positional chess is stupid

can someone tell me where do i even go wrong???? i tried everything to follow all positional concepts but i still end up losing everytime, it always happen like this where in principle i have the advantage but the opponent still end up beating me at the end. maybe im just venting my rage here ,  fcking stupid.

Looking at your games, your positional decisions are phenomenal. Unfortunately for you, positional skill is of very little importance for winning games when you're below 1200 Elo. You're at that awkward Elo spot a lot of players have where you're good at offensive tactics, but defending against them accurately is inconsistent. Chess punishes defensive mistakes far more than offensive ones.

Your first game in particular was an extremely strong positional game by you. You worked the positions and was up both in material and position. Kf5 is just a tactical mistake.

In your second game you missed taking the knight on move 24. You night have seen that and was concerned about g4 but material is always more important than position. Taking with pawn instead on move 32 would have been a better positional move because it creates a passed pawn, but rook takes is an understandable move. Ultimately it again came down to tactical defense. On move 40 you had to defend with Qb6, a not so obvious defense, and was promptly punished hard for that mistake.

Spending tempo or dedicating pieces to overprotect your king can be a good and practical approach. That and as always improving your tactics should help you score more wins.

on move 24. h3 is done to avoid back rank mates by the a5 rook since 24. Qxc7 Qxc7 25. Rxc7 Ra1# checkmate.

yeah i agree on move 32, taking with the pawn would keep the 7th rank pressure on the king with possibilities of using the passed pawn as an attack plan.

on move 40, i guess i have gotten so frustrated about my attacks not breaking through that i ended up mindlessly attacking the rook without considering the opponent's plans.

what is exceptionally hard to me is the process of materializing a positional advantage into something concrete that could lead me to a win, it felt as if all the potential energy that i have built up over the course of the game has just vanished out of thin air in just a couple of moves. i just can't seem to understand especially on game 2 on how to convert the game even with all that advantage and pressure being done on the 7th rank.

Ah good point on move 24, I missed that line.

When tactics are equal, converting good positions into winning positions is incredibly difficult. Even more so in games where the material is both equal and symmetrical like in that second game. Checkmate is the most direct way to win a game, but making a queen is the second most direct. Always keep ways to create passed pawns on your radar.

You also might want to consider trying to create unsymmetrical material when the right opportunity presents itself. Good players almost always do this against worse players because otherwise it can otherwise be much easier for the worse player to find a draw anyways.

And finally, equal and calm positions require patience, and a willingness to allow to a draw if the opponent finds all the correct moves. Your second game is a great example of that. Luckily, even great players are rarely able to play long endgames without mistakes so consistency alone is usually enough to convert to a win. Masters call it 'posing questions'. You know every attacking plan is stoppable, but you force the opponent to prove they can find a defense, then you switch to a new plan. Your pressure on the 7th rank was a good question to pose, just have to stay patient and keep posing questions. Or avoid these types of endgames all together if you can.

I think in the first game at least, you made lots of poor positional choices. (Potential giving up the bishop pair without a good reason, playing Qb3 in the opening when you should have been going with natural development.) The second game you played e3 which is somewhat passive, you tactically missed Nexf7 on move 28 winning an exchange. Among others, it isn't just positional chess that is your problem but it is one of them. Your tactically ability is poor, your ability to play actively in the opening is also poor, you need to look at lots of games of Morphy to get a handle on simple piece development.

In the first game 30 h3 was dumb. You should have tried looking for an attack like Qc2. Still giving your opponent the checkmate was just a huge blunder. In the beginning I would have kept attacking the Queen with the pawns. Allowing C5×D4 makes it easier for black. With white I try to play either D5 or E5 to avoid C5×D4.

In the second game that Queenside attack was weak. Your opponent should have taken the pawn with the Knight instead if the Bishop. But you would have crushed if you played Knight B5 looking for the check on D6.

'Chess is 99% tactics' - Teichmann

Well, let's say so, in the first game you can't blame anyone else, but only yourself because of your last move which led to checkmate. What about your second game, I'm too lazy to write about all the mistakes, but I would like to mention two of the aspects of that game: 1. On move 32 you should have taken the knight on d6 with your pawn, not with the rook. So you can restore your pawn structure and make a passed pawn, which would in future create some troubles for your opponent. It's like he will have to deal with your passed d6 pawn. In the endgame, pawn structure is important 2. It's about the end, when you blundered the checkmate. You have to ask yourself what does opponent want to reach with his move he has done? He attached your weak f2 pawn, which was defended only by your king. So maybe, you have to defend it somehow. There was only one way to do it: it's Qb6. You played OK in these two games, but your last blunders determined the result of both games. As they say, in chess, the person who makes the penultimate mistake wins.

you overused your queen to attack pieces that can easily be defended in the first game, and you underused your queen in the second game(moved it 3-4 times[I COUNTED!]). I am just a fellow 800 in OTB, but those are my opinions

So in your opinion, overusing the queen was the cause of loss in the first game? Not walking into mate?

