Chess play - Here is what I learned so far

In chess, I mostly play defensive because when I play aggressive, game lasts very short and I usually start losing quickly.

But here are some things I learned, I am not sure how correct they are:

To me, it seems like its easier to defend 2 pawns than to defend 3 or 4 or 5.

So I make version of stonewall where I go

A3, B2, C3, D4, E3, F2, G3, H4

In this structure, only pawns B2 and F2 are undefended by any pawns.

There are some other versions of formation too, but usually I set the goal to make greatest number of pawns protect each other.

I really hate when some piece ends up blocked by my own pawns and becomes useless to me.

Thats why I try to get all pieces out early.

Which brings me to my next point.

It seems that if I trade piece for piece, the game develops further.

Of course, I only trade pieces of equal value or if it benefits me to trade.

Its very important to control center so that enemy cant put pieces there.

It seems to me that in most cases, when capturing pawns with pawns, you are supposed to move towards center.

Just because pawn attacks your pawn, it doesnt mean that you should capture it with your pawn.

Sometimes its more beneficial not to capture.

Sometimes its good to offer a piece for a pawn, to break through defense.

Now, I still cant beat computer at hardest difficulty, because it seems that its incapable of making a mistake, while I am very much capable of making mistakes.

Computer also has a very strong defense. Often I have to sacrifice 3 or 4 pieces just to get to king and I still cant checkmate but at best I can force draw.

Are there any other tips in chess? Am I missing something?

point 1 is a lot of nonsense, I don't think that's a solid rule at all, sometimes you want only 1 maximum other times many is fine, depends how far in you are and the situation of other pieces.

don't always capture towards center... depends on many things.

I meant the pawns defended by other pawns.

You cant have less than 2 undefended pawns, its not realistic unless you lost lots of pawns.

Well, I often must, to secure control of a center.

I usually try to capture in a way that I either control center or so that my pawn structure has less undefended pawns.

Its not a perfect "always" rule, but I would say it works for me more often than not, just like attacking queen with queen in an effort to trade queens.

I cant really go memorizing bunch of parties, because my memory is not that great.

this is nonsense though, especially once we talk captures one column/file in fromt he edge often it's wrong to capture 'in' because you don't want to give them easy ways in vertically

You want to get your opponent's pawns lined up in a row.. the more pawns in the same row, the better. Even if you can't retake the pawns immediately, its a death sentence eventually for all pawns on the same row

you mean column... You want them stacked 2-3 in same column.

Yes the same file...sorry

I will vs someone here in a fast 1v1, whatever the settings making it fast stops either having the chance to cheat easily.

Yes, you can easily program computer to make moves for you at hardest difficulty.

Or just play the moves of your opponent vs computer, then play against your opponent whatever computer plays against you.

Its a winning strategy, but so boring one its not worth it to do on a large scale.

I said I'll 1v1 you fast time settings, you willing or not?

No, I only play against computer because I suck.

You will find that I am a coward when it comes to many things, including chess.

What's ur CC elo... LC works too ig

not important to anybody on here

Just curious… I wanted to know if you were around my level. I’m ~1100 and would be willing to 1v1 if you were around that range.

What's the range, I am weaker at bullet speeds than at Blitz speeds. I do better with a bit of slow time allowed.

I was using Rapid. I'm traaaaaaash at Blitz (~500) and Bullet (~400). Now that I think about it, you're probably far above me in those time controls (most people are, I think).

I am stronger than you are, underrated too as I do it at times while doing other things and never fully applied myself to Chess ever.

I could probably never be a GM as I lack the natural chess genius brain, I have much more of a poker genius brain. I use trickery well and counter trickery well but at pure open analysis strategy under time pressure I am not a natural beast, I can train but I know it's not my element.

If I could be a chess grandmaster, I still wouldn't. I hate fame.

I have a brain that is still decently goodunder pressure so I do think I could definitely make FM, won't clarify why I am so sure of it. IM etc take not only time but serious dedication and also talent. You need to dedicate so much of your life to Chess even more than I have to debating to get there, raw talent can't carry you and not can high IQ.

I would literally make a better fighter, as in MMA beaten up stuff, than a Chess player. I have the right brain for fighting, I don't just mean aggressive, I really have a good brain for it, again won't clarify how I know. All I lacked is the pure training for it. It's nasty to train all that cardio and then train brutality on top. In fact the level of training fighters experience shaves months and eventually years off their life as the body uses bone marrow to regenerate it all after rthe severe injuries and it taxes the body to reproduce that.

I think I have a good brain for chess; I'm just rather new (been playing for just over a year). I have a good understanding of chess principles... but I just need more experience to start recognizing some of the patterns good chess players can notice consistently. I've been climbing the elo ladder, so that's a good sign.

I don't think I could be a good fighter. I could be skilled enough to defend myself in sufficiently a typical street fight, but I don't expect myself to be stepping in any sort of rings any time soon... or at any point, ever.

Try 3|2 and 2|1 as well as 1|1 for blitz and bullet.

If you go on the 'pure' timer, it never rewards you for quick succession chains where you think a bit between them, which means having a healthy pace has 0 reward in them. That's worse.

The problem is even if you're a god at fighting, the brain damage from the head trauma and other stuff to your joints and stuff is always there, oftens evere but sometimes you get lucky.

It doesn't matter what you trained, it's severe. Unless you just trained Tai Chi or Aikido and didn't really fight-fight much.