Originally posted by Mad Rooklol, you wanna meet me at the crossroads at midnight, i know a dude , does go by the name of Scratch, maybe we can do a deal, you wanna be a chessman, no problemo, we cut heads sometime, for yo soul, ahhhaahah (wicked laugh).
Clearly, by either a genie in a bottle or a deal with the devil. There is no other logical explanation. 😉
wait a minute look at the systems he was playing, the London, a positional system where knowing where to put the pieces is of prime importance, the Caro-khan, favourite opening of the illustrious Anatoly Karpov, a noted positional player, any of this a ringing a bell. the evidence is incontrovertible, is it not?
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI would think step 1) and 2) would help greatly with 3). There's tactics [those that merely seek to exploit blunders and set traps] and there's tactics [using tactical motifs to improve your position even if your opponent plays a reasonable move].
I take your point although this is a rather long-winded thought process if your opponent is about to fork your king & rook next move.
This is why Your number 3 should in fact always be number 1 in my opinion.
A GM (or you yourself) may not fall prey to a very simple one move tactic, but many of us intermediates & lower do!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWho says Karpov didn't make his own pact with Beelzebub?
lol, you wanna meet me at the crossroads at midnight, i know a dude , does go by the name of Scratch, maybe we can do a deal, you wanna be a chessman, no problemo, we cut heads sometime, for yo soul, ahhhaahah (wicked laugh).
wait a minute look at the systems he was playing, the London, a positional system where knowing where to put the pieces is ...[text shortened]... ed positional player, any of this a ringing a bell. the evidence is incontrovertible, is it not?
Hey, I was using humor in that last post. Gee, do I have to use TWO winky smileys to get your attention? OK then! 😉😉
Originally posted by schakuhrSteps 1 and 2 sound very similar to Heisman's "Seeds of Tactical Destruction" preliminary check.
I think you should make an overview of the position first (all positional factors) since these factors also help your search for tactics. Over the last year I took lessons from a GM and he wanted me to use the following method:
1. what are the positions characteristics? weaknesses/strengths, closed/open position, king safety, material balance, etc
2. ma ...[text shortened]... your point 1)
4. pick at least 3 candidate moves
5. calculate them all out
6. pick your move
If your GM friend is doing his full-blown positional search in Step 4 (not having found any good tactical shots), then I can agree with his method. If not, then I have to side with Squelchbelch. But hey, wadda I know, I'm a patz!!! 😵
Wow!
Is this thing still going?
I lost interest when someone said something ignoring development...
Anyway. Found a game (a good game) that combines strategy
with tatcics and tactics with strategy.
And sums up everything that has been mentioned in these 9 pages.
Game 379415
Originally posted by greenpawn34Detailed analysis, please! This one's far beyond my abilities! 😛
Anyway. Found a game (a good game) that combines strategy
with tatcics and tactics with strategy.
And sums up everything that has been mentioned in these 9 pages.
Game 379415
Been looking over last few pages.
Of course all you guys are quite mad.
However, two points.
First The Morra Gambit
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d3!
It losses some of it's effect in internet play.
But you should see their faces when you pop this out OTB.
You would think you had just made an illegal move.
The Knight on b1 is not too chuffed either.
The French Defence
Robbie:
You mentioned that the French stops sacs on f7.
I hope that is not the reason you employ the French.
The French is actually an aggressive, counter attacking defence.
Marshall, one of the greatest attacking players the game has known
used it on numerous occasions.
I play it and I’m looking for tricks & traps with it from around about
move 6 or 7.
So you have the wrong mind-set when playing 1…e6.
You are playing to win. Not to hid behind a stub on e6 and hope
you might get a draw when White runs out of ideas.
Having said that, there are other ways to crack the French
I have had this game twice in serious OTB play and numerous
times in skittles and 5 minutes games.
1.e4 e6 2.Nf3! d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 cxb4 5.a3 bxa3 6.Bxa3 Bxa3
7.Rxa3 Nc6 8.d4 Nge7 9.Bd3 0-0 10.Bxh7+ Kxh7 11.Ng5+ Kg6
12.Rh3 Rh8
White to play and mate.
I headed here in the first game thinking I would just mate him.
It took me 15 minutes to find the winning move.
Can you see it? – you have had a clue that it is not that easy.
Imagine how I felt as every ‘easy’ variation crumbled into nothing.
I checked and re-checked but I could see nothing 100%
I simply could not see the win. Then….
And if you use your engines you will find ‘surprisingly’ it’s the only
move that actually mates Black.
Originally posted by SwissGambitYes, tactical alertness is absolutely essential, and one is more likely to deliver a tactical blow than be on the wrong side of one if you have a better positon. But one doesn't need to be able to see seven-move combos: If you can spot the three or four movers consistently, then USCF Expertdom can be achieved if one also understands postional themes, like the one's discussed in Point Count Chess.
