17 May '19 03:54>
@caesar-salad
You will probably get a better bang for your buck studying mating patterns as well as tactics puzzles.
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."
@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."
@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.
@paul-leggett saidWell said Paul. π
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!
@wolfe63 saidThe adage use it or lose it when applied to staving off dementia doesn't always work.
Well said Paul. π
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. π