The fine form continues!
-
John McKenna
Re: The fine form continues!
This is complementary but not very complimentary - it is said that Capablanca & Alekhine attended a show, Capa never took his eyes off the girls while Alex never took his eyes off his pocket chess set.
-
Geoff Chandler
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
Re: The fine form continues!
Hi Matt.
yes, the same PR machine.
Hi Giulio
Not quite what I saying.
I'm rattling on about staring at and solving tactical positions on a screen
and then trying to produce or spot that same pattern OTB.
Using a box to help you improve.....
Loads of plus points but their is one negative students should be aware off.
These things are now too strong to be of any use to an up and coming player.
Someone on here suggested learning endgames by playing v a computer.
OK but you need to dumb the the thing right down.
Try playing a basic Lucena v the lates Rybka/Fritz models.
You take the Rook and pawn.
Pretty soon it will realise it cannot stop promotion so will start playing
moves to avoid being mated in the least amount of moves.
It will see the bridge technique and only go near that if it prolongs
the mate. What are you learning?
Using it to study normal endings has the same problem.
If it sees it's lost it won't play the human natural and tricky moves.
The moves that give players some OTB workd to do or lays a snare in his path.
It goes off building a position to delay the mate it can see in 30 moves time.
So dumb them down so they can only see 3-4 moves ahead and knock off
it's tablebase if it has one.
Then you begin to wonder why have you got one in the first place.
"As for the fact that weak players shouldn't study endgames."
Not to throw themselves into end game study at the expense of more important
matters is what I am saying.
Get the basics up the Lucena then it's all about staying on the board
to reach an ending. Or better still wrapping it up in the middle game.
yes, the same PR machine.
Hi Giulio
Not quite what I saying.
I'm rattling on about staring at and solving tactical positions on a screen
and then trying to produce or spot that same pattern OTB.
Using a box to help you improve.....
Loads of plus points but their is one negative students should be aware off.
These things are now too strong to be of any use to an up and coming player.
Someone on here suggested learning endgames by playing v a computer.
OK but you need to dumb the the thing right down.
Try playing a basic Lucena v the lates Rybka/Fritz models.
You take the Rook and pawn.
Pretty soon it will realise it cannot stop promotion so will start playing
moves to avoid being mated in the least amount of moves.
It will see the bridge technique and only go near that if it prolongs
the mate. What are you learning?
Using it to study normal endings has the same problem.
If it sees it's lost it won't play the human natural and tricky moves.
The moves that give players some OTB workd to do or lays a snare in his path.
It goes off building a position to delay the mate it can see in 30 moves time.
So dumb them down so they can only see 3-4 moves ahead and knock off
it's tablebase if it has one.
Then you begin to wonder why have you got one in the first place.
"As for the fact that weak players shouldn't study endgames."
Not to throw themselves into end game study at the expense of more important
matters is what I am saying.
Get the basics up the Lucena then it's all about staying on the board
to reach an ending. Or better still wrapping it up in the middle game.
-
Richard James
- Posts: 1179
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:34 pm
- Location: Twickenham
Re: The fine form continues!
Hi Nicky
It was good to see you at the Richmond Rapidplay again. Congratulations on your improved score.
I thought you might like to see this game which one of my private pupils played in a school match on Friday. He had the black pieces and found himself facing the Morra Gambit. The quick notes are mostly based on Fritz and will no doubt be corrected by the stronger players here.
Look particularly at the ending from moves 48 onwards.
(By the way, there seems to be an error in the script: WK in my notes gives me W followed by a figurine K but WP in my notes gives me W followed by a figurine N (as does WN). I couldn't see how to get a figurine pawn so settled for Wp instead.)
It was good to see you at the Richmond Rapidplay again. Congratulations on your improved score.
I thought you might like to see this game which one of my private pupils played in a school match on Friday. He had the black pieces and found himself facing the Morra Gambit. The quick notes are mostly based on Fritz and will no doubt be corrected by the stronger players here.