In game #1, your d-pawn was only defended by your Queen. But you moved your Queen away to b3 leaving your d-pawn vulnerable to capture by the opponent Queen. Try to assess all your pieces in the opening to ensure all are adequately defended unless you're deliberately sacking a piece for some positional advantage.

It's okay to have preferences when it comes to hobbies and interests! While positional chess might not appeal to everyone, it can be a fascinating and strategic game for those who enjoy it. Some people appreciate the depth and complexity of positional chess, where players focus on long-term planning, maneuvering pieces for strategic advantage resultados del tris, and controlling key squares rather than solely relying on tactical combinations. However, if positional chess isn't your cup of tea, there are plenty of other activities and games out there to explore that better suit your interests and preferences.
 
 
 
 
 

This is the most pathetic bad spambot I've ever seen. Wow.

I think some of the comments said on this thread about the 1st game are not true.

- I looked at the game moves with my own eyes.

- I looked at the game moves with a computer engine.

- I looked at the game moves with a chess database showcasing Master level players.

After all the above, It seems what people thought was bad on this thread turned out to be good and what people didn’t mention or thought was good was in fact bad.

———————

From a Computer Stand point:

White had the following:

- 1 Inaccuracy

- 0 mistakes

- 1 Blunder

- 73 Average Centipawn Loss

- 52% Game Accuracy

———————————————

Black had the following:

- 5 inaccuracy

- 0 mistakes

- 1 blunder

- 45 Average Centipawn Loss

- 86% Game Accuracy

——————————

What the computers engine is trying to say is White didn’t make a lot of errors, but white also didn’t play the best moves in the position. White played a string of lower quality moves such as 3rd or 4th best moves in the position.

This is very common when a person is playing a good game, but isn’t finding the most crushing/best move to play in the game.

—————————

What the engine is saying about Black is they made a lot of outrageous errors, but when they didn’t make these outrageous errors they was playing close to perfection.

This is very common with players that self-implode. They will play perfectly. Than have random moments were they explode and do something wild and outrageous.

—————————

White inaccuracy happened at move 7

White blunder happened at move 33

————————-

Black inaccuracies happened at move 3, 4, 5, 6, 8

Black blunder happened at move 7

————————-

These are computer errors, but lets talk about human errors.

Move 2 - Black played Bf5 which is the Baltic Defense.

The Baltic Defense isn’t considered to be the greatest of lines for Black.

It is considered better for Black to defend the d5 pawn with 1 of their pawns to maintain a d5 pawn in the center of the board so that White can’t get ambitious with a e4 pawn thrust creating a center pawn dou of d4 + e4.

In addition, The Baltic Defense creates a weakness in their position with the Bf5 move.

The early development of the Bishop causes the b7 pawn to be weak. This can be bad because in the Queen Gambit white is already pressuring the d5 center pawn.

White is playing c4 + Nc3 and in some positions Qb3 to Mount further pressure on d5.
The fact the b7 pawn becomes weak means a Qb3 move in the future will create a double attack! The Qb3 move is actually a very strong move vs. Baltic.

The 1st Black inaccuracy comes at move 3.

In Master Games + Chess Opening Book Theory, Black best move is to take out Knight on b1 with their Bishop on f5. They must do the trade!

Why? Because if Black takes the d5 pawn with their Queen. White will develop the Knight on b1 to c3 and gain tempo on the Queen.
In order for Black to prevent the loss of a tempo, they need to remove the Knight from board.

At move 4, Black makes his 2nd inaccuracy by putting his Queen on d6.

This move is an inaccuracy because it puts the Queen in future danger.

It can be in danger of a Nb5 type of move.

Remember, Black Light square Bishop is on f5.

This means the d7 to a4 Light Square Diagonal is weaker. 
White can always plant pieces on those squares because the Light Square defender is esle where, right?

Qb3 isn’t the best move.
The best move is e4, but Qb3 is the second best move.

I saw commenter say the Queen move loses the d4 pawn.

Actually, The d4 pawn is pure poison in this position.

Black can’t capture the d4 pawn because if they do White will capture the b7 pawn.

Black entire left side would fall Rook + Pawns.

Only Black Knight would survive the destruction and white would have a +7.6 winning advantage

Black best move against Qb3 is to play Qb6 offering a Queen trade in order to stop the bleeding of their position.

Instead, Black played the pawn move b6 which was the 3rd inaccuracy in the position.

White position after these 3 Black inaccuracy is +4.

Why does the engine think White is +4?

Can you break it down as human to understand why?

- All of Black Light Square Squares on left side of board are weak and they have their Light Square Bishop on right side of the board.

- All Black pawns on dark squares on left side of board with no Light Square influence.

