New scenario needed

Originally posted by tvochess
What's most important: endgames or two-movers?

Analyse your last 20 games or so, noting your main mistakes. Whatever is most common is what is most important to you.

My early chess playing days involved quite a bit of endgame study. It has served me well. But during the last year I've not studied endgames directly because it is not the reason for my losses.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
It sure is great to be talking chess again!

Hey Paul, yes it's great to be talking about chess again.

Hey GP, my interpretation was that the OP's driving and short irons were good enough to get him onto the green and so he should practice chipping and putting. But fair point about continuing to work on your swing so that you're left with short putts and not long putts.

Originally posted by Varenka
Analyse your last 20 games or so, noting your main mistakes. Whatever is most common is what is most important to you.

My early chess playing days involved quite a bit of endgame study. It has served me well. But during the last year I've not studied endgames directly because it is not the reason for my losses.

Hi Tvochess,

I quote Varenka, because I like the reasoning. Personally I am having similar troubles with chess lately as you described in your first post. It turns into a lack of motivation once I see most of the board cleared up, going towards an endgame.

Which doesn't mean I know endgames well enough. I should study them well - but I enjoy other things much more.

Studying endgames is as useful as studying anything else in chess: pattern recognition, two-movers analysis, mating patterns, opening traps - as long as you study, you will improve. And as you know, everything has its learning curve, meaning at some point 90% of your energy bring only 5% improvement.

So, not to loose interest in chess I stick with the motivation plan: because if I don't play anymore, I can not learn at all (I am not sitting down with books so often)!

Along this line I noticed the following: my playing style actually sucks, or bores me. I do not see the creativity of other, better players. I am often too scared to build up complex middle games unless I run into them from the opening books. So I think a major point for me is the psychology point right now - I must sort issues with myself, to open my eyes to new understandings...

As Varenka said, there are loads of things to learn from the last 20 or so games one has played. I will certainly do that before touching endgame analysis - because it motivates me much more.

This may not be the route to the GM level - but it keeps me in chess, hopefully (have none running right now, wish to start some new games soon, if there is inspiration...)

Originally posted by tvochess
Alright, now you're all getting me confused. 😉

What's most important: endgames or two-movers? The answer is probably both ways. Fear for the endgame actually provokes (too) risky moves, and the game shown by GP was actually lost by a two-mover.

What I realize now is that Chesstempo only provides attacking tactics and no defending against tactics. The ar with the endgame practice. The question is never 'try not to get mated'. Why is this?

aha tvo, here is the great secret when solving tactical problems on chess tempo if
you want to improve not only your powers of defence but to avoid blunders in
general during your games.

Before solving the problem look at it from the opposite side, for example, if its white
to move, look at what moves black may have even before you consider solving the
tactical puzzle. The advantages of this are, that when you are playing your own
games, you will always consider what plans your opponent may have and avoid
needless blunders, for lets face it, probably all blunders come because we do not
take into consideration our opponents plans and moves.

I have been doing this for the last few days and my solving ability has reached
about seventy percent where previously it was only just above fifty. A great way to
learn to avoid blunders and improve your tactical vision and may even introduce the
concept of prophylaxis.

Hi Robbie why are you posting blitz games to try and make a point.

Thinking White was going for an all out attack by leaving his Knight on g1 for
the whole game. Messing about with his Queen on the 2nd rank.
Then playing cxb5 giving you the attack was poor play, typical blitz stuff.

Blitz games should not be used as an example.

For every game on here where an iffy attack got rebuffed I can show you 10 that never.
Do you realise how many checkmates under 10 moves have been played on here.
Thousands and that is not counting all the games where a lad have resigned
before getting mated and not counting all the resignations after a piece has been
lost under 10 moves.

I give one chosen at random.

robbie carrobie -Tukumnieks RHP 2009




Also your note after 7.Bg5. in the posted blitz game Lets us re-cap.



"look at this move, what is this bishop hoping to do on g6? my knight is defended,
its not even in a pin, there is no way to exploit it, even if it was, but chess players
love to attack, so it must be good."

You do of course realise that a great player reknown for attacking prowess, ( 😉 )
played this exact same move 7.Bg5 in this exact same position on at least 3 occassions.
I am talking of course about Tigran Petrosian.

T.Petrosian- D.Minic Sarajevo, 1972 White won in 30 moves.
Is just one game. There are others - Petrosian won the three I can find.

Moving on...

Also in the under 10 bracket are players dropping pieces missing tactics
going for an endgame plus. Again I give one random example.

Ulysses72 - robbie carrobie RHP 2008



I'm trying to save you Robbie.

Hi Q.

