Yep, that has sense after all 😲
First time in my RHP history I am playing 1700-2200 players and I have tendency to think in pretty primmitive way, looking for cheap attacks etc. These guys need some other approach 😲
No kidding, I developed absymal mental and playing attitude because I played too much lower rated opponents 😲
An observation:
learn game - play much stronger opponents(simply because everyone is much stronger) -> very rapid improvement of skills.
after a while you play a mix of opponents but most are still much stronger -> rapid improvement of skills
then a big decrease in stronger opponents happens -> slow improvement of skills
and finally you only play stronger opponents every now and then -> further improvement of playing skills almost completely ends.
Conclusion: we stop improving because we stop playing stronger opposition.
Of course,other factors come into play too,but I think for most of us it's one of the major reasons.
I have another idea of becoming stronger:
Every week you should do some chess time.
(a) play chess.
(b) analyze your own games, not only the recent ones, but older ones as well.
(c) study chess from books in area that you find yourself worse at.
If you have the same amount of time of (a), (b), and (c), every week, then you will always improve. You will never find a plateau in your skill. You will always get better.
If you stop doing this, then you will eventually reach a summit, and stay there.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexFirst of all, try to force the openings you know/understand.
What you will find is that first you develop an ability to stop yourself losing too quickly. Then you will start to become more of a defensive counterattacking kind of player. Then, once you get better, you will probably start the games looking for a win.
I.e., I feel bad in the e4-e5 games and in open positions, so after e5, So, as black, I try to force Caro-Kann in order to avoid Ruy Lopez or sharp Italian/Two Knights lines.
Generally, if you manage to close the position, it's easier to resist and the game is slower.
Sometimes you may try to go rapidly out of "standard" books.
Prepare odd. less frequent lines and subtle traps in the openings.
A "natural" intuitive move of your opponent may give you an advantage.
Cheers
GG
Originally posted by 4gatsNow that I am playing that players, I notice that they do the same thing as me when playing lower rated opposition. They are toying around, so in few games against 1700+ I think I actually have advantage. The only problem is that I will probably blow it.
First of all, try to force the openings you know/understand.
I.e., I feel bad in the e4-e5 games and in open positions, so after e5, So, as black, I try to force Caro-Kann in order to avoid Ruy Lopez or sharp Italian/Two Knights lines.
Generally, if you manage to close the position, it's easier to resist and the game is slower.
Sometimes you may try to go ings.
A "natural" intuitive move of your opponent may give you an advantage.
Cheers
GG
But maybe I can use element of surprise. They are probably playing me with 10 sec per move and 50 % of their strength. I shall set up board and think at least 10 minutes per each move so maybe I can even win some game. 😛
How would you describe 1700-1900 players? What should I look for, how deep my blunder checks have to be ??? Do they make mistakes, and exactly how subtle ones ?!!
Originally posted by ivan2908there's nothing that special about 1900s. we just make less pointless moves, and practically never empty threats. I don't look for deep combinations, unless it's very forced. simple, effective moves, never tricks. a move must always have a good solid reason, a clear way of moving the attack forward. a 'trick move' is sort of the exact opposite of that. if it had a real point, it wouldn't be a trick.
Now that I am playing that players, I notice that they do the same thing as me when playing lower rated opposition. They are toying around, so in few games against 1700+ I think I actually have advantage. The only problem is that I will probably blow it.
But maybe I can use element of surprise. They are probably playing me with 10 sec per move and 50 % ...[text shortened]... how deep my blunder checks have to be ??? Do they make mistakes, and exactly how subtle ones ?!!
most of my errors are still 1-move errors. not necessarily dropping material, but losing tempi, restricting my attack, getting into type of positions I wouldn't really prefer to go. those occur in most games, and are usually realized the second you press 'submit move', regardless of whether you took two weeks to think that move over or not.
the absolutely worst thing you can do when facing a stronger player, is to 'play it safe'. there's a time & place for that, but this definitely isn't it. you need to hit them with all you have, or you're dead. if you're not creating constant problems for them, you'll just get run over. a 'trick' is not a problem, at least in CC, it's a gift.
10min per move is definitely way too little, unless you know the situation well from before.
