It's common in OTB and I can understand that with time pressure and having to calculate everything in your head.But it also happens to me in CC which I find strange.Recently I had a game where I was trying to mate starting with Qb5-d3,spent about 20 minutes shuffling the pieces but found no mate.I decided to play it anyway because it was still the strongest move imo.So I go Qd3 and just as I'm about to hit the submit button I notice there's also Qe2 available with a simple mate in 4.I fail to understand how I could miss it for so long even while using the analyses board.Really weird.
And just now I dropped a pawn on move 2,completely blind to the fact it was attacked.Now I'll have to win that game so I can call it a sacrifice 😀
Originally posted by KatastroofBlunder check before playing intended move. Ask yourself ; "After I make this move, do I have anything that hangs, can my opponent throw me some nasty check, are some of my pieces inadequatly defended ?"
It's common in OTB and I can understand that with time pressure and having to calculate everything in your head.But it also happens to me in CC which I find strange.Recently I had a game where I was trying to mate starting with Qb5-d3,spent about 20 minutes shuffling the pieces but found no mate.I decided to play it anyway because it was still the stronge to the fact it was attacked.Now I'll have to win that game so I can call it a sacrifice 😀
When I do so my rating goes up and it looks unstoppable but as soon as I stop to blunder check in that way, the blunder party commences.
In your notepad before your move write two codes : PC (Possible checks) and if there are possible checks write it down and review its consequences (there could be some nasty double attack in the air), undefended or hanging pieces (UP). Then you look at your opponent possibilities and you will be surprised how often your "best" move turns out to be losing one, but with blunderchecking that move will revaeal itself as bad BEFORE than you press the submit button ;P
If you follow this simple advice you can gain 200 or 300 new points in no time.
Originally posted by ivan2908Yes,that's a good system to eliminate blunders.Though I wouldn't gain many points,I don't drop pieces/pawns often.I tend to lose my pieces in unsound sacs.Ha!
Blunder check before playing intended move. Ask yourself ; "After I make this move, do I have anything that hangs, can my opponent throw me some nasty check, are some of my pieces inadequatly defended ?"
When I do so my rating goes up and it looks unstoppable but as soon as I stop to blunder check in that way, the blunder party commences.
In your not ...[text shortened]... button ;P
If you follow this simple advice you can gain 200 or 300 new points in no time.
I would benefit more if I had a system to cure temporary blindness.As I described earlier with my Q that could go to e2 and not just d3.
Originally posted by KatastroofWhy don't you try posting a link to the game in question, or an interactive board showing the game up to this point, or a list of the game moves up to this point? Because basically all you have said is that, in some unspecified and impossible to guess positional context, you overlooked a move. Well, what am I to say about that?
It's common in OTB and I can understand that with time pressure and having to calculate everything in your head.But it also happens to me in CC which I find strange.Recently I had a game where I was trying to mate starting with Qb5-d3,spent about 20 minutes shuffling the pieces but found no mate.I decided to play it anyway because it was still the stronge ...[text shortened]... to the fact it was attacked.Now I'll have to win that game so I can call it a sacrifice 😀
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsThe exact position is irrelevant,I'm talking about a common phenomenon in chess,it occurs in all sorts of positions.In this case I was 'blind' to the e2 square,simply didn't enter my head.
Why don't you try posting a link to the game in question, or an interactive board showing the game up to this point, or a list of the game moves up to this point? Because basically all you have said is that, in some unspecified and impossible to guess positional context, you overlooked a move. Well, what am I to say about that?
But I guess you're right,there's not much to be said about this.At least it was a chess topic 🙂
Went to pub on Sunday night - came home found son in net.
Pushed him off it to look at games and played 14...Rad8
I could not believe it the next day when I saw I had lost a Bishop.
I must have thought I had Knight f4.
Game 5050497
But all's well - set a wee trap and my oppoent fell into it.
20 Kxd2 Nc5+ picks up the Rook on b7. He must have been so
annoyed with himself he timed out.
Originally posted by KatastroofWhy do you say that the exact position is irrelevant? Presumably you're not soliciting my comment about a phenomenon whose vagueness and subjectivity makes it impossible for me to comment upon. Of course, if you were posting the comment for some other purpose, that's different. But there ARE a number of well-known situations producing the sort of "chess blindness" you are talking about -- these rely upon various principles of chess psychology, and those in turn DO depend on specific situational factors. So stop temporizing and cough up the details, sparky.
The exact position is irrelevant,I'm talking about a common phenomenon in chess,it occurs in all sorts of positions.In this case I was 'blind' to the e2 square,simply didn't enter my head.
But I guess you're right,there's not much to be said about this.At least it was a chess topic 🙂
edit: "I would benefit more if I had a system to cure temporary blindness."
