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

About your first game, i use to do that opening !!!(your chess club mate's opening in that game) I do it combining it like Nimzo-Larssen attack, i love it because i like to attack early(after the opponent's opening),..(and because usually it confuses the opponents, who dont know what to do , so they do mistakes)  the goal of that opening is attack the center of the board...  i think the most effective way to play against THAT is to control the center before him and put pressure on him advancing center pawns.

In conclusion - i remember when i made this opening against very strong players - sometimes i lost because they started to attack me before i finished developing.

I think you should not place horitzonaly together 2 bishops because its usually weak... better is vertical. And dont be afraid of attacking him when he does THAT OPENING because that opening is slower.

I don't usually develope everything before attacking(u do), because its very predicable,.. sometimes its enough to develope 2 knights to start the attack. 

I recomment you to try new things and be more aggressive in the game. In this way u will learn fast and make your own tactics.

Here i post one of my games, good example of how to counter that weird opening (he put me in trouble ...although finally won because he made some mistakes) i hope i helped u:)

I thank you Jaglavak for your exceedingly accessible and exceedingly reasonable explanations. I will study your every word. I find your comments exceedingly 'trustworthy' and I'm someone who usually finds explanations trashy. Not yours. There's no trash in there, from my point of view. I need to read your language and your comments until I can 'hear' your langauge, your 'voice' and your comments in my ear, interrupting and intervening on my own thoughts as I play, and as I catch myself doing my version of thinking. which may work well in other fields, but does not work well in its current form in chess. 

I thank you for your honest and ruthlessly compassionate instruction. 

Sombodysson,I had posted  some thoughts of your latest game,however for whatever reason it didn't post.Rather than write it again from scratch and going over some of the same points that others are addressing,I'd like to make  a few observations.First,your error on move 13 is structurally almost identical to that of move 13 in the first game you posted:move a piece to attack and drop a pawn with check as a result.Secondly,you seem to be opperating under some misconceptions about tactics,you avoided a capture on move 2 and later on an adoption of a semi-slav set-up because of the idea that material couldn't be retained or a set-up invited sharp tactics.Well,anytime lines open up on the board while most of the pieces are still in play the game will become increasingly tactical,simply because there are now more opportunites;and avoiding 2...dxc because the material can't be retained is misunderstanding  the opening.In the position you were in 2...dxc is simply a line of the QGA and the material is never retained as long as white plays soundly.You should embrace, not avoid, tactically complex situations,this is were you'll get the biggest initial reurn on your chess study/practice investment.The first error I discussed,your mistake on move 13, indicates a lack of skill,the second indicates how you think about the game itself.

In all sincerity,I would recommend the following:

1)Start playing gambits,both as black and white, and scrap whatever you play now.If you are going to be dropping material make it work for you.Gambits teach all the basics of chess both positionally and tactically and force one to improve one's game,either that or you get blown off the board.

2) Cease reading whatever chess books you have been reading...right now...and go get a good book or software on beginning tactics.Work on 1-ply(loose piece or mate),2-ply(opponent takes --your proper reply),and  some 3-ply(simple combinations),exclusivily.Do the same problems ad nauseum.

3) Scrap your current thought process,it isn't serving you.Create a SIMPLE thought process that works for you that is tailored to the skill set you prosess now,not the one you'll have when you are 1600-1800 elo.There is alot of material online to assist you with this(like this site and thread).The non-tactical skill set that a player at your level needs to master,to carry you to a mid C-class playing ability OTB,can be written in a monograph of less than a 100 pages.

Hope this is helpful.

Jaglavak,thanks for your observations,I agree with everything you were saying.I forgot the earlier discussion about the tactical implications of various openings.I've followed this thread since first post and have been impressed by the quality of the discussion,including all of your posts.I have discovered that participating in this thread is helping me to improve,I'm getting quite alot out of analyzing the games posted to this thread as well as reading posts by yourself, as well as R-tist,Yaroslav,Aaronchuk and others...and it is fun as well.This is a rewarding thread,and much of that is due to the participation of the very skilled players who are posting here.

@badgersong, you say lots of good stuff. thank you.

