Nicky, you have given a good account of your self and openings. There's a lot to say for 1.e4 as white, and against it playing 1... e5. As you point out though, meeting the Kings (and other) Gambit(s) can be trying at first.
Richard & Paul complemented Geoff's tactical advice by reminding us of the obverse - endgames and position play.
Keep reading Stean and your endgame book. Do constant tactical work in spare time (coffee breaks). I'm not familiar with Watson, others may advise on how best to use it.
John
The fine form continues!
-
Ian Kingston
- Posts: 1071
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
- Location: Sutton Coldfield
Re: The fine form continues!
I've been reading this with interest. The problem for anyone starting out is that the world of the chessboard is huge. As we've seen in another thread, it's possible for experienced players to be surprised on move 3 (3...d5 against the Spanish). Such things will happen quite often to Nicky because of his inexperience.
When something unfamiliar happens in the opening you can always fall back on general principles (getting your pieces out, king safety, central control etc.), but as Geoff has been saying, specific details (tactics) matter too. Experienced players are usually able to balance these factors, but Nicky is going to have to build up the level of background knowledge that permits this. It takes time.
In my view, the distinction between positional chess and tactical chess is somewhat artificial - the outcome of a tactical sequence may be a positional gain, and a quiet position always contains tactical details. A half-open file is a positional factor; exploiting it may require tactical means.
Endgame knowledge matters too, even at low levels. Knowing what to study is difficult, and this is where Nicky may well benefit from Silman's book. Very few people need to know R+B vs. R; everyone needs to know K+P vs. K. (Interestingly, a Russian player who used to be a member at my club told me that Russian schoolchildren are taught endgames first. They don't learn opening variations by rote - just general principles. It showed in his play: he was of 130-ish strength early in the game, but much stronger (180+) in the endgame.)
What I'm trying to say is that I think Nicky will progress by learning in a balanced way. An exclusive focus on one area of the game will only lead to frustration when results go the wrong way in other areas. Nicky's last post showed that he has encountered some important main lines in the Sicilian, French and Caro-Kann. Studying those will be a good idea because he will learn ideas that apply in other variations. That calamitous pawn ending in an earlier post will also repay study. When he loses a game because the opponent was able to exploit the weakness of a pair of doubled pawns, that will be the time to find out why.
As for tactics - you can never study these enough. They pop up at every stage of the game.
When something unfamiliar happens in the opening you can always fall back on general principles (getting your pieces out, king safety, central control etc.), but as Geoff has been saying, specific details (tactics) matter too. Experienced players are usually able to balance these factors, but Nicky is going to have to build up the level of background knowledge that permits this. It takes time.
In my view, the distinction between positional chess and tactical chess is somewhat artificial - the outcome of a tactical sequence may be a positional gain, and a quiet position always contains tactical details. A half-open file is a positional factor; exploiting it may require tactical means.
Endgame knowledge matters too, even at low levels. Knowing what to study is difficult, and this is where Nicky may well benefit from Silman's book. Very few people need to know R+B vs. R; everyone needs to know K+P vs. K. (Interestingly, a Russian player who used to be a member at my club told me that Russian schoolchildren are taught endgames first. They don't learn opening variations by rote - just general principles. It showed in his play: he was of 130-ish strength early in the game, but much stronger (180+) in the endgame.)
What I'm trying to say is that I think Nicky will progress by learning in a balanced way. An exclusive focus on one area of the game will only lead to frustration when results go the wrong way in other areas. Nicky's last post showed that he has encountered some important main lines in the Sicilian, French and Caro-Kann. Studying those will be a good idea because he will learn ideas that apply in other variations. That calamitous pawn ending in an earlier post will also repay study. When he loses a game because the opponent was able to exploit the weakness of a pair of doubled pawns, that will be the time to find out why.
As for tactics - you can never study these enough. They pop up at every stage of the game.
Ian Kingston
http://www.iankingston.com
http://www.iankingston.com
-
Matt Mackenzie
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Millom, Cumbria
Re: The fine form continues!
Complementary, or complimentary??Nicky Chorley wrote:Also, John, I agree, complementary advice would be better
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)
-
Geoff Chandler
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
Re: The fine form continues!
Hi Nick
Scenario III
The opening poster has received so much conflicting advice:
"....but I'm completely confused now."
I won't claim I'm right and they will be different ways
for different people to improve.
But I'll run with what I know worked for me.
Tactics and openings.
Those 200 hundred games I listed play them out an a full set.
