Am I too stupid for chess?

Interesting that you are the first person in this thread to say this, can you elaborate more?

And here is a game I just finished, while I lost and made several mistakes I feel like there are probably somethings that I did right. If anyone would like to make a few pointers I would be appreciative.

If I was starting out like you I would spend time solving tactic puzzles and but Jeremy Silman Complete Endgame book on Amazon and start working through it. When you play, ask yourself what is threatened, and then what can be done about it (if need be). Slowly you will begin to quickly understand what's going on in positions, weed out a bunch of horrible moves and then begin to focus on some better moves and pick one. Improvement comes in spurts for most, you start studying, may not see much improvement, then suddenly you begin to play much better. Message me if you want sometime!

Anyone who makes such statement shouldn't be able to elaborate.

I started really playing chess a little over a year ago.  At that time I was falling for queen sorties and basic pitfalls that all amateurs fall for.  I was lucky to have an equally skilled (or unskilled) player to play with all the time for we forced each other to get better and better and learn different openings and strategy.  

I then was given Chess for Dummies after my uncle beat me and said I really must be a dummy to lose to him.  It is a great starting book for basic strategy and tactics.  Still my game didn't improve MUCH due to it.  I then picked up a book on many old Fischer games (any book on any GM will work) and replayed those games, studying the moves and why they were made.  Replaying old classic games helps improve your game greatly.  I then picked one opening for white and stuck with it time and again (for me it was the ruy lopez or italian game if answered with the sicilian, since I refuse to trade a bishop for a knight so early in the game.)  Play your one opening every time to learn all the variants and how to play against them.  
I did the same thing with black, I picked one defense against d4 and another against e4 and used them consistently to learn the variants.  I played with these 3 basic openings for months before I was even willing to try anything else and it greatly improved my game.  

Only after I played quite a bit was I willing to try my hand at blitz and even now I generally play 10 min games as I can usually make all my moves in about that time.  If I play 5 min or less, my strategy is to stay alive and make my moves fast to try and get them to lose on time without destroying my position and giving them the mate.  Still, it doesn't help as much as the studying and playing over and over real games.  

It is easy to get frustrated, I have been stuck at my rating for some time now.  It will go up a little and the next day back down.  It can be tricky on this site or online games only as you are only generally playing people who know something about chess.  Take those basic strategies you learn in Chess for Dummies or other books and play an average joe in real life and see how well it works!  

When a game happens that is completely one sided (especially against you) or is really dynamic and close, copy the notation and replay it again to see blunders and such.  Give it time and you'll get better. That's what I keep telling myself.  In one year I'd like to think my game has improved dramatically!  Now I just have to get over this hump somehow :)

This opinion shares Hikaru Nakamura. I don't remember exactly how he elaborated it but i suppose if you want to be good at blitz then you should play it.

I think that blitz could potentially improve your game but only after you are a decent player and only after you then go back and look at the game to see where the blunders are.  Definitely if you want to truly improve your positional game, you should play games with no time or PLENTY of time to think about each move.  That way you can find the BEST move, or at least pick one in the top 3.  In a blitz game, you are just trying not to die in the time limit so really it doesn't give you the opportunity to analyze anything until after it has happened, and we all know hindsight is 20-20.

when you play blitz you see ideas MUCH faster in long time chess, and see ideas you would never see if you have not seen it before. Blitz are very underated.. I use blitz for pattern recognisation and opening training

My guess is the OP wants to be good at chess.

For example in this bullet game I had 3 secounds left and I had to see the winning continuation or else I would be lost:

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1128303336

Those type of patterns are more easily assumed by playing lots of slow games.

I highly disagree. How can you find something you have never ever seen before? You would have to be a genious that is as smart as those who found the classical mates from the beginning, and that is hard to believe even if you see it if you have never seen it before. It is easier to see things like that if they happen to you and you can pick up ideas from your higher rated opponent which you can use in longer time controls.

That's my point, precisely. It's more easy to find it in slow games. Once you have assimilated the pattern, it will be useful for you when playing blitz too. Of course the study of classical games helps a lot, for the same reason.

For example, in your game. Qxg7+ is suggested by itself, because the weakness of the 8th rank. Nice one, anyway!

No! You won't see things easier just because you have much more time. The only way to catch up things that you have never seen before is to have them done to yourself. And that happends in faster controls where things like that much more frequently happens.

Sorry but this is not true. You can find all sort of examples in classical games.

So you say that tactics happen more in classical games than blitz games.. That makes no sense at all really..

Pardon? When I've said something like that? What I said is it happens too, and you have more time to find them and assimilate the patterns properly. You can bluff sometimes in blitz, but not in slow chess.

Ofcourse you can bluff in slow chess. If I recall correctly in a long chess game Nakamura had a completely winning position against Carlsen, but Carlsen allowed a tactic on himself and then tables turned. What is that, if not a bluff?

But is not usual. If you rely mainly in blitz to improve your chess skills you'll assimilate lots of bad habits. On the contrary, slow chess helps to be better at every time control.

Just read a few of these comments, its great being a part of the chess community, everyones so sound and decent, even when you look at chess vids online, theres a norm of approx 500 likes for a vid and 2 dislikes which is rare for a youtube vid.

As for you Pete, here's what I van give you:

See every loss as a small victory in that with every loss is the oppertunity to learn something new and become stronger. You can only learn from mistakes, and you can only get physically strong by ripping those muscles first.

When I was 18 I was cocky with my chess, I was beating everyone in my sixth form and then a 13 year old challenged me. I thought Id wipe the floor with him. In fact he got my Queen in Four Moves! Rather then disappointment, I learnt humility and to never underestimate an opponent... visa vie... I learned something. Just another great lesson from the greatest game humanity has ever brought forth (although I must say I'm developing a soft spot for plants vs zombies... lots of fun, kind of like chess actually)