Originally posted by zakkwylderPhalangelic? Angels with dicks?
I have neither the time nor the phalangelic energy to write such a post. Moreover, it would just be laughed at and ridiculed by various people(who I feel don't need to be named) and everything would be brought up and thrown at me everytime I post something. In short, its not worth it.
I don't get to play OTB much any more, but I'm sure this advice is even more useful for OTB play where the time restraints are more critical.
There are many techniques to improve your play. I doubt that the "ONE THING" really exists. So if I were to pick the one thing, it would rather be a technique that incorporates many "things". It would be this - Train your brain.
Take one book, say Kotov's "Play like a Grandmaster" which gives a comprehensive list of positional elements (king safety, controlling ranks and files, two bishops, harmonious development, etc, etc). Add to this a rudimentary checklist to avoid blunders and to recognise basic tactics (Chessville has excellent lists of chess wisdom from which you can cherry pick).
The fun thing is that you get to construct the checklist with all the elements that suit your style of play and which you feel are important to your game. Don't make it too large, or you will get discouraged and give up. Don't make it too small, or it won't serve the purpose. It should consist of items you can quickly check. No item on your list should involve complex calculation. You should be able to work through the list in a few minutes at the most. When done, you will have essentially "evaluated" the position.
Write the list down (or memorise it), and consult it on EVERY move. It requires strict discipline. Even apply it to book openings. The principles of your checklist should still apply. And it will certainly help you when you find yourself in unfamiliar territory. True, not all of the items on your list will apply at each point, but many will. Particularly in the midgame, which is often the most critical time, and where the greatest potential to improve exists.
Running through this checklist 500-1000 times a month (if that's how many moves you make at RHP) you'll be surprised how quickly your brain begins to process the checklist. Those minutes will get shorter and shorter. Eventually, after a few months, your checklist becomes a vitually subconscious process. When you look at any board, your brain is already evaluating the position without you having to consciously "think" about it. Good chess then becomes instinctive. You have successfully trained your brain.
You can then develop and work on a suplimentary list if you like. The brain has an amazing capacity to learn.
Training your brain frees you to make plans and calculate variations, which is a another topic entirely. The only thing I can say about calculation is this: Spend the most amount of time on the candidate move you eventually choose. Too often, we spend a huge amount of time on various candidates. Then we suddenly spot another "brilliant" move we can make that solves all our problems. In seconds we have abandoned all our hard work, and impulsively chosen this great new hope. It is human nature. Disaster! With a little patience, 9 times out of 10, you'll rediscover why the move wasn't one of your candidates to begin with!
Good luck.
"Too often, we spend a huge amount of time on various candidates. Then we suddenly spot another "brilliant" move we can make that solves all our problems. In seconds we have abandoned all our hard work, and impulsively chosen this great new hope. It is human nature. Disaster! With a little patience, 9 times out of 10, you'll rediscover why the move wasn't one of your candidates to begin with!"
I know it's in progress, but that exactly is what I did in my game against meman, it's already hopelessly lost in the opening and no matter what I do, I can't see a way to bail out, it's beyond saving, nothing really works, and although weaker players may not see why the game is hopeless, I sure do, but I will play on, as I'm not yet tacticly lost (I won't lose huge material NOW), but positionally, it's so hopeless, it's a matter of time, likely until the late endgame, until I do.
What happened was, on the first 5 moves, I was looking at all my developing moves and thought they all gave me an inferior position (they did, but black usually is inferior at the start anyways), so instead I did an amateurish pawn advance that EVERYONE knows not to do in the opening, yet I did it thinking "maybe this game is a golden magical exception", and now I am dead. LMAO!
Originally posted by marinakatombAt least you didn't make the final mistake of not accepting her draw. At least you didn't say, like many probably would, "she's obviously such an inferior player, I'm sure I'll find a way to win this anyways even being down a bishop and rook." Then not only would your captain have a few words, he would yell out and call you a moron in public.
WOW, rec for you! I am guilty of trying to play beutiful chess when solid chess is required. I played a game against a woman last season who was graded 62 (which is crap, in case you're wondering, let's say 1000 elo). She hung her e-pawn on the 4th move, but i turned it down to develop a surprising kingside attack. A few moves later i could have won a ...[text shortened]... eded in the force, but i'm probably too inexperienced to find this for a few years yet, i fear.
Anyways, I've never lost to a woman in OTB chess, and I'm not saying that to be sexist, it's just true. I even beat the female champion of my province and one time drew a female IM. You wanna know how to beat women? There are two keys:
A) It helps that, unlike most chess players, you are a half decent looking bloke like myself (and I'm not saying that to be arrogant, male chess players are usually ugly and I don't have much competition here), so then in that case, you are usually both equally distracted. 😉
and if A isn't a useful tactic available for you, then option B is best for you, in fact, B is key, A is a bonus, combined they kick feminine chess ass mind you:
B) There's a stereotype going around that woman are not agressive (what planet are these dudes who started the rumor live on? I don't know), so usually, women, tend to challenge this sexism head on and play very aggressive in their chess. Every woman player I come across is a crazy chess player attacking out of the block. Look at all the top female chess players around the world, you'll notice the same style, aka like Polgar sisters.
