24 Dec 08
I'm nearing 1500 here and 1650 on gameknot, but recently I think I've plateaued. And I don't know what to do. I know that I need to look at GM games, but I haven't gotten much out of them. What should I do when I play through them?
Also, are there any good books for this period?
Thanks.
Originally posted by WriterAnathemaknow yourself, this may sound strange and reminiscent of platonic philosophy but it stands well for chess as well. why have you reached a plateau, instead of looking at Grandmaster games, which to be quite honest is kind of like trying to paint like Micheal Angelo or Leonardo, when we must begin to learn how to mix the pigments and colors first, and create composition in our own right.
I'm nearing 1500 here and 1650 on gameknot, but recently I think I've plateaued. And I don't know what to do. I know that I need to look at GM games, but I haven't gotten much out of them. What should I do when I play through them?
Also, are there any good books for this period?
Thanks.
therefore by looking at your own games you will discern which areas you need to look at. did i lose because of a tactical flurry, did i lose because of a positional concept, did i lose because of poor planning and imagination, did i lose because i am too imaginative and i do not play the board, did i lose because i lacked bravery, did i lose because i am too brave, did i lose in the beginning, middle or end, did i lose because of the type of game that i myself prefer, it was open when i prefer closed, did i abandon my own plans because i was diverted by my opponent, if so why and can i make more forceful moves in future, did i lose because my thought process is wrong, how do i formulate the moves that i make, on what basis?
if you can answer any number of questions with regard to yourself, you will be true to yourself, slowly get to know your strengths and weaknesses which is half the battle. yes the process is humbling and requires patience, but if you will do this it will help enormously, more so than trying to copy the games of Kasparov or Anand.
practically i suggest playing with a board and the pieces in front of you, a piece of advice that was given to me by green pawn, i do not know why this works, it just does. stick to particular openings that suit your style, try to build a repertoire that is organic, take chances and be brave, but not overly so, try to assimilate the theory associated with openings, but be flexible, think of your thought process, what does this move do, does it bolster my position, make my pieces more mobile, does it threaten anything, does it win time, space or material etc etc
i wish you well - kind regards robbie.
24 Dec 08
A book that brought me over the hump was pawn structure by andrew soltis. This is probably the most important book in a chess players career in my opinion. It tells you how to play based on pawn structure and what your plans are as far as pawn breaks. It doesn't cover everything. It neglects the ruy lopez, but most other openings it will help you dearly.
24 Dec 08
I think studying GM games is important and I am learning that it is much more important to do so at 1800 as opposed to 1500 and 1600, because I did not have the knowledge base to understand it all. I still have trouble, but I understand a lot more now that I'm over 1800. This is not regarding my rhp rating, but gameknots and soon my uscf rating. I just started tournament play.
When you study grand master games you need to see why they move certain pieces. Don't move onto the next move until you understand the previous one. If you can't understand it then play through the game. Then go back and see why the piece was moved to a certain square. Look for specific pawn breaks and specific tactics that arrive in multiple games of the same opening.
25 Dec 08
Originally posted by CamelClutchI disagree with this statement. Since starting to play chess I have..
I want you to remember this quote and you will always be at peace with whatever rating you have:
"The ability to play good chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play great chess is the sign of a wasted life."
Been able to increase my math ability and understand concepts better. I have been able to remember formulas and the steps better. I have been able to even complete whole math equations in my head.
Chess is also a good mood booster. The higher you get your rating to the more of a high you get in a sense of accomplishment. I would not call this "wasted time"
People have hobbies as a form of entertainment, and chess is one of the more intellectual games that helps your brain. Helps prevent alztimers and other brain diseases. Its better than just picking up a video game and veg out in front of the television all day.
Chess for me has been able to complete a gap in my life since I can no longer compete in sports and enables me to compete in another realm,chess.
There are other reasons why people play chess, but I feel it is not a waste of time.
