I was out of town for the weekend. Back now, will try to add some input on my game with checkmate.

Not playing into the fried liver was probably wise, but not so much because I've specialized in it as just because it's an opening that can only be reached through a black blunder (followed by a white blunder). You probably would have been fine with whatever your normal response to e4 is (presuming your normal response to e4 isn't the Nxd5 variation of the two-knights defense. And if that *is* your normal response, you need to learn the 5. ... Na5 main lines ASAP). As for the Scandinavian, there's not necessarily anything wrong with it, but I generally wouldn't recommend it to beginners just because it REQUIRES you to violate one of the main principles of the opening (don't bring your queen out early). This means that playing the Scandinavian will give you less opportunity to learn "normal" middlegame positions, so it's not a great opening to use if you're trying to learn, in my opinion.

I wasn't sure where I wanted my bishop. I knew b5 was coming if I played Bc4, but decided I was okay with Bb3 to get my bishop on that diagonal. Probably it wasn't the best choice on my part though.
And more importantly, to prepare castling. Right?
The immediate tactical win was there (the d6 sac), but I didn't find it. Most 1200 players drop pieces left and right, but you did not, your tactical blunder was more subtle and I couldn't find it over the board. Under those circumstances, I was very pleased to trade down. I trusted I'd have an endgame edge on you. By all means, trade queens against a stronger opponent if you think the trade benefits you positionally, or if you think your opponents queen is stronger than your own. Don't just trade for the sake of simplifying, though. Simplification will generally favor the stronger player, not the weaker one.
Was an annoying move. I thought I was lost for a while, before I found the Rd7 idea.
While I regret not finding the earlier sacrificial ideas on d6, I can also live with the fact that at this stage in my chess career those are beyond my level of tactical vision. Here, though, missing 22. Nc6 was just a mistake, I *should* see that move every time, and instead I let you back into the game temporarily.
I felt pretty good about the position after Bxa4. I'm not winning theoretically, but I have a passed pawn now, and given the rating difference I figured I'd find some way to queen it easily enough.
I also had Nc4, which the computer suggested may be stronger, although I didn't want to block the passed c-pawn myself...
[quote27...Ke7 drops my knight. Whites win will probably be child's play so I resigned.[/QUOTE]
Bc6 was a relatively cheap trick. Against a stronger player I probably focus on c-pawn plans, but I figured that if I took away the knights last possible escape square maybe you wouldn't notice and I'd be able to win it on the next move. That hope proved justified, but otherwise it would have been very interesting to see if my optimism for the endgame was justified.

I definitely was trying to work on the d6 spot, but it never really occurred to me that it might be so weak that I could actually sac material there. I was looking for a way to remove the c-pawn from the defense and win a pawn. Obviously looking back at it with a computer I found the same line you did, and realize I missed a chance to win a queen with a shiny rook sac. Oops

Thanks for the feedback on our game.

I have not really worked on any openings as of yet. My opening goals are just to get my pieces out and get my king to safety while not moving any piece twice before I have yet to move any piece for the first time. My current plans are to work on the Ruy Lopez for white probably starting with the exchange variation (so as to get motivated to study the endgame) and the Sicilian kan as black. This should get me learning the game I'm thinking.

6. Bd3 is a troubling line for black as discussed by Andrew Martin on his chessbase cd The Scandinavian the easy way. He said he was crushed by it.

9...Be7 was to allow 0-0 as well.

13...Rac8 and I did look at 14. Rxe6 but I couldn't see it. There is no way of seeing that at my current level but I was happy that computer analysis did show I was at least on the right path. I was wondering if you were looking at it as well?

I will look to complicate the situation in the future.

I had hoped to give you a run for your money on this game so hearing this pleased me.

22.Nc6 was missed by me as well.

It was the best I could come up with. I was happy I had learned about the skewer during my study and when I seen it on the board and thought I was the man.

This game/review process has been a big help and wanted to say thanks again.

