Now what?

That seems a bit harsh.

@byedidia

I do not take kindly to implication that I could be cheating. I would never do what he is implying.

I think I might be upping my game, I am losing a lot and to people I should not be losing to.

@mchill said
I'd start with something like a3, b4 booting blacks Bishop to b6, this opens the door to Qd2 threatening Bxh6 gxh6, Qxh6, and after e5 or Ng5, things will get ugly for black in a hurry. While black responds to this, white should have the opportunity to double those rooks on the c file. I may be missing something in the position here, but this will keep black busy responding t ...[text shortened]... nasty double attacks a few times, I can testify it will take some strong moves to counter them. 🙂

Just my two cents, but I am inclined to think that Black's bishop on a5 is more out of play where it is than on b6, where it would be on a better diagonal and start to put pressure on the White center. I wouldn't want to invest two tempi to make it better.

On b6 it would also x-ray the White king, and such things tend to become relevant a few moves down the road.

That said, we might be able to make the idea work from the perspective of clamping down on the c5 square. Black needs to play c7-c5 to free his position, and white can almost permanently prevent it. If white plays Rac1 and Ne5, he could follow up with a3 and b4, and black would be strangled.

The big problem is that black's pieces aren't working with each other. If Black's Ba5 were on e7, his Bd7 on b7, and his Nb8 on d7- and maybe Ra-c8- he could play for c7-c5 and it would be a game. As it is he is several moves away from getting anything coherent, and that gives White plenty of time to do what he wants.

As White I'd be comfortable with Rac1, Ne5, or h3. White is spoiled for choice in a position like this.

@paul-leggett said
Just my two cents, but I am inclined to think that Black's bishop on a5 is more out of play where it is than on b6, where it would be on a better diagonal and start to put pressure on the White center. I wouldn't want to invest two tempi to make it better.

On b6 it would also x-ray the White king, and such things tend to become relevant a few moves down the road.
...[text shortened]... hite I'd be comfortable with Rac1, Ne5, or h3. White is spoiled for choice in a position like this.

Paul, you seem to keep a lot of games going at once. Do you do as much studying as you do playing?

Game 13258622

Research some years ago revealed that the best players had learned to unpick their own plans dispassionately without the bias we naturally have towards our own ideas. This means that when they are considering the position and things they might do they look for ways that the opponent can frustrate their intentions. At lower levels this manifests as being so wrapped up in what your own plans are you fail to see what your opponent can do. White threw away this OP position in four short moves simply because he failed to see that in moving one knight to e5 and the other to f4 he was unprotecting the pawn on d4. Black used the time to improve his bishops, exchange two pieces and create two doubled pawn weaknesses in white's position.

@mchill said
Paul, you seem to keep a lot of games going at once. Do you do as much studying as you do playing?

I try to keep it under 30, I prioritize, and I had to get over the psychological need to move in every game before I sign off.

Games early in the opening are relatively easy, if you already know what you intended to play.

Endgames, while not easy necessarily, tend to follow a logical course, and if you put in the work to figure out what you want to do, you can play a whole series of moves without a lot of extra time committed beyond the initial amount.

Avoid quick time controls if you have more games going, unless you are retired or unemployed, neither of which applies to me at the moment.

I use the sort function, and group my games by least time remaining, and then fewest moves, and then most moves, and work on the middlegames later. Not every game requires a lot of time on every move.

I tend to work on the games offline, and then sign on to move. Chessbase is a huge help, although any database is useful if you know how to use it. Chessbase is even helpful with endgames, although few people use it that way.

Finally, keep it simple, and use the Greenpawn34 methodology: Check every check, and look for loose pieces.

Hope this helps. I posted a better, longer answer a few years back, and this is the lazy faster version.

@eladar said
Screw off ass wipe. It is not.

If only someone would Moderate the Culture of Abuse here...

@BigDoggProblem

You mean like false implications of cheating?

@ragwort said
Game 13258622

Research some years ago revealed that the best players had learned to unpick their own plans dispassionately without the bias we naturally have towards our own ideas. This means that when they are considering the position and things they might do they look for ways that the opponent can frustrate their intentions. At lower levels this manifests as being ...[text shortened]... improve his bishops, exchange two pieces and create two doubled pawn weaknesses in white's position.

Eladar, print this and put it in your notes. This the answer to your post in a nutshell.

@Paul-Leggett

Well all I got out of that is that I blew a good position playing bad moves. I already knew that.

Then to be accused of cheating from the op position was too much.

@eladar said
@Paul-Leggett

Well all I got out of that is that I blew a good position playing bad moves. I already knew that.

Then to be accused of cheating from the op position was too much.

If that is all you got from Ragwort's post, it might be worth re-reading it. Or not- there is no way any of the rest of us can tell, only being able to judge from posts on a chess forum.

My inclination is that you are selling yourself short by succumbing to frustration, but I could very well be wrong.

@Paul-Leggett

If I had a clue what to do, I would not have started this thread. Let me know what you thought I should have gotten from his post.

Really all I see is a flowery way of saying he started off well then screwed up, do not do what he did.

@mchill said
Paul, you seem to keep a lot of games going at once. Do you do as much studying as you do playing?

It occurred to me that I did not answer your actual question. I play OTB chess as my 'serious" chess, and I use RHP as my study laboratory. I consider my games here AS study, just in a game format. Since we can use books and databases, I end up with stacks of books all over the house. This is a great format to study.

A classic example is the Scandinavian Defense in my OTB repertoire. By the time I rolled it out in a tournament, I had already played 68 complete games with it on RHP. And I can tell you, OTB players are NOWHERE near as ready to meet the Scandinavian as RHP players with resources. I was ahead at move 1.

@Paul-Leggett

I will take your answer to mean nebulous.