Middle game strategies

i would like to know where i can go to improve my middle game play like past games and strategies and how do u post ur games on the games analysis folder thanks

You can post your games anywhere you make a post. When you are composing your post for the Game Analysis forum, look at the row of icons just above the text. On the left you'll see a little picture that looks like a chess board. Click on that picture and you will be given instructions for how to include a game.

Are you looking for websites for middlegame play? Then I'm not sure. I Jeremy Silman's book "How to Reassess Your Chess". Some people prefer Max Euwe's middle game books.

Posting your games here and getting feedback on them might be the fastest way to figure out what you need to do to improve. 

Well, looking at a couple of your games:

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=817741

 + Develop all or at least most of your pieces before attacking

 + Developing your queen early is usually a bad idea. 

To improve, study opening principles. 

  + You shouldn't trade bishop + knight for a rook + pawn

To improve, learn the value of the pieces. 

  + You lost on time in a winning position

 http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=816551

 + You resigned in a winning position
 

You need to get under control whatever is causing you to abandon your games! It's no fun for your opponent and hurts your rating.

I'm reading a book now by GM Edmar Mednis.  It's called Practical Middlegame Tips.  It's very good and I hope to learn from it soon.

 I was going to ask what you mean by develop, but looked into the dictionary first and found:

develop

vt.

6 Chess to position (chessmen or a chessman) strategically in the early stages of a game

But, then, positioning strategically is no more concrete than the abstract term develop.  What do we mean when we say that a player should develop her pieces?

When your pieces are sitting on the back row on their original squares, this is certainly poor strategic positioning for them. So, if nothing else, getting them out of the back row is an improvement. Getting them to the most strategically beneficial square is difficult, but getting them off the back row should be straightforward.

Castling is generally counted as a developing move as well. One positional positive is if your rooks are connected on the back rank -- meaning there is nothing else inbetween them. This gives the rooks the choice of what file to go to and allows them to protect each other, and potentially double on the same file. 

What principles of strategy will guide me?

Is the point simply to get them off the back row and connect the rooks? 

What principles of strategy will guide me?

I already provided a reasonable set of principles to guide their development. It combines the wisdom of Lasker, Fine, Nimzowitsch, and others.

Okay, I see that centre control is a strategic principle. The rest of Exeter Chess Club's recommendations are just details for getting the pieces off the back rank, and endless repetition of the notion of development without explaining the term. Is centre control the only important strategic principle guiding development?

'Lessons in chess strategy' - Valeri Beim - Gambit Publications.

I am reading it, it is excellent

Is centre control the only important strategic principle guiding development?

Our ratings are not that different, so you must have some idea how to play the opening. Why don't you post a couple games where you had trouble in the opening in the Game Analysis forum so we can provide specific advice?

With respect to the original poster, after looking at his games, and I believe that advice from GMs and world champions is right on target and will make him a stronger player if he studies it and applies it in his games.

Definition of development: The removal of the minor pieces from the back rank, securing the safety of the king (most often by castling), the connecting of the rooks on the back rank.

Maybe that is not your definition, but if you ask me for advice, that is my definition. Given that definition, there is still such a thing as good development and bad development. Even so, bad development is almost overwhelmingly better than a lack of development. So if I see someone who habitually doesn't complete their development and wants to know how to do better, then I suggest they develop their pieces and as they gain experience in playing developed positions, then they can start to think about what is good development and what is bad development.

Good development is focused on mobility and controlling strategically important squares. Which squares are strategically important depends on the pawn structure and to a lesser extent the placement of the pieces. In most games at least some central squares are strategically important, and this is why players are taught to control the center -- the teacher is taking a short cut by not explaining strategically important squares and rolling the dice that the central ones will be important.

Strategically important squares are determined by the specifics of the pawn structures -- holes, open and semi-open diagonals and files, and weak pawns. 

Mobility is most often determined by space. Space is also determined by pawn structure. Your space -- or the area of the board solely under your control -- are the strong squares behind your pawn structure. You may also have free mobility among the weak squares of your opponent's camp or in the area between the pawn structures.

The topics that I've introduced here have been written about on thousands of pagse in hundreds of chess books. It's a lot of hard work to understand them and even harder to apply your understanding to your games. I wish you the best of luck. 

It's a lot of hard work to understand them and even harder to apply your understanding to your games.

Good explanation. I'm still not so good at finding the ideal squares for my pieces in unfamiliar (and sometimes familiar) positions. What book do you think most advanced your understanding in this area? "How to Reassess Your Chess"?

