Why are you posting kisses Spongebobs ?
My latest disaster. What did I do wrong? (I'm stupid!!!)
Sort:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
... He does that when he wants to bombard the thread with quotes taken out of context ...
I do not have that motivation.
Spongebobs have you inadvertently consumed a love potion?
BobbyTalparov wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansem (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
I completely agree that book will help him with his openings. However, the opening is not what lost him the game. ... when analyzing the game, the OP should identify the losing move (i.e. the move that took him from winning to losing, even to losing, or slightly worse to losing). ...
Is there any reason to believe that one should only pay attention to what lost the game?
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
BobbyTalparov wrote:
... Again, 4. .. Nf6 is accurate for several reasons, and an opening book would simply show him this (and rarely explain why!) so he might just pick it up and start playing it automatically (and then wonder why he loses when it is not the correct move to play in a slightly different position). ...
Is it relevant to discuss what happens "rarely" in "an opening book"? I have been suggesting two specific opening books.
"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansem (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
First Steps 1 e4 e5 is by the same (GM) author.
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
kindaspongey wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
... He does that when he wants to bombard the thread with quotes taken out of context ...
I do not have that motivation.
BobbyTalparov wrote: "... Whether you have the motivation or not, it is the end result of your actions."
Perhaps we are in agreement that no further explanation is necessary in order for people to perceive the degree to which your accusation has merit.
the consensus is that the Op lost because of a failure to recognise his opponents threats, even after ...a6 and even after ...b5 and ...Qe7 etc he would have been ok if he had managed to recognise his opponents threats.
BobbyTalparov wrote:
... the OP wanted to know why he lost and how he can avoid making those mistakes in the future. ...
"... Can you guys please tell me what I did wrong other than being stupid and a terrible player? I spent most of the game playing defense and actually played a long loss. I was hoping the clock would run out and it almost did, but alas it did not. This was a player with a lower rating who once again seemed to have every move memorized and counters for everything I did. Does everyone really have 10,000 moves/tactics memorized? Is that what I had to do? The opening was terrible. ..." - formatallan (~1 day ago)
BobbyTalparov
... I fully support identifying where you left opening theory as an improvement step, ... Addressing his opening moves is fine, ...
About two hours ago, I asked, "Don't you think a book like First Steps 1 e4 e5 (or Discovering Chess Openings) could help formatallan with the understanding related to choosing 4...Nf6 (instead of 4...a6) after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 ?"
Perhaps we agree that the answer is yes.
BobbyTalparov wrote:
... identifying where you left opening theory as an improvement step ... does not immediately address his root problem, ... at the OP's current level and to answer his current problem: yes, all that is needed is to identify the losing move, why it was made, and take corrective action to ensure he doesn't make it in the future. Anything else is simply gravy at this point. ... Addressing his opening moves ... does not address his core problems. ... If he addresses the core problems, he can still make the inaccurate opening moves (which he would want to address as he moved up), but they would not result in an immediate loss (i.e. he still has a playable game even after a6 and Bd7 - it is just a bit uncomfortable).
Isn't it possible that the root/core problem is only going to be gradually eliminated? Is it easier to make good decisions if one has sometimes managed to avoid an uncomfortable position?
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
BobbyTalparov wrote:
... If he were to fix his opening moves and still hang pieces 5 moves later, all you have done is move when his core problem causes him to lose games. ...
To me, that sounds like progress. Like it or not, a lot is going to go wrong for a beginner, and, for many, progress is a gradual matter. By the way, is anyone advocating that formatallan ignore the "core problem"?
[COMMENT DELETED]
BobbyTalparov wrote:
... when you go out of theory on move 4, you do not need any opening book (specific or otherwise) to help you identify where you went wrong. Hell, the chess.com database will show you moves that have been played at that level of the game even for free members. ...
Will a database explain opening ideas with the clarity, examples, and sample games that would be provided by GM John Emms?
"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansem (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
[COMMENT DELETED]
robbie_1969 wrote:
the consensus is that the Op lost because of a failure to recognise his opponents threats, even after ...a6 and even after ...b5 and ...Qe7 etc he would have been ok if he had managed to recognise his opponents threats.
Is it perhaps easier to be ok if one sometimes manages to avoid difficult positions?
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
mickynj wrote:
Of course a decent beginner's book on the openings would help--a little! No one really disputes that. But the simple fact is that the OP will never improve, never reach his potential, without learning decent playing habits. ...
Is anyone advocating that formatallan not learn decent playing habits?
... What the OP missed was a series of small tactics involving undefended pieces. ...
And also the reason for playing 4...Nf6 after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 3 c3.