You have a job so go and pick up the 1st book.
The opening principles will seep into you and you will
see in action every tactical trick in the book.
Stop solving tactical problem on a website.
You have to develop your board vision.
You don play OTB chess on a monitor how are you going to
spot shots if you have never seen then OTB.
I toiled, still do, to work out things from a diagram.
Set it up on a board and I'm on it.
Some will disagree, usually those that already have the OTB vision.
But that is my stance on that matter and I know some very strong players
who also agree.
So short tactical games played OTB.
Hopefully an opening will appeal to you, it will feel right.
(awful explanation but how can I say that you don't choose which
opening set up you WANT to play. It will choose you.)
You will know what I mean when it happens.
(You may be a 1.d4 player. Same game but a slightly different breed.
I've no idea how to spot a 1.d4 players having played 1.d4 only once
in my life in a serious game. In skittles and blitz I always seem to
get a good position. Maybe I have been living the Morphy myth
all my life (1.e4) ....Rowson in Tigers.)
When starting out I received some good advice about openings.
They noticed my tactical flair (picked up from those 200 games.)
And suggested The Scotch (via 1.e4 e5 2.d4 to avoid Petroff's and
Philidors and things. - get your shot in first.) then after 2...exd4
3.Nf3 etc.
I was already playing the Latvian (the Greco - Counter) as Black.
An opening I advise you not to go near (yet) you need eyes as big as
dinner plates in the opening and lots of OTB luck.
1.e4 2.e5 Nf3 f5!? fits in with the get your shot first theory.)
Going by what I have seen you seem to need warming up in the
opening and only start to switch on after a handful of moves.
You need to go away for five minutes before the start of any
serious game to put yourself in the zone from move one.
As Black. Another piece of good advice I was given and I pass on.
If an opening is giving you trouble then play it.
(you never know this could be your opening.)
I scored a brilliant victory with my first French as Black.
I scored a brilliant victory with my first Pirc as Black.
Two openings I thought would never be me.
They made the main rep. Your openings will choose you.
I never had trouble v 1.d4 (KID, Benoni, Budapsest, Tarrasch)
so I never played 1.d4. My one game I lost, but it was not the
opening. I made a middle game spec sac that did not come off.
Any other player would have sat on the position and squeezed it.
But I am me. What can I do?
That is my two pence worth.
When you get up to 2000 I'll be of no good to you at all.
Pick what bits you like or at least give them a try.
I won't tell you what good player it was who gave the advice.
I don't do name dropping.
(Me an Anand were discussing how much I name dropped just the other day.)
Scenario III
The opening poster has received so much conflicting advice:
"....but I'm completely confused now."
I won't claim I'm right and they will be different ways
for different people to improve.
But I'll run with what I know worked for me.
Tactics and openings.
Those 200 hundred games I listed play them out an a full set.
You have a job so go and pick up the 1st book.
The opening principles will seep into you and you will
see in action every tactical trick in the book.
Stop solving tactical problem on a website.
You have to develop your board vision.
You don play OTB chess on a monitor how are you going to
spot shots if you have never seen then OTB.
I toiled, still do, to work out things from a diagram.
Set it up on a board and I'm on it.
Some will disagree, usually those that already have the OTB vision.
But that is my stance on that matter and I know some very strong players
who also agree.
So short tactical games played OTB.
Hopefully an opening will appeal to you, it will feel right.
(awful explanation but how can I say that you don't choose which
opening set up you WANT to play. It will choose you.)
You will know what I mean when it happens.
(You may be a 1.d4 player. Same game but a slightly different breed.
I've no idea how to spot a 1.d4 players having played 1.d4 only once
in my life in a serious game. In skittles and blitz I always seem to
get a good position. Maybe I have been living the Morphy myth
all my life (1.e4) ....Rowson in Tigers.)
When starting out I received some good advice about openings.
They noticed my tactical flair (picked up from those 200 games.)
And suggested The Scotch (via 1.e4 e5 2.d4 to avoid Petroff's and
Philidors and things. - get your shot in first.) then after 2...exd4
3.Nf3 etc.
I was already playing the Latvian (the Greco - Counter) as Black.
An opening I advise you not to go near (yet) you need eyes as big as
dinner plates in the opening and lots of OTB luck.
1.e4 2.e5 Nf3 f5!? fits in with the get your shot first theory.)
Going by what I have seen you seem to need warming up in the
opening and only start to switch on after a handful of moves.
You need to go away for five minutes before the start of any
serious game to put yourself in the zone from move one.