Yes, that observation of yours about move 13s in two games, perfect. Yes, and that mirrored mistake is a thought process mistake that I have talked about in a couple of earlier posts. My understanding of it, is 'overthinking'. That is the problematic thought process. I have noticed that when I do tactics puzzles I do little to no axiom-based thinking, and I do far more looking; I do the reciprocal of that ratio when I play a game, i.e. I do much more 'thinking' and much less 'looking'. I have identified that my game playing has to become more like my tactics puzzle playing; I do far more hardnosed calculation when I do the puzzles. I don't care about not winning the points  on the TT here by going slow, and I often lose points when I get the answer correct, and thats fine with me; I know that I will get faster when the patterns become more familiar to me, and I have already seen some nice jumps in the numbers, and I am starting to see some patterns that are familiar, smothered mates, Queen checks on the diagonal followed by taking laterally on the 4th or 5th, etc etc, . For now I strive for accuracy in the puzzles, and I am far more accurate in the puzzles than in the games, for the reason I just outlined. It is striking. I play a different game with the puzzles than with the live game. A little bit of Chernev, and some reading and, I might say, mis-reading of material on the internet, really did fill my head with misunderstood garbage which I am laying bare for all to see. 

I am living proof of the 'truth' of Jaglavak's contention that half-understood axioms are far worse than no axioms at all. I learned a few axioms, and there went the neighborhood. 

The similarity of those move 13s is one of the mistakes I make repetitively; there are others. But that is definitely one of them. I could call it, exactly as you have, 'thinking I'm on the attack so I fail to look both ways before crossing the street'. It is reckless attacking. Or punching with my eyes closed. Yaroslavl's move-choosing rules are an expanded version of the single golden rule I think I need to employ in my games., i.e. Play each move like it's a tactics puzzle. If you find that you are thinking as if you understand, stop, rinse, and repeat the analysis, this time like its a tactics puzzle. I need to do that for every move, after the first five or so. But really, I need to do it for the first five too. Remember, David Bronstein often took 45 minutes for his first move as White. 

There are other mistake patterns. They include 1. not taking because it looks dangerous, when in fact it would be dangerous to not take, 2. the reverse, taking when it is dangerous because I think it would be dangerous to not take...both of these, I believe, are analytical errors, i.e. I need to calculate more about danger, and think less about danger. My danger meter is definitely uncalibrated (and if you knew how many sports injuries I've already had you would know that chess does imitate life indeed), and calibrating it will take tactics puzzles and analysis. I have learned 'the hard way', playing mindlessly and reading mindlessly, and I ended up not learning. Now I am learning the easy way, by reading this thread and learning to calculate. Doing the grunt work, the endless tactics puzzles and IMProviNG is actually a lot easier than endless losing. I just had my first win in four months at the chess club. 

There are other errors, but I think a catalog of my error types could become boring here. But a few others include, briefly 1. believing my game is lost, and instead of resigning continuing to play in a way that makes sure it is lost 2. Believing my game is won, and then playing in a way that loses the advantage, 3. failure to acknowledge the power of my Queen and not using the Queen with the scope that a Queen can command. Tactics puzzles are starting to cure me of this, but I still put my Q in chains and try to force her to behave like a bishop, or a pawn. I imagine doing some Q endgames could cure me of that swiftly. 

about books. My main book has become this thread. I have an openings book that I keep meaning to get to, because it has openings that we have agreed I will learn. I had been meaning to do some of that learning today, but life got in the way. I will not get to it tomrrow, but I will on Monday. The openings book I have is not axiomatic; it is highly visual and target and defense centric. It is highly readable, and very very trustworthy.  

Other than that I am doing tactics. On the tactics server here. Only. The cool thing is, I have a high capacity for drudgery.  I do have access to other tactics servers; I used chesstempo over the summer, and enjoyed it alot, but for now it doesn't matter which server I'm using; we all agree that's what I need to be doing. The benefit to me of chess.coms server, while we all know it is less flexible and customizable than chesstempo, is that chess.com's tactics show my progress or decline in a number that displays after every success or failure. I find it helpful to have that guage readily visible.

Any positional chess I am learning is from this thread, and any other I learn will be from rote learning of a narrow cross section of carefully selected openings. 

about choice of openings; Frankly, I don't think it matters what openings I play. I have had my #ss handed to me enough times playing King's Gambits, Ruys, Italian games and Nimzo Indians (and trust me, all of those were played with knowledge of the first 2 or three or maximum four moves at most) to know that playing any opening without 1. learning how to play it, i.e. some rote learning of the moves...just gives me more practice in losing. I've lost many many games, without learning from my mistakes. This thread is by far the most powerful tool I have.

Imagine how I feel posting a badly played game like the one I posted this morning, played with my eyes half closed, and confessing it to everyone? It doens't feel good. But being accountable to people like you guys who are spending time analyzing MY games (!!) when you could be analyzing YOUR games is a huge argument for me to learn what you're teaching. And Jaglavak's caveat, that learning will not happen linearly is appreciated. 

I think I've repeated myself a few times in this post, but the word processing capacity of these little boxes is only so much, and its hard to review the whole post. Sorry to bore you if I did. 

