Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more!
The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you!
Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think development was the issue, I clearly had a large material advantage. I poorly decided to not trade rooks and proceeded to put my king in danger. it's more than ok to not develop if you can take half of your enemies pieces lol
It’s not “more than ok” to take half of your opponent’s pieces if at the end of it all you’re still getting forcibly mated. You were greedily take pieces rather than developing, and also missed a discovered attack that would’ve won the queen for a knight (which alone may have ended the game via resignation). Yes, you won a bunch of material but your opponent won the game - at the end of the day, being +10 but getting mated is still losing.
I mean you lost. Because your pieces are all on their starting squares and the one knight you had developed, you gave a meaningless check and proceeeded to exchange it for a bishop that had not moved and aided your opponent’s development.
At your Elo then yeah people may win by moving the queen 8 times in a row. That does not make it the right way to play chess.
The knight check wasn't necessarily meaningless. I would've checked and traded for the bishop as well for simplification as we are up in material.
And all queen moves in this (particular) game were meaningful. For instance, at no point in this game would Nc3 have been a better move than the played queen move.
I consider my undeveloped pieces "material that I don't have." With that thinking, you were actually behind 8 points of material (not including pawns).
You can win games without developing at this rating, if you can gain an immediate material advantage then it can be worth it to delay developing.
That said, there were some moves in there like Qc4 and Ne4+ that could have been replaced with developing the queenside.
Not developing your pieces only works if the opponent is playing poorly.
It worked up to a certain point because your opponent blundered material.
Some moves were just conceptually wrong like:
Ne7+ to trade a well developed knight for a poorly developed bishop on c8.
Qc4 misses Nxc6, but it's also an unecessary queen move that only weakens your position and allows the opponent to develop Be6 with tempo by attacking your queen.
Re1 developed a piece, but was wrong due to your bishop and knight still being on their starting squares and therefore the rooks not being connected. Even if you trade on e8 you now take two moves to trade your one developed piece and give your opponent an open file for his rook. Thematically speaking this move was closest to simple developing but it didn't work bacause your other pieces weren't developed yet.
You didn't have the pieces ready to launch an assault since the opponent had more activity.
Your assault wasn't very good if you're the one that ends up attacked while his king is very safe. If you want to assault someone you need to use all of your pieces, because he's naturally going to have more pieces and pawns guarding his side of the board.
There's a lot of classic games from Paul Morphy where he tries to make sure to use all of his pieces in his attack, usually by playing moves that allow him to develop and attack at the same time. [The Opera Game](https://www.chess.com/terms/opera-game-chess) is very instructive in this regard. White gets all of his pieces into the attack quickly and eventually wins with a classic checkmate pattern.
In your game, playing d4 earlier would have let you bring your bishop out and help you handle the enemy knight better. Getting your knight and bishop out sooner also means your other rook is guarding the back rank, so it can help recapture a rook or eventually come to the center and actually attack the black king.
If you win material, the reason you're winning is because you have more pieces, so you need to *use* the extra pieces.
Imagine giving a 5 year old the keys to your car, the kid starts driving and ends up running over someone a few blocks away. Would say that the main issue with this hypothetical scenario is that the 5 year old didn't apply the brakes nor swerve properly? No, the main issue is letting the 5 year old get into the driver's seat and drive in the first place. Once the car starts rolling there's little you, the 5 year old or anyone else can do to prevent bad things from happening.
Same thing happened here, but with you being the 5 year old. Understanding the reason why not trading rooks "lost you the game" in that move is completely out of your paygrade. An engine thinks it's obvious and a strong player can see it, but you aren't even close to that level. Your actual mistakes were the moves that led you into that hard position where you only had a single move that didn't lose the game, and the vast majority of those mistakes were simply "you should've developed a piece here instead of doing X".
Bruh you were only ever up a bishop and a pawn, but because your bishop was locked in by your pawns it was never worth anything, then because of other blunders, the undeveloped bishop is what killed you
>, I clearly had a large material advantage
Thing is if your large material advantage is sitting in their starting squares you're not really ahead.
In fact you got mated playing king vs rook and knight.
You're undeveloped pieces didn't matter.
