In article , Joshua B. Lilly wrote:
HA! This clown does this same thing every once in a while. He/she
obviously cares nothing at all for improvement, but just enjoys watching
people try to give serious responses to what is a repeated troll expedition.

Maybe, though, the excellent ideas in this thread will help someone else.

In round 1, your move 18. Nd5 is a blunder, because after 18 ... Nxd5
19. exd5 Bf5, you are going to lose at least a pawn. For example
after 20. R3d2 you opponent could play 20 ... Bxb2. Your move 20. Rc3
was even worse than 20. R3d2 because your opponent gets a rook for a
bishop. Against a player of your opponent's strength this is enough
to lose the game.

So the game was decided by two blunders, 18. Nd5 and 20. Rc3. Up to
then your play was sound. You might, for example, have continued 18.
Nd4, and you would still have been in the game.

In round 2, your move 17 ... a5 is the decisive blunder, because it
hangs your pawn on c6, and your move 19 ... Qxb4 aggravates matters,
because you immediately lose the knight on b6. Again, up to then your
play was sound.

In round 3, you were OK until you dropped the pawn on c3. You should
have played 22. c4 to save it. After that, you put up some good
resistance, until you left the rook hanging on c3.

In round 4, your move 16. Qxg7 loses immediately. Since that move is
no good, the previous move, 15. Qg4, the whole purpose of which is to
threaten 16. Qxg7, is also no good. So 15. Qe2 was correct. If you
had played that, you would have been in the game. You would still
have your hands full with your opponent's king side attack, but it
would be a game.

*****

I think that you didn't need me to tell you about all these blunders.
Here's what I think: in every game, after every blunder, you knew it
was a blunder as soon as your opponent won the material.

So you already know the answer to your question, "What am I doing
wrong in my games??" Why do you come to rec.games.chess.analysis with
this? Here's what I think: I think you are in denial. You need to
face up to the problem of making too many blunders. You can study
till the cows come home, but it won't help.

*****

I do not know why Mr. Wong or Mr. Smythe or any of the other strong
players contributing to this thread did not analyze your games to find
the blunders. Your question, "What am I doing wrong in my games??",
is quite a reasonable one, and there's really only one way to answer
it, which is to analyze the games.

I was particularly surprised by the answer, "you are playing
opposition that is too strong". Suppose I had a professional baseball
player in my living room, and I showed him some videos of me playing
baseball, and I asked him what I was doing wrong. I'd expect to hear
an answer like "... here's the problem with your swing ... your throw
.... your stance ... you need to run faster ... exercise ... etc." If
he answered, "you're playing opponents that are too strong", I'd think
he had lost it.

*****

It is true, of course, that you were playing very strong opponents,
relative to your own strength. If you faced opponents rated closer to
1200, you wouldn't play any better, but you'd win more often, and that
would be good for your soul, I think.

*****

I agree with the guy who suggested that you provide the names of your
opponents. The reason is, that they might be people whom I have met.
You never know. It would be interesting.

(Alex) wrote in message . com...
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!!!


Round 1:
White: Me 1210
Black: 2187

[Opening "Sicilian: accelerated fianchetto, modern variation"]
[ECO "B34"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. f3
O-O 8.
Bc4 Qa5 9. O-O Ne5 10. Nb3 Qc7 11. Be2 d6 12. Qd2 Nc4 13. Qc1 Nxe3 14.
Qxe3
Be6 15. Rad1 Rac8 16. Rd3 a6 17. Rfd1 b5 18. Nd5 Nxd5 19. exd5 Bf5 20.
Rc3
Bxc3 21. bxc3 Qxc3 22. Qxe7 Bxc2 23. Qxd6 Bxd1 24. Bxd1 Qe1#


Round 2:
White: 1923
Black: Me 1210

[Opening "Catalan opening"]
[ECO "E00"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 Bxd2+ 5. Qxd2 Ne4 6. Qc2 f5 7.
Bg2 d5
8. Nf3 O-O 9. O-O b6 10. Ne5 Bb7 11. f3 Nf6 12. Nd2 Nbd7 13. Nd3 c6
14. c5
Ba6 15. b4 Bxd3 16. Qxd3 Qe7 17. Rac1 a5 18. cxb6 Nxb6 19. Rxc6 Qxb4
20. Rb1
Qe7 21. Rbxb6 e5 22. Re6 Qc7 23. dxe5 Nd7 24. Rbc6 Qb8 25. f4 Qb2 26.
Bxd5
Kh8 27. Bb3 Rac8 28. Qxd7 Rxc6 29. Rxc6 I resigned.