Look particularly at the ending from moves 48 onwards.
(By the way, there seems to be an error in the script: WK in my notes gives me W followed by a figurine K but WP in my notes gives me W followed by a figurine N (as does WN). I couldn't see how to get a figurine pawn so settled for Wp instead.)
-
Paul Cooksey
Re: The fine form continues!
So many interesting points here, two more since I started writing this post! Nice to be discussing chess for a change! So firstly, studying from a screen.
The point about Magnus not really the same as the famous Capablanca anecdote. In Magnus's case the absence of a set meant not that he had not interest in studying chess, but rather that when he did, it was on a computer screen not a set.
I don't want to jump down Geoff's throat every time he says anything. His view on tennis is entirely correct in my opinion. But...
I read an interesting article by Manuel Lopez on blindfold chess where he discussed what it is a player tries to visualise when playing blindfold. It definitely isn't the physical pieces themselves. The image is something much more abstract, representing where the pieces are in relation to each other. It is difficult to say exactly what that image is, but my experience is exactly the same. I think it is notable that some top class players are famous for looking at the ceiling and into space more than at the board (Ivanchuk, Svidler, for example)
The relevance of this is that we are trying to build up a visualisation that is stored in an abstract way, rather than as board images. As Geoff says, working with a screen can work for some people. I suspect this is if the screen is not a distraction. I suppose if you are 20, studying on a screen is completely normal. I haven't been to Karjakin's house, but I think Carlsen is probably far from unique amongst young professional players.
I think different attitudes to study are relevant too. I remember Jonathan Rowson expressing doubts about the value of studying from DVDs, since he found students tend to just sit back and less the information wash over them, whereas they would engage more with a book and a set. Again I suspect this isn't inherent in the medium, but if you believe on any level that books are for study and TVs are for entertainment, then working with a screen isn't going to be as effective. Possibly again there is a generation difference, for those who went through education with a laptop at their side things are different.
I think Guilio is right about the use of engines. If you are just going to turn on an analysis engine, sit back and relax, you aren't really studying. But I don't think that means it is impossible to learn from a screen, and there is nothing wrong with playing through games for pure enjoyment of course!
The point about Magnus not really the same as the famous Capablanca anecdote. In Magnus's case the absence of a set meant not that he had not interest in studying chess, but rather that when he did, it was on a computer screen not a set.
I don't want to jump down Geoff's throat every time he says anything. His view on tennis is entirely correct in my opinion. But...
I read an interesting article by Manuel Lopez on blindfold chess where he discussed what it is a player tries to visualise when playing blindfold. It definitely isn't the physical pieces themselves. The image is something much more abstract, representing where the pieces are in relation to each other. It is difficult to say exactly what that image is, but my experience is exactly the same. I think it is notable that some top class players are famous for looking at the ceiling and into space more than at the board (Ivanchuk, Svidler, for example)
The relevance of this is that we are trying to build up a visualisation that is stored in an abstract way, rather than as board images. As Geoff says, working with a screen can work for some people. I suspect this is if the screen is not a distraction. I suppose if you are 20, studying on a screen is completely normal. I haven't been to Karjakin's house, but I think Carlsen is probably far from unique amongst young professional players.
I think different attitudes to study are relevant too. I remember Jonathan Rowson expressing doubts about the value of studying from DVDs, since he found students tend to just sit back and less the information wash over them, whereas they would engage more with a book and a set. Again I suspect this isn't inherent in the medium, but if you believe on any level that books are for study and TVs are for entertainment, then working with a screen isn't going to be as effective. Possibly again there is a generation difference, for those who went through education with a laptop at their side things are different.
I think Guilio is right about the use of engines. If you are just going to turn on an analysis engine, sit back and relax, you aren't really studying. But I don't think that means it is impossible to learn from a screen, and there is nothing wrong with playing through games for pure enjoyment of course!