Yes you teach basic King & Rook v King mates first.
Then the very basics of endgame play and THEN it's tactics, tactics tactics.

As for the scrambling and unscrambling of my words.....how odd.

But we appear to agree on the inflicting of a middle game weakness to
cash it in in the ending. (I think....)

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Robbie why are you posting blitz games to try and make a point.

Thinking White was going for an all out attack by leaving his Knight on g1 for
the whole game. Messing about with his Queen on the 2nd rank.
Then playing cxb5 giving you the attack was poor play, typical blitz stuff.

Blitz games should not be used as an example.

For every game
cash it in in the ending. (I think....)

I am learning all the time GP, games from four years ago are hardly representative
of anything, especially against players who are rated almost 500 points above me,
as is my friend Ulysses. The fact of the matter is, ...Bg5 is a pants move, i dont
care if Petrosian played it or not, its makes no sense, i can offer no excuses for him,
he should know better. Chess players who can only attack are not playing chess,
they are playing some other game, my blitz game illustrates this admirably, the
number of duff attacks that ive had to face are too numerous to mention.

Chess is an inherently strategic game, duff attacks and cheopos fail every time
against a proper strategic understanding.

As for the end game, I have not recommended reading an end game book, i merely
advised trying to learn a bishop and knight mate against a king, for it teaches both
piece coordination and restriction, plus its fun and will help Tvo overcome his phobia
of end games. My other advice, if applied will help him to avoid making blunders
through anticipating his opponents plans, all excellent advice, i reiterate my stance,
chess players who can only attack, dont know anything about chess, they will fail!
You know its true.

More mistakes are made in CC by moving too fast than anything else, i have lost
four or five games in a row, simply because I am playing CC like its blitz which I
enjoy far more than CC. I just spent three marathon days, playing blitz, its been
awesome!

Originally posted by greenpawn34

Yes you teach basic King & Rook v King mates first.
Then the very basics of endgame play and THEN it's tactics, tactics tactics.

I fully agree. but that's not what we're (well at least I was) talking about, which was understanding chess. 🙂


an engine can do all the things you say, but it understands nothing. a human takes one quick glance at a middlegame, and after no calculation whatsoever tells it's a draw. because he understands the position, and sees that excluding a hypothetical 'hidden trick', there's no way to force a queening threat (or whatever the case may be).

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
It sure is great to be talking chess again!

oh yeah. we should do this more often. 😀

Originally posted by wormwood
oh yeah. we should do this more often. 😀

I dunno, talking turkey has its appeal! Ask GP! 😛

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Q.

Yes you teach basic King & Rook v King mates first.
Then the very basics of endgame play and THEN it's tactics, tactics tactics.

As for the scrambling and unscrambling of my words.....how odd.

But we appear to agree on the inflicting of a middle game weakness to
cash it in in the ending. (I think....)

"Tactics, tactics, tactics..."

Fair enough. Tactics are the next fundamental base needing to be set for the player (Piece movement, Basic mates, Basic endings{P's}, piece value..all proceed) . Basic mates are like the cornerstone of a good building. Tactics the mortar. Endgames are the blueprint.

Have you noticed Mr. Pawn, that when learning these "tactics" that some of the best "tactics" books and collections (through the theory of efficiency as told to me by SwissGambit) will have few pieces on the board - as few as possible. Showing a single idea at a time, with each puzzle. Furthermore they are usually problems with say #2, #3, or short combinations.
Perhaps this is where the confusion is. I consider these puzzles with just a couple pieces on the board to be an ending. You simply call them tactics.

Thats the problem with a pair of blind patzers interpreting artwork. They don't have the dizziest daydream of whats going on.
I say though Mr. Pawn if I get to Ireland, I owe you a pint. 🙂

After this period of instruction players typically move on to well annotated Master games. This is where the beginning of the thick endgame study takes place. We both know how important ending study is in the classical studies.

I will agree on the infliction of middle game weaknesses. Even opening weaknesses.

as for the scrambling and unscrambling of your words... Sort them out in the right order the first time! (oops maybe 2 pints!) 🙂 The chess gods cannot forgive blatant disregard for the end of the game.

Q

Originally posted by PhySiQ
Basic mates are like the cornerstone of a good building. Tactics the mortar. Endgames are the blueprint.

Thats profound Q what is the order i shuld study stuff to get better

Originally posted by Varenka
Analyse your last 20 games or so, noting your main mistakes. Whatever is most common is what is most important to you.

My early chess playing days involved quite a bit of endgame study. It has served me well. But during the last year I've not studied endgames directly because it is not the reason for my losses.

This idea is so strong that it deserves to be repeated.