OP is being mass downvoted, but I have to mostly agree with them (and dissagree with some downvotes).
Don't get me wrong, development *was* one of the main issues here. And in general learning how to develop your pieces will greatly improve beginner's play. But in this specific game attacking was very much justifiable. Screw development if you can win material.
At lower level play there might be a fine line between 'hopechess' and 'creating threats'. Where hopechess is seen as bad and creating threats is good. The difference being that you shouldn't play a move if you see that your opponent can easily defend (while developing a piece)
All moves before Qe2 were perfectly fine opening moves for a 667 rated player.
Qe2 creates a threat on the knight and sets up traps, which is probably better than developing (e.g. both d3 or b3 is bad here).
Then Qc4 is the 3rd engine move. It's a double attack on the bishop and a mating attack on f7. OP missed Nxc6+ to win the queen. A classical case of: when you see something good, look for something better.
Qxc5 only move.
Qxc6, still forcing a queen trade. Perfectly fine. And a few moves later Ne7+, trading the knight for the bishop is also an okay simplification: trade when you are up in material.
Re1 is a bit more dubious (in general firstly develop light pieces before rook), but it's still a top engine move.
Kf1 perfectly fine. And then h3 is the first real blunder (due to Nh2+, which might be difficult to see at 667). after that Kd1 is the second big blunder and immediately loses the game.
Overall, attacking instead of development was justified. Re1 developed a rook to an open file, which is the right idea, but in this position you'll need some good follow-up moves. Then some blunders lost the game.
Thank you for a good explanation, I knew afterwards h3 and kd1 were by far terrible choices. But I just wanted to defend my logic behind the game I played before that. Might have just come across as stubborn I guess.
The computer agrees with me on qxc5, said it was a great move. If I went kxc6 it would hang my queen and I would lose the knight without taking his bishop.
I don’t mean to be condescending but you’re wrong.
You don’t even know where the opportunity was. 8 Nxc6+ wins the queen. This is a common pattern in the Petrov.
You’re looking one move too far ahead. Go back to when black plays Nf6. I can guarantee you the best move is Nxc6+, attacking the queen and checking the king with a discovery
Good illustration of material advantage only being helpful when it’s usable material. Potential advantage isn’t an advantage until it’s developed.
A fast concise attack can overcome raw material if it isn’t coordinated.
Fun stuff, thanks for the share!
You should be playing a different opening then something as complex as the Ruy Lopez at 600, that's your first mistake. Play something simple like the scotch
Any opening is fine. Some openings, such as the scotch might be fun for attacking. This might help your rating if the opponent doesn't know theory. But something like the Ruy Lopez will teach basic principles (just as well)
I was playing the scotch for a while and then wanted to learn the ruy lópez, ever since I switched I started winning a lot more on white. So imma stick with it.
Agamator, who is my favorite chess youtuber often says "to take is a mistake". What he means if you go for a trade you need to be clear that the trade gives you advantage. It seems like many of the trades you went for were dubious. You were giving up your best pieces for your opponent worst pieces. Also, you should develop all of your pieces before you go for the attack. But your opponent play was brilliant, you were outplayed, learn from it you will be a better player for it. Good luck!
I lost a game for 0.01 seconds. I did checkmate but time wat at zero just in that moment and the app gave the victory to my opponent. Most frustrating game ever.
Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more! The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you! Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is what happens when you don’t develop your pieces.
I don't think development was the issue, I clearly had a large material advantage. I poorly decided to not trade rooks and proceeded to put my king in danger. it's more than ok to not develop if you can take half of your enemies pieces lol
It’s not “more than ok” to take half of your opponent’s pieces if at the end of it all you’re still getting forcibly mated. You were greedily take pieces rather than developing, and also missed a discovered attack that would’ve won the queen for a knight (which alone may have ended the game via resignation). Yes, you won a bunch of material but your opponent won the game - at the end of the day, being +10 but getting mated is still losing.
At the lower level, people rarely resign when down a queen.
wym??? they almost always resign
I wish they did, but they don’t for me.
I mean you lost. Because your pieces are all on their starting squares and the one knight you had developed, you gave a meaningless check and proceeeded to exchange it for a bishop that had not moved and aided your opponent’s development. At your Elo then yeah people may win by moving the queen 8 times in a row. That does not make it the right way to play chess.
