Background:
My whole life, I have loved chess, and dedicated a lot of time toward it. However I have (quite knowingly and intentionally) spent almost all of that time in ways that were "fun", rather than in ways that would improve my actual skill level. That is to say, I've never really buckled down and studied properly.

Now, I've decided that I would like to change that, and actually start getting better at the game. In particular, I would like to improve as much as I can before I play my first over-the-board tournament in over a decade. The tournament is in five weeks. And to make this extra challenging, I'm quite busy with life, and will have relatively little study time available, and what study time I have is mostly going to be short chunks of time, not long blocks.

So I'm asking for your assistance in putting together a study plan that will allow me to make the most out of what little time I have, to shore up whatever the most glaring (and/or most fixable) of the many holes in my game I can. I will share what I'm doing so far, and try to post as many representative games as I can so that you can get a better sense of what my strengths and weaknesses are (relative to my rating*), and thus be able to give me more direct, personal, and meaningful advice.

My current plan:
Basically, I plan (at the moment) to do two things: spend as much time as I can on the chess.com tactics trainer, and play as many long(er) games as I can. Up to now, I've mostly just been playing 1/0, because the only real chess time that I get is my short breaks at work, and I can squeeze a few quick games in there. I won't have time to play more than one or two "real" long games, at best, but I'm going to at least start trying to get in a 15/10 game here or there. I played one today at lunch, which I'll post for your review. I also have a few correspondence games running on chess.com, and I'll post those as they finish. I am making an active effort not to make any blitz moves in those games, and to only move after I've put some significant time into analyzing the position. Even so, I've made a few massively embarassing moves in the last couple of days, so...

As for tactics trainer, I've used it a ton in the past, but again, more for fun than for study. I usually have just made whatever move "looks" right without really analyzing whether it actually works. If it does, and I get the problem right, I say "awesome!" - and don't learn anything from it. If it doesn't work, and I get the problem wrong, I click through the solution, and say "oh, that's so cool!" - and don't learn anything from it. I'm now making a concious effort not to move unless I'm confident that the move is correct (no guessing, if I have to guess, it means I have to analyze more). I turned the timer off, which helps me be more comfortable in taking as long as I need to. And when I do get one wrong, I log it in a spreadsheet and do it again the following day, and keep doing it every day until I get it right. And when I do get it right (either on the first try, or later), I still log it, and do it again a week later, to make sure I really understand it and didn't just get lucky. If I miss it that second time, it goes back to being a daily problem again.

I am hoping that between using tactics trainer as an actual training tool, and playing at least a few games where I spend at least some time thinking, rather than blitzing out crap moves, I will improve quite a bit in those five weeks, and be able to go crush the U1400 section in Newport! I will of course be modifying this training plan based on your recommendations after you review some of my games, and identify my biggest weaknesses (that are fixable/improvable in a short time span).

Here is the game I played at lunch today

Thank you in advance to everyone who helps me out!

* My current rating, for whatever it's worth, is 1246 (USCF provisional). That rating is based on 19 games, from four tournaments, all played between 10 and 12 years ago. So it's probably not worth much, except that it means I'll be playing in the "Under 1400" section.

1246??? I don't think you need a training plan.

Valid, fair point. However the flip side is that I'm 1246 with a mind currently tuned for lightning, and I haven't played a long over the board game in years. And at my level, relatively minor changes can results in large jumps in play quality. The worse you are, the easier it is to improve

Even something as simple as getting myself from "rusty" to "sharp", could be the difference between playing at a 1000 level vs. a 1400 level. And in an under-1400 section, that could be the difference between 0/4 and 4/4. So while my post was a wall of text, the question is pretty simple.

What is the best thing I can do in the next five weeks to get myself sharp? Should I focus on just trying to play some long games and get out of the blitz mindset? Do I desperately need to review a couple core opening principles? (NOT lines, I know I don't need theory, but if I post five games and you see me doing silly things with my knights during the opening of three of them, that might be a leak I can plug.)

Am I on the right track with just tactics and some longer games? Or is there something obvious I'm missing that I should add to the list?

I have no idea man. Somebody needs to do a controlled study on this stuff. But maybe this will help a bit:
Tactics, king safety, square control. By square control I mean all the squares your pieces control. Sometimes it can help to just count that stuff to see who has the advantage. You can also count only the squares that matter. At least computers think a bit like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique

1. Use pomodoro technique to break down your studying

2. Purchase, borrow, or obtain two books on tactics. An easy one for pattern recognition and a hard one for depth of thinking. Anthology of Chess Combinations from Chess Informant would be the hard book for tactics.

