thanks for the detailed explanation badger song. I have no idea even how I'd become an openings fashionista, how I"d find out what's a fashionable opening, so that's not an issue. But if you'll look back at the thread you'll see that there have been some openings recommended to me based on what I asked for. I imagine I'll stick with a limited repertoire for quite some time. thanks again.
Play openings that really appeal to you,limit your openings study to those openings( a mere handful),stick with them,and study them well.
how you anotated your game is really good. it is amazing to learn how players your strength think and what they are concerned about. simply you concern too much and people here are giving you too much advice on strategy and stuff and more over how C4 could be a mistake.The losing mistake you did is giving up d4 pown and forced your self to exchange queens a material is a material if you didnt get any compensation for it.just develop, keep your warriors safe and do more and more taktical puzzles.dont worry to much for strategy it would be a big drawback later when you become very strong.
Jaglavak's questions:1. Is there a possible combination in the position after (this) move, and if necessary ask,
2. What are all the targets in the position (in front of you), and if necessary,
3. "What pieces are doing the least in the position (infront of you),
My questions:
at the end of 1. and 2. there is the phrase 'if necessary"
does this mean 'if the answer is "No" go to 2? for e.g. at the end of two if there are no targets...see which of my pieces needs improving the most.? At the end of 1. if there are no combinations, see if there are any targets?
Another question: what is the difference between a combination and a target. To my mind, every target is a combination. If my opponent is targetting a piece of mine, there is a possible sequence of takes, etc, following that, which is a combination. Is that wrong? What is the differnece between a sequence of takes, and a combination?
One of the problems I have become aware of mysefl doing, is that if my opponent targets a piece of mine, I mentally imagine a series of takes, and usually see my self losing the series. So I get scared, and I oeverreact.
If I see that I can target one of his pieces, like NxN in the first game, I don't carefully fo through the series of takes, I lazily fo through the series, and don't see accurately that it could be advantageous for me (i.e. for e.g. winning a pawn after the series of takes" and so I discard the idea of initiating the take, and isntead usually push a pawn, weakening my position.
You guys have seen me do this a few times already.
I don't understand the difference between a combination and a targetted piece. I don't think it is merely tactical practice, I think I don't understand the two different concepts, and the difference between them.
since 'target's figure so big in this thread, I need to understand the differnce between targets and combinations.
just reading over my above post, maybe a combination is a 'forced' series of takes? For e.g. when the central pawns make contact, the series of pawn exchanges is often not forced. As someone wrote in an earlier post, it could be 'maintaining the tension' to not initiate the pawn exchanges, so that is not forced.
Forced is if a piece of mine is targetted, and undefended. So on the opponent's next move, he would take my undefended piece. So is that a combination?
thank you aronchuck. You aren't being disrespectful when you say 'I think my list is better'. ! That's not disrespectful. I think its merely honest. Obviously You, Yaroslavl, amd Jaglavak all think your lists are better! There's no need to fight over it. I will develp my list, and I will use your lists. Of course, going into tonight's game at the chess club I will have to take some kind of list with me in my head. I will report tomorrow (or late tonight) when I post my game what thought process I used for each of my moves. I will lay bare my mistaken thinking.
And, yes, there's no need to discuss further Jaglavak's proposal that good players tell different stories after the game than during the game; I'm 100% sure he's correct. I've already told people my experience of piano pedagogy, and what I know confirms what he says, from an entirely different field of human activity. So, he's right. Period.
That doens't necessarily mean discussions of position, positional are out the window or forbidden or anything. Of course not. It just means that part of Jaglavak's thesis is a dead horse already. I mean, I accepted it from the very start. There's no argument. Heisman accepts it too, and has his own way of describing it, as I've outlined enough times already on this thread.
The task of translating positional to target consciousness is still a very important learning curve I have to get on.
And the overthinking/underlooking I do otb which I do not do at tactics puzzles is still what I think I need to focus on.
When I post my game tonight we will look at my opening, which I have not prepared, one move at a time, and esp at my thought processes, and also esp my miscalculations, misunderstandings of sequences, miscountings, and of course, my failures to be agressive when agression is called for, and failures of defence when defence is called for. In other words, my failures (and successes) at applying some sort of disciplined, ordered, thinking process to each postion at the board.
I still ask, however, Jaglavak to comment on the difference between Jaglavak's 1. and 2. 'If there are no combinations are there targets'. If there are combinations, I do not go forward to 2., I ponder (and calculate) the combinations.
so what is a combination, according to Jaglavak's thought process?
Jaglavak, when you get back to this thread, can you please comment?
I think I want Jaglavak to answer this, since he understands best his own proposed thinking process.
Each of you, Yaroslavl, Jaglavak, aronchuck are specialists at your own thought process. I anticipate that within a few weeks I will be able to post my own disciplined, ordered thought process, and I will be able to post it and have it be subject to your comments.