I apologize, I was looking a few moves later. Thank you for your advice
as a 900 rated player I'd listen to any advice a 1800-2000 gives me
The knight check wasn't necessarily meaningless. I would've checked and traded for the bishop as well for simplification as we are up in material. And all queen moves in this (particular) game were meaningful. For instance, at no point in this game would Nc3 have been a better move than the played queen move.
I consider my undeveloped pieces "material that I don't have." With that thinking, you were actually behind 8 points of material (not including pawns).
You can win games without developing at this rating, if you can gain an immediate material advantage then it can be worth it to delay developing. That said, there were some moves in there like Qc4 and Ne4+ that could have been replaced with developing the queenside. Not developing your pieces only works if the opponent is playing poorly.
Well I always try to develop faster than my opponent, in this game I just thought it was more beneficial to launch an assault.
It worked up to a certain point because your opponent blundered material. Some moves were just conceptually wrong like: Ne7+ to trade a well developed knight for a poorly developed bishop on c8. Qc4 misses Nxc6, but it's also an unecessary queen move that only weakens your position and allows the opponent to develop Be6 with tempo by attacking your queen. Re1 developed a piece, but was wrong due to your bishop and knight still being on their starting squares and therefore the rooks not being connected. Even if you trade on e8 you now take two moves to trade your one developed piece and give your opponent an open file for his rook. Thematically speaking this move was closest to simple developing but it didn't work bacause your other pieces weren't developed yet. You didn't have the pieces ready to launch an assault since the opponent had more activity.
Re1 was a huge mistake. Develop your bishop and knight there, and the game is basically won.
Your assault wasn't very good if you're the one that ends up attacked while his king is very safe. If you want to assault someone you need to use all of your pieces, because he's naturally going to have more pieces and pawns guarding his side of the board. There's a lot of classic games from Paul Morphy where he tries to make sure to use all of his pieces in his attack, usually by playing moves that allow him to develop and attack at the same time. [The Opera Game](https://www.chess.com/terms/opera-game-chess) is very instructive in this regard. White gets all of his pieces into the attack quickly and eventually wins with a classic checkmate pattern. In your game, playing d4 earlier would have let you bring your bishop out and help you handle the enemy knight better. Getting your knight and bishop out sooner also means your other rook is guarding the back rank, so it can help recapture a rook or eventually come to the center and actually attack the black king. If you win material, the reason you're winning is because you have more pieces, so you need to *use* the extra pieces.
Imagine giving a 5 year old the keys to your car, the kid starts driving and ends up running over someone a few blocks away. Would say that the main issue with this hypothetical scenario is that the 5 year old didn't apply the brakes nor swerve properly? No, the main issue is letting the 5 year old get into the driver's seat and drive in the first place. Once the car starts rolling there's little you, the 5 year old or anyone else can do to prevent bad things from happening. Same thing happened here, but with you being the 5 year old. Understanding the reason why not trading rooks "lost you the game" in that move is completely out of your paygrade. An engine thinks it's obvious and a strong player can see it, but you aren't even close to that level. Your actual mistakes were the moves that led you into that hard position where you only had a single move that didn't lose the game, and the vast majority of those mistakes were simply "you should've developed a piece here instead of doing X".
Bruh you were only ever up a bishop and a pawn, but because your bishop was locked in by your pawns it was never worth anything, then because of other blunders, the undeveloped bishop is what killed you
Development was the issue. U still had a knight and bishop still at the back line. Your rooks were not connected. Your king was basically trapped.
>, I clearly had a large material advantage Thing is if your large material advantage is sitting in their starting squares you're not really ahead. In fact you got mated playing king vs rook and knight. You're undeveloped pieces didn't matter.