So before I play any women, I know what they will do at any rating. I know they will attack, and play openings trying to attack, and attack at all costs, and set deceptive decoy sacrefices (many of them useless actually, they are trying to phycologicly trick you, make you think they are crap players blundering peices, or they simply cannot find a better more positional like move) everywhere were you'll be just fine if you DON'T BITE. Basicly, I see right through them before move one. It may just be a freak coincidence, put I never once came across a woman who played positional like Botvinnik, or hypermodem like Nimzo or Reti, or classical like Fischer, it's always out of the flood gate, Polgar style, with them, and they always like to set a lot of traps creatively.
I also suppose it helps that Judit Polgar is one of my chess idols and I have studied over 200 of her games, in fact, I have probably studied over 400 Polgar family games total. It's strange, but if you have trouble against women and that's destroying your OTB rating, it may help to actually study chess games played by great women, because you can bet women players are doing the same, immulating their admirers, and I found a playing style monopoly there, could be a coincidence, but I don't think so...
Originally posted by GatecrasherA rec for you sir! Out of interest, i assume you have made a check list yourself. Would you mind revealing it or would that reveal your secrets too much?
I don't get to play OTB much any more, but I'm sure this advice is even more useful for OTB play where the time restraints are more critical.
There are many techniques to improve your play. I doubt that the "ONE THING" really exists. So if I were to pick the one thing, it would rather be a technique that incorporates many "things". It would be ...[text shortened]... 10, you'll rediscover why the move wasn't one of your candidates to begin with!
Good luck.
I have got a sort of check list actually, though it's not as formalised as the one you are suggesting. It goes something like this...
1. Why did my opponent move there?
2. Can i disrupt their plans on this move?
3. Where are their weaknesses?
4. Is there a good place for one of my pieces to move (that is weak or creates tactical possibilities)?
Once this has been looked at, there is also..
5. Are there any checks available to me (simple ones or ones involving sacrafices)?
6. Based on my evaluation of 1-4, does any of these potential checks combine well to create an advantage.
This is perhaps the point were i am weakest, point 6! What is an advantage? I often relly on instinct too much here. A perfect example is this game...(in particular move 20..Rxh3!?)
ark13 v's Marinakatomb
Game 1144429
Duaring the opening and early middle game i managed to develop some nice possibilities. But once i had established that i could open up his king (with a sacrafice) my ability to evaluate the out come is lacking. Ark plays quite brilliantly to parry the threats, and we reach a position were my tactical threats aren't half as good as the positional nature of his position. I continue looking for the killer blow and loose. I think i need to really work on the positional side of my game, perhaps there was a couple of preparitory moves that needed to be made before the attack? The problem is i'm incapable of seeing them, sharp lines draw me in like a fly to sh;t, how should i go about retraining my thought processes?
Originally posted by UmalakasOOh, i'm not sure i agree here. I've never played a 'top' woman player, but i have met plenty here. One Lady springs to mind straight away, and that is Pauline Calf..
At least you didn't make the final mistake of not accepting her draw. At least you didn't say, like many probably would, "she's obviously such an inferior player, I'm sure I'll find a way to win this anyways even being down a bishop and rook." Then not only would your captain have a few words, he would yell out and call you a moron in public.
Anyw ...[text shortened]... rs, and I found a playing style monopoly there, could be a coincidence, but I don't think so...
Game 1044939
Game 1044908
There is nothing inferior about her approach to the game at all! She is a strong player (or at least i think she is!)
One thing i will say is this...
There is a young girl who plays in my chess club. She is 15 years old and a reasonable player. She competes in junior tournaments and more often than not, is considered inferior because of her sex before the first move! She recounted a recent foray to a junior tournament where her young, 13 year old male opponent was laughing and joking with his friends (who were watching) during the game. She obviously didn't like this! However, she won the game (which i have since looked at and she played very well) and the little boy had to face the ridicule of his buddies afterwards (serve him right). This said, it would be no surprise to me if, over time, stigma like this would effect the way my young friend plays, as, as you say, she now feels that she has to prove herself double, every time she sits at the board. 😉
Originally posted by marinakatombWhich is why you have to show just as much determination as them and treat them like any other opponent. Women feel like they most win to prove "their sex", well, think the same way, you must win to prove your sex, think of it as clash of the titans, battle of the sexes, all is on the line, you must win, and this is certainly no time for goofy play and laughing behind the chess board, or leting your lust get in the way and flirting with the said opponent! Men everywhere around the world are depending on you!
