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

aronchuck, I thank you for your notes. They show so much. So so much. They show what I believed was true during the game, i.e. that I could have won it if I had known how to attack, and that I didn't know how to follow up with an attack. I felt in my bones that I had a kingside superiority, and I just didn't have a clue what to do with it. Your comments on fxe4 are just the tip of the iceberg...your many lines showing the many winning tactics that were possible at many points, the failure to attack when I had the advantage, the need to bring more forces over to the attack, the folly of a3 when I really had nothing to fear, yet I feared. I feared this little pawn storm that was many many moves away, when I could have pressed an attack with my pieces on the kingside and Black would have had to abandon the advance of his pawns because he had other more deperate things to attends to,  the too little too late of the Rh6...so much instruction here, so much in your notes. 

I encourage everyone to read aronchucks' notes. They are hugely instructive. I have another game tonight at almost midnite; I will post it tomorrow. I will now practice tactics, tactics, tactics, until my game, with a short break for dinner...I'm playing White tonight, again. We'll see what I do. I will take aronchuck's notes to heart. 

@ aronchuck & Sombodysson

Great analysis as usual but I think I need to clear up a point about me & the Stonewall. It's already in my repertoire, I played it almost exclusively at club level & in Correspondence for at least 2 years before I diversified my repertoire. I took it to a fairly high level before I took a short break from Chess (ok a 30 year short break) So I see my role here as an intermediate one, my calculating power is taking a long time to recover from the break & theory has moved on so I am playing catchup there but my original theory base is still solid, it just needs an update. In an intermediate role I look to providing a bridge between the beginners mind which I am partially reliving & the higher level analysis which you & a couple of others are providing & which I did in a previous life.

So when Somebodysson started playing the Stonewall I was seeing easily correctable mistakes. I agree with you that playing mechanical opening moves is usually a recipe for disaster (The Sicilian Dragon is another good example where that often happens) but the Stonewall falls into the category that if you are going to play it there are a few things you must understand it about it or it leads to losses & frustration & you don't know why. So what I have been trying to do is to give Somebodysson that base understanding so he will know why certain moves are made & why some responses are critial.

To Somebodysson's credit that last game for the 1^st time showed a good understanding of the opening & what it was trying to achieve. The Stonewall is an opening that needs some level of understanding out to about 12 moves so it is not the best choice of opening for many beginners but seeing that Somebodysson was persisting with it I thought that he may as well learn to avoid the disasters. I was interested (well amazed actually) that Jaglovak liked the Stonewall, his reasoning was the sharp tactical game it leads to after the opening & when I look back I now realise that all those games I played at club level honed my tactical skills to a much higher level because of the middle game a Stonewall can lead to, especially the art of sacrifice & more complex combinations.

Sorry for the long rambling post, but I thought it better to clarify where I stand in the scheme of things so we can remain focused & true to the original intent of this thread. If Somebodysson plays a couple more Stonewalls like he did that last game we will probably never need to mention the word Stonewall again …..... I can almost hear the collective sigh of relief,  he will have enough understanding to play it without the disasters & then learn from the sharp middle game & it becomes a small but integral part of his total game. Regards aronchucks earlier comment about playing a variety of openings I am in total agreement, my focus on the Stonewall is purely that if you are going to use it at least understand it enough for it to help you.

I'll finish with a question, we have seen Somebodysson improve to a point where he is beginning to enter the middle game with at least equality & now sometimes an advantage, so what is the best way to convert this into actual wins? Something I always told the beginners that I used to coach is that you learn more from your losses but if you never win you are not learning a crucial part of the game. Wins are important too!

I won't say any more. Please look at the game. My opponent was rated about the same as me. 

I'll read QTKOs comment above tomorrow. Now I have to go to sleep. It was a late night game, the only time the opponent had. I certainly have my work cut out for me; its a good thing I love everything about chess so much!!

@ Somebodysson

You sound a bit disheartened, or maybe just tired. I'm going over your game now but its slow until I get my calculating power back. I tend to miss some lines at the moment so I'll wait for aronchuck & check mine against his.

What I have come up with so far is the decision making process. When you annotate the game could you please include where you stopped for long thinks as well as what your thoughts were & roughly how long you spent. Recognizing critical points & how long you spend on them may give some more insight into how your game is going.

hi QueenTakesKnight. Yes, I'm a bit disheartened. I just lost two more games, one early this morning, and one late last night. Its no good scheduling the games when I'm not in good shape, but I can't use that as an excuse. I found myself getting caught in tactics, having hanging pieces that I realized too late were hanging. I haven't been applying the thinking process rigorously in my games. I have to get back to that, doing that in the games. I'll post the two games I just played. Without comment. I was down lots of material in both of them. You'll see. 

What I'd be interested in hearing is what is my major error. I want to focus on my major error. Let's see what it is. I'll post the games now. 

thanks aronchuck, you actually wrote exactly what I was thinking. I want to just do tactics in the Hays book for a few weeks, start retraining my brain to be looking for them all the time. I'll check in to the thread, see games that people are posting, analysis people are writing, but I;m going to 'woodshed' tactics for a few weeks. Nothing else. I did receive the book and started working with it. Its hard, but good. Its definitely what I need to do. 

People should feel free to post their games, and I think we should try to continue to address the three questions in the analyses; I wasn't thinking the questions in these games...I was trying my hardest, but I was super tired in both games, and didn't prepare myself properly, didn't remind myself to ask the questions for every move...and instead let fate take the game where it took it. 

