No, but I’ve just come across this place. Is it a reasonable alternative?
p.s. It’s already confirmed your earlier criticisms.
Looks like you’ve found some good reading already. You don’t need to pay much attention to opening theory (not “gambits”, a particular specialized term applying to only a subset of openings) apart from avoiding obvious mistakes for now. In that context 1. …a5 is an “obvious mistake” because it doesn’t attend to your immediate needs at the start of the game - controlling important squares and getting the pieces moving. The only piece 1. … a5 lets out is the Rook, and only to a square (a6) that’s under the gun of an enemy Bishop - bad for you, since Bishops are worth less than Rooks.
Think in terms of deploying your pieces in such a manner that they protect each other or can quickly be brought to common objectives together. Knights are usually headed to c3 and f3 at the start (for White) as they influence the centre of the board there and are only a move away from coming into conflict with the enemy - but meanwhile they have the support of friendly pawns. Bishops have more choice. Rooks tend to come into play by moving sideways along the back rank to a file which has been cleared of pawns by action in the centre. Kings should usually be castled into safety. Queens should be placed so as to help with whatever the other pieces are doing but should beware of getting too far into the thick of the enemy (notice how the black Queen got trapped in your game?).
Learn what terms like “pin”, “fork” and “discovered attack” mean, and how to apply those ideas in your games - they’re as basic to chess as taking corners, throw-ins and free kicks are to football.
More on request… 
I’d say it looks like a good supplement, but maybe not a complete alternative. Another good book would be Pawn Structure Chess. You can also look at this from Wiki:
Good, but maybe a little advanced for the moment - you need to master the basics before you get too deeply into strategy. That link you found, ivan, is well worth paying attention to; by the time you get used to applying all that it has to say, you’ll be a much stronger player than you are now.
Cheers for the support and advice, Dopers. ( Where’s the ‘thumbs up’ emote when you need it? :))
You could buy a computer chess program - an ever-ready opponent who can make helpful suggestions…
I thought he might be able to do it by pawn promotion, but on closer examination, it doesn’t seem so.
What, the OP’s original position? The point is that against any but lame-assed defence, he is unable to get the pawn through - and the defender was showing signs of not defending this position lame-assedly.
What about after move 33 in my game, where we both have a rook, a bishop and three pawns left; was our game destined to be a draw barring a silly mistake, or could I have done something different to force a win?
glee may be able to pronounce on this - all I can say is there seems to be some play left despite the material equality. As actually played, White should win by playing 38. f8=Q+. Black must take with his Rook, White takes the black Rook and then his King and Rook take all the remaining black pawns.
Of course, I don’t know if either you or your opponent know how to mate a bare King with King and Rook. It’s an ending everyone should know as it comes up (potentially) quite often, but many beginners don’t know it. But it’s not out of the question for White to keep one of his own pawns alive, and then it’s easy.
The position after move 33 is drawn with best play by both sides.
After 35. f5? Black can win a pawn with Rh2+ followed by Rxc2.
Since the black bishop and King can then stop the white f-pawn, Black is winning.
After 37. … d3? White is winning (as Malacandra said) with f7.
Chess is a tricky game with lots of mistakes (even strong players make a few :eek: ).
I’m sure a game commentary would help you a lot Ivan, so if Malacandra would like to oblige that’s fine. (If he’s busy, I’ll try to find the time :o )
Yes, I should be able to tackle that in the next day or two. Might start a thread for it.
And we know what Dr Tartakower had to say about that, don’t we?
The winner of a game of chess is whoever made the second-last mistake?
That’s the essence of it.
The scary thing is when you analyse your own games deeply (or nowadays use a computer) just how many faults you find. :smack:
One of my all-time favorite coined words: my chess-playing friends in college referred to this tactic as ‘zorching pawns’. No idea where it came from, but it seems appropriate somehow. “Gah! His rook/queen is going to zorch all my pawns!”
The only comfort being that this occurs for top GMs, too - it’s just less frequent :).