Tactical transition from the opening to the middle game. As badger_song pointed out in 2 games you have had a problem on move 13 that dropped a pawn. I was surprised at the similarity between your games & a few that my wife has played. She likes to have a plan but I am trying to get her to focus more on tactics. She gets her development done & then struggles tactically & has similar results. I have been playing the Grunfeld against her d4 openings to sharpen it up a bit but she invariably makes a tactical error which drops the d4 pawn or worse drops a piece trying to defend it.

So I'll address this to Jaglavak & the other strong players, how do you handle this situation when teaching or learning? I remember when I was learning there was almost a sigh of relief when development was complete then press ctrl+alt+del in your head, reset & start on the middle game. So for the OP & my wife what is the strategy, is it just becoming tactically more proficient or are there other ways to help? How much does a basic understand of the opening come into play? I always read the basic introduction to any opening I studied & that got me through but my tactics & calculating power were pretty good back then. I also had the luxury of a Coach after I was a couple of years into serious Chess.

BTW, sorry to hear about your opponents failure to appear, very frustrating when you have put so much into preparation & are looking forward to a good game. You weren't playing Bobby Fischer & had the wrong shaped pawns on the board by any chance?

yes, very very true. After the opening, the transtion to the middle game is precisely the area I feel most helpless in. I am probably stupidest in the endgame, because I know nothing about it, but I feel most helpless in that transtion of moves 10-14. I think you have probably answered your own question. "Knowing the opening"-specific plans for the middlegame, and caculation, esp counting tactics insofar as they are about pawns engaging with each other. 

What else could be said other than something so general as to be meaningless?

good night. Its been a long day. And yes, thanks for acknowedging that it WAS very difficult being stood up yesterday, and then this morning, for both my games. Nah, they had 'good excuses' in both cases. Alright, only one of them did. He got a new job. the other one 'lost track of time'. I sure didn't lost track of time! I set my alarm and got up two hours early to be nice and awake for the game...then I waited, and waited, and wait.ed.

So thanks. by the way, Jaglavak isn't the only one on here who has progressed in chess. There are many others. Jaglavak has a speciality in an aspect of pedagogy that we might call iconoclasm, i.e. shattering false gods. And this is one pedagogical speciality that I share with him I have targetted false pedagogical gods several times already. but there are many others, aronchuck, Yaroslavl, have high rankings, but there are many others who are 1600s and 1400s and 1200s, all much stronger than me...who have somehow found something useful about learning how to transition from the opening to the middlegame. 

And, frankly, probably the higher ranked you are, the LESS Likely you will have useful insights into teaching beginners how to transition form the opening to the middlegame because the strategies you learned way back then are no longer what you use now, and you likely forget what helped you when you were eight or ten or twelve. Follow Jaglavak when he says 'don't ask GMs to explain it to you'. Don;t ask the highest ranked on here. Ask those who have found things that worked for them transtion from absolute beginner to low intermediate ESPeCically if that transition was a VEry DiffiCult one. If they transitioned to Intermediate player easily they will likely not have much useful to say.

So ask the 1200s and the 1400s what they're doing that's helpful. Let's not turn this into a thread where we turn to a couple of people for our every question. Let's turn to those lurking in shadows, who think they have nothing important to say, and yet probably have the MOST  important stuff to say, k?

Somebodysson,thank you for reading my posts.I think your present approach to chess,as exemplified by this thread,will ultimately prove very productive.I think you are doing all the right things to improve your game.I think you and I both share some similar chess-weaknesses; for example,my thought process is junk and its holding me back. I have gone from a contributor on this thread to a secret-student.

My guess is that players will always perform better on tactics quizes/tests than their OTB elo rating would suggest.I think that is because a tactics problem is a test of tactical skill,but a game is a test of thought process.I like Jags axiom-rule... essentially, a half-understood axiom is likely to be misapplied.Who hasn't done that?

Everyone has to have a good openings book.Properly used, one can effortless learn whatever opening lines  one chooses to concentrate on.Moreover,unless one is playing the very well known openings,like the Spanish,a knowledge base of the first 5 -6 moves suffices;I play the Danish and perhaps 1 in 10 games is still in book by move 8.

As far as my earlier posts,the highly-skilled players who have been posting here have been suggesting a multi-pronged approach to chess study,and they are right.I was emphasizing tactics for effect,not at the exclusion of other areas.I have thoroughly enjoyed,and benifited from you posting your games.Keep up the good work!