3. If the time control is more standard then rapid use the pomodoro technique for time management in the game. By taking a few forced three minute breaks your focus and ability to use all the time efficiently will be improved.

anything besides tactics is useless at this point

i think buying a program like chessmaster and going through all the waitzkin lessons would be a good idea, just to reinforce all of the basics in your head.

besides that id do the following:
-tactics tactics tactics
-play 2 or 3 long games each week and analyze with a computer afterwards
-find 1 opening as white you really like and one opening as black vs e4 and one vs d4. study not only the first ~10 moves, but what the general plan of the line should be for your color
-study all basic endgame stuff, up to around the 1600-1800 level. silman's endgame course is a good tool for this
-for each move try to come up with a checklist that you go through to make sure you make a solid move that doesnt blunder anything. What is my opponents plan? what are his immediate threats? does he have any checks? do i have any checks? discoveries? pins? undefended or under defended pieces on either side?

i think if you go through all this stuff you should be ready to play at the ~1500 level by the tournament. there will still probably be some sandbaggers though so dont expect any sort of cake walk


id estimate my skill level right now around 1500-1600. i think the couple things that helped me improve from the 1400 level to now are 1) chesstempo problems and really trying to maximize my rating on the site (http://chesstempo.com/chess-tactics.html) and 2) learning endgames.

i played the 5 minute pool a bit on icc and its kinda scary how good the 800-900 level players are there (i would say a 800 there is ~1300 and a 1000 is ~1400). the thing that separated me from them is that i was much better at endgames than they were. i would often get into a slightly worse or equal position with queens off and would just dominate from there on. i blundered more than everyone i played against, but they were all really really weak at endgames, so thats something nice you can exploit by becoming decent at it.

Some advice I've always thought was useful in the past was:

1) Always consider what my opponent was trying to do with his last move
2) If in doubt as to what to do just try to improve the worst placed piece
3) Never accept a draw offer unless you think you're losing!

Thanks for the input, guys!

QuantumCage: I like the "square control" point, I'm familiar with it as a concept, but I've never really tried to use it as something quantifiable.

MightyTiny: The pomodoro technique probably won't be too helpful for me in studying, as my problem is mostly that I don't HAVE 25-minute chunks of time available. I'm looking for things that can help me improve in just 10-15 minute chunks, mostly. However the idea of using it DURING the games to help maintain my focus is something I will definitely do, and that I suspect will help me a lot!

Daut: Tactics above all else is obviously the right answer (everyone else has brought this up as well). And I do have (and have been using) the Silman endgame course as well. I really need to get better at basic rook and pawn endgames, that's the one endgame area that has the strongest chance of directly affecting the games I'll play.

leofric: Your second point is one that I am aware of, but historically have struggled to apply. I tend to freak out when I can't find a plan, and do something dumb. This is a great rule to fall back on to avoid the blunders that happen when I do that.

So thank you to everyone for your input! I'm going to post two more games now, these were both chess.com correspondence games that I finished yesterday. I did use opening databases for them. Between the game I posted in the OP and the first of these games, I'm worried you'll start to think I'm better than I claim, but the second of these games should disabuse you of that notion.

http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=79952

http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=79953

I'm sharing games for two reasons. One, if you see any particular areas of my game that appear (consistently) to be weaker than the rest, that should become primary focuses (other than of course better tactics, always better tactics!) for my study. And two, because I'm curious about where you would assess my current strength. That's not a "fishing for compliments" thing, I'd be just as appreciative of an honest assessment that I'm playing like an 800 as if you said I was playing like a 1600. I just want an idea of whether my 11-year-old provisional rating is anywhere near my actual strength, or if I'm "actually" better or worse than it suggests.

Obviously you'll need more than three games to accurately judge it, but as I post additional games please keep that in mind, particularly if you're relatively knowledgeable about class-level play, and are able to assess it somewhat accurately.

Thanks again everyone!

BJJ, I hope this helps a bit. Having not seen too many of your games and how you play makes it tough to come up with a really specific study plan, but here is some more general advice that really helped me.

1) The book that really helped me sort of connect the dots, so to speak, was "How to Reassess Your Chess" by Jeremy Silman. I don't know if you've read it yet or not, but if not, I'd highly recommend it. Before that book, GM games sort of looked like a foreign language to me. HTRYC first introduced me to concepts like weak squares, open files, etc. GM games made a LOT more sense after reading this book.