Originally posted by ivan2908I would describe them as more careful and less likely to blunder.
How would you describe 1700-1900 players? What should I look for, how deep my blunder checks have to be ??? Do they make mistakes, and exactly how subtle ones ?!!
All my blunders come in blunk. I blunder mostly against weaker players as I take no time to think, and I just move assuming they'll eventually make a mistake.
When I do blunder I tend to care less about the game already resigning in my head, and the blunders snowball that game.
What you should do is take extra time if you want to beat higher rated opponents, and don't get frustrated if your best is still not good enough.
Originally posted by ivan2908I think this is a mistake a lot of us make.
...deep my blunder checks have to be ??? Do they make mistakes, and exactly how subtle ones ?!!
If you analyse much more than my best move/his best reply/my best follow-up your analysis will tend to be utter garbage unless it's a very forcing sequence of moves.
I have a workmate who plays on this site & he is a 1400 or so. He tries to analyse about 10 ply ahead. I've told him this is nonsense!
Originally posted by SquelchbelchYes, but in tactical positions, how to know if in the position is hidden something rather forced if not by mere brute calculation then?
I think this is a mistake a lot of us make.
If you analyse much more than my best move/his best reply/my best follow-up your analysis will tend to be utter garbage unless it's a very forcing sequence of moves.
I have a workmate who plays on this site & he is a 1400 or so. He tries to analyse about 10 ply ahead. I've told him this is nonsense!
I have one FEN from my current game against 1800+ player in mind and I will post it as soon as it finishes to prove my point. So, if you can find forced variation in some very tactical setup, then the third or sometimes maybe even seventh move determines which first move was the best one, no ?
Originally posted by ivan2908Most positions you can simply assess with intuition and judgment, you don't have to calculate every single thing out. Calculate a few moves ahead, then assess the position that arises. If it is still unclear, continue calculating.
Yes, but in tactical positions, how to know if in the position is hidden something rather forced if not by mere brute calculation then?
Some quotes about this by GM Beim in his book How to calculate chess tactics:
(talking about a Karpov-Spassky game)
"We have already seen that the calculation of the variations between White's 25th and 32nd move, together with the consequences thereof, can be carried out by stages. We can identify the stages, and there are also indirect clues that this is how Karpov approached the position. ... But at the same time, the main line of the play was very accurately played by Karpov, and it is impossible to imagine him playing his 25th move without having seen his 32nd, and its consequences, as well!
... The human player approaches the game by concentrating primarily on the main line of the development of events. ... The rest he has to leave to his judgement and intuition. For a human player this is essential, since his calculating abilities have a limited horizon and no other approach is within his capabilities."
Being, supposedly, a 'Good Player' here is OTB advise.
First thing. Do underestimate yourself go in with correct frame of
mind. Sounds like you have beaten yourself before you have pushed a pawn.
Opening: Develop pieces and don't do anything rash.
Play opening you know. Do not fear his knowledge and play something
strange to get him out of the books. The chances are there will
be a good reason why your strange move is not in the books.
Make the good player prove is a better player but do not crawl into
a shell. Give as good as you get and fight for the centre.
Middle Game: Try not to put pieces on unprotected squares.
90% of non-mating combinations involve an undefended piece.
If you see a combination but cannot fathom out all the variations
then go for it.
Do not believe him if he plays a move that your instinct tells
you is wrong. Work it out and find the best reply.
If you cannot think of what to do - look for your worse piece
and improve it. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES PUSH A PAWN.
If you are beaten and know you are beaten then resign.
Don't play on and on till you are mated and then expect the
player to go over the game with you.
Some of this advice will be relevant to Corres play.
Espicially about believing in yourself, unprotected pieces and resigning.
Good Luck and don't worry.
He will if the game is still level after 20 moves.
Originally posted by schakuhr...or avoid that unclear position alltogether if it seems you can't keep all the balls in the air. although you'll kick yourself in the post mortem if it turns out there was a win.
Most positions you can simply assess with intuition and judgment, you don't have to calculate every single thing out. Calculate a few moves ahead, then assess the position that arises. If it is still unclear, continue calculating."