I have assumed the player has joined a chess club.
Then you play against anyone and everyone.
You will find a chess buddy fairly quickly but never knock back
a skittles game v a weaker player because he is a weaker player.
Every game you play does not have to be a lesson taking you to your GM title.
Nor does it have to be a waste of tim ...[text shortened]... is a piece of nonsense that will keep you amused for hours."
I never claimed it would help.
Knowing some opening theory doesn't save you from thinking during the game.
I've seen improving players quickly resign games at clubs so they can play the stronger player who just walked in.
Capablanca once said that 'You will have to lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player.' Can you blame the improver for wanting to rack up those hundreds more quickly?
"I've seen improving players quickly resign games at clubs so they
can play the stronger player who just walked in. "
I've seen this too, and then I've seen....
....the stronger player declines the weaker player's challenge because
apparently you don't learn anything from winning games by playing weaker players.
It's your loses under tournament conditions where the serious learning takes place.
You very rarely have an depth post mortem after a casual game.
Skittles is you drilling the troops, getting into shape, storing patterns,
having fun. You can get that from any club player. Win or lose.
(anyway often the strong player will be in fun mode....what are you learning?)
Capablanca once said that 'You will have to lose hundreds of games before
becoming a good player.'
I'd have more faith in what Capablanca said if one could find or even trace
a hint of these 100's of games he lost to become a good player.
He is telling us to do something he never did.
Infact he tells us in 'My Chess Career' he won his first ever game of Chess.
He was gifted and studied a lot, especially endgames.
He does say later on: (and he is talking about tournament games.)
"Nothing is so healthy as a thrashing at the proper time, and from few
won games have I learned as much as I have from most of my defeats."
He then goes on to say he hopes he will lose some more.....
Later he also mentions never take defeats badly you will learn from them.
You shrug off a skittles loss, re-set the bits and play again.
After a serious game loss you should be quietly fuming, this is the game
that needs pulling to pieces.
These are the games the dedicated improving player needs to play.
Casual club players will get on by playing and playing till they feel confident
enough to enter their first tourney. Then the real fun begins.
But his best piece of advice in that book, amongst others, one which has
help me more than any other was his advice about not being afraid to
follow your intuition, if you think it is good then play it...without hesitation.
What I took from that was if you see an interesting sac but cannot
see the forced win nor what's wrong with it. Play it....without hesitation.
Well Greenpawn, all I can say is that when you feel like things are over your head, then you don't stand a chance of understanding what you've done wrong.
Just as anything in life, so people have more of a natural understanding of things, while others have to struggle and even practice many times after being taught. When you believe yourself blind (and you might actually be blind) it doesn't help to tell the person to open his eyes.
Having said that, I do think it is important for the person who is beginning to play chess that he needs to be ready to lose.
I've recently gotten my son interested in playing chess. I've been playing him 4 or 5 games a week for the past few weeks and he's about to give up on me because he always loses. He always gets destroyed. My wife is coming back from holiday in a couple of weeks, she says she'll play him but until then I've changed modes. Instead of simply playing games, I'm doing puzzles with him and asking him to verbalize what he's thinking.
I was amazed at how much time he was spending wasting time on things that are totally irrelevant and how little time he spent thinking about useful things. In the opening he wasn't looking at my pieces at all. I'd set him up with an easy checkmate (1.f6 2.g5) and he would just continue on trying to develop his pieces, never looking beyond his half of the board.
I'd see him sitting there for several minutes with his eyes shooting back and forth before he'd make a move, even his first move as white and I'd think to myself at least he is thinking. That's better than me, I'd move without much thought.
So what if some of the strong players decline? Most won't. After challenging a few you can tell who will and who won't.
That's the usual counter I get for suggesting to avoid the weak if you want to improve - "Oh, if everyone did that, then there would be no games." Well, guess what. Everyone isn't going to do that. Most players don't care about improving and are just happy to have a game. (I'm in that group too.)
You will not find a trace of the many games Capa (or any strong master, really) lost before they got good. No one is interested in those games. (And you can bet a master isn't going to volunteer any scoresheets from when he was mediocre.)
The philosophy of playing better players as much as possible naturally extends to tournaments. The improving players generally play in the Open section of tourneys even though they qualify for lower-rated sections.
So what if some of the strong players decline? Most won't. After challenging a few you can tell who will and who won't.
That's the usual counter I get for suggesting to avoid the weak if you want to improve - "Oh, if everyone did that, then there would be no games." Well, guess what. Everyone isn't going to do that. Most players don't ca ...[text shortened]... play in the Open section of tourneys even though they qualify for lower-rated sections.
How far along are these guys in their chess development when they play in opens?
Great players are determined by consistent victories against other consistent great players. I have no historical knowledge of the game , well not really worth knowing. Are these the only players that produce great advances in chess , have leaps been made by less lofty players.If so what really determines improvement , ratings or inspiriration.
Originally posted by Eladar How far along are these guys in their chess development when they play in opens?
Usually around 1400 or so. Some I only notice after they improve and get a high rating. Then I check the tourney history. Others have played at clubs and/or tourneys while they were still provisional, so it was hard to tell their strength from the rating.