26 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Macpoi am sorry, but how will studying a book, My system by Nimzo help a player get from 1400 to 1700+? surely he must first of all learn the art of self analysis with regard to his OWN thought process, for to be sure when we trace our errors its usually the result of an aberration in our OWN thought process, whether its tactical and miscalculation, whether positional or lack of technique with regard to the dynamics of a position, whatever. if one is unable to determine why we are losing, no matter how good the advice is that we take in, we will make the same mistakes again and again, is it not so?, and there is nothing worse than losing and not understanding why we have lost? are we losing to three four move combination, study tactics, i do not mean just do tactical problems, study the thought process when deciding on tactical combination. are we losing because our opponent took advantage of a positional concept like an open file and was able to create penetration points for his rooks, then we need to study how to use the rook and to avoid or negate the advantage, did we lose because we have no concept of how to handle an isolated pawn, then we can surely learn, did we lose because our pawn play is suspect and we create weaknesses which our opponent is able to exploit etc etc etc each and any one of these points can usually be determined by self analysis with regard to our OWN thought process, however, it is sometimes difficult to see ourselves as others do, and if we are unable to determine why we lost, then we can seek advice from a third party, but the advantage of self analysis cannot be over emphasized!
I think you should above all ask for pieces of advice from better players, for they will be able to see things that you cannot. You can read My system by nimzovitch, a classic among the classics which will certainly deepen your understanding of chess.
every chess move must be subject to scrutiny and evaluation, is it not so, for every chess move creates strengths and weaknesses, therefore surely it is the thought process that is important, how we come to reach the conclusion that such a move is advantageous or otherwise, and this begins with the self, yes a third party may be able to help, but there is no substitute for self scrutiny!
26 Dec 08
Yes, but apparently, the "self" in question doesn't see what to do...
Chess is all about seeing things. You see things not directly, but because you understand the game, because you have certain patterns in mind that make you see things.
You have two possibilities to get these patterns. 1. you invent them. That's nice, but kind of rare. It requires a lot of work. 2. you learn them from other people. That's easier and quicker.
After that, you of course still have to practice, to use them correctly...
26 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Macpoyes its incredibly interesting, however, when one knows oneself then one can more accurately gauge what is beneficial, for example no one would expect Tal to play like Petrosian, would they? or Karpov like Fischer? why not? because each and every one has developed his own thought process and plays true to himself, is it not so? then why should we expect anything less for ourselves, are we not also thinking, reasoning individuals in our own right? please do not mistake this for what it is not, i am not saying that we should ignore the understanding of certain well established and sound principles, thus you are correct we must strive to recognize the contours of the board that we may try to turn them to our advantage, thus the study of techniques for handling certain positions is invaluable, but we must also try to cultivate self reliance and understanding of our own thought process, why we choose the moves that we do, for there is a lot to be said for originality in chess.
Yes, but apparently, the "self" in question doesn't see what to do...
Chess is all about seeing things. You see things not directly, but because you understand the game, because you have certain patterns in mind that make you see things.
You have two possibilities to get these patterns. 1. you invent them. That's nice, but kind of rare. It requires a lot o r and quicker.
After that, you of course still have to practice, to use them correctly...
for example i have witnessed 1200 - 1500 players playing the queens gambit, a 'positional', opening, when they have very little understanding of positional concepts, yes tactics come later, but by then it may be lost. if they had known themselves, what was suitable for them then they may have avoided this situation altogether, yes it may be argued that the game is not won in the opening, but if they cannot answer why they played 1.d4 how can they be expected to give reasons for why they play 2.c4 and 3.Nc3? thus self scrutiny and self evaluation are essential also,
for example we play 1.d4 (i personally don't but its just by way of example), then what? if we have no concept why then how can we plan? if we have no idea of a plan how does that facilitate our imaginative process? if we are unable to imagine, what will our long term strategy be? if we have no long term strategy how do we know where to target, if we have no targets, we play aimlessly, if we play aimlessly, we get our butt kicked, and so it goes on.
thus i think that if we do not have a valid reason why we should make a move then we are lost. and constantly trying to hone our thought process, based on definite criteria will surely help, what do you think?
26 Dec 08
Originally posted by WriterAnathemahttp://improveyourchess.com/
I'm nearing 1500 here and 1650 on gameknot, but recently I think I've plateaued. And I don't know what to do. I know that I need to look at GM games, but I haven't gotten much out of them. What should I do when I play through them?
Also, are there any good books for this period?
Thanks.
Has taken a few members from 1500 to 2000+ in a short space of time.