventually, and if you've seen them before it gives you a little bit of a head start
If you only took one thing away from my post, I guess I'd want you to remember that bishops like long diagonals (that are not obstructed by friendly pawns) and rooks like half open files (again notice, at least in this case, a long line not obstructed by friendly pawns).