New

Originally posted by z00t
[b]A better idea would be to find one of the many existing discussions or "threads" on the subject and then ask relevant questions. Why do newbies insist on asking the same questions over and over and over....[/b]

I have been looking through a few of the threads. Just wanted to introduce myself, say hi and get a few basic pointers. So far yours has been the best advice yet. Much thanks.

Originally posted by z00t
[b]A better idea would be to find one of the many existing discussions or "threads" on the subject and then ask relevant questions. Why do newbies insist on asking the same questions over and over and over....[/b]

They make new threads because they are new and don't know the old threads are there. When you first joined this site did you go and look through pages of old threads to find out if a topic was already talked about months ago? I don't think so.

Originally posted by hammster21
They make new threads because they are new and don't know the old threads are there. When you first joined this site did you go and look through pages of old threads to find out if a topic was already talked about months ago? I don't think so.

Not another thread on a subject discussed so many times. See Thread 67284

All I'm trying to say is don't grill someone for asking a legitimate question. theres a difference between some one just starting out and someone trying to reach 1400.

edit: zoot, why did you start that thread a few min ago and then say this has already been talked about?

Originally posted by z00t
Not another thread on a subject discussed so many times. See Thread 67284

I signed up, read the FAQ, read through several threads in various forums. In a matter of an hour or so I discovered:

1) Threads hardly ever stay on the topic initially raised. (now being a good example)

2) Different users respond to different threads. (except for users that have to hijack as many threads as possible by posting irrelevent drivel)

3) Who the hell are you?

4) Want to play a game? (unrated of course 😉 )

Just curious. As a provisional player should I be looking to play other provisionals or simply higher/lower rated players. And which would be more favorable to challenge for my own rating? Not to sure I have the entire rating system down yet. Or at this point will it make any difference.

Originally posted by z00t
Not another thread on a subject discussed so many times. See Thread 67284

I can think of very few threads that are current that aren't the same as ones from the past. Often the same question is asked in a new way, or different points are raised. If it's not on the first page I don't think that it's worth complaining about. What is boringly similar about a lot of threads is the way trolls moan about people not first searching the last 100+ pages of thread titles before starting a new one.

Originally posted by Dudermooner
Just curious. As a provisional player should I be looking to play other provisionals or simply higher/lower rated players. And which would be more favorable to challenge for my own rating? Not to sure I have the entire rating system down yet. Or at this point will it make any difference.

My advice is stick to players within 200 rating points of your own (not that I follow this). You don't learn a great deal initially from being completely outclassed (unless your opponent is tutoring you) and you learn even less from whipping the ar*e of someone way below your standard.

Whilst a provisional, I would take on opponents between 900 and 1200 to see how you fare.

One last word - don't look at chess masters and think 'i'll never be that good so what is the point'. Chess is absolutely impossible to master. The best players just make the second to last mistake. It can be enjoyed from a very low standard to World Champion level and whilst appreciation probably increases as ones standard does, enjoyment is there from the beginning. There will always be many worse than you, and many better. Just enjoy

Originally posted by z00t
Not another thread on a subject discussed so many times. See Thread 67284

So why do you feel obliged to get involved?

The chap is new. As such he isn't privvy to your world of RHP knowledge.
That is why generations of kids ask the same questions in class year on year. Because they haven't yet found out. Would you tell them to p**s off and find a text book?

Some people turn over when a TV programme comes on that annoys them. Some leave it on in order to get wound up. The first group live longer.

Give the guy a break

Originally posted by z00t
Not another thread on a subject discussed so many times. See Thread 67284

Rather than simply criticising it may be of more benefit to look at the OP's games & suggest improvements.

One thing that strikes me from a brief look at your games is that in the opening you seem to move one piece around several times, maybe win a pawn, then trade-off your only active piece (typically a knight) whilst your opponent has quietly gained at least 2 tempii in development.