Others may differ, but may I strongly recommend not playing the Sicilian as a beginner? Just respond to e4 with e5 and d4 with d5, and learn from there.

I've heard this advice given by chess teachers who deal a lot with beginners. Their arguments have always seemed sound.

Also, I love the avatar. (Same people usually recommend 1.e4 for a lot of the reasons you've given here, for what it's worth.)

I started with d4, and after about six months switched to e4. I don't think it's a coincidence that the e4 period showed much more rapid improvement.

would the Philidor defence be good choice when playing black and obv facing e4/Nf3?

It depends on what you are looking for. It is solid but passive, which I don't think is a good beginner combination because the beginner isn't solid and needs to learn to be aggressive. But you won't lose games because of it.

I don't know. I find that in well played d4 games tactics and complications appear, on average, no more than 5 moves later than e4 games. And 5 moves sooner than in the Ruy Lopez!

We're not talking about well-played games. We're talking about games at my level

In fact, it seems like the only e4 games that open up really fast are the swashbuckling e4/e5 gambit lines and maybe the open Sicilian.

Just for fun I'll show a QGD I played in this weekend's tournament where my opponent who is not a beginner played recklessly and died early. This might be a point for learning 1.e4 though since if my opponent had experience with that he may have learned the importance of castling early.

http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=49875

That's kind of the point. With e4 games, habits like that are punished early and often. Playing d4 let him get away with it long enough to build up the habit before you came along to teach him that valuable lesson

I'm definitely not claiming this as some sort of universal chess truth. I just think it's a useful beginner guideline like "Knights before bishops."

I read all the same advice on the internet as you that one should learn 1.e4 first and I'm just playing devil's advocate. You can't argue with the point that you have to learn open positions and tactics, but for beginners it seems e4 is just barely more likely to facilitate that than d4. Par for the course is pawns on e4,e5,d3,d6; four knights all on the 3rd/6th rank in front of their pawns, bishops on c4,c5 etc. which hardly seems open to me. Starting a game with d4 and c4 has got to be better for one's development than that.

I think more pertinent advice on the opening would be to always play for pawn breaks. If you play 1.e4, always play for d4 (or f4!) and certainly don't play d4 without c4. I'm sure the expert teacher(s) with whom that advice originally appeared had a lot more to say on the subject than 1.e4! but all the parrots on the forums eventually simplified it to "e4 to learn tactics". (Not talking about you, Kyle, but the people you read it from of course )

I like that point about pawn breaks a lot! I think that's why I took to the King's Indian so much. In the QGD, I could *never* find the right pawn breaks at the right time. For whatever reason, in the KID, the pawn breaks (and the moves around them) felt completely intuitive. Other people's experiences may vary.

I don't think it's the openings themselves, it's the way beginners are inclined to use them. I just see a lot of beginners play d4 because they know they can use it to clog up the game and not be punished for their mistakes as quickly. I used to do the exactly same thing. I could play d4 and frequently last 25+ moves against a stronger player before he finally used a better position to grab a pawn or two, and even then it might be another 30 moves before I had to admit the endgame was lost. I felt like that was somehow better than getting mated in a flurry in under 20 moves.

You are right about the generic e4 development. I was kind of thinking about that earlier, too. In the "Knights before bishops, just get all your pieces out" stage of beginnerdom, there probably isn't any difference between e4 and d4.

All that said, someday I'd like to take on a beginner and coach them up, and I guarantee you when that day comes, they will learn the Italian Game, the Fried Liver, the Evans Gambit, the Sicilian-busting long castle attacks, and then finally the Ruy Lopez, in that order.

I love the KID.. I don't even pretend to understand the subtelties of it but it's just fun to play from either side.


Througout my whole school "career" I played d4 because I felt it put a lot of my opponents more out of their comfort zone than the "beginners e4". Funny thing was I was looking at it the other way around.. "all I need to do is get a solid position and pick up a pawn or two and I'll win" (I was the best player there although the standard was poor). Now I just play e4. Funny world.