- White has several moves they can play to gain more tempos (Nb5, e4)

- White has semi-opening C file for Rook

- White has 2 center pawns vs. Black 1 center pawn

- White has mobile pawn center which can be pushed in future.

——————

Best move for white on move 6 is Nb5 developing Knight further up board with tempo onto a very weak square.

White chose to play e4 which is the 2nd best move in the position.

Gaining a pawn center with a tempo on Bishop!

Black best move is to play Bd7 defending the d7 to a4 light square Diagonal.

Black played Bc8 instead which is the 4th inaccuracy in a row.

Under-Developing the Bishop + Leaving Light squares unprotected!

Move 7 - Nf3 White inaccuracy which finally defends the d4 pawn.

The move Nf3 is 4th best move in the position with evaluation of +3.1

The best move is Nb5 with evaluation of +5.3

—————-

What makes Nb5 so crushing is the move comes with tempo + White is going to set up a nasty Nc7+ which forks the Rook + King. It is extremely difficult to defend against.

After playing a few moves in the above position, you can see what is happening.

All the white moves are attacking the c7 square.

All the black moves are defending the c7 square.

——————————

The move 7…c5 is the Blunder Black did which causes White to have a winning advantage of +8.8. White is absolutely crushing in this position.

The killer move is Nb5 - it is even more deadly vs. before.

The reason why is because if Knight jumps to b5.
Black can no longer play c6 to try and kick knight away.

In addition, the d5 pawn becomes a protected pass pawn for the future.

It is future insurance.

Brilliant analysis. I'd be a better player if I could analyse like that. How did you learn to analyse like that? In defence of my comment #12, I didn't know Qxd4 is a blunder leading to carnage to Black's Queenside. However, I still maintain that a good chess principal in the opening is not to leave centre pawns undefended. Unless you are gambiting them for a positional advantage or to gain a tempo. In fact, I suggest beginners don't play gambit lines early in their career until they have mastered all the principled lines of their favourite openings. This will eliminate early mistakes in the game. In the middle game, I suggest beginners continue development with a focus on King safety. The aim is never let your King be checked on your opponent's next move. In the endgame of the topic game #1, the White King should have been placed on a light square g2 on move 27 to prevent a check from Black's light-square Bishop. Then move the Kingside pawns up the board with the King following as defender. Always moving up the board on light squares. White lost when checked by the Black Rook because, as a general rule when checked by a Rook, the best response is to move diagonally toward the Rook, not away from it.

Your positional play is fine for your level. Your tactics are weak, especially on defense, and are poorly matched to your level even on the attack.

On the offensive, you tend to make attacks that win you a pawn or two's worth of advantage. That's enough to win at a grandmaster level, but it's not enough to win at your level. For example, starting at move 12 in the first game, you do some trades that win you a queen for a rook and bishop. However, at your level, this is pretty much an even trade, even with the extra pawn - pawns aren't winning at this level. You aren't one of the players that attacks well with a lone queen - this is a good thing, as such attacks only tend to work well against weak players, so it won't be critical in the long run - so this material imbalance allows your opponent to use his additional pieces to support each other. Meanwhile, you are paying no attention to defense, particularly king safety, eventually allowing your opponent to use piece coordination to checkmate you in the middle of the board.

Note that centralizing your king for the end game is only useful if you use it in coordination with your pawns and other pieces. The king coordinates poorly with a queen, and you aren't using it to support any organized queening attack with your pawns, so you should have kept it safe in the corner for longer, maybe with g3 instead of g4. Figure out a way to attack with your pieces - in this case your queen - instead.

In the second game, black's move 39 illustrates your lack of defense. Every time your opponent moves, you should be asking yourself what threat or threats his move makes, and how you should defend against it. If you'd asked yourself that about this move, it should be pretty clear he's threatening your f2 pawn, attacking it with his queen and rook. It should also be clear that you can't ignore this threat, so you need to defend. Qb6 should be the obvious defense at an 800 level. Instead, you ignore defense to attack his rook with Qb3, allowing him to carry out his mating attack.

Where you go wrong is fundamentally failing to think about defense. As I said, what you need to do is to identify what the opponent is trying to do with every move, and defend appropriately. Only when you conclude you can ignore defending should you worry about attacking instead.

This wins, hands-down, the trophy of the useless post of the month.

@Post #16

I was told when I was a beginner to analyze my games.

I listened to the people and as time went on I got better and better at analyzing games.

I also got better as a chess player and began seeing more things wrong or right.

It takes a lot of things in order to get better (Learning, Studying, Training, Reading, etc)

Thank you for your kind words! I gave you upvote.

—————————

@Post #18

It seems to me like your being toxic.

Nevertheless, Thank you for nominating me for a Trophy! I gave you downvote.

Any type of time control is fine but analyzing your games is a must look for the right moves after a blunder or a bad move like a miee or something