Hi Katastroof dude, I think that the sole cure for "blindness" is the accurate evaluation plus giving time to the position. Otherwise everybody blunders big time this way, you maybe remember even Kramnik hung a piece; in addition, Kotov describes perfectly the mechanism of the blunders caused by confusion and time pressure. IMHO "blindness" arises because the attacking player cannot spot futurely weak squares deep inside his opponent's camp and thus find a net of corresponding squares (vice versa for the defender);
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsI didn't know there were well-known positions producing chessblindness,hence I didn't think the position mattered.
Why do you say that the exact position is irrelevant? Presumably you're not soliciting my comment about a phenomenon whose vagueness and subjectivity makes it impossible for me to comment upon. Of course, if you were posting the comment for some other purpose, that's different. But there ARE a number of well-known situations producing the sort of "ch ...[text shortened]... pend on specific situational factors. So stop temporizing and cough up the details, sparky.
Here it is,black to move mates in 4.
I have a simple way to play better, you just have to trick your brain.
For example, I can spend 30min looking at a possible move and think to myself "I've got it, this is the best move, I'll be winning now" then I press "Submit Move" and instantaneously as it's loading/refreshing the new screen I say "shizzle ma nizzle" I blundered. You see your brain likes to play tricks on you, why I don't know. You only seem to see your mistakes when and only when you've hit the "submit move" button. Now I have to trick my brain, I pick out my move, I hold the "submit move" button down and my brain then proceeds to laugh at me as if to say "you idiot I tricked you that was a bad move! But the joke is really on my brain as my brian has tricked my brain which was in turn putting itself down (confusing isn't it). See, I won because I made my brain think I was making the move and it could laugh at me for blundering, but I didn't release the almighty precious mouse button, and my brain spit out the REAL good move as it was laughing at me. I then moved the cursor off the button, made the real move and then submitted my move.
Success...or is it??
In fact my brain and the part of my brain that tricks my brain is still my brain. See my brain is actually always 1 step ahead of me, as it saw the trick I was about to pull and pulled one back on me. All I ended up doing was blundering in a differing fashion. But alas, a blunder is a blunder and a loss is a loss. I guess the moral of the story is not to fight your brain, let it do its thing and every once in a while it does something marvelous and you'll win a game. The best way to repay it is to take it out for a nice cold brewski. In this way you can kill off a couple of brain cells in hopes that you can get a leg up on its evil schemes.
Originally posted by pijunSo basically you're saying 'drink more beer and your chess will improve'?
I have a simple way to play better, you just have to trick your brain.
For example, I can spend 30min looking at a possible move and think to myself "I've got it, this is the best move, I'll be winning now" then I press "Submit Move" and instantaneously as it's loading/refreshing the new screen I say "shizzle ma nizzle" I blundered. You see your brain likes ...[text shortened]... couple of brain cells in hopes that you can get a leg up on its evil schemes.
I don't believe it but it gets my vote! 😀
Originally posted by KatastroofThere are, but they're general types of positions, corresponding to various kinds of psychological blunders. However, without seeing the specific position, there's no way to know if your position was consistent with one of these types.
I didn't know there were well-known positions producing chessblindness,hence I didn't think the position mattered.
At the moment, I need to lay my hands on the book containing the chapter in question. So, I'll look at your position diagram later and defer my reply until then.
P.S. I just took a look at the diagram and I don't need to examine the book chapter. If by "Qe2" you mean 1...Qxe2 then yes, 2.Qxe2 Rb1+ followed by 3...RxQ is mate. Classic back rank mate using deflection via a queen sacrifice.
If this were one of my own games and I had overlooked 1...Qxe2 for 30 minutes, there might be any of several reasons. One abstract possibility, however, would be the obvious fact that, especially at our level of play, moves which exchange a queen for a lesser piece (like a rook) are counterintuitive, because at first glance they lose material.
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsYeah,Qxe2 of course.I said Qe2 because initially I gave no position so it didn't matter.The thing is,I normally don't have a problem shedding pieces,even a queen.A sac is the first thing I look at,especially when my opponents king is in such a tight spot as in the diagram.I don't know about other players 'at our level',personally I usually suck at positional games,I'll play totally unsound sacs,will hang a piece once in a while(especially when it's a dull game) but will almost never miss such an easy tactic.A back rank mate for crying out loud.That's like the first thing you learn!
P.S. I just took a look at the diagram and I don't need to examine the book chapter. If by "Qe2" you mean 1...Qxe2 then yes, 2.Qxe2 Rb1+ followed by 3...RxQ is mate. Classic back rank mate using deflection via a queen sacrifice.
If this were one of my own games and I had overlooked 1...Qxe2 for 30 minutes, there might be any of several reasons. On ...[text shortened]... lesser piece (like a rook) are counterintuitive, because at first glance they lose material.
There is one reason I know that makes us miss these shots: if we're not looking for them!But this didn't apply here.
I'd like to know more about those well-known situations.Sounds intresting.I never even knew this area of chess had been studied.