Yep, It's Brain Damage

White can't capture on e5.  

After 1.Rxe5 Rxe5, the move 2.Qxe5 can't be played because of 2...RxQe5. Also, after 1.Rxe5 Rxe5 2.Qf1, White is down the exchange by 2 pawns.

I just did some mental moving of pieces, with total possible captures. After 1.RxNe5 BxRe5 2.QxRe5 RxQe5 3.RxRe5, the endgame is White with one rook and two pawns vs. Black with one queen and three pawns. 

I need to do a lot of this...visualizing what the board will look like after a series of captures. It's much easier when I close my eyes, because I can see pieces erased from the board. When I look at the board, the pieces are still there, which makes it more difficult to see what would happen if I took on e5.

This is one of the techniques I use when practicing a new song on the piano, guitar or saxophone. I close my eyes and see my fingers moving over the keys/strings. I can learn the song faster, and the new patterns stick longer. They somehow go deeper into the brain. I've been doing this for decades, so whatever part of the brain it is that I've been using for all these years, it's received plenty of exercise.

Thanks for the calculation puzzle. I am creating and practicing lots of these kinds of puzzles, so that I don't burn time on the clock by going into a deep think all the time. The other benefit is that I will be less likely to lose material (hang pieces) due to errors in counting. That alone will easily take me over 1000 in Live Chess.

You know, with my previous comment about counting attack vs. defense, I did say "all things being equal". The situation with the R, Q, R attacking the knight was not equal. Therefore, nuh uh. Most definitely the reward/risk ratio in points must be favorable, too.

Anyway, on post #148...

I am wont to move P to a3 to prevent the B to b6. I have found it most annoying to have a N pinned by a B...Ruy Lopez style...that I don't allow it in the first place by moving the RP3

 That also allows the black bishop to have a back door option at a2, should it be attacked by pawns.

Unless I am planning a finachetto, I really like to put pawns at a3 and h3...as soon as I see the bishop line opening.

Why didn't black play 24... QxQ?  Perhaps there was some toxic chemical in the air (or in your drinks)?

I shot my best friend in the head with an air rifle when we were 10 (not intentionally).  He's gone on to get a PhD and lecture at a respected US University, so it's amazing how the brain can recover from early injury.  Of course, he is only a biologist...

@ChessStrategist

but don't you think its passive and objectively not good at times?

It makes sense in general to need more attackers than my opponent's defenders to win material.

I'm working on calculation puzzles that involve positions where a piece can capture a pawn defended by another pawn.   

Here's two examples of easy calculation puzzles I use with my elementary students to teach a basic rule of thumb: don't attempt capturing a piece with a pawn, defended by another pawn, unless you have a trick up your sleeve.

I ask them, "why did you take my pawn with your knight, when I can then take your knight with my pawn? Is that a fair trade?" Sometimes they will tell me this, "I have a plan, Mr. Heflin!"  I say, "o.k., lets see how your plan plays out."

You mean a pawn with a piece? :P

Btw try these calculation puzzles (not my own puzzles)

Maybe your right but hey solving a more advanced tactical puzzle is a nice confidence booster :P

But, depending on the time they have I think a player rated under 1800 might be able to solve it. Definately not in a blitz situation though. In a 40/2 SD/60, I think its possible.

They would need to attack it methodically after seeing the seeds of tactical destruction, as Heisman puts it. Also note that white is down a piece, so if he doesn't get something going fast, itll be over and he might as well resign. Basically, the urgency of the situation calls for it . Ill put the method in white font so as not to give a hint to ppl who wana solve it:

Well, basically:

1. You see that Black's King is vulnerable. The bishop is optimally placed. You want to look for forcing moves. I looked at Rd7+ first but it ultimately loses after Nxd7. - Search for a better move-

2. Looking around you see that the Black Bishop is guarded only by the queen, and that the queen can potentially be pinned along the 7th rank.

3. Deflection is a tactic that comes to mind. So now you analyze Ra7.

4. You calculate it and see that after Qxa7, Qxe5+, Black has 2 options: Re6 and Kf8. You can see that Kf8 loses by force. Re6 is more complex but ultimately white ends up getting the material back with a slightly better position if nothing else.

I'll post a full solution later. And wow you got all this in only a minute o.o?

I'm not sure I understand the question. And, let me add that I am not trying to sound like the "expert". I am just a rusty old guy. Also, you look like you do quite well.

Anyway, if you mean moving the rook pawn as I mentioned? If so...no, I didn't mean to sound that it was axiomatic. There are tradeoffs with every move, seems to me. Just something that comes into consideration as a simple, effective solution...in many cases.

Too often, the opponent comes flying out of the coop with the bishop to pin your knight. Too often, they then just swap bishop for knight for no particular reason than "just because". Also, too often you can have your bishop trapped in a corner with no place to retreat. Also, on the king side, it is sometimes nice to have an exit point.

Nothing profound, here. Just a few thoughts... Everything I said is definitely open to dispute.

Yes. Taking a pawn with a piece. Sometimes I miscalculate, seeing 2 Attackers and 2 Defenders, thus giving myself the green light to execute the exchange, only to find I've lost a piece for a pawn.

In the main sequence, White's bishop pins one of Black's defenders, a knight, so White can take the pawn with his knight. In the variation in blue, White takes a pawn with a knight and loses his knight.

