books

Originally posted by tomtom232
I use square strategy when i make plans... so as to have my pieces cooperate better since i am not a master at maneuvering.

yes this was one of the benefits that ivanhoe highlighted. perhaps one or two examples which highlight the practical aspect of the method with regard to planning may be useful, but i myself have not got to that stage yet. perhaps you could?😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes this was one of the benefits that ivanhoe highlighted. perhaps one or two examples which highlight the practical aspect of the method with regard to planning may be useful, but i myself have not got to that stage yet. perhaps you could?😀

haha i'll try... i have to find a good example first.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...but happily only touches on all that boring endgame stuff.

Ooh, now you're really asking to be attacked. 😛

Originally posted by Mad Rook
Ooh, now you're really asking to be attacked. 😛

i know, where is wormwood when you need him? probably getting high on opposition, distant opposition, diagonal opposition, rectangular opposition, triangulation, king and pawn v king, outside passed pawn, king and rook pawn v king, king and two disconnected passed pawns, lucena position, philadors position etc etc, ah man i am feeling sleepy!😴

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i know, where is wormwood when you need him? probably getting high on opposition, distant opposition, diagonal opposition, rectangular opposition, triangulation, king and pawn v king, outside passed pawn, king and rook pawn v king, king and two disconnected passed pawns, lucena position, philadors position etc etc, ah man i am feeling sleepy!😴

Well, i do believe that the endgame is the most profound phase of an already profound game.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Well, i do believe that the endgame is the most profound phase of an already profound game.

lol, ill take you're word for it, although to be fair i think it depends a lot upon technique rather than creativity, although i am willing to be corrected!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, ill take you're word for it, although to be fair i think it depends a lot upon technique rather than creativity, although i am willing to be corrected!

Just ask Akiba Rubenstein what it depends on. 😉

Originally posted by tomtom232
Just ask Akiba Rubenstein what it depends on. 😉

actually this is something that i have been thinking about for some time. plaese tell me if this is true. noobs like me, below say 1800, our games are settled tactically. above 1800, tactical mistakes are few therefore games are settled in the middle game or the end game, people above 2000, they have really good tactical skills and great endgame technique so that it is strategy and positional considerations which decides on which side the scales will drop. is this correct or not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, so now you know what my motives are, amazing, really amazing, is it some kind of gift that you have? i myself struggle quite hard to see myself the way others see me, true objectivity has always been quite elusive, (thats why i am such a bad chess player), but thanks to guys like you my true persona is slowly becoming really lucid.

once i tho ...[text shortened]... books? can you tell what i am thinking now? who is your god? you see, 'its not all about me'.

That'll be a yes then!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i know, where is wormwood when you need him? probably getting high on opposition, distant opposition, diagonal opposition, rectangular opposition, triangulation, king and pawn v king, outside passed pawn, king and rook pawn v king, king and two disconnected passed pawns, lucena position, philadors position etc etc, ah man i am feeling sleepy!😴

here's a game from another CC site, which finished just a moment ago. - the guy started with giving me a pawn and a futile check, and it was game over on move 3: a pawn up, ahead on development, it's all over. I don't have to risk anything, just mop it up with safe moves until the already won endgame.

it was just too easy, I probably didn't use more than 30s for any of the moves. -before I started working on my endgame, I wouldn't have seen it was already won, and would've tried to crush him with my usual tactical stampede, taking huge risks and possibly losing the game for it. but no longer.





disclaimer: no hyped methods nor extensive calculation were used during the progression of this game. all stunts were performed by seasoned veterans called development, activity and initiative. doubled pawns, knights vs bishops preference and the bishop pair were totally ignored.

🙂

Originally posted by wormwood
here's a game from another CC site, which finished just a moment ago. - the guy started with giving me a pawn and a futile check, and it was game over on move 3: a pawn up, ahead on development, it's all over. I don't have to risk anything, just mop it up with safe moves until the already won endgame.

it was just too easy, I probably didn't use more than ...[text shortened]... knights vs bishops preference and the bishop pair were totally ignored.

🙂

it seems your opponent wanted a lost endgame more than you wanted a won one. He was so willing to exchange pieces.

Originally posted by diskamyl
it seems your opponent wanted a lost endgame more than you wanted a won one. He was so willing to exchange pieces.

no kidding. I really didn't need to do anything, just cruise along...

Hi - just played over the game on winboard (no engine on this box).
White could have built up a fantastic winning position by highlighting
Black's lack of development.

The way the game was played was OK. but...come on.
Taking the Queens off when the Black Queen was a liability was
surely the wrong way to go. Look at this forced line of play.
12.Nd5 Ke8 13.Nxd5 Qxd5 14.e4 Qa5 15.Bc4 Nd8 16.0-0.
giving us this position.



Mmmmm...I'm drooling at all beautiful sac/sac mates I can see.
What a position to give Black after 16 moves.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi - just played over the game on winboard (no engine on this box).
White could have built up a fantastic winning position by highlighting
Black's lack of development.

The way the game was played was OK. but...come on.
Taking the Queens off when the Black Queen was a liability was
surely the wrong way to go. Look at this forced line of play.
12. oling at all beautiful sac/sac mates I can see.
What a position to give Black after 16 moves.

sure, there were loads of better moves than I made, and I would've gone for the possibilities if I had to. but as I see it, I already won the game, I didn't need to win it twice. once is all you need.

it's like in the bond movies, the evil genius always has bond beaten, but gives him counterplay by insisting on some ridiculously complicated way of killing him with a giant laser or mutant sharks or something like that. the flashy plan always backfires of course, where as a simple unimaginative bullet in the head with no hesitation would've defeated bond. it's not much different on the chess board, which is the point I'm trying to make here.

swapping the queens off was not the objectively best move, and I knew it. but it took the last faint glimmer of hope from black, not even a remote chance of complicating the position and getting back into the race after that. it's the reason why the rest of the game was so easy. I even thought he might resign right after that because he had nothing left. but he chose to torture himself further instead.

Originally posted by max92
As a beginner what book helped you improve the most and help to understand certain aspects of chess most effectively,which one do you remember the most in your learning years.

My System by Aaron Nimsowitch was helpful for me to recognize structures on the board and to know what to do with them.