I'm a little stuck... some experience players ...

Originally posted by ih8sens
I've found myself floundering between the 1670 and 1730 area for quite some time now... not that it isn't a decent rating but I had found myself improving steadily before this and now I'm having troubles. I found myself being choked by great opponents or simply beat coming out of book lines that I'm not particularly familiar with. Many of them are equal or ...[text shortened]... go into a bit of detail being as I consider myself a decent tactician.

Thanks 🙂,
Matt

Wow, what was your training during september and october? Nice jump...

Originally posted by ih8sens
I've found myself floundering between the 1670 and 1730 area for quite some time now... not that it isn't a decent rating but I had found myself improving steadily before this and now I'm having troubles. I found myself being choked by great opponents or simply beat coming out of book lines that I'm not particularly familiar with. Many of them are equal or ...[text shortened]... go into a bit of detail being as I consider myself a decent tactician.

Thanks 🙂,
Matt

I think you are right that your tactics are strong. you have also spent some time on openings...analyzing them and not just learning lines.

Iwould say the biggest thing I have seen is that you move too quickly and make blunders. This is along the lines of what varenka and fatlady said.

Take more time. Qh4+ wins, but you forgot I could castle. You saw Qc3, decided that is what I would play and missed Qa5.

Slow down. Be patient. Most of the people I have played on this site under 1800 make egregious blunders if you give them half a chance.

Beyond that read "My System"

Someone mentioned endings. Always worth the trouble. BCE was a tough read and you had to play through all the moves to even begin to understand. It took me two years. I know that there are better ending books out today....I forget the names.

Originally posted by Red Night


Someone mentioned endings. Always worth the trouble. BCE was a tough read and you had to play through all the moves to even begin to understand. It took me two years. I know that there are better ending books out today....I forget the names.

Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual is a popular choice.

Originally posted by ih8sens
I've found myself floundering between the 1670 and 1730 area for quite some time now... not that it isn't a decent rating but I had found myself improving steadily before this and now I'm having troubles. I found myself being choked by great opponents or simply beat coming out of book lines that I'm not particularly familiar with. Many of them are equal or ...[text shortened]... go into a bit of detail being as I consider myself a decent tactician.

Thanks 🙂,
Matt

I am not really experienced but it is common sense to learn what you don't know to get better. Take tactics for an example, people don't know them and they aren't very good they learn them and they become better. In other words just take some things you don't know and learn them(make sure you solve problems based on what you learn).

Originally posted by tomtom232
I am not really experienced but it is common sense to learn what you don't know to get better. Take tactics for an example, people don't know them and they aren't very good they learn them and they become better. In other words just take some things you don't know and learn them(make sure you solve problems based on what you learn).

lol it's not always that simple.. i have no huge weaknesses (compared to an average 1800-1900 player...) i'm just moving too fast it seems. (please correct me if I'm wrong)...

I see what you're saying though, time to stop coasting 😛.

Originally posted by ih8sens
I've found myself floundering between the 1670 and 1730 area for quite some time now... not that it isn't a decent rating but I had found myself improving steadily before this and now I'm having troubles. I found myself being choked by great opponents or simply beat coming out of book lines that I'm not particularly familiar with. Many of them are equal or ...[text shortened]... go into a bit of detail being as I consider myself a decent tactician.

Thanks 🙂,
Matt

your case, my friend, appears special...
suicide may be the only option, as you stink...



















just kiddin' 🙂 😉

1700 to 1800 should be no different than 1200 to 1300...
just work hard, analyze and annotate all of your games, learn your errors as well as strengths.

Originally posted by tomtom232
I am not really experienced but it is common sense to learn what you don't know to get better. Take tactics for an example, people don't know them and they aren't very good they learn them and they become better. In other words just take some things you don't know and learn them(make sure you solve problems based on what you learn).

wouldn't you have to know something in order to know that you don't know it?

Originally posted by rubberjaw30
wouldn't you have to know something in order to know that you don't know it?

If I didn't have such a friggin huge brain that would just be confusing

Knowing about something and knowing something are two entirely different things.

Originally posted by GalaxyShield
Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual is a popular choice.

Thanks GS.

Originally posted by rubberjaw30
wouldn't you have to know something in order to know that you don't know it?

Don't you know that you can't speak Swahili, or fly a stealth bomber, or whatever?

Originally posted by incandenza
Don't you know that you can't speak Swahili, or fly a stealth bomber, or whatever?

According to his theory he can speak swahili and fly a stealth bomber but he knows he can't do it. 🙄

Originally posted by GalaxyShield
Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual is a popular choice.

I own that and you have to be pretty serious to get anything out of it. I much prefer Silman's endgame manual which bears Silman's trademark well-written prose (as opposed to mainly variations).

Originally posted by zebano
I own that and you have to be pretty serious to get anything out of it. I much prefer Silman's endgame manual which bears Silman's trademark well-written prose (as opposed to mainly variations).

"if you want to be 2200 and you are currently 1600. . .reading Silman books is step 1, step 2 is a lobotomy. . ."

- IM Ben Finegold on Jeremy Silman's books



I'm sure they're okay though, but that's just one funny quote. 🙂

Originally posted by zebano
I own that and you have to be pretty serious to get anything out of it. I much prefer Silman's endgame manual which bears Silman's trademark well-written prose (as opposed to mainly variations).

hmm, I am planning to read it next (Dvoresky's Endgame Manual), and you are giving me doubts...

I had an unsuccesfull attempt to read "Endgame Analysis" by the same author but it was so dry and heavy as I gave it up(more like a book for already titled players in my opinion, not for less than master like myself)...I hope this manual is not same difficult...

Originally posted by vipiu
hmm, I am planning to read it next (Dvoresky's Endgame Manual), and you are giving me doubts...

I had an unsuccesfull attempt to read "Endgame Analysis" by the same author but it was so dry and heavy as I gave it up(more like a book for already titled players in my opinion, not for less than master like myself)...I hope this manual is not same difficult...

FWIW, it wouldn't be too dry and heavy for your level I think. (for myself, I felt the need to be able to calculate more accurately, so I left it aside for a while and began reading Kotov's 'think like a gm.'😉

It (the dvoretsky book) provides the simplest key positions before going on to harder and complicated ones, and the concepts are presented in a very logical way. It's a serious book though, unlike the "trying to be too friendly" approach of Jeremy Silman which I find very phony.