Mister Meaner was good enough to post the following quote in another thread, which is the best single bit of advice I've ever read on how to improve one's game:
"I am convinced a chess-player's attitude to his own mistakes can serve as a gauge of his strengths and his prospects. The weak player tries to forget his mistakes as quickly as possible and is soon committing fresh ones which may be even cruder. The strong player treats his mistakes with an attentiveness that borders on love. They become the object of prolonged painstaking analysis; he constantly remembers them , but looks for ways to avoid meeting them again. Sensing his attitude, they migrate to the games of other players."
-- from Grigory Sanakoev's "World Champion at the Third Attempt" – the 2th World Correspondence Champion (ICCF) (1985-1992)
Originally posted by bassoThe "measurement" of a strong player is that he wins many games against good oppenants....
Mister Meaner was good enough to post the following quote in another thread, which is the best single bit of advice I've ever read on how to improve one's game:
"I am convinced a chess-player's attitude to his own mistakes can serve as a gauge of his strengths and his prospects. The weak player tries to forget his mistakes as quickly as possible and is soo ...[text shortened]... hampion at the Third Attempt" – the 2th World Correspondence Champion (ICCF) (1985-1992)
surely then, it is only common sense to make an effort to understand where you went wrong so as to avoid similiar mistakes in the future?
On saying that, i think is just as logical and benificail to study where you went 'right' in a game - this notion however, seems overshadowed by "the study your loses" message.
Knowing your weaknesses only gives you half a picture, which is why knowing where your strengths lie is of equal importance...
at regarding advice.
well, Chess is war, and consequently Sun Tse's "Art of war" can be a source of inspiration: - http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html
You learn from analyzing your games and you learn the most from analyzing your misstakes.
So it is really a paradox - The more you lose the better you will be. If you only win games you have no misstakes to analyze and your progression will stagnate.
But I like to win, it gives me inspiration to play more. If I only lose then it is hard to find the joy of the game. I'd like a ratio of about a third losses and 2 thirds winnings.
But I learn the most of analysing my worst games.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI Consider that attitude wrong.
You learn from analyzing your games and you learn the most from analyzing your misstakes.
So it is really a paradox - The more you lose the better you will be. If you only win games you have no misstakes to analyze and your progression will stagnate.
But I like to win, it gives me inspiration to play more. If I only lose then it is hard to find the ...[text shortened]... bout a third losses and 2 thirds winnings.
But I learn the most of analysing my worst games.
In order to improve you must understand your STRENGHTS AND WEAKNESSES.
and then, you learn openings and tactics to steer the game toward your strenghts, and of course, aim to improve on what you do worst.
afterall, If you play poorly in open games and strong in closed it makes logical sense to do what?
which is why i think its just as important to understand why you won, (even if all that means is you study their blunders) - provided of course, they are high quality wins.
and also, even in won games mistakes are made.
Originally posted by Shinidokiand the answer is: train open games. 🙂 because it always gives you most bang for the buck to optimize the bottleneck. to work on the weakest link on the chain.
afterall, If you play poorly in open games and strong in closed it makes logical sense to do what?
it's a good thing to know your strengths, but they are the least likely reason why we lose a game. the vast majority of games are lost because of weaknesses, and only a minute fraction because our 'strength' wasn't strong enough. and even if that happened, what can you do about it. fortify your strength even further, when at the same time there are weaknesses which cause the vast majority of your losses?
Originally posted by wormwood"and the answer is: train open games. 🙂"
and the answer is: train open games. 🙂 because it always gives you most bang for the buck to optimize the bottleneck. to work on the weakest link on the chain.
it's a good thing to know your strengths, but they are the least likely reason why we lose a game. the vast majority of games are lost because of weaknesses, and only a minute fraction because ou ...[text shortened]... er, when at the same time there are weaknesses which cause the vast majority of your losses?
Well, that awnser is also logically valid, I on the other hand prefer to play to my strengths, and try to render my weaknesses irelevant
"it's a good thing to know your strengths, but they are the least likely reason why we lose a game. the vast majority of games are lost because of weaknesses"
Of course
....but consider this - Imagine reading a chess book about the "art of drawing" - This book gives you knowledge of stalemate tricks luceana position, etc, etc......after a while you realise that the knowledge you gained from the book isn't going to end in thousands of draws, but rather win drawn games (by knowing what to advoid) and draw otherwise lost games (by knowing how to draw)....and so the title was a little decieving, it is telling how to win and advoid defeat.
It is much the same when analysing your strengths, your clever sacs, clever novlties etc....because if you commit these killer blows to memory you shouldn't find yourself on the receiving end of them, and/or you can play them with confidence (should ever the same position arise)
and thus, perhaps winning you lost games, in an indirect way.
" what can you do about it. fortify your strength even further, when at the same time there are weaknesses which cause the vast majority of your losses?"
well, quite clearly there needs to balence between the two, to focus on one and ignore the other is absurd, IMO anyway....
Speaking of Capablanca, he was known for only going over his losses because they were so rare. For the chess player wanting to improve, it is necessary to perform an honest self-evaluation and eradicate the weak points in their game. This method could apply to soccer, business, Karate, ballroom dancing, etc.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI prefer to look at others games and study theirs, that way I can still win but learn from their mistakes.
You learn from analyzing your games and you learn the most from analyzing your misstakes.
So it is really a paradox - The more you lose the better you will be. If you only win games you have no misstakes to analyze and your progression will stagnate.
But I like to win, it gives me inspiration to play more. If I only lose then it is hard to find the ...[text shortened]... bout a third losses and 2 thirds winnings.
But I learn the most of analysing my worst games.