Small thrills in chess

Originally posted by ckoh1965
Well, actually, you'd be surprised how much you can improve if you read books. You'll find lots of stuff. Past games and what are the ideas behind each opening. When I was at the height of my chess madness, I used to read a hell lot. I used to play in tournaments. Unfortunately, I never did win anything, but I got as far as number 7 in a local club. Then wh ...[text shortened]... it.

Try reading a bit, and you'll see that your strength will increase in no time!

Oh, I know that. And I am sure doing some tactics puzzles every day would help, too. It was easy enough to get to where I am now without much work, but I don't think I'll make much further progress without investing some time and effort. So I keep telling myself that I should start working on my chess... Maybe it'll happen some day.

Originally posted by ckoh1965
If you don't read, you'd often find yourself trapped; or you'd waste a lot of time thinking in the opening.

This is a common pitfall that many players fall into. i.e. they don’t play the opening well and believe that the solution is to read an openings book. However, the chances are that the mistakes they made during the opening were more specifically to do with a weakness in their tactical ability, positional play, etc. And what they need to work on is their general chess ability and not waste time focusing too much on the opening.

Matters are made worse by the fact that studying the opening gives an exaggerated illusion of its benefits. E.g. we play an opening poorly and get a bad middlegame. Then we look up a book and see that we should have played move X… sounds great… a tangible piece of new knowledge that wasn’t known previously… must mean we’ve improved. Unfortunately not. Our next game will reveal another gap and the cycle never ends.

This is not to say that knowing some opening theory is bad; I agree that it is useful. But given the limited time most people have for chess, opening books are overestimated. It’s a question of priorites.

I'm thrilled when I recognize a weakness and consciencly exploit it.

Originally posted by Varenka
This is a common pitfall that many players fall into. i.e. they don’t play the opening well and believe that the solution is to read an openings book. However, the chances are that the mistakes they made during the opening were more specifically to do with a weakness in their tactical ability, positional play, etc. And what they need to work on is their g ...[text shortened]... time most people have for chess, opening books are overestimated. It’s a question of priorites.

Well, I never claimed that you'd be able to improve chess by only learning on the openings. But that is one way to start. Of course there is the general principles of chess... tactics, endgames etc. Even at GM levels, eg. the recent Kramnik/Topalov games, one can see the power of opening preparations. I have no doubt that Kramnik is a very strong GM, but even he took a long time to figure some new stuff Topalov threw at him.

The other aspects of chess, eg middle/end game are equally important, and I've said so in some of my posts here. For example, I have a book where C. Lutz spent an entire chapter just to discuss a pawn ending. I am reading other books, you see. But unfortunately I just don't have the luxury to spent much more time than I'd like to. I need to work and pay the bills too!

Obviously one has to learn other phases of the game also. But opening principles is, in my opinion very important. Rapid development of pieces, castling etc can help in the forthcoming middle game and endgame.

It is strange that if the opening is executed properly, sometimes the tactics can somehow almost magically emerge in the middle game. I think Capablanca said that once, although not in so much words. The fact that the pieces are developed onto ideals squares makes life much easier than, say, improper development, eg knights to the edge of the board etc.

Originally posted by invigorate
I play low level, high quantity chess here. Like any drug, chess has a few small thrills that compensate for the lows. For me I get a small thrill from mating with a horse, mainly because it is comparitively rare.

But in one of my games I'm about to reveal checkmate, something I haven't done for ages and I'm hoping for another small thrill.

What rare events give you thrills?

Last week I promoted a pawn to a knight, putting my opponent in checkmate. A quick search of my database confirmed that I'd never done this before, and that it had not been done to me. I was able to find nine game in all of chess history that ended thus.

Aside from such moments, the real thrill in chess is getting better year by year through the emphasis of quality over quantity (see Clan 24395)

Originally posted by ckoh1965

“The other aspects of chess, eg middle/end game are equally important”

I’m saying that the other aspects are a lot more important… not “equally important”.

“the recent Kramnik/Topalov games, one can see the power of opening preparations.”

Kramnik and Topalov play chess as full-time professionals, and they have people to assist them in their preparation. How much do you think you can copy this model? Chess is a different “game” for those guys.