2) Studying well-annotated GM games really is worth its weight in gold. Besides analyzing your own games with a stronger player, I think this is the second best thing you can do to improve. It's tough to explain, but after seeing so many high level games your brain just sort of absorbs the material and you start to just "feel" the right move, even if you can't explain why it's the right move. It's like the concepts begin to sink in subconsciously after a while. The standard recommendations like Zurich 1953, Tal-Botvinnik 1960 (since you're an e4 player this is really great), and My 60 Memorable Games are all excellent for this purpose.

3) In the words of the great philosopher Dire, tactics tactics tactics Going through the couple of games you posted really made this hit home. You play sharp openings (which I think is the right thing to do, even if it leads to a polarizing win or loss) so being tactically skilled is an absolute must. I don't have anything fancy to recommend here, other than using chess.com's tactics trainer quite a bit. I wouldn't get too carried away, something like 30-50 problems/day should be plenty. You don't want to do too many and get in that mindset that every position in an OTB game is a tactics problem, because that becomes really dangerous. But a nice balance of 30-50 problems, mixed with GM game analysis and your own playing/analyzing should keep you on the right track.

4) Know your basic endgames. There are only a few endgames that you need to know like the back of your hand. Of course if you're an IM wanting to be a GM the list grows, but for now, these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I might be forgetting some, so hopefully others will chime in if I do. If you master these, you'll be a better endgame player than anyone else at your rating level.

-Basic mates (K+Q v K, K+R v K, K+B+B v K, etc)
-Basics of opposition in K+P endings
-Lucena and Philidor positions in rook endings
-That in a K+B+P v K ending, the bishop must control the queening square of the rook pawn
-In rook and pawn endings, ALWAYS keep your rook active. ALWAYS.

5) Going over your games, I'd think you're stronger than a 12xx rating, certainly. The first game you posted (out of those two, first game of the recent post) certainly looks like something I'd expect out of a 16xx player. The second game you posted is part of the problem of a player at any level: consistency. I don't have to sit here and tell you about the blunders, you know that. I think part of the rust process might be a lack of consistency that will naturally start to come off as you play more. But based on what you know and post, I don't see any reason you shouldn't be able to play at a 1500-1600 level.

Keep us posted on your progress and don't ever hesitate to post some games for analysis. Having stronger players analyze games and help you out is, in my opinion, the single most important and helpful thing you can do for your game.

To be honest the problem in the second game is more one of pattern recognition which comes from experience. On move 11 most of us would avoid taking the N on g4 simply because it opens up the file for the rook and if Black follows up with Qh4 then it looks difficult even a piece up. If we ignore the piece (for the time being) then other moves such as Qf3 spring to mind.

In game one I really like Qc4 - its a nice move attacking the R but if it just moves away you have 15..... Qxd4+; 16 Bd2 Bxf3+ winning the Queen.

For what it's worth, in that second game, I did recognize the pattern and agonized over whether to grab the knight or not. Ultimately I decided to do so, but not without heavy consideration and not just as "free piece, there's no danger here", and my computer actually tells me that taking it is safe with precise play. That said, Qf3 is even stronger than taking it (+4.16 vs. +3.61, per Houdini 1.5, depth 19). What I didn't even consider was that I could play something safer and still end up with the material. I just thought that if I don't take the knight now, it retreats and I have to work harder to realize my advantage. I still don't understand all the ramifications of Qf3, so I'm working through that with the computer now, but if I'd seen it I'd never have gambled on opening the h-file.

In addition, there were critical problems with my calculation on four counts.

1.) I only decided to go for it after finding the idea of Re1/Ke1/Kf2, holding the piece. And that *does* work, sort of, in that the computer gives me an edge of just over a pawn after that sequence, but I missed 12. Bg5! which keeps the queen out of the action and just straight wins. If I'd seen this, taking the knight would have been perfectly fine, even if Qf3 is more precise.

2.) I missed the idea of g3 which allows black to (per comp eval) equalize, and thus makes Be3 bad.

3.) After g3, I *did* calculate out the line that was played, and conclude "Sure he can check me with the bishop, but the king just moves out of the way and I'm fine." That's the embarrassing one. Dropping queens on a 2-ply calculation is ultra-bad.

4.) Later in the game, I got completely blindsided by his 31. ... Rxd3+, prior to which I thought I'd trapped his queen and survived (or maybe even won). That move crushed me, and even after it was played it took me a while to understand how strong it was.

