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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 30 Jun '10 06:00 / 3 edits
    I've noticed that watching games where the players are rated in the mid teens actually look different than GM and Master games.

    Those of us in the teens seem to play tighter games against each other, protecting every pawn, very few true sacs, and very reactive to short term threats.

    GM games are fun to watch because they seem more open, wild and chaotic. Is it that the same tight, protective tenancies are still there but it's all several moves ahead? I just noticed it again when adam warlock posted his game. I'm used to watching guys like greenpawn post his games, and trying to learn from his comments about them. But when I saw adam's game, I actually thought I can remember countless times being in similar positions. The style of play looked more like the style I recognize from most of my own games.

    Setting aside the technical merit, has anyone notice an actual aesthetic difference between the way high and low level play look?
  2. 30 Jun '10 06:19
    Yes. The difference between high level players and us is that their games 'flow' differently.

    Lower level players generally stick to what could be considered the 'basics' which equates to 'material'. In this way they will protect all their pieces and seldom do anything 'risky', that is, sacrifice an exchange, drop a pawn, etc.

    If you look at GM games, the first thing that strikes me is the amount of pieces left en-prise. Pieces and pawns might go for several moves without being eaten by the opponent.

    The second thing which strikes me in GM games is their weird concept of time, especially jarring in the World Championship match between Anand and Topalov: Sacrificing pieces for Queenside endgame pushes dozens of moves before this threat becomes apparent, doubling their own pawns to save three to four moves in a tight end game.

    Its all like watching fuel flow into an engine. It burns, makes the car go fast, its just that you (me, the observer) dont know where the finish line is.
  3. 30 Jun '10 09:38
    Originally posted by Tiwaking
    Yes. The difference between high level players and us is that their games 'flow' differently.

    Lower level players generally stick to what could be considered the 'basics' which equates to 'material'. In this way they will protect all their pieces and seldom do anything 'risky', that is, sacrifice an exchange, drop a pawn, etc.

    If you look at GM games, ...[text shortened]... he car go fast, its just that you (me, the observer) dont know where the finish line is.
    That's a goog point. Watching GM games I often ask myself things like, "Why isn't he taking that rook?" And as hard as I try I can't find the losing tactic that prevents them from taking it. I only know that they're GMs so there's got to be a good reason.
  4. 30 Jun '10 11:32
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    That's a goog point. Watching GM games I often ask myself things like, "Why isn't he taking that rook?" And as hard as I try I can't find the losing tactic that prevents them from taking it. I only know that they're GMs so there's got to be a good reason.
    At this level material will be sacrificed to achieve a positional advantage. It does not follow that they have calculated a forced winning tactic in 10 moves time. They gamble that in the long run their positional advantage should outway the material loss and give them better chances.
  5. Donation ketchuplover
    G.O.A.T.
    30 Jun '10 11:55
    Are you comparing play in the same openings?
  6. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    30 Jun '10 13:39
    there definitely is a lot of visual difference between different levels.

    watching GMs blitz is very educational for this reason (among others). you get the bare essence of their strength, the base they build everything else on. there's no long lines, just the things they take for granted or see instantly.

    time and time again you see them NOT going for that hung pawn or exchange, NOT trying to win that ending but instead draw easily, NOT destroy their pawn structure for clear material advance. and just when you begin to think "well maybe he didn't saw it, maybe they're not THAT much better after all", they get into horrible position that looks like mate in #5, and somehow miraculously defend that to a draw.

    we amateurs go 100/100 for that 'looks like it might work' move, but the GMs almost never seem to. they just leave that hanging pawn there and calmly defend a square somewhere else. it seems they do a lot based on 'yeah looks good, but a bit of a lottery so I'm gonna make the solid move instead'. and their defensive skills are just amazing the higher you go.