-
John McKenna
Re: The fine form continues!
On a more serious note - being nearer to Nicky's level I'd recommend he sticks with the Slav for now. He won his Richmond game with it, but 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cd cd 4.Nc3 Nc6!? allowed 5.e4 if white had been inclined, so Nicky - unless you have a specific reason not to - play 4... Nf6 next time for safety's sake.
Opening books - I'd use your Watson for general reference after games (and a little prep before). And, I'd seriously consider looking at Chess Openings for Kids by Watson & Burgess. Tell U Y later.
Opening books - I'd use your Watson for general reference after games (and a little prep before). And, I'd seriously consider looking at Chess Openings for Kids by Watson & Burgess. Tell U Y later.
-
Geoff Chandler
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
Re: The fine form continues!
Hi Paul
"I don't want to jump down Geoff's throat every time he says anything."
I don't view it as such. We are debating different points of view.
You don't agree and articulate well with good points.
I'm always ready to turn. Something very uncommon on forum debates where I have
very rarely see one side say "perhaps you are right or maybe I am wrong."
What works for some may not work for others.
My high horse raving has at least prompted some good players to appear
adding in their valuable bits. Something that may not have happened.
It adds to Nick's confusion but at least he seeing all sides.
If he feels he may be on the track (what works for some etc...)
He can switch.
Tennis.
They get two attempts to knock the ball over the net.
That is akin to allowing one to take a move back at chess.
The best rallys take place on the 2nd serve so why not drop this
first serve crap and give the paying punters get some value.
Hitting a ball over a net. A stupid game.
In a proper sport. Football. The guys get paid good money
for knocking the ball into the net, not over it.
(Unfortunately my two teams. Orient and Hibs are paying players who week in
and week out are knocking the ball over the net. They have signed tennis players!)
"I don't want to jump down Geoff's throat every time he says anything."
I don't view it as such. We are debating different points of view.
You don't agree and articulate well with good points.
I'm always ready to turn. Something very uncommon on forum debates where I have
very rarely see one side say "perhaps you are right or maybe I am wrong."
What works for some may not work for others.
My high horse raving has at least prompted some good players to appear
adding in their valuable bits. Something that may not have happened.
It adds to Nick's confusion but at least he seeing all sides.
If he feels he may be on the track (what works for some etc...)
He can switch.
Tennis.
They get two attempts to knock the ball over the net.
That is akin to allowing one to take a move back at chess.
The best rallys take place on the 2nd serve so why not drop this
first serve crap and give the paying punters get some value.
Hitting a ball over a net. A stupid game.
In a proper sport. Football. The guys get paid good money
for knocking the ball into the net, not over it.
(Unfortunately my two teams. Orient and Hibs are paying players who week in
and week out are knocking the ball over the net. They have signed tennis players!)
-
John McKenna
Re: The fine form continues!
Why Chess Openings for Kids?
Review by R. James (Richmond RP) BCM last Sept. "... 6 page intro... 50 Mighty Opening Systems, 9 allocated to Sicilians, others e.g. Catalan & Pirc missed or briefly mentioned. Finally, Test Your Skill tactics quiz... (it) assumes too much to be... a manual for beginners, is insufficiently detailed... (as) an advanced one, too incomplete for ref. MAY BE SOME USE TO A (100/1500) PLAYER OF ANY AGE STARTING OUT COMPETITIVELY."
Look at it in a shop then ask your library if '!?'
Review by R. James (Richmond RP) BCM last Sept. "... 6 page intro... 50 Mighty Opening Systems, 9 allocated to Sicilians, others e.g. Catalan & Pirc missed or briefly mentioned. Finally, Test Your Skill tactics quiz... (it) assumes too much to be... a manual for beginners, is insufficiently detailed... (as) an advanced one, too incomplete for ref. MAY BE SOME USE TO A (100/1500) PLAYER OF ANY AGE STARTING OUT COMPETITIVELY."
