Originally posted by kmac27follow the same advice:
im in the middle of 1500 and have gotten stuck. i've studied beginning and some end games although i am still reading it. and have read some strategy books how did you guys achieve 1600 reading books and what ones if so
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=39309&page=12
page 2 half way down, page 12 for strategy.
Read some books also. I made a my book list on my blog under my profile.
I clicked on your profile and had a quick scan on your graph......(looking at the ratings)
I could only find a single game with an openant with a rating above 1600....(thats not to say there isn't any)
thats your first problem - Stronger players will Kick your arse, but, you can learn from it.....
Other than that: - be highly critical of your strengths and weaknesses, I for example, often make stupid blunders (which includes my tactical oversight when looking 4-5 moves deep), and another thing (which occures in just about every other game) I need to work is my complete disregard for pawns during the opening....I just give them away, most of the time, getting little in return.....Thats what I need to work on....as for yourself - look through the losses, spot the themes - then, try to improve on them...".A chain is as strong as its weakest link" 🙂
Originally posted by kmac27I was in exactly the same situation 1-2 months ago. for me, my problem was I dropped pieces a lot. learning tactics better didn't really decrease my blunder rate. I went from 1280 to 1480 on CTS during the time I struggled at 1500 here. the thing that finally made the difference, was that I started doing structured thought process on every move, mainly blunder checking. that cut my losses almost completely. I think I've lost only two games from 30, and drawn two. (the 5 other losses in my graph during last 30 games were piece down before I started blunder checking.) -during this time I've also increased my gameload from 10 to 36, and havent dropped the ball yet. my rating's gone from the low point 1530 when I started blunder checking, to current 1652 and rising.
im in the middle of 1500 and have gotten stuck. i've studied beginning and some end games although i am still reading it. and have read some strategy books how did you guys achieve 1600 reading books and what ones if so
I think thesonofsaul has it about right. After you hit a baseline of around 1500-1600, it is difficult to make any meaningful progress without taking an accurate assesment of what your personal strengths and weaknesses are. I have personally found recent improvement by using opening books and databases. I knew that my opening knowledge was not up to par, and I was finding myself having to fight from behind in alot of positions, even against players of lower ratings. Add that to the fact that I don't play nearly as many games anymore, and I take more time to atually formulate a plan (after all, this isn't blitz) and my results are definitely improving. What will work for you, I can't say, I'm not qualified. If you can find a strong player to help point out recurring weaknesses in your game, it would go a long way for you.
Originally posted by BLReidTime to Reasses Your Chess 🙂
I think thesonofsaul has it about right. After you hit a baseline of around 1500-1600, it is difficult to make any meaningful progress without taking an accurate assesment of what your personal strengths and weaknesses are. I have personally found recent improvement by using opening books and databases. I knew that my opening knowledge was not up to par, and ...[text shortened]... player to help point out recurring weaknesses in your game, it would go a long way for you.
They have a book just for that by Jeremy Silman. Any guesses what the name of the book is?
Reasses Your Chess! haha.
i started out playing 1200 players then 1300 players and then 1400 players to get my ratings up as i go to a new level i start to play harder people to that person who said i dont play much 1600 players i have started to play pretty strong people and once i reach around 1570 or 80 i will start to play more 1600 players i like to take little steps
Originally posted by kmac27small steps = small gains....
i started out playing 1200 players then 1300 players and then 1400 players to get my ratings up as i go to a new level i start to play harder people to that person who said i dont play much 1600 players i have started to play pretty strong people and once i reach around 1570 or 80 i will start to play more 1600 players i like to take little steps
being 1500 myself I aim to play 1700-1800 players as often as possible, so far i've won 2, drawn 1 and lost 7....these people seem to beat me even when I play my best, they make huge advantages from my poor openings -- against fellow 1500's i tend to make a comeback, and lose for some other reason....mainly a blunder...
Of course, this is not to say i can't learn from my 1500, or 400 oppenant.
I don't believe you need anything to reach 1600 (or indeed 1700) other than concentration, consistency and precision: whatever tactical theory you already have at 1500+ should be sufficient. In my experience, the gap between 1500 and 1700 is defined more by psychological factors and time considerations than differences in tactical and positional play.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
I wrote something for Smiffys clan when I joined it, basicly how to pick a chess move, it might help you reach 1600.
So its your turn to move, what do you do first? Most players tend to look at moves they can play, ie he's moved there so I can now move here and so on. I wont go as far to say that this is wrong but from personal experience and talking to most players I do believe it can be improved on.
