30 Jul 12
Argh, thats a rushed move if ever i saw one. You know, having looked at quite a few of your games i'd say you suffer from a similar problem that i've struggled with for years, namely that you're drawn to spectacular moves first before considering the whole position. This game is a simple blunder, i'm speaking more generally. I found i started to get a lot more consistent when i started to play a little more pessimistically. You're tactical vision is really good imo, some of the wins you've posted in the private forum are really excellent, but it's a double edged sword. I'm sure you have plenty of games where you've gone for something that hasn't worked out. I think you could get to a 17/1800 rating without too much bother if you played a little more patiently, perhaps introduce a little more prophylaxis..
31 Jul 12
Originally posted by cadwahI second Marinkatomb's assessment. I see similarities with our styles of play, namely wanting to pull off an exotic, forum-worthy combo and often overlooking more simple tactics. I think learning when to throw your punches is a key mile-stone in improving chess ability. By all means look for the exotic moves, but then (at least this works for me) see if there is something more mundane that can be done beforehand that wouldn't jeapordise the combo and strengthen your position at the same time. Once that becomes second nature, I think 1800 is a fair target.
I would like to thank my clan members for their kind words, they made these posts out of goodwill and has nothing at all to do with possible clan expulsion 😉
M - 17/1800 on which planet? I hit the heady heights of the 1550's and got altitude sickness
01 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by morgskiYes this is precisely the sort of thing i'm talking about. These days i'll happily trade off all the minor pieces against a lower rated player just to win a pawn. When i was 1500 i'd try and keep the pieces on the board and make the position complicated. 1800 is not really such a massive rating, if you can adjust your expectations slightly and be prepared to play out slow boring endings when it is required you'll break through the glass ceiling. I stagnated at 15/1600 for a couple of years until i started to appretiate the small advantages. A long sequence of exchanges that leads to a rook on the 7th rank for example, this sort of thing is often over looked by weaker players. I'd often turn this sort of idea down because it would lead to a long game or a slow ending. The difference between 1500 and 1800 is not so much tactical judgement (though 1800's are generally stronger, i think tactically you are easily 1800) it is the pragmatic decisions that are the main difference.. a concrete advantage, no matter how small, is worth playing for. It is often tempting to look at an opponents rating and say "i am a better player" or "he is much better than me", strong players look at the position and say "my rook is better" or "His bishop is strong, i should exchange it". Winning tactics come from good build up play, but winning endings also come from good build up play. An 1800+ will probably only deliver mate in 30% of their games, building a winning position is the key to the other 70% (i'm obviously talking about wins here...)
I second Marinkatomb's assessment. I see similarities with our styles of play, namely wanting to pull off an exotic, forum-worthy combo and often overlooking more simple tactics. I think learning when to throw your punches is a key mile-stone in improving chess ability. By all means look for the exotic moves, but then (at least this works for me) see if t ur position at the same time. Once that becomes second nature, I think 1800 is a fair target.
In a nutshell, i'd say you should trust yourself to judge the tactical side of things, when you are looking at moves look for ideas that restrict your opponent, or improve the position of your pieces in a more long term positional way. This is the side of the game that takes the longest to develop. Also, if you are prepared to do a little study, focus 100% on end game. I read the first three chapters of an ending book about 5 years ago and it's won me COUNTLESS games. A solid understanding of the opposition/triangulation/mined squares, etc.. will improve your rating by the hundred literally over night..
12 Aug 12
Originally posted by cadwahYeah, I'll bet 33. Qe6 haunts you in your sleep.
Why oh why do I even bother...
[pgn][Event "July 2012 Banded Quartets 1525-1550"]
[Site ""]
[Date "2012.07.23"]
[EndDate "2012.07.27"]
[Round "1"]
[White "cadwah"]
[Black "aidypoos"]
[WhiteRating "1451"]
[BlackRating "1484"]
[WhiteElo "1451"]
[BlackElo "1484"]
[Result "0-1"]
[GameId "9425670"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Ng1f3 d6 4. Bf1c4 Bc8e6 5. ...[text shortened]... 3e8 Ra8xe8 32. Re1xe8 Rf7f8 33. Qg6f7 Kg8xf7 0-1[/pgn]
[/Head-desk]
Typical stuff for anyone, it can happen anytime and does. 😞
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
13 Aug 12
Originally posted by cadwahYou're right, of course, but attacking with three pieces against a lone defending queen is what you want to do as white if you play the king's gambit. It's not something the KG'eer wants to be subjected to. In other words, as black you may be materially equal, but you have won the psychological game already.
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Ng1f3 d5 4. exd5 Qd8xd5 5. Nb1c3 Qd5h5 6. Bf1e2 Qh5h6 7. d4 Ng8f6 8. O-O b6 9. Be2c4 Bf8d6 10. Qd1e2 Bd6e7 11. Bc1xf4 Qh6xf4 12. Bc4xf7 Ke8xf7 13. Nf3e5 1-0
Not as clean cut as the first, I think I'd have played QxN and played on with 3 minor pieces against the queen it's pretty even...
Richard