Other than that, as for anyone, it's tactics, endgame, basic checkmates, gaining an opening repertoire, strategy & thought process (outlined by Bedlam) as posted below:










"So its your turn to move, what do you do first? Most players tend to look at moves they can play, ie he's moved there so I can now move here and so on. I wont go as far to say that this is wrong but from personal experience and talking to most players I do believe it can be improved on.

The first thing you need to do before making any moves is weight up the position, understand it, you need to look for key features. The way you look at the position will determine what you need to do and how, and then you can decide on what moves you need to play. I will talk through my own personal check list

1. Define areas of control.

This is basicly something that iv learned from IM Bangievs square strategy training(although I do it a little different to his recommendation). The first thing I do on each move to to look at the area I control and the area the other player controls. This helps show yours and their general strong and weak points of the board, just to get an over all feel for the game.

2. Define direction of attacks.

So you know the area that you control (where your pieces are coordinated) now you need to find in which direction you want to attack, pieces can normally only work well when working together on one part of the board, so you need to group them and coordinate them there.

3. Square complex/colour weaknesses (maybe the most important)

A lot of the middle game of chess is all about square colour. You can only attack one colour at a time, if you try to play on black and white, then your pieces automaticly become uncoordinated, however once you define which colour you want to play on and get all your pieces controling squares of that colour you will find a flow to the game and the other player will find it very hard to stop you from moving around on the colour you control. Try to limit your colour weaknesses and if you have one, trade off the other players pieces that can control the weak squares.

4. Enemy pieces to be challenged (traded).

I expect everyone knows what the pieces are worth, pawns = 1 knights =3 bishops = 3+ rooks = 5 and queen =9........... well thats a good lie. The piece values are never static, for example at the start of the game the rooks in the corners are basicly pointless and after 1.Nf3 the knight is better than the rooks (at least for that move) since it is doing something and the rooks arent. You have to make pieces work for you in the most effective way, which normally means centralisation, a cental piece will control more squares. If a bishop can control more squares than a rook, or more important squares then the bishop is worth maybe 5 and the limited rook is worth 3.5 etc, its all about your judgement. You have to look at each piece and give it a value, a rating, how good is this piece etc. Once you have worked out how good each piece is you then know which one of your pieces you need to keep on and which of the enemy pieces you need to trade, if you can trade your bad pieces for their good pieces you will find yourself winning effortlessly.

5. Own pieces to use and how.

Pretty much like the last one, you are aiming for max amount of control with your pieces, finding good squares for them or exchanging them for better enemy pieces.

6. Enemy plan

Work it out!

7. Your plan

Get one!! ie, short term improving piece position, controling a colour, challenging the other players good pieces. Maybe move a pawn to take away a good square from an enemy piece (mainly knight), but also have a long term plan, like kingside attack, on central breakthrough.

8. Look for tactical chances.

Weak king
Undefended piece
Weak pawns
Overloaded piece
etc
If they have only one weakness dont attack it, ie if a piece is undefended DONT attack it leave it undefended because the only way tactics or combinations happen is the rule of two weaknesses. You need to hit two weaknesses at once for a tactic to work, so dont help the other player and pointless attack things forcing them to strengthen their position.

9. Positional moves

If theres no tactical tries then its time to use everything you looked at and judged in the position and start to list candidate moves. Once you have the moves, caculate and find the best one for you.
Imrpoving the position of your pieces.
Trading good enemy pieces
Taking away good squares from their pieces
Trying to control a colour complex
Gain space
Controling center
Controling open files
Prophylaxis moves (ie taking care of your own weaknesses, undefended pieces, exposed king etc etc)
etc"

Originally posted by Policestate
My advice is stick to players within 200 rating points of your own (not that I follow this). You don't learn a great deal initially from being completely outclassed (unless your opponent is tutoring you) and you learn even less from whipping the ar*e of someone way below your standard.

