♡ 279 ( +1 | -1 ) I glanced briefly at your four most recent losses and it doesn't appear to me that you have problems in the opening. Sure, your opening play wasn't necessarily optimal, but you weren't losing your games because of your opening play either. You were reaching playable positions, so your opening knowledge seems, at least for the level at which you play, perfectly adequate.
In gatsby vs. frenchie, you overlooked 8. Bxd3, preventing Black from winning your queen. Black doesn't actually have a royal fork in the position. Only you know for sure what you were thinking when contemplating that particular position, but to me it seemed like some kind of strange tactical error or a kind of vision error where you didn't see that the b5-bishop controls the d3-square. I stopped looking at the game at that point.
In gatsby vs. gm_paz, you overlooked that by exchanging off the knight at c3, Black undermined the defense of your e4-pawn. Losing the e4-pawn with your king trapped in the center was the start of all your problems, eventually leading to the loss of your bishop. A tactical oversight.
In gatsby vs. ares, your major oversights were again tactical in nature, first losing the exchange to a double attack, and then losing a minor piece to an pin on the a3-f8 diagonal. Also, in general you should never make a threat (such as your 9.Qe2 in that game) if the threat can be easily stopped. Threats are only effective if they either contribute positively to the position for you or if the proper defense forces your opponent to make a concession in the position. For instance, say that Qe2 was a good post for the queen (it wasn't particularly in that position), then you might want to make such a simple threat because, by forcing your opponent to defend, you effectively gain the move for free. Or perhaps the defense would have resulted in your opponent weakening control over a particular square; then your threat is useful. Only make threats that, when properly defended against, still lead to some benefit for you.
In cruperto69 vs. gatsby, more tactical oversights. You were dropping pawns and getting no benefit in return for the loss. Again, you made a few threats that were easy to stop and did not really benefit you. Your opponent made some similar ineffective threats, though, so you ended up with a playable position at the outset despite having to make several moves with your queen. You weakened your kingside needlessly, allowing your opponent to flush your king out into the open, creating further tactical problems for you.
♡ 70 ( +1 | -1 ) Gatsby, For novices, opening skill is not really necessary. Just caution. But as your skill is being improved, you may want to learn openings. In fact, openings are based on simple theories. But learning the theories may not be interesting to you. It may be more interesting to learn the theories by analyzing first moves in any opening.
[Gatsby vs. hdd1]
1. e4 – d5 2. e5 Better continuation is e4xd5–Qxd5, Nc3–Q… Your pieces (Knight) are better developed. The black Queen is useless if developed too early. It is good when the knight is developed while at the same time threatening the black Queen. This way you win 1 step because black has to move his Queen instead of developing his other pieces.
♡ 31 ( +1 | -1 ) Simple guide for opening is:
Position your pieces (or get control) on center squares (d4-d5-e4-e5). Develop your knights. Make sure that if exchange is done (or forced to happen), the resulting position is you having better control over the center squares and/or your pieces better developed.
♡ 78 ( +1 | -1 ) I alsohave the same problem. I think a big part of my problem is the lack of time i spend analyzing a situation. I blunder too often by making simple stupid mistakes, which costs me games.
I dont really know many of the technical names for the openings, and i simply play what i think will work best for the situation, but i think my major weakness lies in my endgame, which i didnt reallize until i looked at a few of my own games, where i appeared equal up to the endgame, then i make mistakes, or dont know what to do to gain an advantage.
I wish there were chess teachers/tutors in this area. I have read a few books lately, and my play has improved a lot, but i think live training would be a bigger benefit.
♡ 71 ( +1 | -1 ) Live Training? I think you can find someone here in GK to play with you and explain the objective behind each moves.
It's true that endgame is the basic of chess. One should start with endgames to become a strong player. It's just boring, isn't it?
Understand a few basic theories/concept, and you will easily "pass" the opening stage with about equal middle game position. In fact, it will not really be equal, but a slight advantage means nothing to weak players.
When I was a little better than Chessmaster 2000, I often failed to avoid a draw even with 1 pawn advantage. Easy to understand that computers are very good at endgame.