As Black. Another piece of good advice I was given and I pass on.
If an opening is giving you trouble then play it.
(you never know this could be your opening.)
I scored a brilliant victory with my first French as Black.
I scored a brilliant victory with my first Pirc as Black.
Two openings I thought would never be me.
They made the main rep. Your openings will choose you.
I never had trouble v 1.d4 (KID, Benoni, Budapsest, Tarrasch)
so I never played 1.d4. My one game I lost, but it was not the
opening. I made a middle game spec sac that did not come off.
Any other player would have sat on the position and squeezed it.
But I am me. What can I do?
That is my two pence worth.
When you get up to 2000 I'll be of no good to you at all.
Pick what bits you like or at least give them a try.
I won't tell you what good player it was who gave the advice.
I don't do name dropping.
(Me an Anand were discussing how much I name dropped just the other day.)
-
Roger de Coverly
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: The fine form continues!
You could tryIs there a website that gives a good overview of the most common openings, their ideas and variations?
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer
It's where you have to do the work.
You are presented with an analysis of all the games on their site, just over 600,000. By some standards, it's not that many, but it will suffice.
You play through one of your games, noting the alternative ideas, until you are on your own.
So taking the last game from your tournament it started 1 e4 (300,366 games) e5 (2nd choice 88,537) 2. Nf3 Nc6 (both first choice) 3. Bc4 (2nd choice) Nf6 (1st choice) 4. Nc3 (4th choice, more popular are Ng5, d3 and d4) d6 (6th choice out of 7) 5. d3 (1st choice but we're now down to 6 games). They don't take the tree any further.
There is commercial software which uses this approach and it come with larger game collections and the capability to search positions.
The old way of learning openings was to purchase a book with a title like "Batsford Chess Openings" or "Modern Chess Openings" or "Nunn's Chess Openings". These tabulate, what, in the opinion of the authors, are the best lines.
Game collections annotated by world champions can be useful as well. Alekhine's best games is/was good as is Fischer's classic 60 Memorable Games. Both are good for developing a style of hacking people up. For those of a more positional outlook, there was Golombek's book about Capablanca. If you have the bookshelf space, Kasparov's books about world champions, the chess scene he grew up with and his own games contain much valuable material.
-
Paul Cooksey
Re: The fine form continues!
I'll give Nicky some good news to start; I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the things Geoff is suggesting you do. Kramnik famously said that no work on chess is wasted. Anything you study will improve your play.
The bad news is that I still disagree with a lot of what Geoff says! I think he might even admit to being something of a maverick. Ian's view is very mainstream. Most coaches stress the importance of working on endings, but I suspect this is because most people find openings and tactics more enjoyable, so it is endings that need pushing to keep a balance.
I can't recommend a good beginners opening book. I suspect Chess Openings for Juniors by J N Walker would still be useful, regardless of how old it is. But it only seems to be available at collector's prices, so I suspect there is something more modern. Can anyone else recommend a book? I think we need to suggest something before he gets bogged down learning mainline Najdorf Sicilian's!.
One more thing Geoff says that I disagree with is that it is better to work with a set than a computer. Magnus Carlsen, when interviewed, was not sure if he even had a traditional set in his house. So I think most people would advise Nicky to continue solving problems online.
Which brings us to problem IV when you ask for advice on an internet forum, instead of helping you, people get distracted by things they are more interested in. Er, in my case me.
I was half joking when I commented on Geoff's earlier post. If you put players on a continuum from Tactical to Positional, we are at opposite ends. By analogy, Geoff suggests you could beat most tennis player if your only shot was Federer's serve. I'm suggesting you could beat most players if your only shot was Federer's forehand. But practically, even if you don't expect to get to Federer's level, you should probably work on both. Possibly the backhand too.
I'm getting this long disclaimer in for Nicky, because although I suspect Geoff's question "Were the hours you put in studying tactics that you obviosly did pointless? Don't you need tactics anymore? Or did the ability you have to pick the bones out of this position. (Black to play). Come naturally to you without any tactical training?" was rhetorical, the answer is yes.
I don't study tactics now, and I never have. I did used to try, but generally got bored after ten minutes and did something else. I play quite a lot of blitz online, and if I am in poor form I deliberately play more blitz, because I find it improves my calculation. But sitting down and solving puzzles? No.