OOh, i'm not sure i agree here. I've never played a 'top' woman player, but i have met plenty here. One Lady springs to mind straight away, and that is Pauline Calf..
Game 1044939
Game 1044908
There is nothing inferior about her approach to the game at all! She is a strong player (or at least i think she is!)
One thing i will s ...[text shortened]... ou say, she now feels that she has to prove herself double, every time she sits at the board. 😉
While this may seem extreme, that's how the other side thinks, so you need to think the same. But I think you DO AGREE with me! Why? Because what you see as a strenght, I see as a weakness, you're right, women play with a lot of fire, a lot to prove, and that effects their play, but I see it in a negative way, not positive. They cannot keep a cool head, they come outta the chess game guns blazing, I simply play solid defense and pocket their aggression against them, etc... I'm sure this is mute point in a friendly correspondance game with mute human interaction, but in chess tournaments, I see the ladies play with so much fire in their eyes, but the thing is, I control the fire, I don't let it burn me or intimidate me, and I do not fear losing and how "embarassing it would be to actually lose to a woman!" (that's one way to lose), and I certainly don't go around spouting my mouth off before the game how women are inferior chess players, (that's a loss 100% of the time from all males I have seen do it).
Originally posted by marinakatombI don't have any secrets! But your list should be your own creation. It should allow you to evaluate your position at any point in the game. It should certainly include most if not all the positional elements.
i assume you have made a check list yourself. Would you mind revealing it or would that reveal your secrets too much?
The problem I see with your list is that it is too short. More importantly, your questions start at an advanced stage, skipping all the basic stages - meaning there is great potential to overlook many aspects and elements of the game. Break things down into more specific questions.
Also your self-questioning in 1-4 requires calculation and planning. But those activities should only come after your evaluation, and as a direct result of your evaluation.
An evaluation is independent of your opponents last move. Everything that has gone before is unimportant in an evaluation. A thorough evaluation will tell you many things - who has the advantage, whether you should be attacking or defending, which candidates to consider, what plans to make, as well as giving you concrete pointers to accumulating those small advantages that may well lead to winning advantages, or helping you to stop your opponent from gaining a similar edge.
Perhaps in your game against Ark13, a positional evaluation on move 20 would have warned you to bide your time and defend?
But the point of my earlier post is not the content of the checklist, but the ability that anyone has of training their brain to make mincemeat of what at first seems like a great deal of mundane donkeywork.
Its like those well known competency levels: You start out being unconsciously incompetent. Realising just how crap you are, you progress to being consciously incompetent. You learn the skills, and so you become consciously competent. By consistently applyng those skills, you get to be unconsciously competent.
Your brain quickly learns any repetitive action, and eventually allows you to perform the action subconsciously. You can use this ability to your advantage and improve your chess.
Originally posted by GatecrasherStep 1 (for eg): You see a check, do you make the check or figure why your opponent let you make the check? What's his response going to be? Is it a strong move or one you make because you can? Does it weaken your position? Who benefits? What's holding you back from making the check? Would it be to your advantage to make that defending piece move? Threats are very effective in chess, just don't rush in. Same with undefended, easy-looking pieces. Think: What's the catch?
I don't have any secrets! But your list should be your own creation. It should allow you to evaluate your position at any point in the game. It should certainly include most if not all the positional elements.
Originally posted by marinakatombI don't know if that's wrong.
I am guilty of trying to play beutiful chess when solid chess is required. I played a game against a woman last season who was graded 62 (which is crap, in case you're wondering, let's say 1000 elo). She hung her e-pawn on the 4th move, but i turned it down to develop a surprising kingside attack. A few moves later i could have won a piece, but i tur ...[text shortened]... ckily she didn't fancy playing an ending with an extra rook and bishop and offered me a draw!!
Maybe I'm not qualified, (I'm 1500) but I think that one thing is improving and another thing is to win games.
If you ar a stronger player that your opponent, what do you learn waiting for a hunging piece to take, and then exchange everything to get an easy end ?
Chess is a game, but is also an art. Playing beautiful chess will never be a sin.
When you have a real challenge, you have to find a balance. You have to make a lot of solid moves, but allways have in your head the posibilities of a beautiful one, and make it in the right moment.
Originally posted by MetalPigWell said Mr. MetalPig!!! Well said.
I don't know if that's wrong.
Maybe I'm not qualified, (I'm 1500) but I think that one thing is improving and another thing is to win games.
If you ar a stronger player that your opponent, what do you learn waiting for a hunging piece to take, and then exchange everything to get an easy end ?
Chess is a game, but is also an art. Playing beautiful ch ...[text shortened]... allways have in your head the posibilities of a beautiful one, and make it in the right moment.