So, I'm trying to learn chess for the first time in my life.
I've played sporadically, maybe a couple games per year. So i know the absolute basics, like how to set up the board and the rules, but nothing more.

I'm going through Josh Waizkins (no idea how its spelled) tutorials on chessmaster. Is this a good and efficient way to go?
I'm more inclined on learning through theory rather than just jumping into games and doing trial and error at this point.

Is there better software, or should i go through some kind of guide,video,book,etc instead?

That's fine to start. At the absolute, just-learned-the-rules beginner stage, the main thing is that you are going to just have to get some experience. Learning some theory won't hurt you, but evenutally you will have to go through the trial and error stage

I had an essay half-formed in my mind for when I make a suitably high OTB rating to be giving people long-term advice, but this guy made it moot by writing it 10 years before I even thought of it:

http://canchess.tripod.com/reflecti.htm

"Many players 'choke' at a certain level and have difficulties getting to the next because they have too much information in their heads! They get confused...remember that in chess what is important is the APPLICATION of information, not the ABSORPTION of information."

As far as online content goes, I highly recommend www.chess.com. They have an unbelievable amount of content for learning purposes and it's all very good. It's relatively inexpensive too. A year membership for their highest level is around $100, I can't remember the exact amount. Anyway, definitely worth checking them out.

Is it frowned upon to post your own videos in its own thread? I want to start another noob thread about how I suck at chess and want to get better. I think i'm able to get better but did not have the motivation in the past to try until yesterday. I made a bet with my dad that if i beat him to 200 wins first, he has to quit smoking. So this kinds of means a lot to me now. I mainly just want to start a thread charting my progress that contains my videos and input from the chess community. Bad idea or good idea?

It is actually encouraged Distajo, so go ahead and do so - it is much easier to follow when it is in one thread.

All the best with your quest for 200 wins Distajo!

Thanks guys, i just have to get a steady internet connection on my laptop (it's the only one with camtasia, DL from back in the days of online poker LOLimsosad). I have to warn i'm pretty bad and pretty much have a depth of thought that compares to a preschooler learning the shapes and how they fit into objects.

http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=50017

In the spirit of favoring tactical, open positions I have started playing 1. e4 and responding to e4 with e5. I am preferring to play the Evans Gambit but when they bring the knight out to f6 I go for the Fried Liver Attack.

I am more familiar with the positions resulting from 5...Nxd5 but I know the theory resulting from 5...Nxa5 up to this 8...Qb6 move. Rybka says I have nothing better than bringing my bishop back to e2 and after some development and short castling it looks like my attack is over for the time being. Is there anything better here?

[Event "ICC"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2011.09.10"]
[White "amplify"]
[Black "Nwjerry1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1599"]
[BlackElo "1558"]
[ECO "C57"]
[Opening "two knights defense"]
[Variation "Fegatello attack"]
[TimeControl "900+0"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5
6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke8 8. Bxd5 Qe7 9. Bxc6+ Kd8 10. Bxb7 Bxb7
11. Qxb7 Rc8 12. Qd5+ Ke8 13. O-O Rd8 14. Qb5+ Rd7 15. Re1 c6
16. Qxc6 Kf7 17. Nc3 Rd6 18. Qf3+ Ke8 19. d3 h6 20. Bf4 Re6
21. Nd5 Qd7 22. Rxe5 Bd6 23. Rxe6+ Qxe6 24. Bxd6 Qxd6 25. Re1+ Kd7
26. Qf7+ Kd8 27. c4 Rf8 28. Qxa7 Re8 29. Qa8+ Kd7
1-0

Replayer

Woot! Fried Liver Attack in yo face son!

7...Ke6 is forced and he played a losing move. I was able to keep my advantage and press on for the win. Looks as though I should have played my knight to d5 on move 19 but my thinking was that in some lines I'd need my rooks connected so I wanted to deploy the bishop asap.

Rybka's usually right! Your attack is over and Black has a little more play, but you did manage to grab a pawn.