I'm not recommending it as an approach, I'm no GM. But it is possible to reach a reasonable level without studying tactics much. The really interesting thing for me, is that in the game Geoff posted to show I was playing tactically, I consider positional. I don't beat a lot of IMs so I remember if quite well. From my perspective, from here:
From my point of view, 1... Rcd8 was not an attempt to fish in muddy tactical waters, but rather just putting my pieces on the best available squares. I did calculate a few lines - endings teach you to calculate. But I had no idea White could lose by putting his Queen on h4 until he played Qf4. My opponent described Qf4 as over optimism, he is also quite a positional player and was thinking abut the position in a similar way to me. From my point of view, if you are assessing the position correctly and trying to do the positionally correct things, the tactics pretty much look after themselves
The bad news is that I still disagree with a lot of what Geoff says! I think he might even admit to being something of a maverick. Ian's view is very mainstream. Most coaches stress the importance of working on endings, but I suspect this is because most people find openings and tactics more enjoyable, so it is endings that need pushing to keep a balance.
I can't recommend a good beginners opening book. I suspect Chess Openings for Juniors by J N Walker would still be useful, regardless of how old it is. But it only seems to be available at collector's prices, so I suspect there is something more modern. Can anyone else recommend a book? I think we need to suggest something before he gets bogged down learning mainline Najdorf Sicilian's!.
One more thing Geoff says that I disagree with is that it is better to work with a set than a computer. Magnus Carlsen, when interviewed, was not sure if he even had a traditional set in his house. So I think most people would advise Nicky to continue solving problems online.
Which brings us to problem IV when you ask for advice on an internet forum, instead of helping you, people get distracted by things they are more interested in. Er, in my case me.
I was half joking when I commented on Geoff's earlier post. If you put players on a continuum from Tactical to Positional, we are at opposite ends. By analogy, Geoff suggests you could beat most tennis player if your only shot was Federer's serve. I'm suggesting you could beat most players if your only shot was Federer's forehand. But practically, even if you don't expect to get to Federer's level, you should probably work on both. Possibly the backhand too.
I'm getting this long disclaimer in for Nicky, because although I suspect Geoff's question "Were the hours you put in studying tactics that you obviosly did pointless? Don't you need tactics anymore? Or did the ability you have to pick the bones out of this position. (Black to play). Come naturally to you without any tactical training?" was rhetorical, the answer is yes.
I don't study tactics now, and I never have. I did used to try, but generally got bored after ten minutes and did something else. I play quite a lot of blitz online, and if I am in poor form I deliberately play more blitz, because I find it improves my calculation. But sitting down and solving puzzles? No.
I'm not recommending it as an approach, I'm no GM. But it is possible to reach a reasonable level without studying tactics much. The really interesting thing for me, is that in the game Geoff posted to show I was playing tactically, I consider positional. I don't beat a lot of IMs so I remember if quite well. From my perspective, from here:
From my point of view, 1... Rcd8 was not an attempt to fish in muddy tactical waters, but rather just putting my pieces on the best available squares. I did calculate a few lines - endings teach you to calculate. But I had no idea White could lose by putting his Queen on h4 until he played Qf4. My opponent described Qf4 as over optimism, he is also quite a positional player and was thinking abut the position in a similar way to me. From my point of view, if you are assessing the position correctly and trying to do the positionally correct things, the tactics pretty much look after themselves
-
Nicky Chorley
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:26 pm
Re: The fine form continues!
Thanks all. I'll have to read through posts again (and probably again) as there's a lot of info in them.
Roger: thanks for that. I've been to chessgames.com before. I was after a more wordy description of things, though. I doubt anyone would be too impressed if I found a load of games with the Italian, Sicilian or whatever that differed from my games and posted a ton of questions here
.
Ian and John make good points. Silman's book looks quite good. I had a flick through and the style looks like it's something I'll get on with. I don't intend to go through the whole book now, just the first three sections to start with, since that's where I am (lower end)/would like to be (higher end) rating-wise.
Geoff: thanks. I'll start trying to work on some of those games first of all. I'm not sure about the idea of playing openings if you find you don't do well against them. What I don't want to end up doing is switching openings frequently.
Paul: thanks too. OK, that's good to know about all study. I assumed that would be the case, but wanted to prioritise. Why is the Najdorf bad? If it wasn't clear, that's the line I play as White against the Najdorf; I don't play the Sicilian against e4 (I play e5 right now). I find blitz too quick to get any thinking done; I much prefer slow games where I get a chance to actually think. I like tactics problems myself; they're rather addictive.