First, two things. 1. I have to develop a thought process, and that will be one of my main tasks tonight at the game tonight.
And 2. I need to hear Jaglavak differentiate between his 1. and 2, combinations and targets.
thanks everyone. We're getting clearer here.
By the way, anyone else who reads this is of course free to propose another thought process, but let's not get overwhelmed by proposals. There's already a lot of proposals from aronchuck, Yaroslavl and Jaglavak.
thanks again.
I think this is the clearest (to me) explanation to far of hxg>fxg. {could have had the h file at no cost to you, prevented castling because attacks on h2} the rook would have been immediately activated, without my needing to castle, and as Jaglavak pointed out earlier, moving rook pawn off h file increased its value from less than a pawn to a whole pawn. the issue of the pawn islands is less clear to me, but so far this argument of increasing the rook pawn's value and more efficiently activating my king rook to target h2 is very clear.
thank you.
actually, I think I just found Jaglavak's answer to the question I posed. So that's it. I have it. Jag;avak wrote earlier:
<Finally, when looking for combination, you are accessing you mind for tactical patterns, NOT calculating unless and until you find one.>
In other words, Jaglavak's thought process is 1. look for patterns you r recognize. See if there's a attern you recognize. If you recognize a pattern, do what you know to do in that situation. If you don't see any patterns...
2. Look for targets. i.e. look for underfended, underdefended pieces, look at aquares pieces control and how those pieces could target other pieces. Think about what you might do with those targets, controlled squares, underdefended pieces/squares. If there are no targettable squares or pieces
3. Improve a piece.
I think its safe to say that 1. is likely I will find nothing in #1..i.e. my repertoire of quickly recognized patterns is so small now that it is likely I will not see any patterned combination. So I will move to 2.
2. It is very unlikely that there are no targets. If I find nothing in 2. I am likely making an error, and I need to look more carefully for targets, and undefended or nderdefneded pieces.
I Will MOCT LIKELY make the MAJORITY of my errors in Jaglavak's question #2. I can't help errors in #1. they're not errors if I don't have that pattern in my memory. Question 2 is that looking, LOOKING, and more looking, for underfended pieces, aquares, weak pawns, targets, possible targets, etc.
If I move to Jaglavak's #3 I have most likely not spent enough time at #2.
Reading what you just wrote, I want to say that I think it is important not to get anxious. What I mean, is that if you looked for targets (question #2) and you didn't find any, then trust your judgement and go to the next step. My personal appreciation is that the importance of the questions is so that you don't forget to do something every time. But thinking the same thing over and over and over again is not efficient (you'll get into time trouble fast!), and no matter if your answers were good, you'll feel you are losing something and checking again... that sort of scenario will shatter your confidence and you'll get anxious (and then you'll make real mistakes). Imagine the piano, you can't play the piano if you are afraid of the keys, if you are afraid to make mistakes. So make honest mistakes, there are things which are out of your reach now and you can't help (the story of us all!), but you'll learn them eventually.
Respecting question number two, if it helps you, I think that it is key what the experienced playeres said many times here: pay attentions to the changes in the position. Every time a piece move (especially pawns) make changes in the layout, some square is now stronger, some square or piece is weaker (perhaps loose or hanging). Remember to keep track of all the changes, and targets should be appearing all the time (that piece is now loose, that pawn is defendended only by the king, those two pieces are defended only one time... by the enemy queen, all things that you can exploit).
And respecting the sequences of exchanges, something that REALLY helped with that is counting attackers and defenders. I see a square and think "3 vs 2" (attackers vs defenders) and that means that if I initiate a capture there I will be able to take last and probably win something, or if I see the enemy has more attackers than I have defenders then I probably have to watch out. Of course, this is a simplification (no matter if you have 5 attackers and 1 pawn is defending, if you capture first with the queen you'll probably regret it!), but this helped me sort it out a little bit (and ease my mind). It's a tool, it's not the holy grail, but it is something that can get you started (you'll still have to analize everything though!).
Hope anything of that can be useful. Best of luck on tonight's game! I'll be looking forward to it.
My greatest weakness in chess is just this. I an overly optimistic about my positions, and often find it impossible to objectively falsify my non-tactical objectives. I do not have this problem in correspondence chess. I just turn the board around and play against my idea to gain this objectivity. This is my perosnal weakness, and if I were trying to improve, priority one would be to teach myself to do over the boad in my mind, what I do in corrspondence chess with the board.
This list should be small and get smaller if you are studying the right things. The right things are always what you are worse at.
interesting. First, about your post just before this one. Good that I saved you some explaning. I actually usually find you very easy to understand, and I usually understand you accurately. So, good.
About this; yes, and I have the opposite problem, and one that I have to fix. I am always overly pessimistic about my position, unless I have an advantage that I am aware of, and then I am overly optimistic about it.
