What am I doing wrong, Help?

Sort:
ThePawnStar

ThePawnStar

This would be pretty typical of one of my games. Not the best, not the worst.

dannyhume

You need to learn the end[of]games, not endgames.  

polydiatonic
dannyhume wrote:

You need to learn the end[of]games, not endgames.  


Uh, no.  endgames are perhaps the most important thing to learn because if you can't figure out how to win when you're a head a little bit on material then it becomes almost impossible to win any games unless there are huge blunders involved.  

My experience has taught me that the easiest way to improve once you stop giving away your pawns and pieces is to learn how to win "won" endings.  This way you can always be on the lookout to simplify to a win.  If any player lacks this ability they're making their chess life very difficult indeed.   That doesn't mean that once shouldn't study "the end of games", as you say, by which I think you mean mating attacks.  Of course we all should, but to dismiss the idea of learning the endgame in favor of learning how to execute complex attacks is not as practical an approach.

KyleMayhugh

9. Bxe6 is the right move, but the wrong reason. You aren't really "weakening his pawns."  Yes, they are now doubled and the kingside is a little more exposed. But he also now has an extra pawn in the center supporting the key d5 and f5 squares. That's more than enough compensation for the doubling.

It's a good move because it trades off your bad bishop (whose mobility is blocked by the relatively hard-to-move center pawns you own) for his good one (who can dart in and out of his own center pawns).

11. Nxd4, you say you just feel like you can't have that knight there, and you are right in the long run, but there's no rush to remove it now when it isn't threatening anything.

 

12. Na4 makes me suspect you are overly worried about doubled pawns. I doubt he was planning on trading off his strong bishop for your knight, and if he was, all the better for you.

Then your opponent hangs a pawn and you want to be trading down to the endgame, where you will be up a pawn and have a fairly easy time creating a passed pawn on the kingside. Should be an easy win as long as you don't hang material.

dannyhume
polydiatonic wrote:
dannyhume wrote:

You need to learn the end[of]games, not endgames.  


That doesn't mean that once shouldn't study "the end of games", as you say, by which I think you mean mating attacks.  Of course we all should, but to dismiss the idea of learning the endgame in favor of learning how to execute complex attacks is not as practical an approach.


You sort of caught on to what I meant and I misspoke in my earlier post when I said "...not endgames"; I should have left those 2 words out of my earlier post.

An "end[of]games" problem is simply a mate-in-x problem, which can be any of the following...

1. an opening trap that requires "x" moves till mate;

2. a middlegame mating combination requiring "x" number of moves; or

3. the last "x" number of moves of any traditional position considered an "endgame" in the conventional sense.

Therefore my term "end[of]games" includes not only "endgames", but also "mating attacks" which automatically include tactics and calculation, which are fundamental to play chess well.  

By being able to instantly recognize, execute, and avert concrete threats from several moves out, you start to automatically "plan" better because you know your goal ("checkmate" if you are weaker player; "several moves from checkmate" as you get stronger; and "several moves from several moves that will probably lead to checkmate" if you are very very strong).

Continuing this train of thought to its logical conclusion will take one back to the beginning of the game, e.g. opening theory, but now there is understanding of "why" certain openings are played the way they are played, why Capablanca said the middlegame and opening can only be understood in terms of the endgame, why certain variations in a complex position simply won't work, why a position is "+/=", why Tal sac'd his rook (whether successful or not), etc...In other words, one begins to finally understand all of chess.

The "simple" incrementally progressing to "complex".  Neurocognitive science.  Works in other disciplines (music, computer programming, mathematics).  
polydiatonic
dannyhume wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
dannyhume wrote:

You need to learn the end[of]games, not endgames.  


That doesn't mean that once shouldn't study "the end of games", as you say, by which I think you mean mating attacks.  Of course we all should, but to dismiss the idea of learning the endgame in favor of learning how to execute complex attacks is not as practical an approach.


You sort of caught on to what I meant and I misspoke in my earlier post when I said "...not endgames"; I should have left those 2 words out of my earlier post.

An "end[of]games" problem is simply a mate-in-x problem, which can be any of the following...

1. an opening trap that requires "x" moves till mate;

2. a middlegame mating combination requiring "x" number of moves; or

3. the last "x" number of moves of any traditional position considered an "endgame" in the conventional sense.

Therefore my term "end[of]games" includes not only "endgames", but also "mating attacks" which automatically include tactics and calculation, which are fundamental to play chess well.  

By being able to instantly recognize, execute, and avert concrete threats from several moves out, you start to automatically "plan" better because you know your goal ("checkmate" if you are weaker player; "several moves from checkmate" as you get stronger; and "several moves from several moves that will probably lead to checkmate" if you are very very strong).

Continuing this train of thought to its logical conclusion will take one back to the beginning of the game, e.g. opening theory, but now there is understanding of "why" certain openings are played the way they are played, why Capablanca said the middlegame and opening can only be understood in terms of the endgame, why certain variations in a complex position simply won't work, why a position is "+/=", why Tal sac'd his rook (whether successful or not), etc...In other words, one begins to finally understand all of chess.

The "simple" incrementally progressing to "complex".  Neurocognitive science.  Works in other disciplines (music, computer programming, mathematics).  

Oh.

SimonSeirup

Chess is a tuff game to learn, just keep fighting and you'll become better.

bobmacambob

At ThePawnStar's Read my post: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/lolli-attack-and-lots-of-divergences?lc=1#last_comment

Since you're already playing 3.Bc4 so this could probably help you a lot. And I am thinking that your game's 4.d3 might be better than my choice of 4.Nf3. I like it 

Wow, 4.d4 could be a big improvement on my repoirtore (however you spell that). 

THANKS!! =D

nxavar

To make a long story short, make sure you keep the pressure on your opponent and he will eventually crack. Also focus on good positional moves and concrete plans. Tactics are always good to look for but searching for tactics throughout the game is common sense I think. After all, a single tactic can win a lost game or lose a won game. Just don't get crazy about finding 5 move deep combinations. Even a 3 move vision is quite strong.

LAexpress12

birth defect.

bulldozer
ThePawnStar wrote:

I'm trying to improve my game but I'm not sure where I am going wrong.

I do the usual...practice, learn openings etc. But I'm not sure where I am going wrong. I am trying to improve my rating but am stuck. I was much worse on the blitz 10 minute game so I tried to spend more time on that, But it's really my

regular game and rating for tournament play that I want to improve. What hi pawn star. I would suggest that you /"rock" right away. Try it out and come back to me okis the weakest part of my game???

How do I find out what I need to work on most?


ThePawnStar
SimonSeirup wrote:

Chess is a tuff game to learn, just keep fighting and you'll become better.


Great advice and suggestions all round, cheers.

ThePawnStar
bobmacambob wrote:

At ThePawnStar's Read my post: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/lolli-attack-and-lots-of-divergences?lc=1#last_comment

Since you're already playing 3.Bc4 so this could probably help you a lot. And I am thinking that your game's 4.d3 might be better than my choice of 4.Nf3. I like it 

Super Thanks