Totally new to chess! SOS! Need help! Lots :)

I'm new to chess and chess.com.... I would describe myself as a horrid player, and consequently, I expect to get crushed quite often as I'm picking up the game.. In just the couple weeks I've been playing on the site I've heard of players using chess engines or explorer to assist them during online games.. Personally, I don't use anything during my games as it seems counter productive, and the point of all this for me is to improve my skills, not just do what a cpu tells me.. But do a lot of players use these tools?

Also is it best to play blitz or standard games for a beginner?

One last thing.. I literally have been playing chess for about two weeks.. But I'm hooked for good so I might as well get decent..  That intention however raises a simple question, what is "decent?"  For example, golf, which is my game (I'm probably an "IM" of golf, with a +2 handicap) has a rating system that I suppose is similar in purpose to this glicko system.. I think in golf if your a single digit handicap your a solid player and have nothing to be embarrassed about.. Is there a glicko rating that once I reach (if I reach it) that I can say, "OK, I don't suck anymore!"

Absolutely not   To reach the point of "my strength is respectable" is largely a subjective and personal threshold.  Every player hits this crossroads eventually though, the point where they're satisfied enough with their strength that they no longer want to put forth the effort to improve and it's different for everyone.

Chess skill is very wide and how good you are greatly depends on your company.  One reason is (and you'll have to take my word on this I guess) as bad (or good) as you feel now, as easy to exploit your mistakes seem, as much as it feels like you have to learn, you'll have roughly the same feeling 500 points of improvement later.  I used to think if I only ever made 1300 I'd finally be a "respectable" player.  Then it was 1500, 1600, 1700 and so on.  I'm coming closer to my satisfaction threshold, but it's still so easy for me to find players who can crush me, and I can still plainly see the monstrous amount of knowledge and skill I have yet to gain.

Even among GMs, no one would dare say they've completely mastered even one phase of the game (opening, middle, or endgame).

So it will really depend on the circle of players you eventually stick with.  With a 1400 (nearly 1500) chess.com rating just on your block you're probably already seen as one hell of a chess player.

1). Like Tonydal said , use of chess engines during game play is illegal on this site. You can use opening databases though, which can be helpful. Also you can have a the sites chess engine go over your completed games to look for errors. However you need to be careful when doing that because the engine doesn't tell you why something is a better move, just that it is.

2). Slow games

3). Titled player status is a good indicator

Not that this is just dead wrong -- but even this is different depending on who you talk to.

I may be wrong, but I have a sneaky suspicion you may be rated at approx. 2050 .  I base this on the feeling I'm sure familiar to many of us that "chess skill starts at 50 points below our own rating" (forgot who said this funny quote).

Like the joke about drivers.  Everyone going slower than you is a moron, everyone going faster is a maniac   Perspective is a funny thing.

You wouldn't think so if you heard titled players describe their skill.

IM Silman describes how "The IM way is a hope and a prayer" when relating in a USCF article about how IMs really don't know what they're doing as they play a game.

It's just too easy to look ahead 200 points and see all that skill.  And then to look ahead 400 points and not even understand what's going on exactly.

Absolutely agree with everything said so far.  I gained 500+ points (and lost 100) from the time I started playing online, and I'm still nowhere near where I would like to be.  Also, reliance on engines will just make you a terrible player, and you will learn nothing.  It will just take patience, perseverance and a lot of introspection to see where you need to improve.  There's no magic formula (although everyone keeps telling me "tactics, tactics, tactics!") but with time, you will improve.

Welcome to Chess.com!  This is a great place to be 

That's good evidence, and I won't deny that.  I think to many amateur players going 2200+ is a bit like ascending mount olympus.  Whenever I start to feel the same way I can't help but think how in professional circles 2200 is just bottom of the heap.  Imagine a 2450 player's relief when they need a full point and they're paired down with a mere national master :)

Imagine my horror when I need a full point and I'm paired with a national master lol.

My advice, or rather the advice of my chess coach, an IM who coaches people all the way from absolute beginner to 2000+, is to begin tactical training immeadietly (after he shows them how to defend vs. cheapo stuff like 4 move mate...).

He teaches his beginner students the rules and gives them a first tactics lesson covering tactical motifs like hanging pieces, pins, forks, skewers, back rank, in-between moves, attraction,distraction and then gives homework, where the motif is given to you on the paper. All this is pretty much immeadietly after the beginner learns the rules.

Then learn general opening principles, NOT SPECIFIC OPENINGS. Then BASIC ENDGAME CHECKMATES (in ascending difficulty) K+2R vs. K,K+Q vs. K, K+R vs. K, K+2B vs K

And yea, like Orangehonda said, you have a 1500 rating on here so what you are currently doing seems very good so keep it up!

One problem with gaining skill and rating points is you can only brag about your new ability to players whose skill you don't respect anymore

Well that nearly 1500 hundred rating is a shame! It's based off of only three games which I blindly stumbled into wins.. My standard rating is right at the 1200 mark..

The parts of my game that irritate me to no end already are my endgame and opening skills.. just brutal at both. I literally feel like I have no clue what I'm doing.

A typical loss for me goes like this.. Down a pawn early trying to win the center, stumble into some nice stuff in the middle to get back even or ahead, then have absolutely no clue how to finish the job.. So frustrating!