Look at it in a shop then ask your library if '!?'
-
John McKenna
Re: The fine form continues!
Just noticed that reviewer of Chess Openings for Kids, Richard James, has recently posted. Does he think that book would help Nicky rapidly get to grips with openings?
-
Paul Cooksey
Re: The fine form continues!
Various other things:
1. I agree the Slav is a good choice for Nicky.
It is a popular line at GM level, there is theory. But not knowing it generally means you are slightly worse in a normal position. If you get a Najdorf or a Dragon wrong, it is often terminal.
It is also a bit different choosing your Black openings. You can avoid theory with White and still hope for an advantage, or at worse something equal that suits you. With Black, avoiding theory generally means playing something second rate. It can work occasionally, but I'd find it a bit depressing all the time.
(Full disclosure - I've been playing the Slav as my main defence to d4 for 20 years
)
2. I can't think of much to say about Kreuzer-NN either.
I have to admit that I think black did not play very strongly. I consider both 6 bg5 and 7 bh4 to be a bit dubious. Generally Black is happy to play h6 in the Hippo, it is hard for white to exploit and covers one of those weak dark squares on the kingside. Typically the advice is to play Be3, rather than Bg5,h6,Be3, since Black is saving a tempo on h6, which he will have to play anyway.
Playing 7 bh4 makes some sense of bg5, to continue to look at f6. But on balance I think it is more of a target than an asset. I could imagine the eyes of a Surtees or a Basman lighting up, at the prospect of a king side attack. Later, after developing. 7...g5 just wrong I think. Black needs some development before trying to take advantage of the bh4. The Hippo is a bit second rate in my opinion, since it puts no pressure on White. But also a tough nut to crack, because black is very compact. However combining a cramped position with kingside weaknesses is a recipe for disaster.
10 e5 is the right idea, if the position opens up White must be doing very well. But maybe not timed perfectly. Black really has to go g4 there to make sense of g5 and the ng6. I wouldn't want to play the position after ed6 cd6 nd2 h5 (or maybe d5 bd3 h5) with black particularly, it is ugly. But Black is doing something with his kingside space and is still contesting the centre. I imagine a tactician could do something with it.
10...d5 is very compliant, bad structure, bad development, material loss likely to follow and does. I might have played bg5 before trying to breakthough on the kingside, but barring tactical disaster white should win pretty easily I think.
3. The ending Richard posts
(I'm not going to comment on the Smith-Morra Gambit, other than to repeat the famous Larsen joke when annoting a game by the relevant Smith 1. e4 e6 (Stronger is 1...c5 winning a pawn) )
A couple of points to add to Richard's analysis:
1. K+R+Rook and Bishops Pawns vs K+R is drawn. But it is extremely difficult to hold over the board, even GMs lose it. So best avoided if at all possible.
2. The R on h4 is very clumsy. Instead of Kd4 (which also has the tactical issue of re4+) my hand wants to play Rh8. This is partly because I know Black is likely to be objectively drawn in all rook endings, so do not want to allow a rook swap. I don't need the rook to defend f4, so I'd like it to be more active. In a normal Rook ending, at some point white will be advancing his pawns and the black rook belongs behind them. But specifically here there is also the possibility of Rg8+ and Rg3 disrupting white. (probably Black will have to play h4, and put his rook on a passive square to defend the h pawn, allowing the black king to come over)
3. The defence with the K on d3 looked a bit fishy at first sight, because I could imagine positions where white swaps his h pawn for blacks f pawn, and then wins because the black king cannot get in front of the remianing pawn.But doesn't seem to be a way to force this, so probably ok. (Although when I've reminded myself of how to draw v f+h, I might have a look at that too )
4. Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you
Rf8 supported Blacks superiority on the dark squares. I'd seen qh4 was losing at that point - after a brief period of cursing myself for missing qf4, and thinking I was gong to lose - but there is a difference between playing positionally, and spotting tactics when they occur, and playing tactically.