As for Qc4 in the other game, I want to preen and brag about how I saw it before I played Bd6, except that I don't recall ever even noticing that it might win me a queen, so clearly I didn't see it as fully as I ought to have...

given that you had an opening database, the first game, at least superficially, looks like it could have been played by a 900 or a GM, I can't tell. Not sure when your opponent leaves theory, but it looks like maybe Qxf4 is a mistake and White immediately has a very difficult position which he misplays even more.

the second game the opening is very odd and provocative from Black. Starting on move 2, is there a reason not to go 2. Nxe5? If not, d4 on move 4, 5, or 6 looks like the thematic way to punish his strange setup. Ng5, I think, shouldn't do anything after 0-0 but instead he decides to start some crazy tactics while you are better developed. I don't know if you considered 9. Ne6, but I'm not sure what's happening there, while after Ne4 you must clearly be OK. On move 11 your position is too good to go into such an unclear position - as you now know 11. Qf3 or 12. Bg5 would give you a large advantage, but even if you didn't see those any reasonable candidate move gives you something better than 'uh I'm up a piece and probably winning but he has an initiative that might be worth something'. What other moves did you consider here?

Be3 is a reasonable move even if it's not the correct computer defence. I was thinking 16. Rg1 works but presumably the refutation is Bg4+ Kd2 Bxe3+ Kxe3 Qh3 f3 Qh2+ Ke3 Qh6+ =, Although all the moves are forcing, you can be forgiven for missing this over the board.

On move 21 you enter an interesting phase of the game: you must be lost, but yet you can try to make it difficult. You have some activity and your opponent plays erratically, so I think there is still a good chance to save the game in practice. What you played must be fine, unfortunately he makes his first good move of the game with Ne5 and then Rxd3+ is a nice resource to have too (judging by how he played the rest of the game, I wouldn't be so confident he saw that in advance).

Based off those games I'm guessing your rating is about right and you will score 2.5/4 or 3/4 and then realise how easily it could have been 4/4 but for some missed opportunity.

Game 1: He left theory quite early, with 4. Qf3, but my database (a low-end free online one) had six games with that line, and I followed it with 4. ... exf4. And I guess technically I followed it with my 5th and 6th moves twice (as those positions had occurred twice in that database, with my responses being played), but I'm pretty sure I would have chosen Nxc6 and Qb6 on my own as well. After his 7th move, I was 100% on my own. So well before Qxf4.

Game 2: Nothing wrong with Nxe4; the database I'm using showed Bc4 played 130 times, and Nxe4 101 times, as the top two moves. Both had similarly dominant scores for white. I chose not to grab the pawn because I was hoping for more familiar waters. He was rated a couple hundred points below me, and I'd have been perfectly happy in an Evan's Gambit if he played 3. ... Nc6.

An important note on where I stand regarding opening theory: As I said in the OP, I've spent tons of time "studying" chess in ways that are almost custom designed to do as little as possible to actually improve my game - but are fun! An example of this is that I've spent countless hours studying the Evan's Gambit and Fried Liver, but no almost no theory in, say, the Sicilian. Not that I need *any* theory at my level, but that's beside the point.

So that should clarify my opening choices in game 2. Rather than just playing logical moves, I was trying to force things into familiar territory, first aiming for an Evan's, then when that ship sailed, aiming for a structure similar to the Fried Liver. Definitely a leak, I think.

I think that I should add that to my study plan. For the time being, I am officially not allowing myself to play either of my pet openings. I've never played the Ruy Lopez in my life (from the white side). It's time to give it a shot. I don't know any theory there, but that's fine, like I said, at my level I don't need theory, I just need to play logical moves and follow opening principles.

Interested to see the results. The main thing that comes to mind, given your current practice, is board discipline. What I mean is, the experience of playing a position and forcing yourself to take the time to think through the consequences before playing.

Lightning and lazy tactics both work against this. You train your brain to want to "just see what happens" which usually leads to a poor outcome.

Openings: just play moves that make sense to you. At this level, that should be enough, and you'll benefit from from improving "what makes sense" to you than in learning any actual theory.

I will second the suggestion of "How to Reassess Your Chess". Any book that gives you some structure to consolidate what you already know will be helpful. Even if you read that book thinking "I know this stuff already" I think it would still be very beneficial.

