what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?

Finegold is talking about taking f4 in general, not that specific position or opening.  He does it extremely often.  I know because I've been watching lots of his video lectures lately.

"..then make up stories about the game as to how space, time, 'good' and 'bad' pieces, etc. determined the result."

[Jaglavak tastefully mocking the idea that a piece can be good or bad]

@Jaglavak, please follow my advice on this one. 

@FromMutoYou: no, its not a friendly battle of ideas at all. The ideas that are being considered in this thread are my games. Any extended skirmish between people on this thread that does not include me is off topic, and if it is extended it is almost always because it is unfriendly.  

If you wish to open a chess pedagogy thread, and try to tempt Jaglavak to join it and to be generous with you there, be my guest, open a new thread. If you wish to post a video of Finegold, and discuss video interpretation on your thread, be my guest and open a new thread.

I was generous with you when you posted those ridiculous images. You tried to derail the thread then, and I was generous. I played dumb, as if I didn't know what you were doing. You're in check. Show your understanding of a chess basic, and move out of check. I have a target, and you're it. Its mate in one. Unforced, but enforced. 

one can mock ideas without mocking people. And the idea of good and bad pieces has been criticized by players ranked higher than Jaglavak. And yes, strawman is correct. You are misinterpreting what he writes to poke fun at him. You may start your chess pedagogy thread right now. 

Regarding the original first post:

I'm not sure and I'm not an expert, but I would've captured the pawn with the rook on move 11, then attacked with the queen on the kingside. I'm sure you could've wracked havoc with your queen, rook and light square bishop on black's kingside.

hehe, and that is what I'm talking about when I say that the 'thinking' mistakes I make in games, I just don't make in tactics puzzles. 

For e.g. in that example, during the game I couldn't see that because that would have implied thinking 'this could be a very short game. I could win this one quickly, with an immediate activation of my rook, Queen and LS bishop to his kingside.'

To think that would mean dumping a whole bunch of assumptions I have about my games. i.e. they will last long unless I lose, in which case they could be very short. My opponent will be attacking, and I will be stuck with defending. I expect to be able to hang in there long enough, through attack after attack on me, and then I will rise from the ashes.

Thinking like an attacker, like a 'predator' who can sometimes quickly quickly and very efficiently, and dumping the 'long drawn out struggle' narrative that I bring with me to my games...could prove very useful.

To the best of my ability I will bring to tomorrow morning's game what I bring to my tactics puzzles, PLUS I will try to adhere, on every single move, to Yaroslavl's look before you leap rules. 

Well, I'd say don't have pre-notions of any kind whatsoever.. Depending on the opening and early development, you might find yourself in a ready-to-push position, so be ready to take advantage. On the other hand, you may find yourself in a tight position where you should continue slow building and defending at first. Allow yourself a mindset of an early attack, but don't go in with a pre-determined plan of one.

hehe, sounds good. Have to add that to my list Yaroslavl!

Hehe, thanks.. That was an easy one to spot. I still need to work on my "expertise" level when it comes to tougher more complex situations though, so it's a work in progress!

hmm, so I'm reviewing posts from the beginning, and I see this post from R tist, that agressive play can be indicated when the opposing king is uncastled. hmmm, a maxim perhaps, but not really, because targetting a king is not a maxim, and by definition almost, an uncastled king is not as defended in most positions as a castled one. so then R tist says something about 'he closed the position' and had 'well defended flanks'. Interesting. 

I've been studying some of Yasser Seirawans games that feature closed positions ie centre pawns locked in a position where they cannot capture each other. He Castles very late or not at all, he does it on an "as required" basis because with the center locked the long range pieces cannot get at the King. This goes against what is drummed into us as beginners to Castle early to safety but at Yassers level it works fine. There is also a theory by one of the older GMs posibly Purdy that after an early exchange of Queens & 1 pair of rooks that the need to castle becomes diminished. I don't think this is for beginners but eventually when a player becomes more adept it is worth considering as is the use of a tempo for development or material gain & delaying Castling for a move or 2. I've noticed that Computers don't always Castle early & it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that is a weakness but their awesome calculating power seems to compensate.... against lower players anyway

interesting. the first maxim is one I would initially be reluctant about; I guess closed positions can become open, and then an uncastled king would be a liability.

