Stage of chess I dislike.

I find there is a certain stage in chess, about after the 12th move, after I have developed what I think is a sound opening and my opponent has also done the same.  But then, I analyse the position to the best of my ability and come to the conclusion that ANY move I make actually weakens my position.  I look at my opponent's position and his situation seems to be the same.  Thinking back I think I have probably lost games because when arriving at these situations I tended to embark on attacks out of frustration.  Sometimes it seems that he who has to move is at a disadvantage.  But once past that stage -- I'm ok.  Ideas please?

I have the same problem. I follow all the basic opening ideas and then after about the 10th move it seems like no matter what I do I'm going to either lose a piece or be in a worse position. Its very frustrating. 

It depnd on ur level i gues... liek i fel liek dat but if sumone beter than me look at da position den he sees wat 2 do... u hav to show da position then ur thouts nd we can tell u our opinion... post a diagram

Can you give us an example from one of your games?

I've seen this happen with a few playes who study opening theory too much. Do you know all the lines out to 12 moves, and then after that you just draw a blank because you don't know the ideas behind the past 12 moves you played were?

I can tell you that there ARE moves to better your position, almost always. Part of becoming a better player is learning to identify them.

You aren't alone in this regard. I have games sometimes when I'm at a loss for what to do, but you just have to soldier through and hope the plan you choose is the right one.

For me I try to force something.  I guess you could always move a piece back and let the opponent initiate attack if you want.  For me anyway I don't mind giving up the first piece.

I don't dislike anything about chess though.  =)

It's almost impossible to offer advice without having an example of yours to draw from.

However, it's my suspicion that you are reaching positons where seeminly counter-intuitive moves are actually the best to improve your position. For example, perhaps you could re-route your knights (im assuming theyre on c3 and f3) to better squares and in doing so free your f or c pawn for a break.
It probably seems there are no good squares 'fowards' to place them on, after all moving them towards the enemy must seem best. But perhaps there are squares on the first or second rank that can get it to a better square?
Often un-developing pieces seems like a bad or weaking move to newer players, who would rather move their pieces fowards. However often it is a useful way to improve your position by placing the pieces on more effective squares. Often in doing so it releases the c or f pawn which you can now use to attack the opponents centre, after sufficent preparation of course.

It's really a vague outline, I know. Im also assuming you use some basic development with knights on c3 and f3, bishop maybe on c4 and maybe one on e3 or g5?
Unfortunatey I can't do much more other than guess the positions you are talking about without a diagram example.

Odds on you just don't see the good move...keep looking...I suppose.

At your rating, you should be gaining some sort of familiarity with the openings you are playing. If I understand, you are doing what you are "supposed" to do in the opening -- centralizing your pieces, castling, connecting your rooks, (probably because somebody or some book told you to do that when you were 1100 player) -- and then trying to come up with a plan.

Those thing are enough when you are 1100. At your level, it takes a little more to compete. Each piece should be developed with a pretty good idea of where it will be heading in the early middlegame.

One idea would be to check out grandmaster games of the openings you play. And see what they are doing. Or, what they are doing different. It is not enough to know the first couple moves of an opening. You need to know how it is caried through the middlegame.

Another thought is, you may be playing the wrong openings. There are a number of openings out there, which have built-in attacks. (The Stonewall springs to mind.) Maybe not forced wins, but saves the problem of figuring out how to start your middle game. You just do what you always do.

My other suggestion would be to check out the books of Jeremy Silman. The Amateur's Mind and How to Reassess Your Chess. 

In them, he says he has heard many of his students say the same thing you are. Players just throwing their pieces out there, and then lost for what to do next.

He says the goal of the opening is not just to develop your pieces. Rather, the goal is to create favorable imbalances, (Space, Bishop/knight, weak/strong squares, etc) and then post your pieces around those imbalances.

His ideas were considered rather radical when he first published them. But many amateur players around the world have sworn that these books have improved their play. And the powers-that-be are begining to think that he may have rewritten the way chess positions are approached. And how chess is taught.

Those are three ideas. Hope they help.

I disagree that the object of chess it to checkmate the opponent. The object chess is not to loose. If you think of it this way, you have twice the odds of achieving your goal than your opponent does. He has to win to achieve his goal, you can win or draw to achieve your goal.

Interesting, but personally I think that if one is merely playing 'not to lose', then they will not win as many games as someone who plays to win every time. Granted, they might have more draws, and if a draw is all you want then  more power to ya! Still, any rulebook will say, and it's one of the first things a chessplayer learns (if not the very first thing): The object of a game of chess is to deliver checkmate.(Haven't read anywhere that the object is avoiding checkmate, though certainly one wants to do that.) One isn't going to learn much about attacking at all if one plays not to lose, IMO. But if playing to defend is what makes a player happy, I can't fault them for that!

Thanks guys.  There's too much here to answer individually.  But everyone said something of value -- even those in apparent disagreement.

Fear Itself and Varelese: good posts! ty

I had the exact same topic in mind lately.

Defending, playing not to lose seems a good option when playing black. I would like to think that after the 12th move plus, if playing white , that not giving away the smallest advantage of opening the game would keep you ahead slightly all things being equal.

Buy and read Nimzowitsch's "My System".

You will then know what to do after move twelve.

In fact, chess might get too easy for you after reading it. :D

I have to apologize to myststix and anyone reading this thread for sounding a bit argumentive; I never mean to be, as I respect all opinions and the right to have them. I have no respect for 'trolls' or haters!

I have to agree that playing 'not to lose' is, at times, necessary, for example in tournaments, against certain opponents, depending on the standings. Also when one is in a difficult position, playing not to lose can help a person summon some incredible defensive resources.

I only took issue with the case that the object of the game is not to lose it; the objective, or goal, of any game is to win the game. Approaches to this objective differ; playing not to lose is a valid attitude, do not misunderstand me. But checkmate is the objective! That's my story and I'm sticking to it :D Let the other fellow worry about not losing, if you can!

If you play not to lose then you lose, unless you are Petrosjian or Karpov. Passive playing means losing, at least for weak players.

that is actually a problem when you develop your pieces without a plan in mind. my advice is dont really care about what the book moves are, just develop your pieces with some plan in mind. sooner or later, you will realize where youre going wrong and figure out why the book moves are the best ones. its better than imitating better players and then realizing that you dont know how to continue. unlike in other phases of the game, in the opening it is possible to play like a grandmaster, but sooner or later, your bluff will be up.