Roger: thanks for that. I've been to chessgames.com before. I was after a more wordy description of things, though. I doubt anyone would be too impressed if I found a load of games with the Italian, Sicilian or whatever that differed from my games and posted a ton of questions here
.Ian and John make good points
. Silman's book looks quite good. I had a flick through and the style looks like it's something I'll get on with. I don't intend to go through the whole book now, just the first three sections to start with, since that's where I am (lower end)/would like to be (higher end) rating-wise.Geoff: thanks. I'll start trying to work on some of those games first of all. I'm not sure about the idea of playing openings if you find you don't do well against them. What I don't want to end up doing is switching openings frequently.
Paul: thanks too. OK, that's good to know about all study. I assumed that would be the case, but wanted to prioritise. Why is the Najdorf bad? If it wasn't clear, that's the line I play as White against the Najdorf; I don't play the Sicilian against e4 (I play e5 right now). I find blitz too quick to get any thinking done; I much prefer slow games where I get a chance to actually think. I like tactics problems myself; they're rather addictive.
-
Richard Bates
- Posts: 3340
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm
Re: The fine form continues!
Sometimes you can do too much thinking. If the consequence of your thinking/calculation leads to playing hopeless moves then it's possible you don't really gain very much. There may be value in playing lots of blitz games relying primarily on "instinct". You'll fall into all sorts of stuff, but then that's part of the point. And in the same time that it takes to play a slow play game you get an enormous amount of valuable experience. And the "non-serious" nature of the games (you won't be playing for a team, or for grading points, or for prize money) means you can experiment in an unpressurised environment.Nicky Chorley wrote: I find blitz too quick to get any thinking done; I much prefer slow games where I get a chance to actually think. I like tactics problems myself; they're rather addictive.
An instinctive feel of where pieces should be placed is one of the most important skills a player can have. It will also help with spotting tactical shots, because (as i think Paul was arguing) tactical shots often stem directly from poor piece positioning, and having a good instinctive feel will provide clues to possible tactical shots being in the air.
-
Paul Cooksey
Re: The fine form continues!
I agree with Richard again. It did occur to me that one advantage juniors have when learning is they are surrounded by other juniors willing to play lots of quick games.
I understood that Nicky is playing Be2 with white in the Najdorf. My issue isn't anything objective to do with the opening It is simply that mainline open Sicilians are very highly theoretical, and not just in the Najdorf, to the extent even GMs think twice before playing them. If Nicky wants to get an advantage in the mainlines Najdorf, he is going to have to put in as much work on it as the people playing it against him. I suspect many of them are putting too much time into opening study. Even in the minor, In fact especially in the minor, since excessive opening study is one of the things that holds players back.
There is an argument for playing the mainlines, because once you have learnt them they will serve you forever. But they need ongoing maintenance, so at Nicky's level I think he has to either content himself with a solid set up in the mainline that is unlikely to get him an advantage or play a sideline.
Generally, opening repertoire books offer sidelines. I'd maybe recommend Nf3 followed by Bb5 - which is sound and played by even super GMs, especially against 2...Nc6. Similar sorts of open position but without so much theory. The average GM probably considers it a bit dull, but that isn't really a concern until you reach the level where you can go from the opening throughout the game without major mistakes.
He could also consider 2 c3 threatening to build a big centre. It is a good all-round line, which is fine anywhere below super-GM level, where again they'd consider it dull rather than wrong. Nc3 followed by f4 (Grand Prix) and Nc3 followed by g3 (closed) also fine up to at least IM level.
Plenty of books on each of these, but maybe excessive for Nicky now. Still I'd think a general "play e4" book would be worth the money (Calm down Geoff, I'm not going to recommend anything else!, I think 3 or 4 books - Endings, A white repertoire book and maybe a couple of black opening books - would see most people up to at least 150).
Does anyone have any recommendations? I know there is a books by Emms, who has a good reputation as an author, but I've not seen it. I suspect Kaufmann is maybe a bit advanced, but again I don't know.
I understood that Nicky is playing Be2 with white in the Najdorf. My issue isn't anything objective to do with the opening It is simply that mainline open Sicilians are very highly theoretical, and not just in the Najdorf, to the extent even GMs think twice before playing them. If Nicky wants to get an advantage in the mainlines Najdorf, he is going to have to put in as much work on it as the people playing it against him. I suspect many of them are putting too much time into opening study. Even in the minor, In fact especially in the minor, since excessive opening study is one of the things that holds players back.
