Originally posted by zucchiniAccording to Philidor, pawns are the soul of chess.
I've also read that calculation is the soul of chess.
I have a book entitled Learch Chess From The World Champions, (DN Levy, Pergamon, 1979) which consists of 17 chapters, each written by a different former world champion. There is a chapter by Philidor on "How to play the pawns". Very interesting and instructive, despite origianlly being written in the 18th century!
Originally posted by fawcr01What difference does it make when the book was written ?
According to Philidor, pawns are the soul of chess.
I have a book entitled Learch Chess From The World Champions, (DN Levy, Pergamon, 1979) which consists of 17 chapters, each written by a different former world champion. There is a chapter by Philidor on "How to play the pawns". Very interesting and instructive, despite origianlly being written in the 18th century!
I would imagine that the people who played chess in the 18th Century would be more adept at the game as there were far less distractions
Does anyone agree (except people who use engines as they quite clearly didn't exist)
Richy
Originally posted by trewr01When the book was written certainly does make a difference. Since that chapter, there is over 200 years of improvement in opening strategy! Not to mention the hypermodern era and all the traps that have been discovered within that time.
What difference does it make when the book was written ?
I would imagine that the people who played chess in the 18th Century would be more adept at the game as there were far less distractions
Does anyone agree (except people who use engines as they quite clearly didn't exist)
Richy
Grandmasters of today would have learned all this and would certainly catch out the best players of the 18th century.
Lau
Recently, I have been keeping track of how many moves I must look ahead to execute a combination successfully. I find that the number of half-moves for me to complete a combination is usually four or six. Most of my mistakes are miscalculating what my opponent can do, and I think the same applies to my opponents. I am now trying to look at least four half-moves ahead on almost every move. This has helped my play and my enjoyment of my games.
However, although I am looking deeper, I am still making misjudgements that seem simple in upon later analysis. It seems I am still not successfully looking ahead three (or even two) half moves all of the time.
Depends on how awake I am. Anything from 2 to 12 turns, though anything after 4considers only a few active pieces and the rest of the board becomes a blur = miscalculations.
Concentration weakens quite quickly (starting to feel tired after move 10), so the longer a game drags on, the fewer turns I can think ahead.
However, if the game had lots of exchanging, then there aren't many pieces to consider, which keeps the count high.
You shouldn't get depressed if Fritz finds tactical errors in your games. Try putting some master games through fritz and you'll also see a lot of tactical errors. Maybe they don't drop a whole piece, maybe a pawn or two or ruin their position. That's why in modern chess books, the author invariably runs the game through a computer before making annotations, so he doesn't miss anything. And these are master games! Even ancient studies and problems are being run through now and hitherto unknown solutions have turned up. I think i read somewhere that the best players aren't the best calculators. They are best at decision making and judgment skills. They might not envision an exact position down the road, they just know that if they do this or that it'll create a permanent weakness in the opponent's camp. Of course calculation is important, but it might not be as important as we all think.
Originally posted by Mephisto2
When the position is complicated, or just important, I will use a sideboard, and let the position stand there, looking at me ... I make most moves in my head, but will try them out on the board before moving, and have a good look at the position AFTER my move.
I have been following this advice and it has been very helpful. Except for openings with set moves, or positions demanding a certain move, I now examine a game in my list until I can recall it, then I formulate a plan, and I click "skip". I look at each waiting game this way, then come back later to look at it again, and make my move. For any position that is complicated or involves a combination, I now set it up on a sideboard -- and I will examine it, sometimes memorizing the position. [I don't think I was able to do this even last month.]
Originally posted by Mephisto2
Then put the position on a sideboard, and look at it from time to time. Spend a few hours over a couple of days playing with the pieces (always put them back!).
I have tried this too, and it has been very helpful. I think it has improved by ability to calculate and also to memorize a board position. However, I often put the pieces back in a position that is not quite the same as the starting position.
I think I am now regularly looking ahead 3-4 half moves fairly reliably.
Thanks for the advice!
Originally posted by buddy2I agree....Paul Morphy was one of the greatest attacking players of all-time. It was not so much that Morphy won, but how he won that set him so far above his contemporaries. Morphy played scintillating chess. His games still serve as classic examples of how powerful rapid development can be.
this topic should be a new thread. I believe the old masters, Morphy, Steintz, Lasker, etc. would still be masters today. The fundamentals of chess haven't changed. Morphy and even Philidor would still clean up.
And, what about Capablanca? World Champion from 1921 to 1927.
These great players, and the above mentioned(especially Lasker) would have undoubtedly dominated today, just as they did back than....the "traps" of today are the same traps of yesteryear.
SM
This would definately make for an interesting discussion. I would love to hear everyones opinion on who is/was the greatest player of all time and why!
Usually I can avoid descending into large "what if" trees, and still make good decisions, by counting how many peices are attacking a square. If I have more peices attacking, I will win any combination there (*), if my opponent does, then he will win. So say I decide to use a square (for instance by putting a knight deep in opponents territory), first I make sure I attack the square equally or more (after the move), then I look to make sure my opponent can't easily swing many more peices onto that square than I can. If the count works out, go. There are times when I must calculate, for instance when attempting a checkmate. But for those times you can usually rely on standard patterns which makes the process much easier.
* Checks can complicate this. Quickly find if this possibility exists by looking at the peices in thier present positions. If any peice can check in one or two moves, you may be reduced to calculating.
Read deGroot's Thought and Choice in Chess, if you can find it. According to his experiments, Grandmasters looked at, if memory serves, usually 3-5 moves, and not more moves than that ahead. The weaker the player, the more moves they looked at and the further they tried to see. Ended up confusing themselves. Now, here's the interesting thing I noticed...almost always, weaker players considered at least one or two moves the grandmasters considered AND it was often one of the first moves that popped into their heads, and they ignored it. Point: More often than not, one of the first 2-3 moves that pops into your head will be at least good enough that a grandmaster would at least consider it. Therefore, you only need look at the first 2 or 3 moves that come to mind; if it doesn't lose a piece, play it! I could make a living playing rejected Grandmaster moves! Also, after your opponent moves AND before you move, scan ranks, files, and diagonals. I started doing this OTB and my rating rose 200-300 points. Simple. You are better than you think!