Whilst a provisional, I would take on opponents between 900 and 1 ...[text shortened]... e from the beginning. There will always be many worse than you, and many better. Just enjoy

Thanks much. So far into it I have won a game (he resigned) and lost a game (I seriously blundered) But both games have been fun. In no way striving to be a grand master at this! Just the ability to keep my wins losses fairly even would be great 😀

Either way it sure beats the hell out of the soap opera dramas that my wife was subjecting me to all day long! Although from reading a few of the forums I have gathered some soap opera dramas taking place around here as well. 🙄

Originally posted by Dudermooner
Thanks much. So far into it I have won a game (he resigned) and lost a game (I seriously blundered) But both games have been fun. In no way striving to be a grand master at this! Just the ability to keep my wins losses fairly even would be great 😀

Either way it sure beats the hell out of the soap opera dramas that my wife was subjecting me to all day ...[text shortened]... a few of the forums I have gathered some soap opera dramas taking place around here as well. 🙄

I took a look at Game 3450356. The one where your opponent resigned (somewhat prematurely!).

Anyway, after quickly looking through, here is some advice I can give. It would have been better on move 2 or 3 to bring your pawn to d4. It would have immediately got control of the centre (e.g. 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nf3). 2. Nf3 wasn't bad, but would have been better if you followed up with 3. d4.

5. c4 wasn't great, it is too passive, 5. d4 again would have been better.

6. d3 was very bad, completely blocks in your white squared bishop (along with your pawn on c4), effectively removing it from the game.

10. g4 wasn't good either, makes your king side more exposed.

EDIT: Your opponent didn't make great moves either (made too many pawn moves at the beginning and knights aren't well placed), but overall (s)he had better development.

okay here comes more generalizations:

1. If center is closed, tempos are not so important
2. If your opponent is attacking on kingside/queenside with his pawns, its usually good idea to counter-attack in the center.
3. If you and your opponent have castled to opposite of board, its usually good idea to launch pawnstorm against opponent king.
4. Activate your king in the endgame.
5. Passed pawns are usually great thing to have, but if they block your open file and can not be moved forward they might be weaknesses.
6. Knight are better in closed positions, bishops in open positions.
7. Bishop pair is usually stronger than a knight and a bishop.
8. Two rooks are usually stronger than a queen.
9. In most openings its good idea to castle early, but remember that by castling you lose flexibility and you give your opponent target to attack.
10. Rooks need open or at least semiopen files to be effective.
11. Well-outposted knight is often worth a rook.
12. Be careful when playing moves like h3 or h6; if you have castled kingside, these moves weaken your kings safety.
13. Attack against the base of enemy pawnchain.
14. Isolated pawns are often serious weaknesses, because they can not be defended with other pawns.
15. If your opponent has an isolated pawn, first immobilize it by blocking it (taking total control of square in front of it)
16. In kind-pawn endgame, the side with furthest passed pawn usually wins.
17. When you are attacking against enemy king, its often worth of sacrificing your pawns to open lines for your heavy pieces (rooks, queen, bishops)
18. Initiative is the most important thing to have.
19. If you lose material, don't trade down pieces, but try to complicate things by making "messy looking" moves and sacrifices.
20. And naturally, when you ahead in material, try to trade down and simplify.

lastly, the most important tip.

21. Do not follow any generalizations.

Originally posted by lausey
I took a look at Game 3450356. The one where your opponent resigned (somewhat prematurely!).

Anyway, after quickly looking through, here is some advice I can give. It would have been better on move 2 or 3 to bring your pawn to d4. It would have immediately got control of the centre (e.g. 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nf3). 2. Nf3 wasn't bad, but would have b ...[text shortened]... at the beginning and knights aren't well placed), but overall (s)he had better development.

Thanks, I just went through the game again with your suggestions and can see where I'm looking at things wrong. I still don't really undertsand why the other person resigned but I guess that's part of the game.Just thanfull for the win. Can't wait to start a fresh game up now to try a few new tactics.

Originally posted by Dudermooner
Thanks, I just went through the game again with your suggestions and can see where I'm looking at things wrong. I still don't really undertsand why the other person resigned but I guess that's part of the game.Just thanfull for the win. Can't wait to start a fresh game up now to try a few new tactics.

I'm over 1800 and I don't know why your opponent resigned. Perhaps someone can tell me!!