I was just referring to the lengthy way to finish instead of looking for a quicker mate. After thinking about it, I don't really care.

As for the openings, I always seem to be behind the curve like ten moves in - especially as white. I assume it has to do with me doing stupid stuff like putting bishops and my queen in bad spots when developing. When I get home I'll try to find a couple games.

This guy should have resigned after move 44. Unless you were way down on time.

A bishop endgame isn't super common so it's pretty reasonable for your finish to be kinda clanky. I wouldn't worry about it. I would have definitely kept that last bishop though, since losing it was totally avoidable. Just move it to e1 then push your pawn and when he gets his king to e2 (ready to take your bishop) you can just move it to f2 and he cannot get to h1 in time.

I think it's more important here to make sure you wipe all his pawns out than to dick around trying to mate him.

If you have a board you can play around with bishop+pawn endgame scenarios.

Yeah I let him have the bishop cause I didn't want to inadvertently stalemate him. Q&k v k is pretty simple.

This.

Also, "going to sleep" is a common idea in completely won endgames. It's worth reading up on.

A little opening advice, stop playing ...f6 or f3 unless it wins material, is necessary, or you know that it's appropriate in that opening since you've studied it. These moves weaken your king's position too much without much gain.

In this opening, it's very common for white to set up this discovered attack on the queen by the Bd2. Therefore, you should play ...c6 to give your queen a safe escape route. This does mean, of course, that ...Nc6 is not recommended here.

To elaborate on ganstaman, I think there are very few openings where f6 or f3 is the correct move and you should barely ever play it. Here is an example of when it is correct:
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 a6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. O-O f6

(Warning, analysis is all of my own without any study so could be wrong, but this is my understanding of why f6 is correct).

This is the exchange Ruy Lopez, and in this position black wants to castle kingside, but his e5 pawn is hanging. Protecting it with the bishop will tie up the position too much as Bd6 is simply awkward. Additionally, white has exchanged his light squared bishop so the a2-g7 diagonal is not vulnerable. I think this is the most important part to understand, the diagonal is safe so f6 does not weaken the kingside as much as it normally would.

The first few times I played this opening as black in 2/1 games I tried to not move the f6 pawn and ended up in terrible positions, but then took a look at some databases to find out that f6 was indeed correct.

Definitely noted on f6 and f3.

My computer has been FUBAR for a week now, so I've resorted to: a. Doing some more reading (started reading chess duels for some fun, and have been gradually plugging away at silmans endgame book) and b. Playing the computer on my phone via app.

I dunno about you guys but I hate playing the computer. It's either way too easy or they crush me tactically. I guess it's been good for more experience, but I pretty much hate it.

I occasionally play Houdini/Stockfish at full strength for training purposes, slow games where I'm allowed to just "pause" the clock and do other things whenever I want.

I don't lose to tactical oversights these days (woohoo), but it is disheartening that I inevitably find myself at a significant positional disadvantage before move 20–25 or so. So hopeless.

Why do you do this to yourself? haha. Pure torture.

Finally got my computer back - 30 min game vs some guy ranked 80 points higher:

http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=91614

First thing I noticed - the more I'm reading and playing the more that openings make sense. Second thing - my reading has really opened up my eyes as to how knights actually work.

I don't know why, but I seem to think I should be playing 10...fxg6 instead of hxg6.

I also looked at 18...Be7 a ****load before playing 18...Bc5?, presumably to keep pressure on the kingside. It really doesn't seem to do anything, and no move seemed really good there.

Totally missed the tactic 20...Nxh3! gaining queen 2 pawns and knight for rook bishop and knight, but to be honest I had planned 20...Qb5 a few moves before (after diverting the Q).

23...a6 is a complete disaster, as I freaked out about a back mate when earlier I'd ensured it wasn't there. To be fair, at this stage he has about 2 min left to my 10 so it was more of a "let's ensure king safety and win on time" than a total blunder. Regardless it was ****ing terrible.

After my last move I know there's a forced mate in there somewhere, and then his clock runs out. I'm going to go back and see if I can get that mate without help from computer.

Recapturing with the h-pawn, opening up the h-file, seems clearly better. The only ostensible reason to recapture with the f-pawn is to dodge 11. Bxf7, but after ...e4 12. Ng1 Black has a ton of compensation.

may as well throw a lol in here:

http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=91769

I knew the fork was there, but didn't care cause I wanted to play an actual endgame - terrible for my rating.