The first thing you need to do before making any moves is weight up the position, understand it, you need to look for key features. The way you look at the position will determine what you need to do and how, and then you can decide on what moves you need to play. I will talk through my own personal check list
1. Define areas of control.
This is basicly something that iv learned from IM Bangievs square strategy training(although I do it a little different to his recommendation). The first thing I do on each move to to look at the area I control and the area the other player controls. This helps show yours and their general strong and weak points of the board, just to get an over all feel for the game.
2. Define direction of attacks.
So you know the area that you control (where your pieces are coordinated) now you need to find in which direction you want to attack, pieces can normally only work well when working together on one part of the board, so you need to group them and coordinate them there.
3. Square complex/colour weaknesses (maybe the most important)
A lot of the middle game of chess is all about square colour. You can only attack one colour at a time, if you try to play on black and white, then your pieces automaticly become uncoordinated, however once you define which colour you want to play on and get all your pieces controling squares of that colour you will find a flow to the game and the other player will find it very hard to stop you from moving around on the colour you control. Try to limit your colour weaknesses and if you have one, trade off the other players pieces that can control the weak squares.
4. Enemy pieces to be challenged (traded).
I expect everyone knows what the pieces are worth, pawns = 1 knights =3 bishops = 3+ rooks = 5 and queen =9........... well thats a good lie. The piece values are never static, for example at the start of the game the rooks in the corners are basicly pointless and after 1.Nf3 the knight is better than the rooks (at least for that move) since it is doing something and the rooks arent. You have to make pieces work for you in the most effective way, which normally means centralisation, a cental piece will control more squares. If a bishop can control more squares than a rook, or more important squares then the bishop is worth maybe 5 and the limited rook is worth 3.5 etc, its all about your judgement. You have to look at each piece and give it a value, a rating, how good is this piece etc. Once you have worked out how good each piece is you then know which one of your pieces you need to keep on and which of the enemy pieces you need to trade, if you can trade your bad pieces for their good pieces you will find yourself winning effortlessly.
5. Own pieces to use and how.
Pretty much like the last one, you are aiming for max amount of control with your pieces, finding good squares for them or exchanging them for better enemy pieces.
6. Enemy plan
Work it out!
7. Your plan
Get one!! ie, short term improving piece position, controling a colour, challenging the other players good pieces. Maybe move a pawn to take away a good square from an enemy piece (mainly knight), but also have a long term plan, like kingside attack, on central breakthrough.
8. Look for tactical chances.
Weak king
Undefended piece
Weak pawns
Overloaded piece
etc
If they have only one weakness dont attack it, ie if a piece is undefended DONT attack it leave it undefended because the only way tactics or combinations happen is the rule of two weaknesses. You need to hit two weaknesses at once for a tactic to work, so dont help the other player and pointless attack things forcing them to strengthen their position.
9. Positional moves
If theres no tactical tries then its time to use everything you looked at and judged in the position and start to list candidate moves. Once you have the moves, caculate and find the best one for you.
Imrpoving the position of your pieces.
Trading good enemy pieces
Taking away good squares from their pieces
Trying to control a colour complex
Gain space
Controling center
Controling open files
Prophylaxis moves (ie taking care of your own weaknesses, undefended pieces, exposed king etc etc)
etc
Thats my way of going about moves, OTB.
Basicly understanding and judgement is much more important than caculation, which applies so so so much more to correspondence when you can pull out an analysis board and make sure the caculation is good.
Anyone want to list theres?
Thats a link to another way of picking a chess move, correspondence orintated this time.
http://chessville.com/instruction/instr_gen_my_system.htm
Originally posted by BedlamIn a typical tournament match you have 120 minutes to make 40 moves, for an average of about 3 minutes per move.
I wrote something for Smiffys clan when I joined it, basicly how to pick a chess move, it might help you reach 1600.
So its your turn to move, what do you do first? Most players tend to look at moves they can play, ie he's moved there so I can now move here and so on. I wont go as far to say that this is wrong but from personal experience and talking to m orrespondence orintated this time.
Do you go through this process on each move, and do you find that 3 minutes is sufficient time to apply it thoroughly? Or do you tend to go through this only occasionally throughout the game, say after every mini-battle or major change in the position? If the latter, what is your alternate thinking process on the moves when this main process is not employed? If you don't use it every move, what triggers alert you to the fact that the position merits a thorough application of this process?