Newbie - Always CRUSHED By Computer in Openings

geek ---undo previous move -- never tried it but imagine good for teaching.....it is part of the challenge choices

Your advice was sound but too advanced for the pupil, m'friend. Baby steps. 

"the more you learn chess, the more you realize how little you know of it".

This is the *only* reason I want to get better at chess. I enjoy playing, but I can't help but think that if only I understood the game better, I would get a hell of a lot more out of it.

My apologies!  Didn't get to read your post(s) yet.  Have been reading bottom up and also skimming between school work (during hw breaks).  Not enough time yet to really dig into the deeper stuff yet, but will once I have more time! 

I actually played one more time just now: 

[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2012.11.18"]
[White "Computer - Hard"]
[Black "Player"]
 1. a4 d5 2. d4 Nc6 3. Bf4 Nf6 4. Nf3 e6 5. e3 Be7 6. Bb5 O-O 7. Nc3 Bd7 8. Nd2 Re8 9. Nf3 Nb4 10. g3 c6 11. Bd3 Qc8 12. Ne5 c5 13. Be2 c4 14. O-O Bd6

Don't know what to do after move 14 (brain is stuck). 

Any suggestions/help???  Don't worry, this will be my last tmie asking for game reviews.  I know I need to just sit down and do some of the work myself.  But it does help to get some instant feedback to get myself up and running faster. 

Thanks one last time guys and will be sure to read people's strategy advice more in-depth soon. 

If I were playing White, I'm looking at this line:

15. Nxf7 Kxf7, 16. Bxd6 ... winning one of your king's castle pawns, while threatening your hanging knight on b4 at the end of the line.  On top of that, your then, undermined backward e6 pawn becomes a weakness for White to start mounting pressure on, forcing you to defend it unless you can come up with some counterplay to retake initiative.

If you have problems recognizing weaknesses, learn about pawn structures first (baby steps) : pawn chains, doubled pawns, isolated pawns, passed pawns, backward pawns, outposts, etc.  

Piece value is more than what point values suggest.  For example, I find bishop pairs to be stronger in the endgame than knight pairs, since many endgames have their pawn structures opened up at that point in the game.  The value of pieces are also affected by their mobility.  Like, what's the point of having an extra bishop if it can't move anywhere?  Stuff like that.

Once you appreciate pawns, then you're in position to understand how to place pieces actively so that they thrive.  E.g. - centralized knight outposts, connected rooks in open files or ranks, open bishop diagonals, etc.   

About openings, generally* push a few pawns to control or attack the center,  develop minor pieces as much as possible in a manner that doesn't restrict their mobility, castle early, and you forgot to list this one... trying not to move the same piece excessively so you don't lose tempo and fall behind in development (many say twice is excessive).  Taking pawns as you did in your previous game pretty much broke all those guidelines.

Taking the pawns was kosher. The trouble started when Black wasted time afterwards. Assuming Black played a developing move on move 4 (4. ... Nf6 would be usual) he's got one piece out less than White, but White's had to give a pawn for it. The pawn is worth more than one tempo. At the worst Black should be able to equalise by giving the pawn back later but there's no harm in making White work for it.

It's just that Black piles trouble on trouble and ends up more like four tempi off the pace in short order - and at that point White not only doesn't mind the pawn deficit but is even looking at the half-open f-file (with his Rook on it) as an asset (one he would have used if Black had made the only alternative move with his King that he had at the finish).

look again. if e6/c6 then Qb3

Computers are nasty to play against because they usually don't make mistakes, can calculate accurately many moves in advance and much faster than a human can, and have huge databases to draw from at all stages of the game.  In short, if you make a mistake against a computer, you're probably going to get mugged.  This is especially true in a speed chess game because the computer thinks much faster than a person would normally be able to.

chess.com @ rapid pace 10/6 2/12 15/10 are good time controls for practice...Humans make more mistakes and are better than computers to practice against.

WOOHOO.  After 20 or so tries, I finally beat the computer on MEDIUM!!! 

I think you guys are right in that the computer does sometimes do these weird pawn kills that give up their good minor pieces.  Like the computer will just kill one of my pawns and then give up a bishop or knight in the process. 

That took place in my win.  The computer went after some pawns of mine and sacrificed it's own knight.  I figured out a way to capitalize afterwards.  But it's still frustrating.  1 win out of 20 games or so.  ....Is that like really bad for a beginner? 

One final thing I'm wondernig is how much patience does one need in chess?  I find that I just want to move right away.  I find it very difficult for me to sit and have to think through in my brain many moves ahead.  I think I think ahead an average of 2-3 moves for each variation I look at. 

I am starting to feel that's not enough moves ahead.  But, then, how many moves do you have to think ahead?  Do you have to do that all the time for every move.  Do you literally have to sit and think 5+ moves ahead, for eexample, for like 3 or 4 potential move variations for every single move you make? 

I'm starting to wonder if maybe I am just not suited for games requiring such patience.  I can do those analyses, but I find them bothersome when I play, lol. 

"Looking X moves ahead" is only useful... or even possible... in forcing lines, such as checks, captures, direct threats, etc.

Once the great chess-player and theoretician Reti was asked how many moves he typically looked ahead, and he replied "As a rule, not a single one".

That's odd, blue.  Could you elaborate? 

I often find myself getting beaten or taken advantage of seemingly for precisely that reason of not looking ahead. 

I often realize I've left myself open to attack with a move or lack of one because of not calculating the consequences of my actions. 

Myabe I'm missing something? 

BY THE WAY, I got my SECOND WIN today!!!  Maybe someone can analyze it?  I was black aganist medium computer setting.

I played with Computer4-IMPOSSIBLE some days ago on live chess, and I think I crushed him (of course not for a pawn or something, but positional). It was 5min blitz. Check it! Till move #17-18 I think. But then...of course. :)

Hey guys!

Thanks to studying people's tips here (esp. omnipaul) from a few months ago, I've now been able to beat the computer on MEDIUM more often now!!!  it's exciting! 

But, it's most often when the computer plays really goofy stuff like sacrificing a minor piece for a pawn or just plain giving up a piece it seems. 

Nevertheless, I was curious if my thinking was decent in this game.  I wrote my own commentary for a good number of the moves.  Even though I won, I still was hopingn for some feedback if anyone would be willing. 

Well, thanks again!  I feel I'm getting better - albeit slowly!!! 

Looking back 2 months ago... the whys behind opening moves (other than development and central control) have to do with the middlegame.  If you understand middlegames well and have a lot of experience playing chess only then do the whys make sense.  As you gain this experience though game playing, focus on development, tactics, visualizing, fundamental skills like these.

I also agree playing human players is much better.  How much can you learn from a computer opponent who either crushes you or gives away 5 pieces (I didn't count, it seemed like a lot).  You either lose and don't know why, or get to practice mating with 3 queens vs a lone king  : /   Not much development, tactics, or visualization required.

I erased all your comments and made a few myself.

Yes, calculation (looking ahead) is mandatory in positions which have forcing continuations, such as checks, captures, direct threats, etc.

But in quiescent positions with no forcing moves, calculation is largely a waste of time and effort. In these quiet positions, positional judgement and strategy are the key, not calculation.

The difficulty, of course, lies in being able to tell the two types of positions apart.

And that is why I don't play the computer. Only online chess for me

Not how many moves ahead,though thats helpful......the pattern of what u see and what needs to be done.

Try playing the Colle.