Hi,
I'm a ok chess player about a 1300-1400 on ICC. I just joined their recently. I like the game but my chess game has more holes then a block of swiss cheese.
I like to watch Grnadmasters play each other on that website. I've watched quite a few games now and am begining to recognize some patterns.
First at how little they actually trade pieces. As a beginer I used to always trade knight for knight, bishop for bishop, knight for bishop and so on.
I notice that the Grandmasters hardly if ever take their first oppurtunity to trade instead they both manuver their pieces like crazy before trading.
Another thing I notice is say one of them has worked up quite a postional advantage and then he gets an oppurtunity to steal a knight. Well instead of taking the piece right away (something that I do). They'll manuver and manuver. Put the opponent under more fire, maybe check the king or queen and then put the opponent in a even worse position. All this time the night is still sitting their waiting to be taken. Well after all this the opponent ends up in even a worse of a position and ends up dropping a rook instead of a knight.
Another thing I've been noticeing is at how much they double up pawns and seemigly weaker move. For example say that their was a bishop trade and even though the opponent could take the bishop with a knight or even a queen a huge % of the time he elects to take with a pawn and doubling them up. I notice this more often then you'd expect. I even see it take place in the most ridiculous of places. For example on the kingside after his already castled he'll elect to double up pawns in front of his king! Even when he dosen't have to. I find it quite strange and amusing. Maybe they want more central pawns or something?!
Well those are the 3 most common patterns I've been noticing. Not sure if it'll improve my game or just increase my knowledge.
Do you have your opinion or evidence to support or contradict this? Also what are some other patterns you have recognized in Grandmaster play that as a begginer or intermidate didn't consider before?
Mike
One thing you do not know is the GM's plan during the game. Why did the GM not play a capture? Maybe trading off pieces is not his style of play. GMs have a better understanding of strategy, tactics, and timing. Perhaps one of these is why the GM did not play a capture. Lucky you. I have never seen a GM play a game.
Originally posted by gambit3Never seen a gm play live or online?
One thing you do not know is the GM's plan during the game. Why did the GM not play a capture? Maybe trading off pieces is not his style of play. GMs have a better understanding of strategy, tactics, and timing. Perhaps one of these is why the GM did not play a capture. Lucky you. I have never seen a GM play a game.
Originally posted by gambit3I C. It's a nice site.
No. I have seen a GM played game, but I have never seen a GM play a game.
I seen Shirov, Bologan, Ivanchuk, some Canadian GM's and Yermeloski and some others play up close. I was handling the 3 demo boards at the Canadian open last year.
Shirov is an odd fellow 🙂 Always pacing up and down the isle thinking and staring at the ceiling. It's a site to see 🙂
estonian2,
Forget about studying the games of contemporary GMs -- they're too complicated. Play over the games of Capablanca, Rubenstein and Tarrasch instead. You will learn far more, much quicker, and this will be a bedrock you can build upon when you decide you need to learn from Annand, Kraminik, Shirov, etc.