I realized when I was playing some slow otb chess this past summer that I always afound better moves for my opponent than for myself. I usually saw the right move for my opponent very soon after I had made my own move. Needless to say, the move I found for my opponent usually showed the error of my own move.
I need to turn the board around, and then turn it around again so that I give my own chances the same attention I give my opponent's. I am quite literally often a more formidable foe to myself than my opponent is.
by the way, on some time-wating reading just before I saw that there are boks by a Jonathan Rowson Seven Deadly Chess sins and Chess for Zebras that some of the more advanced players will probably find useful. Rowson apparently esp in chess for zebras talks about how principles that chess players learned when they were weaker players come to haunt them now as their strength is increased. He says 'the training wheels are what gets in the way'. He is substantially saying what we are here, that the non-analytical axioms can do more harm then good. Unfortunately, apprently in seven deadly chess sins, he talks about materialism as a sin, and recommends that chess players should see the pieces as 'packets of energy".
Anyway, the positions and the analysis are going to be far too advanced to me. I just thought I'd share this for proplr who are advanced and are itching to buy a book.
Btw I do not own these books, I just read reviews about them this morning, when I was wasting time waiting for my coffee to cool a bit. So if I misunderstood Rowson that's fine; I haven't read him, just a reviewer. ;)
long way to go. But even Ray Charles can see material and squares is the best joke on this thread so far (a thread full of good jokes I might add 
). In the opinion of one piano player who often plays with his eyes closed, about another piano player who lost his sight.
I know you are playing your game tonight at the club. Good Luck! Although with the list detailed below you won't need much luck.
BEFORE I MAKE A MOVE CHECKLIST
1. With my list next to me, place my hands underneath my thighs. Do not remove my hand from underneath my thigh to make a move before I have checked every item on my list twice!
2. What is my opponent's threat? What is my threat? LOOK FOR CHECKS OR DISCOVERED CHECKS,ALSO PINS AND FORKS, ESPECIALLY AGAINST YOUR KING AND QUEEN
3. Which of the 6 characteristic pawn structures has the position assumed? REMEMBER PAWNS CANNOT MOVE BACKWARDS, ANY PAWN MOVE OF YOURS OR YOUR OPPONENT'S CHANGES THE POSITION PERMANENTLY, BEFORE MOVING A PAWN BE VERY CAREFUL!!
4. Are all my pawns and pieces defended directly or indirectly? REMEMBER PIECES CAN MOVE(DEFEND) AND CAPTURE BACKWARDS
5. Which of my opponent's pawns and pieces are undefended directly or indirectly? REMEMBER ENEMY PIECES CAN MOVE(DEFEND) AND CAPTURE BACKWARDS
6. Look for Bishops hidden from your sight in a group of enemy pawns. example: a fianchettoed Bishop hidden in a complex of 4 enemy pawns
Comment for Yaroslavl - pardon me for intruding, but my curiosity sometimes overwhelms my better judgement.
Firstly, I am greatly impressed by your comments on thid thread.
Secondly (the curiosity part), is your first name by any chance Sergey?
Thank you. My first name is not Sergey
@badger_song
Exactly the kind of temperament that makes for a strong chess player or as I prefer to call us "professional gunslingers"
You guys were discussing seeing the pieces that are and are not defended.
In Fritz 13(don't know about other versions) in the training area it has "Defense Training" where from a random position you have to click on every piece of both colors that isn't defended. It also has "Check" training where a random board comes up and you have to click on every piece on both sides that can deliever check.
hi everyone. I'm going to post my game in the next hour. Yaroslavl, I didn't see your post before my game. That must be why I lost 
.
Seriously, though, sitting on my hands is probably the one chess move that will improve my play the most. Sure, there are little tactical blunders. But some, particularly in the game I played tonight, were the result of not sitting on my hands. If I had obeyed #1, I would not have made the mistake I made in #2.
I will now work on inputting the moves and my analysis. The good news is, I played the opening well, I think. The stuff we talked about the Caro KAn really stuck in my memory, and I saw weaknesses in my opponent's opening play. As for the middlegame...you will see. there is some good, and some bad.
My note book was divided into :1) my opening as white(the Danish);2)my responses to half-open defenses;3)my defense to 1.e4(Petroff);4)my response to1.d4(QGA);5)everything else.Eventually you can play out the moves mentally by simply reading the sequence of moves.For lines that were troublesome because of counter-intuitive moves,I would make diagrams as a learning aid.I only studied what I played or what I was likely to face.As white I play only one opening ,the Danish,which is a 1.e4 opening.So I study it and the likely black reponses.As black I have only one defense to 1.e4 and 1.d4(which is 1...e5 and 1...d5).For everything else I have basic responses about 4 moves deep,depending on those lines and opening principles to get me to the middlegame.So my study of openings and what I choose to commit to my note book is large in volumne but very limited in terms of the number of openings involved.I decided on these openings early and have stuck with them,I don't think becoming a fashionista in openings is very productive.