Q vs R was loltastic though

Getting the queen skewered is always a WOAT feeling. For an "lol" game this isn't that bad. At least you got a draw out of it.

25.-Qxa1 mate was also playable

edit: the pawn ending is pretty instructive and something worth looking at. 34.g4 looks like a mistake but maybe it was a draw anyway. Here's a few questions to answer: On move 36, 36.f5 or 36.g5 don't win either (why?). On move 38 his h6 was too early (and you could even reply Kg6 and Kxh6) but it was a draw anyway (why?). But it is a draw even if he doesn't play 38.h6 (why?).

yeah I intentionally didn't play 25. Qxa1# for the endgame

36. f5 gets met by 36...gxf5 37. gxf5 Ke5 and I get the e pawn or 37. g5 Kf5 and I get the pawn anyways

38. anything still a draw because he can't get to a square in front of his pawn (extra tempo giving him opposition doesn't help him in this position)

I offered draws twice before the third was accepted

in addition: 36.f5 gxf5 37.g5 is also a try but 37.-Ke3 is a strong move there and 37.-Ke5 draws as well.
36.g5 Kf5 37.Kf3 might get a little hairy (maybe losing? not sure. pawn endings be hard) since your K gets pushed back but 36.-Ke3 is strong, planning 37.f5 gxf5 38.g5 f4+. Hmm 37.h5 though- 37.h5 Ke4 38.h6 Kf5 39.Kf3 Ke6 is a draw though, since once W plays f5 we can just play gxf5 and even if our king gets cornered there's stalemate.
38.any draws indeed because the extra tempo doesn't help, in the position with wKe6 pf6 h5 bKf8 ph7 after f7+ Kf8 h6 is stalemate. Note that if the Black pawn was on h6 then White would win.

What was the idea behind 7...Nb4?

I really wanted to try an aggressive and different approach this game - I saw a good spot for my knight, and just wanted to see what would happen.

Fact of the matter is that I need the f8 bishop open to really do anything in the spot

http://www.chess.com/article/view/yo...nrsquot-part-1
http://www.chess.com/article/view/yo...nrsquot-part-2
I liked these articles, seems like you have reached a level of play where you can digest the concepts Silman is presenting

It's somehow reassuring that even >2250-rated players make mistakes of the sort in the Agur–Dreev game.

Lol playing on phone at work is such a bad idea.

Had ten minutes left to convert Q v N + P endgame with everyone in the center after managing to promote when well behind.

3 separate people come in to see me and I'm playing bad and not getting there and eventually I'm down to 11 seconds with no chance of winning and misclick taking the pawn with my queen.

Stupid game

Just an update:

Been playing quite a few games lately - mostly the 3 day correspondence on chess.com with some 30/0 mixed in.

My openings consist of the Scandi as black and the Ruy as white (until 4 moves in when I'm hopeless) - starting to get an understanding of openings and why stuff fits in certain places, but not quite there yet.

My games all feel the same (except for a few where I just hammer the offensive for fun):

1. e4/d4 then one of the knights
2. bishop out to pin their knight
3. move bishop out of way of a/h pawn
4. move other knight out
5. castle
6. have no idea where to put other bishop so probably put it in suboptimal spot
7. be at least a pawn down behind in space regardless of whether I'm white or black
8. get rook to spot where I lose my pawn
9. tactics tactics tactics!!!
10. lose/draw endgame where I'm clearly ahead

It's pretty frustrating actually. All the stuff I hear about is how beginners need to know tactics, and although I'm not spectacular at them I appear to be better than my cohorts at manipulating the middlegame to a reasonable ending. Then KABLAMMO since I'm only supposed to know how to checkmate with lone Q or R I lose up a protected passed pawn.

Everything feels so reactive. I ended up losing one of my games vs a 1700 where I was a little premature (lol) in my attack, but at least I felt like I had the initiative throughout. The way beginners are "supposed" to play is like playing bush league co-ed softball - walk the guys and pitch to the girls - i.e. just put your pieces out, don't have a plan, and wait until the other guy blunders. It's kind of unsatisfying.

For endings I've heard that Grandmaster Secrets: Endings by Soltis is a good primer. Chess.com has a lot of good articles that might help you with playing more purposefully in the middle game, can't really recommend a single good book. Heisman's articles are also worth reading

Winning Chess Endings by Yasser Seirawan is a good start learning endings.

I'll second this. That was the first endgame book I read and it's pretty enjoyable, especially for an endgame book. It isn't super heavy on theory and memorization, but Yasser does a great job of introducing the beginner to the endgame. Really good first book.