If there's one thing I've learned since getting back into chess, it's that your improvement will happen at its own pace. I'd caution against trying to do too much to feel prepared for the tournament in a few weeks. In chess time, four weeks is not very long at all. It's like trying to cram for a major exam half an hour before the test. At this point, I'd think it would be very difficult to really increase your playing level. I'd focus on practical things that will really help you over the board. Like Sholar mentioned, forcing yourself to be disciplined, taking your time, and really asking yourself "what is my opponent's threat?" after each and every move will be much more helpful than any sort of studying in just four weeks. Not to say that doing some tactics problems or something of that nature won't help knock the rust off, but I think focusing on the practical things will help you most of all.

I hadn't responded to Tex's long post yet, because it had too much good stuff to digest, but since it's been seconded, I will say that yes, I own a copy of Reassess Your Chess (third edition), and ALSO have a copy of the fourth edition sitting on my living room floor, having found it in the library last week.

That said, I'm not sure I want to crack it open until after the tourney. It's a book that will generate genuine improvement in my playing level, but not necessarily immediately. Like you said, Tex, that comes at its own pace. And like you said earlier, I have a strong case of the classic "I would be rated higher if I didn't blunder some times" syndrome. Of course people often use that as an excuse, when realistically the blunders are part of one's over all chess ability, but in my case I do think that laziness (too much lightning, playing things "just to see what happens" as Sholar said) has increased that blunder rate a lot. Focusing on discipline, using my time, playing slower, and considering everything, can help me a lot. If right now I'm someone who "plays at a 1600 level, except for when he blunders, but does so with enough frequency to only be rated 1200", then I think my goal for the next month should be to focus on cutting those blunders down to a point where maybe my effective rating is 1400.

htRAYC will help drive that upper level of "when I don't blunder" up, aka my "playing level", but not quickly, and not with the limited amount of study time I have available. The blunder rate seems like something that I have a better chance of actually improving in that timespan. Then after this tourney, I'll break open the more serious material and start trying to become "an 1800 level player whose blunders leave him rated 1400", or whatever

I'll do tactics problems (instead of playing lightning) when I only have a few minutes available. When I have more time, I'll play games with as long of time controls as I have the time for. I have way more chess knowledge built up in my system than my OTB results suggest. I'm going to keep the focus practical, and try to work on actually applying that knowledge, and thinking more clearly and completely about positions, instead of just guessing, or playing off of "intuition".

And now, here's another correspondence game I just finished. I really REALLY do need to work on rook and pawn endings

http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=79964

Yes to this, but to the next part...

I want to qualify this post by observing that I know nothing about chess or chess instruction, but personally, I think this is not a helpful way to think about things.

Somewhere I read a trainer, joking, "Until you lose a game without a tactical error, study only tactics."

The benefit of a lot of instruction is being able to recognize patterns--both good and ill--to avoid making just these types of errors. Even if you took a very narrow view of "blunder" I suspect this would still be the case.

Yeah, I'm re-reading that and thinking that my original strategy of assimilating suggestions over a couple of days and *then* responding was much better than my strategy for that post of just typing a stream-of-consciousness response. Please ignore the babbling of that post.

On another note: tactics, tactics, tactics!!! This whole technique of really focusing on my tactics problems and not getting lazy, making guesses, or just giving up, seems to be paying off. For years, when I was using the chess.com tactics trainer as entertainment, my rating fluctuated between just under 1600 to just over 1900. Any rating outside of the 1700-1800 rating never lasted longer than a week. Variance aside, I was clearly about a "true" 1750.

It was on April 26th that I made a conscious decision to change my approach. On April 30th I was able to post this:

"Woot! I just did a run of 15 Chess.com Tactics Trainer problems and only failed 2! The run included getting my last five in a row correct - and left me with a new lifetime high Tactics Trainer rating of 1932!"

Well, that rating did of course dip back down into the 1700s, but it never got lower than 1754, and then it started rising again. This afternoon I was sitting at 1802. Then at around 6:30 pm I did a run of 8 problems, getting 7 of them right, closing the session at 1868. Then just now I did a run of 16 more problems. I got the first one wrong, then aced 14 of the next 15, and closed with a rating of 2000!!! Blowing past my old record!!!

It doesn't mean much unless I can maintain it, and only time will tell on that front, but I certainly feel good right now

Grrr... I feel great after the tactics and then I play a 15/10 game and crap this out:

http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=79968

Upsides: The result. And I'm proud of the endgame, considering that I went under a minute on my clock on move 30, so the final 48 moves were all played within the increment, and I managed not to blunder away the win. And while this was only my ninth standard time control game on the site, it's never sad to set a new personal high ranking (and pick up a win over my highest rated opponent to date).