There is an argument for playing the mainlines, because once you have learnt them they will serve you forever. But they need ongoing maintenance, so at Nicky's level I think he has to either content himself with a solid set up in the mainline that is unlikely to get him an advantage or play a sideline.
Generally, opening repertoire books offer sidelines. I'd maybe recommend Nf3 followed by Bb5 - which is sound and played by even super GMs, especially against 2...Nc6. Similar sorts of open position but without so much theory. The average GM probably considers it a bit dull, but that isn't really a concern until you reach the level where you can go from the opening throughout the game without major mistakes.
He could also consider 2 c3 threatening to build a big centre. It is a good all-round line, which is fine anywhere below super-GM level, where again they'd consider it dull rather than wrong. Nc3 followed by f4 (Grand Prix) and Nc3 followed by g3 (closed) also fine up to at least IM level.
Plenty of books on each of these, but maybe excessive for Nicky now. Still I'd think a general "play e4" book would be worth the money (Calm down Geoff, I'm not going to recommend anything else!, I think 3 or 4 books - Endings, A white repertoire book and maybe a couple of black opening books - would see most people up to at least 150).
Does anyone have any recommendations? I know there is a books by Emms, who has a good reputation as an author, but I've not seen it. I suspect Kaufmann is maybe a bit advanced, but again I don't know.
-
Geoff Chandler
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
Re: The fine form continues!
Hi Paul.
Thanks for joining in.
I cannot recall bringing tennis into it but I like it. (I'll use it.)
(but for the record I loathe tennis...and golf...and rugby(union)...and any other
sport that is not Chess, Football or Rugby League.)
I did say.
"I won't claim I'm right and they will be different ways for different people to improve."
If blitzing online does it for you, then I cannot say otherwise.
When ever I bring up OTB vision v playing and studying online
the Carlsen quote about not having a set in his house always comes up.
Magnus is a natural gifted genius. Totally unique. A one off.
He really should not be brought into the discussion.
I can however point you to other forums where players of Nick's class
and above have declared they have stop playing and studying online
because it is affectig their OTB play.
But you played the Magnus card so I get to counter it.
Steinitz, Lasker, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Smylov,Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov.
None of them got to be great players learning chess from a TV screen.
The book and board method has a proven track record.
(I've left out Morphy and Capablanca they were gifted natural players
in the Carlsen class.)
But if t works for you and others then fine. No argument.
Being totally open minded I'd have to say it may work for Nick.
We have just discovered he is not a poor student living on beans and toast
but a software engineer.
So he is used to and must be very comfortable at gathering and digesting
information from a screen.
I'd say some people can do it and some can't.
The can do's cannot see what the fuss is about.
The cannot's think they are not trying hard enough and have a total wipe out.
I saw your game notes.
That was a difficult position you put White in, White failed to find the best move.
It is what chess is all about it. Setting your opponent OTB problems to solve.
I liked your Rcd8 as I said weaker players would defended f7 or chopped the Rook.
You say it was not an attempt to fish in muddy waters but it was based
on positional considerations.
I know over 2000 players tend to gloss up their wins with positional phrases
but an old whore like me can see right though it.
What then was the deep postional idea behind 4... Rf8? (no note there).
The Rook was already on an open file.
Cannot recall a positional motive for taking a Rook off an open file.
But taking a Rook off an open file setting up a whack on a pinned pawn
in a positon that had a cronic back rank weakness, that's tactics and traps territory.
You were going for a tactical whack on f2. He put his Queen on the wrong square. Bang!
Bxf2+ was the tactical refutation of a blunder.
"if you are assessing the position correctly and trying to do the positionally
correct things, the tactics pretty much look after themselves."
Agreed. If postionally correct and putting you pieces on active squares with
tempo setting up a tactical strike and enticing a blunder are the same thing.
Your book choices seem OK with me, including any basic endings one.
And like you I'd have to come up "I don't know."
The Davies book, Gambiteer 1. Is good but it does require the owner
to have a certain amount of tactical ability and not to get worried about
shedding a pawn or two. Nick is not there yet.
It's down to Nick, he needs to find what style he likes.
(not what style he wants to be.)
Nick keep playing is best way. The more you play the more you learn.
Check all checks (even the silly looking one - infact look two moves
deeper on the silly ones.)
Watch out for any undefended pieces.
(the root of all non-mating combinations are based on loose pieces.)
Give extra thought to any middle game pawn moves.
I've seen so many games of inexperienced players wrecking good positions
with pawns moves. It is a common trait amongst weaker players.