The irony of my two week chess experience so far is that while I have improved immensly from when I started, my knowledge of how bad I really am has increased at a greater pace.. Not sure if this is a positive or a negative..

PS.. I never shank.. I might snipe one left every now and then, but never a shank! :)

Agreed 1500 and your just starting out is a great rating.  Someday i will be there, and slow games are better for begginers.

What's it like in Alaska? I was thinking about moving there.

If you're only 2 weeks into it, the best thing you can do is play a lot of games (not speed games) and get to know the feel of a game so to speak.  The lost feeling of having the move but having no clue what to do is absolutely in all our memories (it can still happen from time to time although you get better at dealing with these moments).

You asked for lots of advice so... heh

The bare basics would be to know your overkill mates such as how to checkmate a lone king vs your king and queen.  A lone king vs your king and 2 rooks, and then just king and one rook.

--------------------------------------------

A quick bit of chess lingo.  There are 6 types of chessmen.  Pawns are pawns.  Knights and bishops are minor pieces while rooks and queens are heavy pieces.  The kings are just kings.  A piece is any of chessmen that is not a pawn or king.  So if you hear me say I was down a piece, that's a big deal, I was down at least a knight or bishop.

An open file is a column of squares with no pawns on it.  A half open file is a column of squares with only 1 color pawn on it.  Your backrank is the row of squares closest to you where all your pieces start.

--------------------------------------------

You'll want to know the relative values of the chessmen which are: pawn(1), knight(3), bishop(3), rook(5), queen(9).  You'll also want to know that they're called the relative values because they are subject to change based on how active the pieces is (such as scope, important defender, important attacker).

--------------------------------------------

Then you'll want to know the classical opening principals which are:

1)  It's important to stake out territory in the center (4 central squares) with pawn moves.  Pawns claim territory, they don't count as development.  Try to make only 1 or 2 pawn moves in your first 5-10 moves.

The center is more important than the flanks because you're gaining the most useful space.  Space that allows you to maneuver more easily from one side of the board to the other as needed.

2)  Speed of development (get your pieces off their home squares, using ideally only 1 move each, and to influence the center).

Quickness of development is necessary because attacks with only 1 or 2 pieces will fail when facing your opponent's entire army on the other side.  Your pieces have to work as a team, you can't leave some of them home.


3)  Prepare castling and castle before the game can be opened up (pawns traded giving enemy pieces open lines for attack).  This is often within the first 10 moves. 

Castling is preformed to take your king to safety behind a wall of pawns.  Ideally you'll castle to a side where the three pawns extending from the edge of the board towards the center (a,b,c or f,g,h files) have not been moved.

And generally you want to develop your least valuable pieces first, e.g. your knights and bishops.  Rooks will slide along your backrank as important defenders, often until the endgame (they really need open files to be active).  While ironically the queens status as most powerful means any piece's attack will compel her to run.

--------------------------------------------

Next you'll want to know the basic tactical themes.  Forks, pins, skewers, and removing a defender.  You can easily google these terms and their concepts are readily absorbed.  The basic idea of any tactic is if you can create on your turn two threats, your opponent will only have 1 turn, and can meet only 1 of them.  Solving tactical puzzles to increase your tactical ability is a standard for nearly every class of player from amateur to the very best.

--------------------------------------------

Those are the very most basics everyone should know (and maybe you already know much of that, but you said you'd only been playing 2 weeks).  And although playing many games is very important at this stage of your development as a player, investing a a chess book or two can only help. 

There are many good books but I'll name a few.  As for that lost feeling we were talking about before Chernev's "Logical Chess Move by Move" is a classic collection of games where the author explains every move for every game every time.  Other than that any out of Seirawan's Winning Chess Series (but probably get tactics, openings, or strategy).  And Silman has some great titles such as: "The Amateur's Mind"

As for tactics I like the classic Reinfeld books to start with.  His 1001 combinations book and 1001 checkmate book although if you want more bang for your buck Polgar's massive "Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations and Games" is probably the way to go.

--------------------------------------------

And here's some free articles from a big name in improvement in chess for adults Dan Heisman: http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Novice%20Nook

You may have to copy and paste the link for DH specifically, it's not linking properly for me.

Can you find a job in Alaska, if you're not qualified for much?

(If you're talking to me).

Maybe.  I hear there's high paying crew work like on an oil rig or some such thing.  I'm a student right now though, not planning on moving for at least a few years.

The OP lives in Alaska. 

oh, I was wondering what your post meant lol

You thinking of moving to Alaska woodshover?

I hear it's a good way to make some money.  Supposedly they pay for your housing (in a trailer) and you work very long or odd hours so no time or way to spend it.  Of course it's not the safest work... but if you're a young unmarried guy it can be pretty appealing.

What's the cost of living in Alaska anyway?

 Perhaps. If I did, I wouldn't want to work on an oil rig. My knee's too out of whack for that.

You guys are talking about working on the slope.. You make really good money, but you work insane hours in the most brutal weather conditions imaginable.. Basically you won't be outside working on your tan.. You need skills though. I'm going to have a master's degree in a couple months but they still probably wouldn't have a use for me.. You have to have a lot of mechanical skills which I have few if any.. It's not expensive to live here.. That's a misnomer.. Primarily because there isn't much of a city life so you don't have those entertainment expenses.. Fishing, hunting, hiking, kayaking, etc... That's what we do here.. and all that is basically free once you have the gear.