This is chess counting 101, but I'm going to use these examples with my elementary student chess team.

I run into trouble in my own games when there's more clutter in the center, like 3 A. vs. 3 D., or more, and there may or may not be a tactic involved that affects the exchange. I hang material most often in these situations, due to calculation errors, thus, I'm stuck at a low rating on Live Chess until I can calculate better.

Morning thoughts

Last night I pondered the big what if. What if I just stop blundering my pieces away in these simple chess positions?  What would my future chess games look like? Would the frustration level of those who are following my amateur chess career become less frustrated with me? I've heard that chess players stop blundering at 1600 USCF. That would double my Live Chess rating. And, a 1600 Live Chess rating may be a bit inflated. What if the end of my blundering days results in a Live Chess rating of 1800!

Susan Polgar writes, "The really good players keep a balance between mastering their understanding of positional chess while staying sharp tactically and precise in calculation."

This topic started with my dumb positional chess thoughts, and I will continue to upload my games with full annotation by me, so the readers can know what I was thinking on each move. That's when experts will come in and perform brain surgery on my chess thinking.

It's become clear that a part of my brain has not been exercised enough to perform, as Susan Polgar writes, precise calculation, so I will sprinkle in some calculation exercises along with my annotated games.

Precise Calculation 101

I asked myself a question the other day. When CAN a piece take a pawn? Here's an example that will help my elementary chess students, and me.

Stop counting defenders, thinking in concepts and stuff. You'll only get confused.

The easiest, simplest (but not fastest ), and most accurate method is just calculating the lines out.

Good morning.

Calculating the lines out? A more simple method? 

You have my undivided attention, as I'm not sure what you mean. I have an idea, but I don't trust my chess brain. Guitar came naturally, but chess is obviously not one of my natural talents, but I do greatly enjoy the game.

Please provide an example. Thank you.

When you look at a position requiring counting, the only thing you should be thinking is: takes, takes, takes, takes, takes -> I win / lose / draw. ( count material ). Also, don't do this automatically, take a few seconds for each move, and be on the lookout for in-between moves. As far as my experience goes, counting pieces has many flaws. I doubt any decent player uses that method.

Let's take this as an example.

The question you asked yourself is " Can Black play d7-d5?" But, clearly, before making a move which gains a positional advantage ( like space and tempo, in this case ), you must ask yourself the following questions:

1. Am I in danger of losing material or getting mated ?

The most powerful of White's threats that I see is Ne4, attacking the pinned knight. But this is easily countered by Bg7.

2. Can I grab some material and get away with it ?

Well, the c2 pawn looks a bit lonely...can I take it?

And now you begin calculating: Nxc2+, Kf1 ( not Kd1, you tell me why ! ), Nxa1 -> am I safe? Well, yes, since Ne4 is defended by Bg7.  Then you do the calculation 1-2 more times, making sure you haven't missed anything.

3. Make a developing move. ( or a move which you are sure doesn't hang anything )

If you want to see whether d5 is playable, you just calculate:

...d5 Bxd5 Nbxd5 Nxd5 Nxd5 ( not Qxd5, leaving the knight en prise ) - OK

...d5 Nxd5 Nbxd5 Bxd5 Nxd5 - OK

Taking a protected piece with the Queen is cleary a blunder, so no need to calculate.

Really, this is pretty easy for not very complicated positions, provided you take your time. I watched you playing some games and you are moving way too fast. Also, you are playing too short time controls, 10 minutes is still blitz. Try 25 or above.

One of my Live Chess games with complete annotation by me. Feel free to perform brain surgery on my chess thinking.  

An outstanding post that will help me and my elementary chess students. Thank you.

Wow! A lot of linear thinking, which takes more time on the clock than I spend, goes into calculation for the beginning chess player. The expert knows more positions, thus calculation is required less often. I only know a few positions, i.e., 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6, where I'm certain that 5.d4 can be played.

The heck with 10 0 games. I need to give myself more time to go through this thought process. It's really the only way that I will be able to practice what Susan Polgar writes about - Precise Calculation.

Again, thank you.

I would like to take your word for this...but when you have lost the last seven games in a row... Ouch!

Losing seven games in a row is nothing. 

My stats for Live Chess:

Winning Streak -  11 games

Losing Streak - 16 games!

No matter the method, I need to count before every exchange.

Your method makes sense. I also hear I.M.'s here at chess.com use the takes, takes method in Live Chess games/video lectures.

I.M. says,  "if I play Nx_, then he has Bx_...if takes, takes, takes, no, then he has..."

He's not very good.

I know. But what you have to say...and what ajedrecito says...I listen to every word.

Below are the three Live Chess Blitz games that Tarrasch and I played back in November of 2010 to assess my game. My assignment afterwards was to work on tactics.

Five months later, with many hours spent working on tactics at chesstempo.com, my Live Chess Blitz rating dropped by 33 points. That was my motivation for starting the topic:  Yep, It’s Brain Damage.

I’m confident that from the help I am getting from everyone posting in this topic, my Live Chess play will significantly improve, provided I do my homework assignments and play slower, giving myself time to calculate with greater precision.  

Thank you.

I got my butt kicked in these three games.