That's not nearly as easy as it sounds. Avoiding "gross errors" means having enough tactical and positional awareness to know what an error is, and what is not.
As you say, it "not nearly as easy as it sounds", but it becomes a bit easier when one realizes that avoding bad moves is generally more important than making good moves.
Originally posted by wormwoodI don't think that I ever read more than a few pages of any book devoted to tactics.
how much means 'virtually', how long had you been playing by then, and how much did you play blitz?
I started playing in tournaments in 1973 and I made expert in 1985 or 1986. I started playing a lot of blitz around 1981.
Originally posted by lumaxWhile it's true that I didn't have much tactical or endgame training, I obviously had at least a modicum of tactical and endgame understanding in order to make expert.
how did gay chess player become 2000 USCF or expert if he has no tactical or end game training and understanding ...?
Originally posted by greenpawn34dude you are perfectly correct, wonderful attacking system, i play it primarily because guys at my level who play 1.e4 do not know what to play when you do not reply 1...e5. i love the whole idea of trying to get white to extend his pawns, usually 1.e4 ..e6, 2.d4 ..d5, 3.Nc3 ..Nf6, ( at this point most guys at my level jump at the chance to attack the knight, exactly what i want em to do) 4.e5 and we can attack these pawns on the black squares e5 and d4 with little moves like c5 and f6 etc.
Been looking over last few pages.
Of course all you guys are quite mad.
However, two points.
First [b]The Morra Gambit
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d3!
It losses some of it's effect in internet play.
But you should see their faces when you pop this out OTB.
You would think you had just made an illegal move.
The Knight on b1 is not too chu ...[text shortened]... u use your engines you will find ‘surprisingly’ it’s the only
move that actually mates Black.[/b]
I have a video presentation on the French by Ariel Ziegler, a Swedish international master, i was merely quoting his words when i said white can forget about his dreams of f7, as for your game most interesting, if i had the confidence i would attempt some analysis, but as it is, i have said too much on these forums already, suffice to say that the dark squared bishop is a very valuable piece, the dude you were playing against was induced to give it up far too easily, from that point on how was he expected to attack the centre pawns with any real force, anyhow he died before he got the chance, the move leading to mate is Nh7, is it not, most unusual and a move beyond the comprehension of myself. you played the wing gambit, also quite unusual, black said thank you very much but got greedy and died with his belly full of little pawns.
He should have tried to slow the game, the French should be played subtly, like daintily picking and making daisy chains in kelvin grove park not hacking and thrashing ones way through jaggy nettles wae a bare bum in the mosquito infested swamps of Drumchapel.
once again you are an inspiration greenpawn dude, i am gonna check out the wing gambit, did you plan to play the Kings Indian with 2.Nf3, i noticed you gave it an exclamation mark, would it be too much to ask you to elucidate.
and for the record i confused the morra gambit with the The Muzio Gambit, my apologises (spelling ?) to squelchbelch and others - kind regards Robbie.
Originally posted by gaychessplayerinteresting. I was born 74, so you've been playing longer than I've lived, and probably even some time before that, right? 🙂 that's probably an awful amount of positions you've fed your brain during all those years.
I don't think that I ever read more than a few pages of any book devoted to tactics.
I started playing in tournaments in 1973 and I made expert in 1985 or 1986. I started playing a lot of blitz around 1981.
I would guess 10 years of tournament play could train your board vision a lot like like heavy tactical training would. I realize it's been a long time, but can you remember if/how your tactical skill developed during that time?
another way do achieve the same effect could be playing a lot of blitz. can you remember if your tactical skill developed during that time? I mean 81-85? was there a difference to when you didn't play a lot of blitz?
and how do you perform tactically these days? I'd be very interested to hear how you do on CTS now. and how you think your current performance relates to 85.
Hi Robbie (can I call you Bob?)
The ! after 2.Nf6 is just to show that 2.d4 is not forced.
It wrong foots the opponent. It's just to draw attention to it.
!? is probably the correct sysmbol. Black can play 2...c5 with
a Sicilian.
I've played that 2.Nf3 line with a great deal of success.
Had a real smashing hand to hand battle with a GM
with it last January. I lost but I had his head in hands for a while.
I sacced one piece too many. Win some lose some.
Stopped playing the French 'cos of the 3.Nd2 line.
When you see that you know the guy has 'booked up' and there
is not much deviation (sound deviation), so Black has to follow
theory for a while and that's just what the 3.Nd2 player wants.
Not to think in the opening and reach his book middle game.
If White wants a draw with 3.Nd2 Black has to take some
unhealthy risks to avoid it. That's my experience with it anyway.
Did you know that in 1876 when the French was
catching on the very first Brlliancy Prize was put up by a
patron to encourage brilliant play and...
...protect us from weary French defences...
The first Brilliancy Prize was won by our friend Henry Bird.
It was a French Defence! (Bird was White v Mason).
So I started this thread with a Bird (3...Nd4).
Can we close it now. It's been hijacked!