I'll be woodshedding, and I'll be reading on here, but I'll be posting less, for a few weeks at least. 

It seems I'm getting late to the party! A lot of games to analyse and a lot to read. Here's my analysis of the game SBS played two days ago, I'll read everybody's elses notes and I hope I can catch up!

You have a bit of a dilemma, you are correct that it is pointless to play games when you are tired, you make mistakes that you don't really learn from. So leave that for guys like Mikhail Tal who could drink 2 bottles of Vodka at night & win a tournament the next day while chain smoking his way through the whole thing.

I think you need to keep the number of games you play up, its the ultimate training arena & test of what you have been studying, but it's probably time to pause & come up with a new plan.

Maybe some of us here could give you a few untimed unrated games if we can match up the timezones & the rating difference is acceptable. Just a thought, does anyone else think this could help?

Back to your games, the last 2 show your head was not in the game, I agree with aronchuck, solid openings then a flawed middle game with eventual blunders. Not much to learn from but I'll analyse them later anyway. I'm working on the previous game as the opening raises some interesting points. I've been avoiding using computer analysis up til now but while I work on regaining my calculating power & board vision but I have finally decided to use it to check my work. So I am spending a bit of time on that at the moment.

Don't be disheartened, we all went through periods like this. Chess is a strange game but I remember distinctly the down times I had & I also remember that my ability would plateau & then jump to a new level, so look at this as a plateau & keep working towards the next jump.

thank you jojojopo and qtko. qtko, I'll regain my confidence. and I"m going to follow your advice and play one live online game per day, and I'm going to work in those daily games on practicing the questions, asking the questions. I'm also going to try different openings, as the main thing I'll be praciticng is the questions. In the meantime, I'm doing tactics puzzles in the Hays book, and Tactics trainer (much easier) on chess.com

jojojopo! I love how you annotate!! I love how you talk things out. Its very different from aronchuck, very different. aronchuck has very amazing variations which show me what is possible. Your annotations show me the verbalizing of the thinking. I find them both very insightful and helpful. One question to jojojopo. Can you elaborate more on this

11. exd4and now ...Ne4 is much more difficult since the e-file is half-open.

I just don't understand the siginificance of the e file is half open. If you have the chance please talk more about this. 

Thanks. (and sorry for the change in font size. I have no idea how this stuff works or why it happens). 

@SBS I'm really happy you find it useful! On the comment about ...Ne4 being more difficult since the e-file is half-open, what I really meant is that since there is no pawn on e3, there is nothing blocking White's major pieces from controlling e4 from behind, meaning that White can get a major influence of that square than Black so the knight will have trouble maintaining his position.

@aronchuk Thank you very much for the recommendation and advice you offered. Your arguments make sense, and I find the warning against letting chess become a 1-dimensional game very wise. I'll take your advice into consideration.

awesome little visit to the thread. a few things. @jojojopo: I loved how you responded to aronchuck, and how he responded to you! You are not late for the party, everm brother. And I am listening very carefully to what aronchuck says about openings, and attacks on king, and his advice to jojojopo about playing unfamiliar openings...not becoming one dimensional.

what jojojopo wrote to aronchuck about not seeing what aronchuck sees, all the variations he sees...yes, and...I played a very short game yesterday, very short, I lost it very quickly, don't look at it, its not worth looking at. I lost it because I was lazy, becuuase I assumed I could play the opening (Stonewall) automatically. and when Black played an unusual move I assumed I could proceed with setting up the stonewall attack...I was playing automatically...and the error of my ways showed itself very quickly, and later quick analysis showed that there was one right move, and all the other moves were wrong, and because I played automatically, without knowing the position, I was really playing a gambling game and not a chess game. so aronchuck's 'warning' that the good player knows when he has to think, is very important. I have to know that I have to think unless it is the rare situation where I know the pattern. what aronchuck writes about the strong player needing to calculate less, not more, makes perfect sense. 

I'm also glad to see the new contributors, and especially that they're posting some games. I'm going to come onto this thread at least once a day. This, along with the Hays Tactics book, is still my textbook. 

and the questions, as phrased by aronchuck are still the goal. I'km glad the new contributor is supportive of aronchuck's questions. and its always nice to hear from people who have been following the thread and finding it helpful, and have them come out of the woodwork!

qtko: what you wrote about wanting me to understand the stonewall makes perfect sense. No one is attacking the stonewall as a learning tool. But aronchuck's point is that I mustn't get lulled into a one-dimensionality that a chessgame must involve an early attack on the king. I would like to start looking at some of Karpov's games, some of Pertrosian's games...if only to teach me that that is not the case!! And...starting with an all out attack a la stonewall is fun!! It just can't be the only way I play. 

aronchuck, thank you for your very instructive notes to BReid's game. Question: do you see all these tactical possibilities immediately, or do you look long and go "now let me see what else I can find here. what else is possible?"

Variation on that question, perhaps that will lead to a more instructive answer: Is the process of annotating slower, or faster, than playing the game?

thanks. 

aronchuck, when you have the chance. no rush.

amazing answers. thank you aronchuck. you are a scholar. I and we are very lucky to have you. You came into this thread quietly, and you patiently contributed and stayed out of the trouble that sometimes swirled around. You are now our scholar-in-residence. You played this thread like you play your games, I imagine; with patience, calmness, thoroughness.