Hmmm.
If you smoke that much, and can't smoke during the game, that would be a big deal. Nicotine is a performance-enhancing drug. And if you practice and study while smoking but can't smoke in the tournament you'll definitely lose your edge as time wears on. They've done studies that show students who drink coffee (or smoke, or whateever) when they prepare for a test do better if they also imbibe the same thing during the test.
Or maybe you're just out of training for sitting at the board for a long time. Try to sit in a chair for hours at a time thinking about chess.
😀
Originally posted by lloydkIntresting training approach!Must try that,I've ordered a new comfy chair 😀
Hmmm.
If you smoke that much, and can't smoke during the game, that would be a big deal. Nicotine is a performance-enhancing drug. And if you practice and study while smoking but can't smoke in the tournament you'll definitely lose your edge as time wears on. They've done studies that show students who drink coffee (or smoke, or whateever) when th ...[text shortened]... he board for a long time. Try to sit in a chair for hours at a time thinking about chess.
😀
In my opinion, you just need to practice more tactical drills. Learn tactics until your head hurts. You need to constantly practice tactics, everything ranging from those simple Mate-In-One's, Hanging Pieces, Forks, etc, to the complicated 8 move tactics and combinations that win material, or mate. Its just a matter of training your mind to see these things quickly. In my opinion, doing this does actually improve your board vision. When calculating variations, the "good" moves come to you quicker. If a move results in you dropping a piece, your mind will automatically ignore it or it will at least become obvious to you. Practice tactics, and make sure your awake, I cant tell you the number of times I used to make a move and realise its a blunder before my opponent even moved. Becoming better simply means your mistakes are less obvious, but we will all make them. Unless we play "perfect" chess (which even the most powerful computer in the universe could not do as there are more possible positions that there are atoms in the universe).
Also, a tips... If you want to create an imbalance in a position, and your against a weaker player, you can try to play unsound moves in a hope they wont be able to defend well and you can take advantage. But this is generally a bad idea, and doing this badly will result in your "blunders".
Once you are ahead, its time to start thinking: "Right, Unless I have a very good and sound attack here, I need to trade down, and simplify this position into a winning endgame." You must never assume your better, and always assume your opponent will play the best move. Playing sound chess isnt a matter of tricking your opponent or creating problems, but rather, its about just flowing with the position on the board. Play the objectively best moves, and dont bank on your opponent making blunders too. Always assume he will play the best defense.
Originally posted by jedidanAlthough, it's weird that some of the most revered attackers of the past, especially Marashal and Tal, were known for their unsound and/or trappy play.
Playing sound chess isnt a matter of tricking your opponent or creating problems, but rather, its about just flowing with the position on the board. Play the objectively best moves, and dont bank on your opponent making blunders too. Always assume he will play the best defense.
A fun quote from "Attack with Mickhail Tal"
"But Larsen could not have overlooked this, and I began examining possible variations. My intuition insistently kept telling me that the sacrifice had to be correct, but I decided to calculate everything 'as far as mate', spent some 50 minutes, but then in one of the innumerable variations I found something resembling a defence, and ... rejected the sacrifice. This was a betrayal of myself, I saved the game only by a miracle after adjournment, and in general I barely, in a 'war of nerves', won the match. Of course, I should have begun the attack without thinking..."
Then again, when one is at Tal's level, presumably one's intuition is good enough to get away with that stuff 🙂
Originally posted by jedidanSpeaking for myself... There may come a game for me where the situation is so simple that I try to foresee the next eight moves (eight by each player). I am thinking maybe this could happen in king & pawn vs. king & two pawns, for instance. But in the middle game, all I have been trying to figure out is: Okay, my opponent just moved. I will look at all plausible replying moves I could make, and for each of those I will look at all plausible moves for my opponent to make. Who comes out ahead? In other words, I am typically looking a paltry one move ahead. There are exceptions, of course. If one of my potential moves checks his king, he has such a limited number of legal responses that I am able to go another move deeper in my analysis. Likewise if my move will attack his queen.
to the complicated 8 move tactics and combinations that win material, or mate.
So am I just being lazy, or are there others who don't try to analyze the middle game very far into the future?
Originally posted by Paul DiracJust one move?? 😲
Speaking for myself... There may come a game for me where the situation is so simple that I try to foresee the next eight moves (eight by each player). I am thinking maybe this could happen in king & pawn vs. king & two pawns, for instance. But in the middle game, all I have been trying to figure out is: [i]Okay, my opponent just moved. I will look ...[text shortened]... ng lazy, or are there others who don't try to analyze the middle game very far into the future?
On this site!? 😲
Yep,I'd say you're a bit lazy all right 😴