Downsides (aka why I don't really care about any of that): 12. ... Nxd4. It erases every positive feeling I otherwise might have had about the game. It was one of those moves that I realized was bad the second I made it, which means I should have known better than to make it in the first place. The whole Nh4 foray I'm not sure of, but unless the analysis tells me differently, I'm pretty sure I wasn't actually losing material until the 12th move. I saw a different line, got excited, and let that rule my play without looking closer at the consequences. Also, 24. ... c4. Same thing, the second I played it I realized it was a mistake, and now I was only going to be up two pawns instead of three, which can make a huge difference with opposite colored bishops. Those two moments, where I played moves that I knew were bad (didn't need my opponent to show me why), are exactly what I'm trying to train myself out of.

Regarding 12...Nxd4 in that most recent game you posted, what do you think caused the blunder? I'm a big fan of trying to get to the root cause of mistakes like that, not just saying "ah, it happens" (even though it sometimes just does ). Based on your chess.com tactics rating, you're obviously strong enough to see a couple move sequence like that. Was it one of those times you moved too quickly and didn't evaluate your opponent's reply, or perhaps a case of simply not seeing the move OTB, even though in a tactics problem scenario you'd notice it?

I have the same approach, and have been going over it obsessively in my mind ever since I played it, lol. Really I think it's pretty simple. After d4 I had calculated it out assuming he follows the "capture with the weakest piece first" rule, and seen that I could play 11. ... exd4 12. cxd4 Bxd4 13. Nxd4 Nxd4 and now if he takes my Nh5 I have Nc2. Looking back through it now, I'm not even sure *that* works, as in the end I'll trap my knight, and I probably just gave up two pieces for a rook and a pawn while trading down, in a position I was happy to play with more material on the board, but it's what I had calculated at the time. It just never occurred to me to reconsider my plan when he changed the move order - at least not until three tenths of a second after I had already played Nxd4. It was literally less than a second after playing the move that I said "wait, now my bishop AND my knight will be hanging and I'm losing one!"

The key problem was that I never considered other options. Never thought about different move orders. Played lazily.

Edit: Another factor is that earlier, before I had played Nh5, I had noticed that he can't play the normal d4 because of where his queen is, it just hangs a pawn. I think I had tunnel vision on the idea that "d4 is bad for him", so when he played it I didn't take the time I should have to consider if anything had changed (obviously it had). I just dove in to exploit his move that I had already decided (in a different board position) was exploitable.

The portion of your post I bolded is a really great practical lesson. I heard that same thing recently from a chess.com video I think, and I'm surprised it's not talked about more often when discussing general rules of chess. It's really amazing how often changing the move order of a combination suddenly makes it work. I think this is one of those things that you'll have to consciously remind yourself for a while before it becomes second nature.

And your last paragraph is a very common mental trap, one that I often fall into myself. It's easy to write something off early in the game (like here, how you thought d4 was bad) and to get stuck in that mindset. I'm often painfully reminded just how dynamic of a game chess is and how quickly/readily things change.

I really like your outlook and attitude on these games. If you can just learn a little bit, even if it's very small, from each game, you'll be worlds better in no time. For example, lets say you continually lose games in a certain opening line. With each loss if learn just one more move of theory than you knew before, you'll soon be practically an expert.

Try counting the pieces again Instead of Nh5 which didn't work out, on move 10 you could play Re8 or Bb6 (anticipating d4) followed by Ne7-Ng6 (the c6-knight is in the way and restricted by the c3-pawn at the moment)

LOL, right, because of course Nc2 captures a bishop in addition to capturing the rook. Sigh. So at least the line I saw at the time did work out well for me. My calculation (of that specific line) then was more accurate in the game than post-mortem. The problem was that it wasn't forced, and so never occurred on the board.

As for the rest of it, you mean I could play a standard positional plan in this opening, instead of attempting a speculative attack that doesn't work? Are you sure that's allowed?

Seriously, though, I've played that series of moves in a ton of previous games (but never with a queen on e2). I would have done exactly that if I hadn't become enamored with the threat of Ng3, thinking I was exploiting the oddly placed queen. Of course part of that is what I mentioned earlier, of having calculated that d4 can't be played (because of the queen's location), and neglecting to consider that Nh5 makes it playable as seen in the game, and that he thus had a clean logical way to stop the threat of Ng3 and continue is own plan at the same time.

So how's the studying going? Any interesting thoughts/updates?