Most of Capablanca's wins feature a petite combination at some point. I've been playing through the excellent recent Andersson collection and they do too. But still I think the process is about "no, you can't stop my idea in that way" not "I'll put pressure on him and hope cannot find the right move"
OK, a good move is a good move, regardless of how you find it. But I think the if you think in just "game play" sporting terms, you miss some of the depth and art in the game
5 Since Geoff has riled me I could also take issue with:
I suspect most people would disagree. But they would probably be a stronger player if they had had the associated Soviet coaching. I mention it, because I think Nicky needs to be a bit circumspect about deciding what his style is for now. He doesn't want to be shrugging off loses because the position was tactical, and he's not a tactician or the position was technical, and he's a free wheeling attacker. Improvement will need work on all aspects of the game.
6 Tennis
But trying to stay on friendly terms with Geoff, I add I was hugely disappointed at the emergence of Andy Murray. Not just because he is Scotland's mardiest man (amongst strong competion ). But because Tim Henman was close to retirement, and I thought that meant tennis would be on the telly less.
1. I agree the Slav is a good choice for Nicky.
It is a popular line at GM level, there is theory. But not knowing it generally means you are slightly worse in a normal position. If you get a Najdorf or a Dragon wrong, it is often terminal.
It is also a bit different choosing your Black openings. You can avoid theory with White and still hope for an advantage, or at worse something equal that suits you. With Black, avoiding theory generally means playing something second rate. It can work occasionally, but I'd find it a bit depressing all the time.
(Full disclosure - I've been playing the Slav as my main defence to d4 for 20 years
)2. I can't think of much to say about Kreuzer-NN either.
I have to admit that I think black did not play very strongly. I consider both 6 bg5 and 7 bh4 to be a bit dubious. Generally Black is happy to play h6 in the Hippo, it is hard for white to exploit and covers one of those weak dark squares on the kingside. Typically the advice is to play Be3, rather than Bg5,h6,Be3, since Black is saving a tempo on h6, which he will have to play anyway.
Playing 7 bh4 makes some sense of bg5, to continue to look at f6. But on balance I think it is more of a target than an asset. I could imagine the eyes of a Surtees or a Basman lighting up, at the prospect of a king side attack. Later, after developing. 7...g5 just wrong I think. Black needs some development before trying to take advantage of the bh4. The Hippo is a bit second rate in my opinion, since it puts no pressure on White. But also a tough nut to crack, because black is very compact. However combining a cramped position with kingside weaknesses is a recipe for disaster.
10 e5 is the right idea, if the position opens up White must be doing very well. But maybe not timed perfectly. Black really has to go g4 there to make sense of g5 and the ng6. I wouldn't want to play the position after ed6 cd6 nd2 h5 (or maybe d5 bd3 h5) with black particularly, it is ugly. But Black is doing something with his kingside space and is still contesting the centre. I imagine a tactician could do something with it.
10...d5 is very compliant, bad structure, bad development, material loss likely to follow and does. I might have played bg5 before trying to breakthough on the kingside, but barring tactical disaster white should win pretty easily I think.
3. The ending Richard posts
(I'm not going to comment on the Smith-Morra Gambit, other than to repeat the famous Larsen joke when annoting a game by the relevant Smith 1. e4 e6 (Stronger is 1...c5 winning a pawn) )
A couple of points to add to Richard's analysis:
1. K+R+Rook and Bishops Pawns vs K+R is drawn. But it is extremely difficult to hold over the board, even GMs lose it. So best avoided if at all possible.
