what im trying to get at here is when people play obviously bad/weakening moves that arent losing but just bad
Then you respond by doing the exact opposite:
Play obviously good/strengthening moves that aren't winning, but are just good.
Example, a bullet game I played:
My opponent went for a strange "all pawns to the 6th rank" approach. Obviously bad, but there isn't an obvious knockout punch to be seen, right away.
So I just played "good" moves: developing my pieces to strong squares, occupying the center with my pawns.
Then, when I was all developed, I pushed for a pawn break.
Black's position crumbled quickly, and my pieces were well-placed to mop up any available tactics.
"Tactics flow from a superior position", as Fischer claimed.
Just strive to play "good" moves in response to your opponent's "bad" ones. This, alone, won't automatically give you the win - but it should (hopefully) place you in a good position to take advantage of any positional weaknesses that might arise, later in the game.
yeah but pushing all pawns to the 6th is an obvious mistake and white has a clear way to win
then compare it to something like this
there is no obvious win here allthough the computer says its much better.
this topic is about how to play agianst these bad moves. i obviously did not understand and so i asked. what i got out is that i just need to play principled chess and hope that i didint miss anything with the move they made
i won't argue with you anymore, but what you just said "play principled chess and hope not to miss anything"--that is all there is to it.