(you will soon be exploiting them.)
And when your instinct starts telling you to play a move. Play it.
Start to trust yourself and your ability.
And post. I'll look out for them.
Cookie reckons I'm a maverick...Hmmm....they are loads of players
who think like me but he is most likely right. I'm certainly the loudest!
Thanks for joining in.
I cannot recall bringing tennis into it but I like it. (I'll use it.)
(but for the record I loathe tennis...and golf...and rugby(union)...and any other
sport that is not Chess, Football or Rugby League.)
I did say.
"I won't claim I'm right and they will be different ways for different people to improve."
If blitzing online does it for you, then I cannot say otherwise.
When ever I bring up OTB vision v playing and studying online
the Carlsen quote about not having a set in his house always comes up.
Magnus is a natural gifted genius. Totally unique. A one off.
He really should not be brought into the discussion.
I can however point you to other forums where players of Nick's class
and above have declared they have stop playing and studying online
because it is affectig their OTB play.
But you played the Magnus card so I get to counter it.
Steinitz, Lasker, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Smylov,Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov.
None of them got to be great players learning chess from a TV screen.
The book and board method has a proven track record.
(I've left out Morphy and Capablanca they were gifted natural players
in the Carlsen class.)
But if t works for you and others then fine. No argument.
Being totally open minded I'd have to say it may work for Nick.
We have just discovered he is not a poor student living on beans and toast
but a software engineer.
So he is used to and must be very comfortable at gathering and digesting
information from a screen.
I'd say some people can do it and some can't.
The can do's cannot see what the fuss is about.
The cannot's think they are not trying hard enough and have a total wipe out.
I saw your game notes.
That was a difficult position you put White in, White failed to find the best move.
It is what chess is all about it. Setting your opponent OTB problems to solve.
I liked your Rcd8 as I said weaker players would defended f7 or chopped the Rook.
You say it was not an attempt to fish in muddy waters but it was based
on positional considerations.
I know over 2000 players tend to gloss up their wins with positional phrases
but an old whore like me can see right though it.
What then was the deep postional idea behind 4... Rf8? (no note there).
The Rook was already on an open file.
Cannot recall a positional motive for taking a Rook off an open file.
But taking a Rook off an open file setting up a whack on a pinned pawn
in a positon that had a cronic back rank weakness, that's tactics and traps territory.
You were going for a tactical whack on f2. He put his Queen on the wrong square. Bang!
Bxf2+ was the tactical refutation of a blunder.
"if you are assessing the position correctly and trying to do the positionally
correct things, the tactics pretty much look after themselves."
Agreed. If postionally correct and putting you pieces on active squares with
tempo setting up a tactical strike and enticing a blunder are the same thing.
Your book choices seem OK with me, including any basic endings one.
And like you I'd have to come up "I don't know."
The Davies book, Gambiteer 1. Is good but it does require the owner
to have a certain amount of tactical ability and not to get worried about
shedding a pawn or two. Nick is not there yet.
It's down to Nick, he needs to find what style he likes.
(not what style he wants to be.)
Nick keep playing is best way. The more you play the more you learn.
Check all checks (even the silly looking one - infact look two moves
deeper on the silly ones.)
Watch out for any undefended pieces.
(the root of all non-mating combinations are based on loose pieces.)
Give extra thought to any middle game pawn moves.
I've seen so many games of inexperienced players wrecking good positions
with pawns moves. It is a common trait amongst weaker players.
(you will soon be exploiting them.)
And when your instinct starts telling you to play a move. Play it.
Start to trust yourself and your ability.
And post. I'll look out for them.
Cookie reckons I'm a maverick...Hmmm....they are loads of players
who think like me but he is most likely right. I'm certainly the loudest!
-
Christopher Kreuzer
- Posts: 8838
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: The fine form continues!
A while back, I did mention that I might post a game I played in the same tournament as Nicky (different section, though), and see if anyone is willing to give their views on the game and where either player could have improved their play, or missed anything. I chose this game because I won and because it was one of the more interesting ones out of the six games I played.
-
Roger de Coverly
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: The fine form continues!
Just playing through it quickly, I think you managed to gain an advantage against his provocative opening, then won material, consolidated and eventually broke through to force resignation. A fairly typical game then for a win in a rapid-play event.Christopher Kreuzer wrote: where either player could have improved their play, or missed anything. I chose this game because I won
I expect the computer engines could suggest improvements, but they are likely to be either a better plan for your opponent just after the opening, or alternative or faster ways to win once you had won the exchange. A pragmatic approach in rapid-play is not to spend time looking for the absolute best move but to play something plodding if it can be played quickly.