Many people study chess in a manner similar to the athlete who works on his bench press every day in the vain hope that it will make him run faster...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok GP, you asked for it, here it is, all chess players can do is attack, they have no
concept of strategy, all one has to do, is take away any points of attack and they
dont know what to do,

Deelong v robbie the patzer, RHP blitz
[pgn] [Event "RHP Blitz rated"] [Site "www.timeforchess.com"] [Date "2012.01.13"] [Round "?"] [White ""] [Black ...[text shortened]... e last trick to try to stave off mate, but} Qa3 27. Nd3 Ra8 28. Rc1 0-1[/pgn]

10. exf6 (ep) fxe6 11. Nf3 and now that Bg5 move looks kinda useful after all. The problem is that chess players only know how to attack... the problem is that chess players don't know how to attack properly.

I believe that opening the position with 10. exf6 was the only logical way for white to continue.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
This idea is so strong that it deserves to be repeated.

Many people study chess in a manner similar to the athlete who works on his bench press every day in the vain hope that it will make him run faster...

Running fast isn't all about leg strength... there is also a technique to it and you can learn to run faster by watching video of yourself running and seeing what you are doing wrong. Basically, the only way how to improve at anything is to remove the weaknesses that keep you from being better.

Hi Robbie.

"I am learning all the time GP, games from four years ago are hardly representative of anything."

Oh but they are. You are a perfect example. You were falling for these
things years ago and I believe the only way to get on is to actually get burned.

I can tell you all year long about the dangers of getting say back ranked mated
and show you 100 examples but it won't sink in till it happens to you.

You have served your apprenticship without games like those I posted
under your belt I doubt if you could have produced that blitz game.
(good game BTW but White hardly set you a challenge.)

If you want an example of a premature attack then look no further
than one of my games Game 8833574.
Played to prove to a couple of guys in The Beginners Club that I dont' walk on water.

I thanked my opponent after the game for furnishing me with this example to show others.
It does not matter how good you are (in this case me) you cannot break the
rules and go launching premature attacks against a good player.

Of course it is backed up with all the other games where I've taken a gamble
and it worked. Game 5986145 But I needed one where I got walloped.

And now Robbie you are arguing with Petrosian and all the other GM's the
have played 7.Bg5. in that position Gulko, Bisguier.....

Good.

And as you said in the first sentence of your post.

"I am learning all the time GP."

And that's all I want the OP to do.
Play get burned, play get burned, play get burned......

Hi TV:

You have got to look at your losses mate. You have to feel the burn.

Of course there is work invovled, but you posted, you started the thread.
The New Scenario is you going over your losses and learn from them.

Again unlike the others who seem to have all the answers but little all else.
Let us see if we can get them to do some work and enlighten us.

I have looked at a another game of yours.
This time an ending. Game 8655062 good stuff in here TV.

Remember the rules.
Get active, don't get tied down defending and use your King.

Here Black (TV) to play.


Black played 18...Re8.

The chance missed here was.
18...Qxb5 19.Bxb5 Rd2 The seventh Rank. Activity!


You are going win your back your pawn and be on easy street.

You missed it but later on another chance fell in your lap.
Black to play. I spotted it the nano second it appeard on the board.
So will the other lads who know the rules.
(not the full follow up I hasten to add, just the best move.)


Black played 35...Rf5. And lost.

TV The rules.
His Rook is tied down defending keep it on defending duties.
Use the King.

35...Kb5!


Now unless I'm missing a cute move (very possible) the game goes
something like this. Two Variations.



This time we run the h-pawn.



OK boys. I know we have not wrung this ending dry.
Anybody to want to add anything?

In that variation after 7...Rh6 White Rook checks and where the King goes seems critcial.

If the Black King comes down the board White can pin the f-pawn if
he goes up the board then the Rh6 fails as White can play Rxh6+.
(I hate Rook endings.)

You are all bleating about endings. I've dug one out as played by the OP.
He missed a draw and lost by unchaining his opponents Rook.

Over to you. Kb5 draws. Yes?

Hi WW

"an engine can do all the things you say, but it understands nothing.

a human takes one quick glance at a middlegame, and after no calculation
whatsoever tells it's a draw. because he understands the position, and sees that
excluding a hypothetical 'hidden trick', there's no way to force a queening threat
(or whatever the case may be). "

Spot on mate.

And in this case the position before Black playes Kb5.
Instant.
Play through the game Game 8655062
OK not 100% it was a draw but knew it was better.
The trouble with an engine here is that there may less enough pieces for it
to use it's TB so you will get an instant answer. (how boring.)

(DO you like that...'less enough'....I am creating my own language.)