4 days ago · Quote · Edit · Delete · #151 Yaroslavl After 3...e6 better than 4.e3 (which as you mention in your note hems in your DS Bishop) is 4.Nf3. Remember on your before I make a move list there is an item that you ask yourself: Are all my pawns and pieces directly or indirectly defended. I can take a good guess and write that your concern for your pawn on c4 which seems to be undefended motivated your move 4.e3. But, rest assured when you check your list in your next game that results in a QGD opening, you will know that your pawn at c4 is indirectly defended. Let's say that Black instead of playing 3...e6 he chose to play 3...dxc4 you can calmly play either of 2 lines: 4.e3 or 4.e4 followed by 5.Bxc4. Black cannot defend his pawn at c4 directly or indirectly. A direct example would be 4...b4 loses another pawn to Nxb4. See if you can find Black's faulty indirect defense of his pawn at c4. That is enough for now, except for information purposes only. Black, whether consciously or by accident chose to play the Semi Slav Variation which is for lovers of violent tactical chess. The initial position of the Semi Slav is arrived at in your game after your move 5.Nf3 with one big difference. In the Semi Slav White's e pawn is still at e2. In your game it is at e3. Once again I refer you to your list, the item: pawns cannot move backwards, pawn moves change the pawn structure/position permanently, be very careful before you make a pawn move.

I will post more alittle later. (end of post #151)

First I have to digress to point out some concepts that are so basic that they are common sense. But, because they are important they bear repeating thereby making them explicit.

In general Chess is 'siege warfare.' What does that mean to a chess player on the chessboard. With every move you have to think about the tools of siege warfare ('restrain', 'blockade', 'execute' the enemy). For now you only have to know this as information for the future. And, that restrain, blockade and execute the enemy are literal terms. You literally restrain, blockade and execute the enemy pawns and pieces with your pawns and pieces strategically and tactically. I will explain in detail what all this means regarding every move as I continue to analyze your game move by move.

The second basic concept is that there are advantages and disadvantages to every move in chess. I am pretty sure that you know this. But, important ideas no matter how basic bear repeating.

With that in mind let's consider your move 2.c4. You go to your check list and check every item until you get to the item that reads Are all of my pawns and pieces defended directly or in indirectly after I make my move. The answer is yes, especially the pawn at c4 is not directly defended but it is indirectly defended. One variation of how it is indirectly defended in case Black plays 2...dxc4: 2...dxc4 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 b5 5.a4 b4 6.Na2 Nf6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Bxc4 e6 9.Nf3 Be7 10.Bd2 a5. Then you go to the item on your list that reads PAWNS CANNOT MOVE BACKWARDS. Every pawn move I make changes the position/pawn structure permanently, be very careful. (The format for the opening I will use is to first analyze the move concerning general opening principles and how they relate to advantages and disadvantages of the move. Also, I will thread in explanations of the Before I Make A Move Checklist.) The move 2.c4 initiates the QG.

The advantages - concerning general opening principles, it is a good move because: 1. It establishes a head pawn duo of sorts. 2. the c pawn begins fighting for control of the center. Specifically the central square d5. Notice that it is fighting for control of the center by using the power of the c-pawn thereby not creating any targets in the center for your opponent to attack. In contrast, your pawn at d4 while helping to control the center, specifically the central square e5, it is on the central square d4 and it is a target for your opponent. 3.the c-pawn has created more space on your side of the board instead of it being hemmed in at c2 when you play Nc3 before playing c4. 4.the move 2.c4 opens the d1-a4 diagonal for your Q which contributes to development of the pieces on the queenside 5.you have created a Ram-duo-lever with your pawn at c4,d4 and Black's pawn at d5. Don't worry about what that all means right now. I will explain about pawn levers in follow up posts.

The disadvantages of 2.c4 are: 1.The c-pawn at c4 can only be defended directly by the b-pawn, the d-pawn cannot defend it unless the c-pawn advances to c5. If c5 proves necessary will it be mostly advantageous or mostly disadvantageous? (the rule is it is a disadvantage to have to defend pawns with our pieces). 2.the move 2c4 weakens the queenside castle position in case it should prove necessary to castle queenside (0-0-0). 3.in case of 3...dxc4 I will have to know the variations of how my pawn at c4 is indirectly defended ( this will be an advantage once you have played enough games that you know the variations well and know the why of each move.) I'm going to stop here and continue tomorrow. It's late. Please let me know your understanding of the analysis I have written so far.

please explain this. Is this sarcasm, or something else that I don't understand? 

Yaroslavl! These three items are worth their weight in gold:

1. 'Pawns should not be organized so that they need to be defended by pieces.' (I read that only once before,  on this thread, and only early on, in one of the early posts.  I never knew that, I never conducted my decisions otb with that in mind.