2. The R on h4 is very clumsy. Instead of Kd4 (which also has the tactical issue of re4+) my hand wants to play Rh8. This is partly because I know Black is likely to be objectively drawn in all rook endings, so do not want to allow a rook swap. I don't need the rook to defend f4, so I'd like it to be more active. In a normal Rook ending, at some point white will be advancing his pawns and the black rook belongs behind them. But specifically here there is also the possibility of Rg8+ and Rg3 disrupting white. (probably Black will have to play h4, and put his rook on a passive square to defend the h pawn, allowing the black king to come over)
3. The defence with the K on d3 looked a bit fishy at first sight, because I could imagine positions where white swaps his h pawn for blacks f pawn, and then wins because the black king cannot get in front of the remianing pawn.But doesn't seem to be a way to force this, so probably ok. (Although when I've reminded myself of how to draw v f+h, I might have a look at that too
)4. Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you
I'm telling the truth about my thought processes, honest. Probably the others are too. The idea chess is about setting the opponent problems works for some people. But like most positional players, I'd echo the title of Gligoric's best games book - I play against pieces.Geoff Chandler wrote: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.
Rf8 supported Blacks superiority on the dark squares. I'd seen qh4 was losing at that point - after a brief period of cursing myself for missing qf4, and thinking I was gong to lose - but there is a difference between playing positionally, and spotting tactics when they occur, and playing tactically.
Most of Capablanca's wins feature a petite combination at some point. I've been playing through the excellent recent Andersson collection and they do too. But still I think the process is about "no, you can't stop my idea in that way" not "I'll put pressure on him and hope cannot find the right move"
OK, a good move is a good move, regardless of how you find it. But I think the if you think in just "game play" sporting terms, you miss some of the depth and art in the game
5 Since Geoff has riled me I could also take issue with:
The Soviets used to say a player had to reach Candidate Master (about 2200) before you talk about his style. Up to that point players were not sufficiently rounded to choose a move based on stylistic grounds, rather than the things they understood.It's down to Nick, he needs to find what style he likes. (not what style he wants to be.)
I suspect most people would disagree. But they would probably be a stronger player if they had had the associated Soviet coaching. I mention it, because I think Nicky needs to be a bit circumspect about deciding what his style is for now. He doesn't want to be shrugging off loses because the position was tactical, and he's not a tactician or the position was technical, and he's a free wheeling attacker. Improvement will need work on all aspects of the game.
6 Tennis
But trying to stay on friendly terms with Geoff, I add I was hugely disappointed at the emergence of Andy Murray. Not just because he is Scotland's mardiest man (amongst strong competion
). But because Tim Henman was close to retirement, and I thought that meant tennis would be on the telly less.-
Richard James
- Posts: 1179
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:34 pm
- Location: Twickenham
Re: The fine form continues!
Hi John & Nicky
I guess it would give Nicky a good overview about what's available which is probably all he needs at the moment. He'd then need to decide which openings he wants to learn more about and look for something which would give slightly more detail.
When I was learning chess in the 1960s the only way to learn was through books. Now there are many other ways to learn. There's a wide range of DVDs at all levels (I prefer books so I can't comment on any of them). You can also learn a lot from consulting databases, although for the most part they'll tell you what GMs and IMs play, not what you're likely to expect in the Minor section of the Richmond Rapidplay. This, of course, is also true of books and DVDs. You could also take some private lessons. It's very much a question of which method or combination of methods suits you best.
While I'm here, Nicky might also consider some of the material at http://www.chesskids.com. Some of the intermediate lessons might be helpful - interactive online tuition is yet another method of learning and although these are aimed at young children many adults also find them useful. There are also some books he could download: the Simple Openings Guides might be more useful than the Watson & Burgess book and there's also a lot in Move Two which might be helpful. They also have the advantage of being free: donations are optional but I don't expect Richmond Rapidplay participants to make a donation!
I guess it would give Nicky a good overview about what's available which is probably all he needs at the moment. He'd then need to decide which openings he wants to learn more about and look for something which would give slightly more detail.
When I was learning chess in the 1960s the only way to learn was through books. Now there are many other ways to learn. There's a wide range of DVDs at all levels (I prefer books so I can't comment on any of them). You can also learn a lot from consulting databases, although for the most part they'll tell you what GMs and IMs play, not what you're likely to expect in the Minor section of the Richmond Rapidplay. This, of course, is also true of books and DVDs. You could also take some private lessons. It's very much a question of which method or combination of methods suits you best.