 Now, I think that we are getting somewhere. Indeed, none other that Wilhelm Steinitz mentioned mobility in reference to the value of the pieces:

The superiority of the Bishop over the Knight is also shown by the fact that the former when placed on any square of the board will command at least 7 squares of one or more clear diagonals. In the middle of the board at K4, K5, Q4 or Q5, he will command 13 squares. On the other hand, the action of the Knight may be reduced to the command of no more than two squares, if he be placed into any of the four corners of the board, and the maximum of squares which he can command is eight. (Wilhelm Steinitz, The Modern Chess Instructor [New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1889], xxxvii.)

However, your definition of development does not include this notion of mobility. Would you say that devolopment cannot stand as a valid concept with the clarifying principles of good and bad development?

 Here's a game in which an opening surprise called into question principles of development.

"However, your definition of development does not include this notion of mobility. Would you say that devolopment cannot stand as a valid concept with the clarifying principles of good and bad development?"

Indeed my definition of development did not include the notion of mobility (though the naturally inreased mobility of the pieces as they leave the back rank is implicit). However, the description of good development did include the notion of mobility.

Development, as I defined it, does not on it's own stand as a strategic principle because there can be bad development as I mentioned. However, even bad development tends to be better than no development.

So I will state again that if a player asks me how to improve their game and I notice that they habitually fail to complete their development, I would recommend they learn to focus on completing their development, based on the definition I gave without concern for good or bad development. Chess is a difficult game and sometimes you should learn to walk before you learn to run.

There was certainly a time for me when I would say "gosh, I developed all my pieces, my king was castled, and my opponent just dominated me!" When someone asks how to improve, and this is the state of things, then they need to learn good development as opposed to just development.

The student should always be learning what are good squares for his pieces and this should help learn what is good development, but in my opinion experience is very important. It will be easier to learn what is good development if you are used to playing games where your pieces are developed.

Your opponent's first mistake was 3.f3, and that's also the first place he breaks with the principles of development as per the page I pointed to! Were you trying to say 'rules have exceptions'. Of course! The rules only take a little time to learn and are right most of the time. The original poster will be a stronger player if he masters them. And then he will begin to learn the exceptions and grow even stronger.

Wouldn't you say, however, that I also violated the canons of development in the effort to exploit tactically this fundamental error, and that after my assault both players were able to complete their development in a way that left me with a worse position--one pawn down, and another set of pawns doubled? If not for two tactical errors by my opponent, I should have lost.

Ziryab, I think if you make a statement like "here is a game that calls into question the principles of development" you ought to at least state your question.

I'll try to give an analysis of the game with reference to the principles of opening development. 

3. f3 is borderline as to whether it really goes agaisnt the principles of opening play. It does, after all, support the center. However, it creates a weakness in white's camp.

 4. ... Qh4+. This is a blatant disregard for the principles of the opening as the queen is brought out early. However, since the move 5. Ke2 is forced, and is a more egregious breach of the principles, Qh4+ is not necessarily a mistake. White's kingside will now be very difficult to develop and his king will have a hard time making his way to safety.

5. ... c5. This does not develop a piece, but it does put pressure on white's occupation of the center. However, the real error here is that black's weakest square is g7 and black's move c5 weakens his dark squared bishop. Alternatives are 5. ... Nge7 and 5. ... b6. Nge7 develops a piece, secures the black pawn on d5 and prepares to castle. b6 prepares to develop a piece that can come to the diagonal of the misplaced king or influence the central tension on d5 and e4.

By 9. Qxd4 white has a lead in development. This is a direct result of black bringing out the queen early, but also black's 5th move, c5, which allowed white to make the queen move 2 more times -- the problem with bringing out the queen early is that it may have to move several more times delaying development.

Even though white has a lead in development at move 9, the misplaced king on e2 and the pawn on f3 mean that the remainder of white's pieces will take several moves to develop and black can likely catch up. 

9. ... Nc6 black sacrifices a pawn to hasten the development of his pieces. Black could have held onto his material with 9. ... f6. 

13. ... fxe5 though a pawn down, black now leads in terms of the opening principles. Black has a superior occupation of the center and can finish development quickly. 

19. ... Bc6. Black controls the important squares while white desperately tries to find good development for his dim knight on h3.

23. ... Ng4+ black has adequately used the misplaced white king to regain his material. 24. Kd4? is a mistake 24. Kf3? also loses to e5 and other moves allow black to regain his pawn on d4 if he chooses.

This brings up the one problems with "rules" of chess.  When you begin to play these rules mechanically, you'll overlook the exceptions to those rules.

If your opponent makes a poor move in the opening, you should exploit it to the best of your ability!  Even if that means breaking the precious "never move a piece twice" or whatever, it's worth it as you punish your opponent for bad play.

Personally, I'm not too fond of his king move, as bringing your king off the bank rank exposes it to lots of checks and removes some of the safety you get from castling.