Round 3:
White: Me 1210
Black: 1850

[Opening "Sicilian defense"]
[ECO "B32"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. c3 d3 5. Bxd3 g6 6. O-O Bg7 7. Re1
d6 8.
Be3 Nf6 9. h3 O-O 10. Qd2 Re8 11. Bh6 Bh8 12. Na3 Be6 13. Nc4 b5 14.
Ne3 a6
15. a3 Rc8 16. Rad1 Na5 17. Nd4 Bd7 18. b4 Nc6 19. Nxc6 Bxc6 20. f3
Nd7 21.
Ng4 Bb7 22. Be3 Bxc3 23. Nh6+ Kf8 24. Qf2 Bxe1 25. Rxe1 Ne5 26. Bf1
Qc7 27.
Rc1 Nc4 28. Bxc4 bxc4 29. Rc3 e6 30. Qh4 Qd8 31. Qf4 Qe7 32. Ng4 f5
33. exf5
exf5 34. Qh6+ Qg7 35. Nf6 Re7 36. Nxh7+ Kf7 37. Ng5+ Kg8 38. Qh4 Qxc3
I resigned.

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 ,
(Bruce Leverett) wrote:

I was particularly surprised by the answer, "you are playing
opposition that is too strong". Suppose I had a professional baseball
player in my living room, and I showed him some videos of me playing
baseball, and I asked him what I was doing wrong. I'd expect to hear
an answer like "... here's the problem with your swing ... your throw
... your stance ... you need to run faster ... exercise ... etc." If
he answered, "you're playing opponents that are too strong", I'd think
he had lost it.



Bad analogy.

A better one:

Suppose you were a rec league softball player, and you showed this pro
baseball player video of you trying to bat against Randy Johnson, Roger
Clemens, and Kerry Woods. You ask what you're doing wrong. He's going to
say, "It doesn't matter what I tell you about your swing, you're still
never going to get a hit off these guys."

Or he might be kind and give you a few tips on your swing. But either
way, you're still going to strike out against big league pitching.

--Harold Buck


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

En/na Harold Buck ha escrit:
In article ,
(Bruce Leverett) wrote:

I was particularly surprised by the answer, "you are playing
opposition that is too strong". Suppose I had a professional baseball
player in my living room, and I showed him some videos of me playing
baseball, and I asked him what I was doing wrong. I'd expect to hear
an answer like "... here's the problem with your swing ... your throw
... your stance ... you need to run faster ... exercise ... etc." If
he answered, "you're playing opponents that are too strong", I'd think
he had lost it.

Bad analogy.

A better one:
(...)

Another analogy,

Imagine a boy who has just learnt to add and multiply who asks Mr Erdos:
"I have tried to solve Goldbach Conjecture but I did not prove anything,
what's your advice? and Mr Erdos advice is first solve some factorial
descomposition, make a list of prime numbers, ..."

AT

I do not understand why do you hide the name of your opponents, I do not
understand it in any case, but more in that one where your opponents won
all the games!!

Because he hasn't actually played these games against any human opponents. He
plays games against a computer and posts the results as if he is going to clubs
playing real people.

Antonio Torrecillas writes:


Another analogy,

Imagine a boy who has just learnt to add and multiply who asks Mr Erdos:
"I have tried to solve Goldbach Conjecture but I did not prove anything,
what's your advice? and Mr Erdos advice is first solve some factorial
descomposition, make a list of prime numbers, ..."


Why listen to Erdos? He couldn't solve it either.

BTW - what's your Erdos number?



--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Liste, losing 4 games in a row is nothing, although it could be the
start of something big...

When I was still playing tournament chess with a rating around 1750
(around 1850 US), I once lost 13 games in a row! Just last week, I lost
nine in a row playing 2 12 blitz on ICC, then won 7 in a row!