The second, however, makes some sense all other things being equal. With queens and a pair of rooks off, and no attackers looking at the king too menacingly in the near future, I can see no need to pursue  an immediate castling. I probably didn't follow that in my original post game, because I didn't understand the significance of closed centre, or a whole lot else. Plus, I thought, yipee, I have a lead in development, so I'll castle and get an even bigger lead in development. As if having a lead in development means you've already won the game (opponent resigns at move 10 because you've beat him in development!!).

So the second one seems less a maxim to me, and more as a frank appraisal of reduced threats and danger, so there is some 'luxury' room to develop pieces and coordinate for an attack.

Probably I'm wrong though. Probably the first one case is equivalent to the second case, and probably a closed center contitutes reduced threats and reduced danger in much the same way that Qs and 2Rs off means...but still, I'd be less comfortbale following that one. 

And, actually, I'm not going to follow any of them! I'm going to work really really hard at looking at every position of my games with the same eyes I bring to tactics puzzles. For now anyways, and into the foreseeable future. 

But I'm stuck at 1200 in the tactics trainer. I've been here for a few days, and it won't budge. But that's ok, I'm not impatient, and I know that I just have to get more familiar with the patterns at this level, and then I'll go up to 1300. Makes some sense to me.

I will note that I'm noticing, with the current crop of tactics puzzles, that my failure to look over the whole board is the explanation for many of the failures. I definitely must not make a move without looking at the whole board. good night everyone. 

I agree, I don't suggest adopting them, but merely being aware of them. You have the right focus for this time in your Chess career, I'm looking forward to your next game to see how this thread is helping.

oh man, not to rub in the pressure or anything! This thread is going to help over a period of months, not days. But its benefits are already obvious to me,  and to others, I just can't guarantee that those benefits will translate to a win for me EVeRY time. I've been a member of a chess club for three months. Every Monday night I've been in a 90/.30 tournament game, and until last Monday I've lost every Monday for the last three months. 

Expect me to play as well as I can, not a bit more.  Expect me to post the game sometime tomorrow. thanks. 

Lol creepy crawly. Sounds like a chess forum myth. 

lol...I christened it "The Centipede"...but "Creepy Crawly" with it's suggestion of crustation-like claws,scuttling across the board toward you,is also an appropriate name.

I just read this entire thread.... bleary eyed now..... lol

Learned more from reading this thread that any other here so far.

Just ordered before reading this thread "Chess Tactics for Advanced Players" by Yuri Averbakh and if it doesn't cover "Target-Mobility Chess" I will be picking up "Chess Middlegames: Essential Knowledge"(I may do so anyway).

I've seen every St. Louis Chess Club video featuring GM Ben Finegold. If I might make an observation, he often says things in jest and or for comic effect. One of the many things I enjoy about his lectures. I wouldn't presume to speak as to what he meant by the "take on f4" statement. Though I'm fairly confident he didn't mean take any opposing piece residing on f4 immediately, no matter the board position. Perhaps someone should ask him....

Thanks to all the good people posting the interesting information in this thread....

Peace

thanks bro, welcome and peace. 

Averbakh's Middlegames Essentials does NOT talk about target mobility chess per se. Neither does his book that you just ordered. the Middlegames Essentials book, as the one you just ordered, talk about tactics of all sorts, and combinations of all sorts, in a very verbal way, not unlike Farnsworth's Predator at the chessboard (www.chesstactics.org). So If you use Farnsworth you don't really need Averbakh, but if you want a decidedly Russian-soviet 'version' of Farnsworth I highly recommend it.

It is really Jaglavak who is talking about how to talk about chess, and especially how to talk about how we must decide chess moves until we are so good we don't have to worry about how we decide, we have other things to worry about, like being up to date on the latest opening theory, etc. 

So if you like what you read on here, stay with us. It won't be found in a book. Heisman, as I've pointed out on here, has covered some of what Jaglavak writes about in his novice nooks on 'hand waving'. Find those novice nooks and read them.

but most importantly, join us and have fun with us. 

Now I have to get to sleep for a ten aM chess game tomrrow. 

btw what you wrote about finegold rings true. He's joking almost all the time, being tongue in cheek almost even more than that (!), and is very entertaining.