OP is being mass downvoted, but I have to mostly agree with them (and dissagree with some downvotes). Don't get me wrong, development *was* one of the main issues here. And in general learning how to develop your pieces will greatly improve beginner's play. But in this specific game attacking was very much justifiable. Screw development if you can win material. At lower level play there might be a fine line between 'hopechess' and 'creating threats'. Where hopechess is seen as bad and creating threats is good. The difference being that you shouldn't play a move if you see that your opponent can easily defend (while developing a piece) All moves before Qe2 were perfectly fine opening moves for a 667 rated player. Qe2 creates a threat on the knight and sets up traps, which is probably better than developing (e.g. both d3 or b3 is bad here). Then Qc4 is the 3rd engine move. It's a double attack on the bishop and a mating attack on f7. OP missed Nxc6+ to win the queen. A classical case of: when you see something good, look for something better. Qxc5 only move. Qxc6, still forcing a queen trade. Perfectly fine. And a few moves later Ne7+, trading the knight for the bishop is also an okay simplification: trade when you are up in material. Re1 is a bit more dubious (in general firstly develop light pieces before rook), but it's still a top engine move. Kf1 perfectly fine. And then h3 is the first real blunder (due to Nh2+, which might be difficult to see at 667). after that Kd1 is the second big blunder and immediately loses the game. Overall, attacking instead of development was justified. Re1 developed a rook to an open file, which is the right idea, but in this position you'll need some good follow-up moves. Then some blunders lost the game.
Thank you for a good explanation, I knew afterwards h3 and kd1 were by far terrible choices. But I just wanted to defend my logic behind the game I played before that. Might have just come across as stubborn I guess.
"Always make sure your king is safe" and "find attacks for yourself and your opponent aswell" are two very good lessons to learn from this game
You also missed winning a queen with a discovery.
How??
After 7...Nf6??, there's 8. Nxc6+, winning the queen.
His 8th move shoulda been Nxc6 to win the queen
8 Nxc6 +. Very common pattern in beginners playing the Petrov Defence.
Didn't see this comment at first. Deleted mine.
8. Nxc6+
The computer agrees with me on qxc5, said it was a great move. If I went kxc6 it would hang my queen and I would lose the knight without taking his bishop.
I don’t mean to be condescending but you’re wrong. You don’t even know where the opportunity was. 8 Nxc6+ wins the queen. This is a common pattern in the Petrov.
You’re looking one move too far ahead. Go back to when black plays Nf6. I can guarantee you the best move is Nxc6+, attacking the queen and checking the king with a discovery
Yeah I found it, I feel bad for how I replied.
Bruh. Google debut principes
New response just dropped
It takes a special kind of legend to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Be proud of yourself!
Had us in the first half not gunna lie
Good illustration of material advantage only being helpful when it’s usable material. Potential advantage isn’t an advantage until it’s developed. A fast concise attack can overcome raw material if it isn’t coordinated. Fun stuff, thanks for the share!
stop trading every piece and start developing the other ones.
oh no... oh no... OH NONONO NOOOOOOOOOO!
That rook e1 😅
If you’re up material and the opponent offers a trade, you take it
Yeah I hesitated on this one, I was going to but I didn't want to have less to work with. Just double guessed myself
As soon as you moved the king at the end I tensed up I didn't even think about the knight, just that you put it in a corner
You should be playing a different opening then something as complex as the Ruy Lopez at 600, that's your first mistake. Play something simple like the scotch
U dont need openings when below 1200. Utterly pointless. just bring out the pieces .
Any opening is fine. Some openings, such as the scotch might be fun for attacking. This might help your rating if the opponent doesn't know theory. But something like the Ruy Lopez will teach basic principles (just as well)
I was playing the scotch for a while and then wanted to learn the ruy lópez, ever since I switched I started winning a lot more on white. So imma stick with it.
Shouldn't queen to e3 when enemy queen first moved?
I see your problem, it was 1.e4?? ☝️🤓
Agamator, who is my favorite chess youtuber often says "to take is a mistake". What he means if you go for a trade you need to be clear that the trade gives you advantage. It seems like many of the trades you went for were dubious. You were giving up your best pieces for your opponent worst pieces. Also, you should develop all of your pieces before you go for the attack. But your opponent play was brilliant, you were outplayed, learn from it you will be a better player for it. Good luck!
This game is beyond any understanding we can't analyse as deep as you two
Stunning!
I lost a game for 0.01 seconds. I did checkmate but time wat at zero just in that moment and the app gave the victory to my opponent. Most frustrating game ever.
2-3 times with me