21 Aug '10 15:34>
Hi everyone
I recently finished Seirawan's Winning Chess Combinations and like all his other books it was a great read. However, unlike his other books I haven't been able to put his combinations principles into practice. I'm increasingly coming to the realization that I'm not a swashbuckler but a grinder, and I'd love to be a swashbuckler. I'd love to attack with a rapier flashing in each hand but the truth is I attack with a big, soft blanket.
In 300+ games on rhp I've won less than ten by sacrificing a piece and I've probably lost less than five to sacrifices. My approach is to get a small advantage and increase it gradually by reducing the number of good moves my opponent can make. It's quite effective, quite gratifying, but not dazzling.
So, I'm wondering, is the lack of combos I see in rhp due to (a) combinations being the sole preserve of master level players (b) the fact that correspondence chess doesn't lend itself to combinations because players can analyze more possibilities more accurately, or (c) I'm the guy with his back to the nudist beach and everyone else is producing fancy game winning combos.
So let me know if you've produced great combos and if you do so regularly how do you do it - I'm guessing you know your tactics really well and can recognize mating patterns.
Thanks everyone
Graham
I recently finished Seirawan's Winning Chess Combinations and like all his other books it was a great read. However, unlike his other books I haven't been able to put his combinations principles into practice. I'm increasingly coming to the realization that I'm not a swashbuckler but a grinder, and I'd love to be a swashbuckler. I'd love to attack with a rapier flashing in each hand but the truth is I attack with a big, soft blanket.
In 300+ games on rhp I've won less than ten by sacrificing a piece and I've probably lost less than five to sacrifices. My approach is to get a small advantage and increase it gradually by reducing the number of good moves my opponent can make. It's quite effective, quite gratifying, but not dazzling.
So, I'm wondering, is the lack of combos I see in rhp due to (a) combinations being the sole preserve of master level players (b) the fact that correspondence chess doesn't lend itself to combinations because players can analyze more possibilities more accurately, or (c) I'm the guy with his back to the nudist beach and everyone else is producing fancy game winning combos.
So let me know if you've produced great combos and if you do so regularly how do you do it - I'm guessing you know your tactics really well and can recognize mating patterns.
Thanks everyone
Graham