"Bill Smythe" wrote in message
...
"Bill Wong" wrote:
Uhm, you were supposed to lose all those games. You were severly
outrated in every one of them. I did not look at the games at all. You
shouldn't expect to win against such high rated opponents when you are
rated barely 1200. ....

That kind of answer is not helpful, and confuses the cause with the
effect.

I am about the same rating as the original poster but agree with the 1st
reply.

There is so much to learn that , he would lose at many stages of the game,
Original poster, you need to play folks similar or just above your own
strength up to about 1600, at 200 these players are storng and highly
unlikely to make a mistake that we could capitalise on.

(Alex) writes:

So I took all of your advice and then read some books. I finally got
my courage back and went to my local chess club to play in another
tournament. But I got clobbered again. They even let me play white
three times for some reason. I did my homework and looked up the
openings; now I know the variations that my opponents played. What am
I doing wrong in my games?? Why can't I beat any of these players at
my local chess club? It is really frustrating...You gotta help me,
please!!!


Just keep playing. And for the sake of your ego, try
to play some opponents rated within 200 points of you,
so you will have a reasonable chance of scoring a
win or draw now and again.

Look at your games, not in huge detail, but try to identify
the point where you lost material, where your king wound
up in trouble, etc. Identify your typical errors (e.g are
you failing to castle, is there any tactical trick (fork,
pin) that you tend to miss), and try to avoid them. Later
there will be time for dealing with more subtle problems.

Remember that losing four games to people rated 500-1000
points above you is no disgrace, and it says nothing
in particular about your chess. If I played four players
rated 500+ points above me, I'd be happy if I scored a single
draw, because the odds would be heavy that I'd lose all
four games.

Studying books is important, but of all chess books for
you opening books are the least useful. I remember studying
the Sicilian before my first tournament - almost totally
useless as nobody played those lines.

I learned much more by playing through Fischer's "60
Memorable Games", even though I was too weak to understand
more than 1% of the book, and was doing this just for fun,
not for study.

William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

En/na Alex ha escrit:
So I took all of your advice and then read some books. I finally got
my courage back and went to my local chess club to play in another
tournament. But I got clobbered again. They even let me play white
three times for some reason. I did my homework and looked up the
openings; now I know the variations that my opponents played. What am
I doing wrong in my games?? Why can't I beat any of these players at
my local chess club? It is really frustrating...You gotta help me,
please!!!


For example, have you revised your games?

Maybe in some of them you can CAPTURE a whole rook. (vs a 550 higher)

Here you have my advice: do not study My system, revise that games,
annotate them, study tactics, continue playing

AT

Round 4:
White: Me 1210
Black: 1765

[Opening "Caro-Kann: Steinitz variation"]
[ECO "B17"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Nf3 Ngf6 6. Bd3 Nxe4
7. Bxe4 Nf6 8. Qe2 Nxe4 9. Qxe4 e6 10. O-O Bd6 11. Bg5 Qc7
12. h3 h6 13. Bd2 b6 14. Bc3 Bb7 15. Qg4 O-O-O 16. Qxg7 Rdg8
17. Qf6 c5 18. Rad1 Rg6 19. Qh4 Bxf3 20.dxc5 Rxg2+ 21. Kh1 Rh2+
22. Kg1 Rg2+ 23. Kh1 Rg4# Ouch!!

In article ,
Bill Wong wrote:

Bill Smythe wrote:
"Bill Wong" wrote:

Uhm, you were supposed to lose all those games. You were severly
outrated in every one of them. I did not look at the games at all. You
shouldn't expect to win against such high rated opponents when you are
rated barely 1200. ....


That kind of answer is not helpful, and confuses the cause with the effect.

A player is rated 1200 because he is a (comparatively) weak player, not the
other way around. Somebody actually willing to help the poster out, by
analyzing the games, might help him to become a stronger player. After
that, his rating will follow suit.

Bill Smythe




If you cut my answer in half, then of course it isnt helpful.--Bill Wong


That is also true about butlers.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Harold Buck wrote:

In article ,
Bill Wong wrote:

Bill Smythe wrote:
"Bill Wong" wrote:

Uhm, you were supposed to lose all those games. You were severly
outrated in every one of them. I did not look at the games at all. You
shouldn't expect to win against such high rated opponents when you are
rated barely 1200. ....


That kind of answer is not helpful, and confuses the cause with the effect.

A player is rated 1200 because he is a (comparatively) weak player, not the
other way around. Somebody actually willing to help the poster out, by
analyzing the games, might help him to become a stronger player. After
that, his rating will follow suit.

Bill Smythe




If you cut my answer in half, then of course it isnt helpful.--Bill Wong

That is also true about butlers.

--Harold Buck

Oh! to be a mandarin - ( ancient saw )..

Harold Buck wrote:

In article ,
Bill Wong wrote:

Bill Smythe wrote:
"Bill Wong" wrote:





If you cut my answer in half, then of course it isnt helpful.--Bill Wong

That is also true about butlers.

--Harold Buck

Oh! to be a mandarin - (old chinese lament)..

Luis Matos wrote:
I would recommend to begin by reading Nimzowitch "My System"

That's possibly a little advanced for a beginner. At this point, I
feel I should say something more constructive but I can't really think
of anything. :-(


Dave.

--
David Richerby Unholy Tree (TM): it's like a tree
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it's also a crime against nature!

wrote:
I learned much more by playing through Fischer's "60 Memorable Games",
even though I was too weak to understand more than 1% of the book, and
was doing this just for fun, not for study.

Also worth looking at is Chernev's `The Most Instructive Games of Chess
Ever Played: 62 Masterpieces of Chess Strategy'. It's been reprinted by
Dover so you should be able to get hold of a copy for practically no
money.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Nuclear Atlas (TM): it's like a map
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of the world that's made of atoms!

"Bill Wong" wrote ...
Bill Smythe wrote:

That kind of answer is not helpful, and confuses the cause with the
effect.

If you cut my answer in half, then of course it isnt helpful.

Smythe cut out the part about "better governance." That part is key.

Tim Hanke

Hi Alex,

I may not be even 1200 ! I just want to try to give advices which
could help you in some way.

The first game

20. Rc3
You have probably forgotten the Black bishop on g7 at that time. 20.
R3d2 would have been better.
This is quite a blunder, which self explains why you cannot win over
such higher rated opponents.

The last one :

After 19. ... Bxf3, you didn't see the mate in two, so this is what's
wrong.

I think you should try to focus on basic principles, and leave
openings variations for the moment.

Don't get frustrated. And try to play against players of your level.

Regards.