It does depend if you are playing toutnament games of blitz - you and
your opponent will make a lot more mistakes in blitz. In any case, you
should try to play opponents of approximately your own strength so that
you can learn how to exploit their mistakes. You ain't gonna learn
nothin' by losing against Kasparov!...

I would recommend not putting to much emphasis on rating, and to
concentrate on improving your game. Ratings are not a measure of
strength but a measure of performance, and you can learn a lot more from
a loss than from a victory, especially if you analyze it with Fritz
afterwards.

If you do that, you will find that in most games between weaker players,
both players miss a winning move more than once, so whoever ends up
ahead in the opening gives only a slightly higher probability of
winning. Concentrate on tactics.

And most importantly, play for fun and keep a positive outlook: tell
yourself that every time you lose a game, you will gain more raing
points from your next game than if you had won, so it all evens out in
the end.

During the last week, my blitz rating on ICC (which at its highest point
is over 400 points lower than my slow game rating), varied by more than
300 points. When I hit rock bottom, I am happy becuase then a single
victory gives me back more than twice the rating points I would have
obtained it after a string of victories.

If you are losing time after time with the same opening, check out the
lines in an opening book or in a database such as the Fritz database
that comes with the game (or if you are really into it, one of the
mega-databases - but the Fritz database should be enough for you). And
remember that at the beginner level, the single most profitable and easy
improvement is to improve your tactics. If your progress is slow,
consider that top grandmasters have to study chess a minimum of 5 hours
each day to keep their edge. For an amateur, this amount of time spent
studying chess would be a sign of mental illness (I have known such
people).

So keep playing, but above all, play for fun - after all, you are not
aiming for the World Championship!

Henri

En/na Kenneth Sloan ha escrit:
Antonio Torrecillas writes:

Another analogy,

Imagine a boy who has just learnt to add and multiply who asks Mr Erdos:
"I have tried to solve Goldbach Conjecture but I did not prove anything,
what's your advice? and Mr Erdos advice is first solve some factorial
descomposition, make a list of prime numbers, ..."


Why listen to Erdos? He couldn't solve it either.

BTW - what's your Erdos number?

My Erdos number is 3 thanks to:
- L.Albert, R.Casas, J Díaz and A Torrecillas
"On unification over unresticted pairs of trees"
UPC, ALCOM 90-11 (report no. LSI 89-26)

- And Josep Diaz has Erdos number 2 (NESETRIL, JAROSLAV 1983:4)
see at http://www.oakland.edu/enp/Erdos1

AT

Pd: I have read that "Uncle Petros" has solved that conjecture :-)

..

"Alex" will do this exact same thing in a few months, again laughing at
people giving serious responses. He/she doesn`t take the advice seriously,
and for all we know could in fact be an A player or Expert or something
using false games as some kind of weird "joke". I don`t see how it`s funny,
or what the point is, but it happens over and over.


Maybe he is trying to trick us into talking about *chess*?

Won't work on me! Can you believe that guy who tried to equate top major
league baseball pitchers with some rinky-dink class players (1700, 1800. 1900,
2100)? C'mon! Top major league pitchers = SuperGM's. These guys he
purportedly lost to were more like batboys.... :-)

You are right, it certainly seems like this request for advice was
completely bogus. I didn't see your debunking message until now,
because I was reading the thread from RGCP, and your message was only
posted to RGCM. So I have already responded to this troll!

I am embarrassed because I remember the first request for advice, and
I may even have responded to it. So you would think I would recognize
the fraud when I saw another one.

"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in message ...
HA! This clown does this same thing every once in a while. He/she
obviously cares nothing at all for improvement, but just enjoys watching
people try to give serious responses to what is a repeated troll expedition.

Here, check these out:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y28015768
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L29012768
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L5A012768
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2B012768

"Alex" will do this exact same thing in a few months, again laughing at
people giving serious responses. He/she doesn`t take the advice seriously,
and for all we know could in fact be an A player or Expert or something
using false games as some kind of weird "joke". I don`t see how it`s funny,
or what the point is, but it happens over and over.




"Dick Schneiders" wrote in message
...
Can anybody say "TROLL"?

Somebody is pulling your collective chain.

Notice "he" has not seen fit to respond to any of the comments, either the
serious ones or the derogative ones.