    the better blitzers you watch, the more prounced the difference gets. there's a world of difference between your average GM blitzing, the good GM blitzers, and the 'nakamuras'. a 2500 ICC doesn't look at all like a 3000 ICC who doesn't look at all like the nakamuras and blackhorse96s (man that little kid is GOOD!).
  7. 30 Jun '10 16:10
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    That's a goog point. Watching GM games I often ask myself things like, "Why isn't he taking that rook?" And as hard as I try I can't find the losing tactic that prevents them from taking it. I only know that they're GMs so there's got to be a good reason.
    this would seem like the type of tactics puzzle that could be very helpful in improving one's play -- instead of the usual "white to mate in three" or "white to play and win" - you could take all sorts of these weird positions from GM games and for each simply ask something like - "why would it be a bad idea to take the rook here - or at least what move would be better than taking that rook?"
  8. 30 Jun '10 18:53
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    this would seem like the type of tactics puzzle that could be very helpful in improving one's play -- instead of the usual "white to mate in three" or "white to play and win" - you could take all sorts of these weird positions from GM games and for each simply ask something like - "why would it be a bad idea to take the rook here - or at least what move would be better than taking that rook?"
    Another book idea for Greenpawn. If written appropriately for teens level players, I would buy it.
  9. Standard member Grampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    30 Jun '10 19:18
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I've noticed that watching games where the players are rated in the mid teens actually look different than GM and Master games.

    Those of us in the teens seem to play tighter games against each other, protecting every pawn, very few true sacs, and very reactive to short term threats.

    GM games are fun to watch because they seem more op ...[text shortened]... s anyone notice an actual aesthetic difference between the way high and low level play look?
    Agree. Though pawn chain structural integrity often plays an important role (with equally matched players)

    architectural symmetry per se often becomes a false criteria. Battlefield dynamics are subject to change.



    ...................................................................
  10. 30 Jun '10 19:31
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Agree. Though pawn chain structural integrity often plays an important role (with equally matched players)

    architectural symmetry per se often becomes a false criteria. Battlefield dynamics are subject to change.



    ...................................................................
    Here's a PRIME example.

    Warning: game in progress so please no comments that pertain to the game itself

    I'm playing black and my entire focus has been pawn structure, piece placement, setting pieces and pawns on opposite color squares of his bishop, and fighting for every scrap of material advantage no matter how small. My RHP rating is 1503 and my opponent is 1501.

    I think at our level we focus on the very basic fundamentals of chess and whoever manages to apply them best wins. But for the GMs it seems chess fundamentals are a mere suggestion as their skill of calculations supersedes them.

  11. Standard member Grampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    30 Jun '10 20:05 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Here's a PRIME example.

    [b]Warning: game in progress so please no comments that pertain to the game itself


    I'm playing black and my entire focus has been pawn structure, piece placement, setting pieces and pawns on opposite color squares of his bishop, and fighting for every scrap of material advantage no matter how small. My RHP rating ...[text shortened]... xd7 30. Re1e3 f5
    31. h3 d4 32. Re3g3 Kg8f7 33. Kg1f1 d3 34. Bb4d2 b5 35. Bd2c1 Rd7c7 *[/pgn][/b]
    Let me pass on a piece of advice given to me decades ago... no, better

    yet, an inescapable general question: What is every patzer's Job One?



    ...................................................................
  12. 30 Jun '10 20:06
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Let me pass one piece of advice given to me decades ago... no, better

    yet, an inescapable general question: What is every patzers Job #1?



    ...................................................................
    Forgive my ignorance...

    Patzer is a famous chess player right? I don't know the answer to your question.
  13. Standard member Grampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    30 Jun '10 20:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Forgive my ignorance...

    Patzer is a famous chess player right? I don't know the answer to your question.
    USAP, Patzer is simply our collective family name. Job One, according to my early

    mentor (Emil Reubens) is not to lose. It's the only game outcome that's painful.




    Edit: At almost any level, below elevated ladders, we hope to win so much that our competitive ego/emotions often get

    in the way with the result that patience is lost and lightfoot attacks prematurely convert equilibrium games into losses.




    .......................................................................
  14. 30 Jun '10 20:29
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    USAP, Patzer is simply our collective family name. Job One, according to my early

    mentor (Emil Reubens) is [b]not to lose.
    It's the only game outcome that's painful.



    .......................................................................[/b]
    That's the best advice ever. It's fool proof! If I simply "don't lose" from now on my chess rating will skyrocket!
  15. 30 Jun '10 20:43
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    [b]Warning: game in progress so please no comments that pertain to the game itself

    I think at our level we focus on the very basic fundamentals of chess and whoever manages to apply them best wins. But for the GMs it seems chess fundamentals are a mere suggestion as their skill of calculations supersedes them. [/b]
    Too late!

    If I were White, I would have resigned after move 27. d7?


    The difference between our skill level and GM skill level is the same as a Mountain Biker's skill level vs a Motor Cross Bikers skill level.

    We've both got two wheels. They just get things done alot faster.


    Plus some of us havent taken the training wheels off our bikes.