Originally posted by SwissGambit Usually around 1400 or so. Some I only notice after they improve and get a high rating. Then I check the tourney history. Others have played at clubs and/or tourneys while they were still provisional, so it was hard to tell their strength from the rating.
Needless to say that these guys have been playing a while.
There is definitely a different set of principles that a person needs to learn at different levels. I think once you get good enough, what you call beginner changes.
Things that would help me improve now would not have done me any good five years ago. Five years ago, I was much more like my son now. I couldn't see anything beyond the 9 squares surrounding the one I'm looking at!
Even though I still blunder alot, I don't blunder nearly as much as I used to.
Originally posted by kaminsky The question is daft , its a combination of both . But has there been a relatively lowly rated player who has made a leap in chess knowledge.
Leap in chess knowledge won't do much without discipline and vision. One bad move and the house of cards comes tumbling down. I'm learning to appreciate the delicate nature of the 64 squares of pain. 😀
I'm pretty sure I have done nothing wrong and thing are not over my head.
You are making it sound like learning to play chess is akin to being a doctor.
I'm saying my 'Advice for Beginners' is join a club and keep playing.
You don't need to lose a hundred games before you learn anything.
You may lose your first dozen or so and then you will pick it up.
The idea of joining a club is that a few players there will help you along,
most clubs have a good coach, some like Edinburgh run coaching sessions.
It is in the club's interst to do so.
I formed a Chess Club in Sandy Bells and entered the Edinburgh League.
Six man team and 4 of them had never pushed a pawn in anger before.
Once a week I had them in Bells playing each other and going over their games
We won Div 4 and Div 3 back to back.
After their first season (12 games) I suggested they enter a tournament
just for the experience. They loved it.
(a couple wanted to play in sections above their grades, I was not keen
on this. You won't learn nothing getting hammered, play to your grade
and get your confidence up.)
Hi SG.
It looks we are agreeing on the same thing.
I do know strong players who decline a game v weaker players.
Some have more excuses for not playing than they do for losing a game.
But you are right some do but often as not they are relaxed you are
not playing the 2300 player.
It is these same strong players that sometimes express disdain when a
1600 player plays in the Open to cross swords with a strong player
in the first two rounds.
It usually runs like this:
"I've paid £25.00 to get a decent game of chess and I get drawn
against some 1600 player. He should not be in it?"
As I said I advise against this, if you have an OTB grade of 1600 then
why not prove you are better than 1600 by winning a 1600 tourney,
you will get money, a good chunk of gradiing points and loads of confidence.
In the Open you will get knocked about and end up getting a last round bye.
(A strong player has had a bad weekend, he is drawn against you in the last round,
he does not want to play you so tells the TC he is feeling unwell.)
Having said that I will always defend a players choice to enter what ever
tournament he is entitled to and have done so in the past.
Hi Kaminsky.
I've seen dozens of players who hover around 1400 then suddenly go whoosh!
Having a strong chess playing enviroment helps, rather than playing stronger
players listening to them going over a game is very enlightening.
Though I've seen players knock back a weaker players offer of a game
I've very rarely seen a player refuse to go over a weaker players game
provided the weaker player has the score sheet and the stronger player has the time.
This again is the benefit of joining a club.
The improving player must be prepared to do some home study as well with a book.
There is something in 'The Most Instructive Games Ever Played' by Chernev.
I've heard so many players say this book helped. It helped me along.
I agree with the part about the chance of winning money. My first tournament was the Eastern Open and as an unrated player I thought I was good and entered the open division where the masters played. I quickly learned I was no good and no chance in hell of winning any money.
After playing at a chess club for awhile and getting a rating of 1572, I got a chance to enter my second big tournament, the 1982 World Open. However, this time I knew I did not belong in the open division with those masters, so I entered the under 1600 division and came away with prize money. Hooray!
Originally posted by Eladar Needless to say that these guys have been playing a while.
There is definitely a different set of principles that a person needs to learn at different levels. I think once you get good enough, what you call beginner changes.
Things that would help me improve now would not have done me any good five years ago. Five years ago, I was much more like my ...[text shortened]... oking at!
Even though I still blunder alot, I don't blunder nearly as much as I used to.
No, they hadn't always been playing awhile. Some people actually start out around 1400.
I'm pretty sure I have done nothing wrong and thing are not over my head.
You are making it sound like learning to play chess is akin to being a doctor.
I'm saying my 'Advice for Beginners' is join a club and keep playing.
You don't need to lose a hundred games before you learn anything.
You may lose your first dozen or so and then y y Chernev.
I've heard so many players say this book helped. It helped me along.
Hey again-
Can't help but notice that you changed Capa's quote a bit in the reply to Eladar. It's not that you must lose a hundred games before you learn anything. It's hundred(s) before you become a good player.
You can just as easily prove you are better than 1600 by making a good score in the Open section. And you can just as easily bomb in the under 1600 section and lose confidence in your game. Crises of confidence are inevitable. They might as well learn to handle them.
Advice for True Beginners
21 Jul '13 13:17
Back to Top