While I'm here, Nicky might also consider some of the material at http://www.chesskids.com. Some of the intermediate lessons might be helpful - interactive online tuition is yet another method of learning and although these are aimed at young children many adults also find them useful. There are also some books he could download: the Simple Openings Guides might be more useful than the Watson & Burgess book and there's also a lot in Move Two which might be helpful. They also have the advantage of being free: donations are optional but I don't expect Richmond Rapidplay participants to make a donation!
-
IM Jack Rudd
- Posts: 4828
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
Re: The fine form continues!
I've won some decent games with the Hippo. The trick for black is to not commit yourself to a particular plan too soon, but wait and see what white's going to do first.
-
John McKenna
Re: The fine form continues!
Just ducking under Jack's low-flying Hippo (ah, the old wait and see what they do first ploy) to say thanks to Richard James for a prompt, concise answer that can save Nicky a lot of effort.
-
Richard Bates
- Posts: 3340
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm
Re: The fine form continues!
RE: "physical chess board and pieces vs computer screen diagrams" - of course take away the words "computer screen" and this is hardly a modern thing. Many, many players will have studied using books, and been too lazy or otherwise not seen the necessity of playing out the book suggestions on a chessboard. I certainly would have done a lot of tactical problem solving directly from book diagrams. And the same with looking at games, providing the author was kind enough to include a liberal enough sprinkling of diagrams.
-
Nicky Chorley
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:26 pm
Re: The fine form continues!
I don't think I'll be able to keep going back and responding to every post individually 
. However, I do appreciate everyone's advice.
Congrats to Richard James' attendance of all 100 Richmond Rapidplays so far. Thanks for the info about chesskids.com.. That openings guide looks pretty basic, but is enough for the time being . I've not had a chance to look at that ending yet.
I'll probably make a trip to Ye Old Chess Shop (also known as the London Chess Centre) and see about the Watson & Burgess book, too.
John: I'll make sure to play Nf6 next time. It gets the kingside pieces out first and will let me castle there quickly (as well as covering e4).
Paul: I agree and don't even think about "style". I usually put my losses down to playing the ending badly, making some mistake elsewhere and even just running out of time. Someone at Warwick told me I was more of a positional player and that 1. d4 would be more suited to my style. I tried it for a while but I don't think I really understood the openings and wasn't making much progress.
. However, I do appreciate everyone's advice.Congrats to Richard James' attendance of all 100 Richmond Rapidplays so far
. Thanks for the info about chesskids.com.. That openings guide looks pretty basic, but is enough for the time being . I've not had a chance to look at that ending yet.I'll probably make a trip to Ye Old Chess Shop (also known as the London Chess Centre) and see about the Watson & Burgess book, too.
John: I'll make sure to play Nf6 next time. It gets the kingside pieces out first and will let me castle there quickly (as well as covering e4).
Paul: I agree and don't even think about "style". I usually put my losses down to playing the ending badly, making some mistake elsewhere and even just running out of time. Someone at Warwick told me I was more of a positional player and that 1. d4 would be more suited to my style. I tried it for a while but I don't think I really understood the openings and wasn't making much progress.
-
Roger de Coverly
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: The fine form continues!
Another openings database is atRichard James wrote: You can also learn a lot from consulting databases, although for the most part they'll tell you what GMs and IMs play, not what you're likely to expect in the Minor section of the Richmond Rapidplay.
http://www.shredderchess.com/online-che ... abase.html
You use it to research questions like
(a) what do I do in this position if he plays x
or
(b) he played y, I had never seen it before.
So the approach is that when you are playing the initial phase of the game, you have a map of candidate moves and ideas.
Maybe that's too sophisticated for minors, but master that and you can upgrade to the next section .