“But opening principles is, in my opinion very important.”

I agree. But your previous post gave the impression of learning the Dragon in considerable depth. That’s not “opening principles”; that’s specialised opening preparation in terms of learning lots of specific variations.

nice ego trip dungeons and dragons

Originally posted by Varenka
[b] “The other aspects of chess, eg middle/end game are equally important”

I’m saying that the other aspects are a lot more important… not “equally important”.

“the recent Kramnik/Topalov games, one can see the power of opening preparations.”

Kramnik and Topalov play chess as full-time professionals, and they have people to assist the ...[text shortened]... iples”; that’s specialised opening preparation in terms of learning lots of specific variations.[/b]

I have no intention to debate with you on this. I admit that I am not a GM. Far from it. I believe even GMs have conflicting opinions on the game. Equally important, a lot more important, I don't know which is which exactly. It's just my opinion, but of course I may be wrong.

Regarding preparations in the Kramnik/Topalov games, I am not saying that I am able to copy 'this model'. I can't. I just don't have the time to do it. But I was just giving that example to show that opening preparations are important, even GMs spend lots of time on it. Whether one is able to devote that much time is another different matter altogether.

On the dragon opening, of course there is an overlapping of opening principles plus some finer ideas behind a particular move(s). Somehow we still obey the 'rules' of rapid development of pieces; make the least possible pawn moves if we can help it; refrain from making early queen sortie; castle early etc. But then we might 'violate' some 'rules' because we might want to 'waste' a pawn move with g6 to allow Bg7. We want to study the pros and cons of d6 & d5, or d5 in a single move etc. In the long run, we get a good idea of a particular opening and the reasons for the moves. But after playing such move orders over and over again, it somehow becomes a memorization for the first few moves. This time-tested first few moves have so much in them that it's hard to find reasons why we shouldn't follow the same move orders. At least until such time that some GMs came up with novelties and new ideas that would refute these well-established opening ideas. Therefore even GMs have the tendency to make the first several moves almost without thinking, because they probably have gone through the same moves thousands of times before.

In spite of the above, in my opinion, one still need to know general opening principles for a start. I have often found myself against a strange opening. What should I do? How should I respond? Well, I play according to opening principles, e.g try to develop with a view of controlling the central squares with a threat against enemy pieces if possible, thus limiting his choices of replies. Even if I don't know the opening, I will somehow try to develop quickly, castle if safe to do so, connect rooks and maybe bring them to open files etc. After all, that's opening principles.

Originally posted by Varenka
[b] “The other aspects of chess, eg middle/end game are equally important”

I’m saying that the other aspects are a lot more important… not “equally important”.

“the recent Kramnik/Topalov games, one can see the power of opening preparations.”

Kramnik and Topalov play chess as full-time professionals, and they have people to assist the ...[text shortened]... iples”; that’s specialised opening preparation in terms of learning lots of specific variations.[/b]

I think having a solid knowledge of an opening or two at the 1600ish+ level mark can boost one's rating. I've studied the Dragon a bit and have been scoring very well with it recently partly because of my opponents lack of understand of the opening.

Originally posted by invigorate:
What rare events give you thrills?


Oh, I got a real thrill when I saw a queen sac combination that won a piece against a strong player. 😵

Game 2639698

watching a female chess player mate with a horse gives me quite the thrill i must say.

Originally posted by pawnfondler
watching a female chess player mate with a horse gives me quite the thrill i must say.

ROFL

For me nothing beats a nice sac though.

Originally posted by bot 6
chess is a stupid game for fools.the only reason i play is to show you geeks that its not about this deep and intelectual thing you call logic, its about tic tac toe whoopty do. i might as well play checkers. same thing.

Says the 1348 elo player


if you're that good at chess why this elo then ?
the fool is you

Game 2749285

Mate with the f7 pawn.

Originally posted by Nordlys
😲

I love triple or quadruple forks. I also get a thrill from setting up a cunning plan, having to work hard on making it work because my opponent sees what I am up to, but still being successful in the end.

And let's not forget the double-entendre surrounding "mating with a horse" 😀