Here I play very seriously from last four or five games, with strong opponents, to learn from my mistakes.
It is always advisable to play against strong opponents which is doing good for your improvement. But playing against weaker opponents (200-300 points below your own) is maybe good too, because positions which you reach in that way can be similar to those in tactics puzzle book, with lot of space and possibilites for beautifull combination attacks.
So what I want to say, for example, if I play here 1600-1700 tough opponents here to improve, I could do an extra account on other chess site like gameknot to play against somewhat weaker opponents and exploiting their tactical and positionals mistakes for sharping my combination sight.
Originally posted by wakchessdragon Here I play very seriously from last four or five games, with strong opponents, to learn from my mistakes.
It is always advisable to play against strong opponents which is doing good for your improvement. But playing against weaker opponents (200-300 points below your own) is maybe good too, because positions which you reach in that way can be sim ...[text shortened]... tionals mistakes for sharping my combination sight.
What do you think, can this be helpfull?
if you want tactics, do tactical puzzles. games are just too inefficient way to train them.
I don't really see how you benefit from playing against low rated opponents. if you can't stommach getting beaten by the higher rated, then okay, I see the point. but firstly, you don't learn much from winning a game. and secondly, you learn even less playing against lower rated opponents.
the way I see it, it's a lose-lose situation improvement wise. but for casual playing it's fine of course.
Originally posted by wormwood if you want tactics, do tactical puzzles. games are just too inefficient way to train them.
I don't really see how you benefit from playing against low rated opponents. if you can't stommach getting beaten by the higher rated, then okay, I see the point. but firstly, you don't learn much from winning a game. and secondly, you learn even less playing agai ...[text shortened]... t, it's a lose-lose situation improvement wise. but for casual playing it's fine of course.
I wanted to say, if I play at, for example 1650 level and my opponent at 1350 he is obviouslly weaker and very, very often position and moves he makes can lead to nice 3, 4, 5 move combinations, exploiting of pins, smothered mates, etc.
OF COURSE it is obvious that accent has to be on playing stronger opponents. Personally I like to play with opponents 100-200 points stronger than me.
But maybe would be nice to play that kind of games to exploit every single mistake that weaker opponents makes...
Originally posted by wakchessdragon I wanted to say, if I play at, for example 1650 level and my opponent at 1350 he is obviouslly weaker and very, very often position and moves he makes can lead to nice 3, 4, 5 move combinations, exploiting of pins, smothered mates, etc.
OF COURSE it is obvious that accent has to be on playing stronger opponents. Personally I like to play with oppon ...[text shortened]... e nice to play that kind of games to exploit every single mistake that weaker opponents makes...
1350's don't make 3-move blunders, they make 1-move blunders multiple times in every game. catching those is like shooting fish in a barrel, it's not tactical training. the 1-move blunders decide the games up to 1500-1600. in my experience, the deciding 3-move blunders seem to come at 1800+, and even then they're rare. the 1350's practically never look 6 half-moves ahead.
you can easily do 200 tactical puzzles every day. think about how many games you need to play to get 200 3-movers that are not masked by the existence of 1-move blunders. it's taken me 2 years to play 250 games. it would be a mindnumbingly inefficient way to train tactics.
Originally posted by wormwood 1350's don't make 3-move blunders, they make 1-move blunders multiple times in every game. catching those is like shooting fish in a barrel, it's not tactical training. the 1-move blunders decide the games up to 1500-1600. in my experience, the deciding 3-move blunders seem to come at 1800+, and even then they're rare. the 1350's practically never look 6 ha ...[text shortened]... e 2 years to play 250 games. it would be a mindnumbingly inefficient way to train tactics.
I don't know if it's because you expressed your thought very eloquently and with good arguments or what but you convinced me almost 100 percent... I will stick to my puzzles then 🙂
Originally posted by wakchessdragon I don't know if it's because you expressed your thought very eloquently and with good arguments or what but you convinced me almost 100 percent... I will stick to my puzzles then 🙂
it was probably the fish. they are very persuasive.
Originally posted by Wulebgr There was another thread nearly two years back documenting such things. I'd dig it up for you except that I've grown weary of forum archeology.
I'll take you at your word, though I must admit that is pretty ridiculous.
Gameknot idea
13 Jun '07 11:03
Back to Top