-
Nicky Chorley
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:26 pm
Re: The fine form continues!
Oh, OK, thanks Paul. Sorry, I had misunderstood and wasn't having a go, in case that's what it sounded like . I'll need to do some reading on openings then, I think (as soon as I find a decent book, though I'll also look at chessgames.com as Roger suggested). With the Sicilian, most opponents I've seen it against are 100+: 68, 114, 114, 108 and 129 in some recent games I've played (that last one was at the Imperial congress back in November where the bottom section was U140!).
Also, while most opponents I face play 1. e4, occasionally they play 1. d4. I currently reply with 1. ... d5 and then play c6 if 2. c4 (as in game 5 above). Should I also be trying to avoid the Slav (not that I know it too well), as it might be too theoretical (like the Sicilian)? If so, I still need a line against d4 just to be prepared. Any suggestions?
Geoff: thanks again. I think online tactics have been helping my game. In general, I think I'm playing better chess than I was when I first joined this forum and I am finding (all) games a lot more enjoyable now, even the losses and certainly regardless of opening.
Oh, I'll probably give blitz a go too. At a minimum, I'll probably play 5 minute blitz as I don't think I could handle anything less!
. I'll need to do some reading on openings then, I think (as soon as I find a decent book, though I'll also look at chessgames.com as Roger suggested). With the Sicilian, most opponents I've seen it against are 100+: 68, 114, 114, 108 and 129 in some recent games I've played (that last one was at the Imperial congress back in November where the bottom section was U140!).Also, while most opponents I face play 1. e4, occasionally they play 1. d4. I currently reply with 1. ... d5 and then play c6 if 2. c4 (as in game 5 above). Should I also be trying to avoid the Slav (not that I know it too well), as it might be too theoretical (like the Sicilian)? If so, I still need a line against d4 just to be prepared. Any suggestions?
Geoff: thanks again. I think online tactics have been helping my game. In general, I think I'm playing better chess than I was when I first joined this forum and I am finding (all) games a lot more enjoyable now, even the losses and certainly regardless of opening.
Oh, I'll probably give blitz a go too. At a minimum, I'll probably play 5 minute blitz as I don't think I could handle anything less!
-
Giulio Simeone
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:06 pm
- Location: Rome, Italy
Re: The fine form continues!
Indeed you enjoy chess very much Geoff, you are writing pages and pages!! I will just say a couple of things:
As for the fact that weak players shouldn't study endgames, I don't agree with you. Even when a game finishes before the endgame, there often are moments in which a player could have exchanged queens and could have entered in it ... so a weak player that don't know endgames, may miss the opportunity to enter in favourable endgames, or viceversa may enter an endgame which is lost for him. And there is also the limit-case of a game between two complete novices, that blunder five pieces each and at the end found themselves in an endgame!!
Mainly, I think that analyzing a game with the chessboard is more educational than analyzing it with the computer. A computer gives you a lot of variations, but don't give you any idea on what's happening on the board: when you analyze with the computer, the variations capture your attention to such an extent that you often forget to consider the main strategical ideas that are beyond the positions. This is, at least, what happens to me. Clearly, humans and computers have a very different approach to positions, computers analyze all possible variations, humans can't and so they have to help themselves with strategy and general considerations. For example: "in this position I have no less than three misplaced pieces, and my king is a bit exposed; without calculating anything, I can guess that this combination wouldn't work". That's what Nicky Chorley should have thought in his last game, when he "temporarily" sacrifices a piece.Geoff Chandler wrote: Stop solving tactical problem on a website.
You have to develop your board vision.
You don play OTB chess on a monitor how are you going to
spot shots if you have never seen then OTB.
I toiled, still do, to work out things from a diagram.
Set it up on a board and I'm on it.
As for the fact that weak players shouldn't study endgames, I don't agree with you. Even when a game finishes before the endgame, there often are moments in which a player could have exchanged queens and could have entered in it ... so a weak player that don't know endgames, may miss the opportunity to enter in favourable endgames, or viceversa may enter an endgame which is lost for him. And there is also the limit-case of a game between two complete novices, that blunder five pieces each and at the end found themselves in an endgame!!
-
Matt Mackenzie
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Millom, Cumbria
Re: The fine form continues!
Carlsen is just following Capablanca in the "not having a chess set in the house" thing, isn't he??
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)