@caesar-salad
You will probably get a better bang for your buck studying mating patterns as well as tactics puzzles.
@eladar saidThank you, and I agree. I have been doing those for a little while and am almost at the point of thinking I should learn how to navigate toward mates, but I am a drifter and a scattered man with various interests and therefore probably just as likely to become a reckless werewolf or a post-incarnate Earthling-botherer as anything else.
@caesar-salad
You will probably get a better bang for your buck studying mating patterns as well as tactics puzzles.
@caesar-salad said1. Chess Fundamentals by José Capablanca.
Exactly what I am finding out, e.g., I'm at the point where I'm thinking "as boring as it seems, it might be a good idea to really learn some openings, instead of just winging it with elements and fragments."
2. Ideas Behind the Chess Openings by Reuben Fine.
@caesar-salad saidI have heard advice in the past which says not to bother too much with opening theory but it is better to study end games(eg how to win pawn endings and the like).
Exactly what I am finding out, e.g., I'm at the point where I'm thinking "as boring as it seems, it might be a good idea to really learn some openings, instead of just winging it with elements and fragments."
The trouble with studying openings is that it's fine while your opponent follows the opening lines but what do you do when he doesn't?
@venda
Nakamura said that chess is 95 percent tactics until you hit about 2300 then it becomes more like 50 percent tactics.
Having said that end games are important, assuming you get to one. About 10 percent of my games make it that far, if that . I really like Silman's Complete Endgame Course. It prioritizes the end game material by level. That way you do not waste time trying to understand something way beyond your rsting.
@caesar-salad
Chesstempo is a great free place to do tactics puzzles. Try to work out the entire solution in your head before starting your moves.
True but just solving tactical positions won't teach you how to create those positions.
When Alekhine was world champion and considered the greatest at combinations in real games Rubinstein said ..."I can solve combinations just as good as Alekhine, I just can't create them"
You have to learn how to use the pieces together...you can't just analyze every possible move in every direction like a computer...you have to know how to create the possibilities for tactical play.
That comes from a blend of opening and middlegame strategic planning.
Chess is hard.
@chessturd
Solving chess puzzles helps with board vision. It will also help to learn mating patterns.
Purdy wrote that in one Australian title match a great strategist played against a great tactician. The tactician won which was evidence to him as to which is more important in chess.
@eladar saidI play because the individual outcome of each game is uncertain, and there is so much variability that even games where I have played the same opening hundreds of times still have unique features.
Why keep playing? You are not going to get any better until you figure out what you are doing wrong. Just playing and winning sometimes and losing sometimes but never getting better seems rather useless.
Of course I only starting playing chess to get better so this may be part of my issue.
If "getting better" were the only reason for playing chess, then your statement "seems rather useless" might be correct, but people play for a variety of reasons, and those reasons are the answer to your question.
Why does a guy at the age of 70 play golf, when he knows he will never be as good as he was 40 years earlier? Because he still enjoys playing the game.
There is repetition in so many aspects of human endeavor, that I see little value in using it as a filter. With tongue firmly in cheek, I can assert that married couples who have had their last child and no longer plan to add to the family, still go through the motions!
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
@paul-leggett saidWell said Paul. 🙂
I play because the individual outcome of each game is uncertain, and there is so much variability that even games where I have played the same opening hundreds of times still have unique features.
If "getting better" were the only reason for playing chess, then your statement "seems rather useless" might be correct, but people play for a variety of reasons, and those ...[text shortened]... who have had their last child and no longer plan to add to the family, still go through the motions!
I'll never be the chess player I was in 1990, but I still love it.
And I'm hoping that it'll love me and help stave-off an early onset of dementia. 😀
@Paul-Leggett
Lots of people have sex hoping to not have kids. Some even kill that babies if the sex results in the girl getting pregnant.
If you have a wife still interested in sex after having a kid or two you are a lucky guy. Perhaps not unlucky is a better description.
So do you still play what I have seen described as coin flip chess?
@wolfe63 saidThe adage use it or lose it when applied to staving off dementia doesn't always work.
Well said Paul. 🙂
I'll never be the chess player I was in 1990, but I still love it.
And I'm hoping that it'll love me and help stave-off an early onset of dementia. 😀
I know people who were really mentally active and still succumbed to this horrible illness.
I read articles on the dementia and it seems science is still baffled by it
@Eladar
Paul once said that chess is like sex in that you don't have to be a pro to have fun at it. There is wisdom in that remark.
You don't have to get better to continue to have fun at it either, but you will discover a different kind of satisfaction the better you get. This cannot be described, one just has to experience it for oneself.
If you are serious about getting better then I suggest: a) challenge a better player and ask him to step you through post mortem analysis. A better player will see mistakes you did not. b) Get a good book. There are many to choose from.