2. 'Every move has positives and negatives'. I never read that before, and I can say I know that in an abstract way , but not in a practical OTB way, not in practice. On the contrary: when my opponent makes an aggressive move, I see it as only winning for my opponent. When I make an aggressive move, I see it as only winning for me. I am reckless in my evaluations of both my, as my opponent's move.

3.'Siege warfare, Restrain. blockafe, execute'. I never read this, I never thought about it, and in practice I do NOT know this. this is conceptually brand new, and although it seems obvious when I read it, it is a fifth or sixth or seventh language to me. It is new conceptions. Yes, really , no exaggeration. 

Now, on to the other stuff. I understand 75-80% of what you write. If you have ever learned a third or fourth or fifth language you will know that 80% comprehension is missing A HUGE AMOUNT of content from the communication.  And, when I write that I 'understand' 75-80% I mean "I follow" 75-80 %. I "keep up". In other words, there is no deep understanding. 

There is a rememdy for this, which I have not been doing. The rememdy is TO READ WIth a CheSS BoaRD. That is what I have to do. When I read chess without a chess board it is completely wasted, unless it is a rare book which is so crystal clear and so delightfully easy to follow, and with ample diagrams, or if it is a game I am very familiar with a very very short variations. This will increase over time, but right now the only way my comprehension, My LITERACY will increase is by reading ALWAYS with a chess board. Anything else is cheating myself.

I will read your post again later today.thanks again. 

these might be useful too. The Lars Bo Hansen book looks really good. Certainly not for me at this point, but the reviews about it glow, and particularly for its treatment of opening to middlegame transition, which, according to the reviews, is based on pawn structure, which is what Yaroslavl has been saying on here. 

http://chessimprover.com/transition-into-the-middle-game/

http://www.chessvideos.tv/article-Review-How-Chess-Games-Are-Won-and-Lost-by-Lars-Bo-Hansen-16.php

another review of another book. 'Move First Think Later', which challenges conventional training wisdoms. Review is by John Watson, who is a very serious writer. 

http://www.theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-103-challenging-conventional-wisdom

I'm DEFINITELY not suggesting that this thread become a forum for discussing training methods; I've said that before, and I invite anyone wanting such a thread to open one. I'm merely including the link to this review because I found it an interesting and very well written review by an excellent writer, of an apparently compelling book. 

yes, point well taken.  I've been reading that over and over, move a game, and thinking that I need to start putting together a notebook for move a game opening work. Do people keep notebooks, notes on their move a game development? Does anyone here keep a chess notebook?

I figure there is all the tactics notebook I need on the tactics server. I'm wondering if people keep openings notebooks?

Well, I do take notes. I don't usually read them later, but the act of taking notes help me to commit things to memory. I may take notes on a pgn, or on a small book.

haha, I just, on third reading, understood the significance of the last 'if you are a tactical monster'. Well, we all know I'm not, so I'm going to try to stick to safety for now, and develop my tactical ability off the board. 

I'll have a game tomorrow night, from the chess club. 

haha, again, funny. I had just read over Yaroslavl's post, and realized that this time my comprehension was closer to 95% or higher, and I was scrolling down to post that to him, and I saw Jaglavak's revised post where you add that bit about translation and targets/mobiity/pawn structure, suggesting that I could get it up to 95%. Its there . At least for that post. 

thanks guys and any gals out there. I definitely am increasing my ability (and my willingness) to read the actual language of chess, the moves and the placements and the relationships. yes. The chess board is the paper, the pieces are the words. Reading chess without having a clear view of the board/paper and placement of particular pieces/words, their meaning, syntax, etc ...is not reading chess, its reading meaningless sequences of non sequiturs. That's what I had been doing for a year,i.e.  U had been reading chess without any comprehension of chess, because my reading method assumed that increasing quantity without any attempt to increase comprehension would nevertheless produce increased comprehension.

Don't hesitate to ask, as Yaroslavl periodically does, 'did you understand what I posted in #xyz'. And I will try to translate to targets(attack and defence) and mobility (the squares the pieces control). 

you let him get away with that terrible opening - you made you center too big; look what can happen to white in the king's indian attack if he tries a four pawn center - use prophylaxis

Somebodysson,I learned openings by keeping a small chess note book.I would periodically review it. After every game where I played the opening poorly,I would find the correct continuation and add it to the note book along with any relevent notes.I found this process quickly allowed one to become competent with any opening.

oh, umm, would you just write the names of the moves, or would you make diagrams. At the point where you kept such a notebook could you just read a sequence of opening moves and see in your mind's eye what each piece was attacking, defending, controlling, etc? Did you limit the number of openings you would entertain?