Why do I lose so much?

4.) All these rules have exceptions :)

Not for beginners they don't, because they do not know enough about this game yet to know when to deviate from them.

He is pointing out that these rules are more of a guideline and not set in stone. But for you i would strongly recommend you stick to them until you can understand when it doesn't work.

It's based on your position and your opponents as well, as to whether to deviate from that principle or not.

There's one guy in my local club who seems to love the Scandinavian Opening when he plays Black (I think that's what it's called, not sure):

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd8

By all means, I think this is an awful opening, he's losing a full tempo in development ... but he plays that over and over again ... and I can't manage to beat him regardless :)

Note: ambivalence means a state of having simultaneous, conflicting feelings toward a person or thing.

I feel your pain Nasty-Nate, my dad taught me to play when i was younger (just recently got back into playing because of a good friend of mine who turned me onto this site) and he would play me ferociously with no quarter given.  I lost every game i played him for months, but it ended up forcing me to play ultra conservative (move my pieces toward his pieces making sure to cover and not really spring an attack); what i found out was that his tendancy to attack without exit strategy was his downfall. he broke himself against a wall. Not all the time, but quite a bit, he would overextend himself which would allow my structurally sound pieces to absorb his attacks, isolate his pieces, and gain ground.  In looking at your games and your posts, I think you already know that's where you're getting into trouble.  Try building a forward moving core (make and keep that your focus) rather than trying to snatch that opponent's queen with your own (very rarely will an attack succeed with just one piece, successful attacks require multiple pieces, and that's where the structure comes in). I don't know if others would agree but for me, I had to learn defense first and in doing that the patterns of attack came pretty organically. Go with what 0ort said earlier and play some correspondence games (challenge me to non-rated if you like, be happy to give you any knowledge i have), I think the much longer time per move and analyze function will allow you to learn and absorb info at a faster rate.  Most of all, good on ya for sticking it out and asking questions.  GL and many epiphanies!

Yes i learned that positional integrity was more important then an all out attack when you haven't got the back up.

Positional integrity is when you have your pawns well placed in the center and covering/protecting each other, your piece again central and out ready, everything is protecting the others.

One thing i did learn, was that i shouldn't launch and all out attack unless i could see how to win from there. And as stated 1-2 pieces is rarely enough, it takes a minimum of 3 i believe.

I would advise a premium membership. It will afford you access to many great videos from many great players. I am particularly fond of Daniel Rensch's Live Sessions because it is a window into his thought process. That window, at least for me, was more than immensely helpful. 

Another very helpful activity is to use a chess engine to analyse your games after you have played them. Move by move you can see where mistakes were made and the computer can assist in pointing you in the right direction. A warning though: it is very important to make sure you truly understand why the move the engine plays is a better move. 

Now, I am by no means a world-class player. But I am not bad. And I personally find it helps to have a process by which I can evaluate a position or potential move. For me that process is a mental checklist:

My checklist to evaluate a position:

• What are my weaknesses (i.e unprotected pieces, weak squares, bad pawn structure, etc.)?
• What are my opponent's weaknesses?
• What are my advantages (i.e advanced pawns, more material, better pawn structure, etc.)?
• What are my opponent's advantages?

How I evaluate a move I intend to make:

• What would I like to achieve (it helps me a lot to have a goal, such as, control the center, attack his weaknesses, control square x, create an outpost square, etc.)?
• How can I threaten my opponent's weaknesses?
• What will I weaken in my position?
• How would I answer this move if I were X (whichever color you aren't)?

And how I evaluate a move my opponent just made:

• What is he/she trying to achieve (i.e grab more space, gain material, protect a weakness, etc.)?
• What is he/she threatening? 
• What did he weaken in his position?
• How can I answer this move?

This process works for me, and I am not intending that you copy this verbatim. My hope is that this allows you to see how someone else processes a game and allow you to better construct a process that you find effective for you. 

I wish you good luck and hope I helped, even if only a little.

~Christopher

hehe woops! i thought it was something more towards the definition of amiable... oh well.

Anyway, the key is not to worry about it; just enjoy your chess!

We all have bad days - mine was today! I played 7 games on Live...and lost them all! :D

Just don't let it dishearten you.

Looking at your game,move 14. was a critical point to both players, and please understand I am not a very high rated player, so feel free to correct me, but.....

if white played,  to try and avoid the fork,14. Qxd4, if he takes your Q, then Bxg5

And for black 14.....Qh5?  better I feel was 14....Nc2+  then if 15Kd1 blk Qd8+, or

15.Ke2, then Qe7+

Your game  looked  not  that bad its just a fine line like a boxer when to hit and when to defend, your on your way to be much better, just keep playing and looking over some of your games you will see the light! and have fun most important!! Oh a big must look at games between high ranked player, not necessarily masters, just well played games.

I started off so good but now my game seems to be slipping. I have been playing chess for years. Missing simple moves and giving up pieces. Its very frustrating. I'm losing more than winning to players way lower than me in blitz. I study and apply opening theorys (Karo-Cann and Queen Gambit), middle game strategies, and endgame studies. What do I do? Keep playing or study. Do I do one more than the other or what? Can a chess player just be stuck at a certain level and never improve?

Any advice>>>

I kinda need help too..

it's like i'mk using the same principle but after a while I lose again.

maybe I need rest or something but it's annoying losing games.

If anyone thinks that IQ and chess potential do not correlate, then they are simply in denial. IQ is BASED on the ability to recognize patterns and solve problems for cripes sake!

However, I believe the vast majority of people can easily become grandmasters if they have the correct resources and study habits or were coached from a young age.

I think the misconception people are having is equating knowledge with intelligence. You can have one without the other. People also seem to think that IQ is static or unchangeable when it is very changeable. A person whom has an average IQ, with the right teaching can reach genius level IQ+

Maybe I guess it really depends on a persons IQ ..

like myself I was only at 1500 even I have read chess books.

Others with greater IQ will be at 1900 or higher.

we often lose because of tactics and un expected move from the opponent I guess or just a little not well move made by you.

Try to take a break for a day or two

Its because beginner players are not good at chess. Good players are normal. They win or lose.

Try to take a break for a month or two. Then return to chess.com