Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 26 Jun '09 02:21 / 1 edit
    I just played this game over at FICS a few moments ago and was struck by two things. The first is that I played differently in that I was in no great hurry to throw my pieces at my opponent's king. The second is that when it came down to an opportunity to trade queens and head for an end game, I was confident that I'd have a good chance so I made the trade.

    This made for a pretty boring game as far as I was concerned. I never took chances. I just played it safe and came out on top. I believe it is because I had a stronger end game than my opponent.



    Is this form of chess 'better' chess than trying to make sacrifices and overpowering my opponent's king? It seems to me that my attacks come up short and I end up losing from the bad position I put myself in while trying to attack.
  2. 26 Jun '09 03:45
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I just played this game over at FICS a few moments ago and was struck by two things. The first is that I played differently in that I was in no great hurry to throw my pieces at my opponent's king. The second is that when it came down to an opportunity to trade queens and head for an end game, I was confident that I'd have a good chance so I made the trade. ...[text shortened]... up losing from the bad position I put myself in while trying to attack.
    If you end up in bad positions it means your attacks aren't sound.
    So is it better to play 'safe',sound moves than unsound speculative attacks?Yes,because you'll likely win more.

    But is it more fun?
  3. 26 Jun '09 03:51
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I just played this game over at FICS a few moments ago and was struck by two things. The first is that I played differently in that I was in no great hurry to throw my pieces at my opponent's king. The second is that when it came down to an opportunity to trade queens and head for an end game, I was confident that I'd have a good chance so I made the trade. ...[text shortened]... up losing from the bad position I put myself in while trying to attack.
    I don't think you were better in that endgame. It should have been drawn but 31...Ne5 is a monumental blunder. I am also curious to know what your plans were throughout the game. I don't want to seem offensive but most of the game seemed like a mindless shifting of the pieces with advantage taking a backseat. I would actually say you were lucky your opponent was being so passive. For example, he didn't take the free pawn when you played 13.h4 or 14.Bc1 19...Bxe 20.fxe5 Qg6 would have given him a significant advantage etc etc....

    My advice would be to read silman's How to Reassess Your Chess

    This will teach you how to evaluate the position and make plans. That and don't just mindlessly solve a bunch of tactics.... Really get to know them. That way you won't just be playing one move tactics that come from obvious blunders but will be able to bring about tactically juicy and complicated positions where your opponent has a better chance of going wrong. That will cure the boring problem.
  4. 26 Jun '09 11:33
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I just played this game over at FICS a few moments ago and was struck by two things. The first is that I played differently in that I was in no great hurry to throw my pieces at my opponent's king. The second is that when it came down to an opportunity to trade queens and head for an end game, I was confident that I'd have a good chance so I made the trade. ...[text shortened]... up losing from the bad position I put myself in while trying to attack.
    In my opinion there is no sych thing as a boring chess game or 'better' styles. There is only different styles. Choose openings that match your own style of play.
  5. 26 Jun '09 12:41
    Originally posted by whiteknight26
    In my opinion there is no sych thing as a boring chess game or 'better' styles. There is only different styles. Choose openings that match your own style of play.
    Agreed - no such thing as boring game fo chess if one player
    is trying to win it.

    I'd love to be able to have the OTB confidence to nurse
    a small opening plus right the way through a game instead of
    seeking complications and relying on trickery/imagination/good luck.

    Inside every clown their is a serious actor who wants to play Hamlet.
  6. 26 Jun '09 17:21
    You're right Tomtom, I did attempt to give away my h pawn. If I knew what I was trying to do and what advantage to take (or strive for), then I'd be a better chess player. But I don't, so I'm at where I'm at.

    I have How to Reassess Your Chess, but what I've read doesn't click. Perhaps I'm not ready for it yet. I was never one to learn by reading a book anyhow. I do best by watching and listening, especially listening. Eventually I'll upgrade my computer and start watching those chess lectures.
  7. 26 Jun '09 19:32
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Is this form of chess 'better' chess than trying to make sacrifices and overpowering my opponent's king?
    I don't think the question is accurately put. Sacrifices are always better if they are correct. if they are not, then they are not.

    But I do get your point, and in my opinion, having a particular style in chess is simply out of question until you hit 2000s or something, or to be precise, it's only a matter of your opening repertoire. I would simply love to have a quiet, positional style for example, but I completely suck at planning and still lose to tactics all the time. I could almost say I never had a chance to practice "my style" in games. there's a simple fact in chess history that all masters of "positional style" are endgame specialists, and let's just say that I'm not exactly an endgame specialist

    I know this statement isn't exactly accurate either, because people do like different kind of positions, but in most cases they are examples of misevaluation.

    the search for "truth" in chess (impersonated in Kramnik) is probably bound to lose against practical chess (Anand), but I'd always choose the first over the latter.
  8. 26 Jun '09 22:50
    Originally posted by Eladar
    You're right Tomtom, I did attempt to give away my h pawn. If I knew what I was trying to do and what advantage to take (or strive for), then I'd be a better chess player. But I don't, so I'm at where I'm at.

    I have How to Reassess Your Chess, but what I've read doesn't click. Perhaps I'm not ready for it yet. I was never one to learn by reading a book ...[text shortened]... istening. Eventually I'll upgrade my computer and start watching those chess lectures.
    If this is the case the I would suggest just striving to create some sort of weakness in your opponents position(ie backward pawn, isolated pawn, doubled pawns etc) and then plan around that by moving your pieces to the best squares you can imagine where they will put pressure on the weakness. Remember, you can only calculate once you have an idea otherwise you are just calculating random variations.

    After a while you should start to figure out what works and what doesn't. Once you start to understand the factors (weaknesses and strengths) on the board then go back to How to Reassess Your Chess. By then you should be able to understand it better.