Just took a quick look. I didn't like 26. Ra3.
I understand it didn't look like there were many good candidates at that point and that maybe you were thinking of doubling the rooks on the semi-open file?
I wondered about maybe 26. f3 to win you a tempo there instead.
LTM, yes that was my intention to double the rook on that half- open. I also should have played 26. f3, that is a nice move to kick that Knight out. I was going to play it, but I thought he was going to be in my territory while attacking my rook and pawn, but I missed that all I had to do was defend the pawn with the attacked rook, and I think that Knight would have been trapped.
You're right Huey. I thought if after 26.f3 26..f6, then he could exchange knights with 27. fxg4 and win the pawn on g5 if ..fxg5, but of course it's not forced so not a good move after all.
Ufmgambit06, I would say that you mostly lacked a plan.
In the opening, you played 5.d3 and then 6.Nc3. Why not Nc3 first and then d4, the most obvious square for that piece? d3 was a self-limiting move. You then spent four tempi (Be3, Qd2, Bh6, Bxg7) to exchange Black's worse piece. On e3, your Bishop controlled both sides of the board, whereas Black's Bishop couldn't even move.
After that, you made vague Kingside demonstrations, but you never had any real threats. You spent more time moving your Queen around without doing anything.
The position after move 11 is closed, and so you need to find a pawn lever. You have three potential options: going for d4, which is probably best; trying for f4, opening lines on the Kingside and getting your Rooks into play; and finally, maybe you have something with g4 and h4 at some point, but that looks the least natural.
12.Re1 looks like the most natural move on the board to me. Your Rook eyes the enemy Queen and it protects your e-pawn for the coming d4 advancement. You might want to play h3 first, but I'm not sure if Bg4 is a big enough threat to worry about.
Even without the above plans, your position wasn't really bad until you advanced with g4 and h4 after wasting all that time with your Queen. Your pieces weren't really able to follow up. Even in a perfect world, what would you have done? Had you traded all of Black's pawns, Black's Rooks could take advantage of the open lines faster than your Rooks, plus he has more defenders nearby. You just created weaknesses, which Black then exploited.
In open positions, play on the open lines. In closed positions, figure out which lines will likely open and then play there. I think that's the best tip I can give you from quickly looking at this game.
Thanks to everyone who chimed in on my game. I plan to post more in the future. Just curious, is anyone here an NBA fan? I was following the playoffs closely and watched my San Antonio Spurs get eliminated after a great season.
Hello community. It seems I am not improving. I have a half decent tactics trainer showing in which I maintain a 1500-1680 rating, (which is still weak), yet my chess games (10 min Blitz predominantly) rating hovers between 1200-1380. The "1200-1380" rating comes from fluctuation and inconsistency. Last year I couldn't break 1100, and now I can't break 1400, though I have broke it a couple of times just to go back down 100 rating points. I have played too many games to be at this rating level. I lose to many players who always have a much lower tactics trainer rating than me, though I'm sure that is due to me doing a lot more problems than them. I struggle against players rated 1400+. Players 1400+ all of a sudden play like f****n grandmasters against me. I know I am not gifted, but I have had some pretty good tactical, and combinative wins that may show some potential, but I just can't pinpoint how to get better and how to understand chess better as a whole.
I guess I also just don't know how to study chess all that great. Any good advice is appreciated. Books, study plans, anything. Also if you feel like you can coach me I'll pay you to help me. I want to understand chess on a high level and I'll do what it takes to get there, but I'd say I'm in need of some guidance.
hey ufmgambit
I hear you man. I was at the 1200 level for a while. I felt like I could beat all my friends and family, but against higher level of competition of people that actually played chess decently I got crushed.
1200s from what I observed really don't play sound fundamental chess. Although they know the fundamentals they haven't really appreciated it I think.
Just judging by your name I suspect you like to play gambits? This my sound counter intuitive but I would try playing non-gambits and switch it up, this way you get to hone in your fundamentals and get past this elo trap then you can go back and play gambits once your past this level.
I put together a detailed guide on kind of what to expect at each elo level check it out.
From a 500 ELO Beginner to a 2000 ELO Expert
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/from-a-500-elo-beginner-to-a-2000-elo-expert
Ok, some said to start posting games, so here is one I just played. I got checkmated in the end, but this game wasn't about hanging pieces, but more about getting outplayed throughout. His Knights were way in my territory, and just over all coordinated his pieces much better than me. How did I allow this to happen, and what did I do wrong? Like in most of my games, after I have developed my pieces, I don't seem to know what to do after. This game was really making me upset , how I couldn't get any attack going, and was just on the defensive most of the game (like most of my games) and just really didn't know what I was doing.