The 200 points question

heinzkat

Only Chess

28 Nov '09 01:10

Paul Leggett
Chess Librarian
The Stacks
Joined
21 Aug '09
Moves
113572
28 Nov '09 02:533 edits
Originally posted by wormwood
lousy opening
catastrophic middlegame
weak attacking technique
bad endgame

tendency to ignore getting weaknesses in favour of attacking chances
lousy calculation
tendency to choose complications over solidity
pawn blindness
If I may generalize from this, I once read Botvinnik where he made the point that "defects of character" hold players back from being the best. The remark offended me a little at first, but as I have considered it ( and I mean "considered it" for years now), I think I understand what he means, and I think he is right.

I think the term "character" is a slight inaccuracy in translation to English (because the word "character" has connotations in English regarding morals, values, integrity, etc, that do not correspond to what I think he meant), but what he referred to are things like impulsiveness, overconfidence, lack of confidence, laziness, lack of focus, and other such characteristics that define our personality.

I think Wormwood's last four items fit this perfectly. In OTB chess I play too quickly, and it costs me games. Playing on this site is correcting that deficiency, I think. I am playing in an OTB tournament in mid January, and I'll know better the Monday after!

Paul
Maxacre42
Joined
16 Oct '09
Moves
2448
28 Nov '09 02:591 edit
For me precisely :

- endgame calculation training = steady progression to 20 points improvement

- Improving my transition from opening to middlegame = 15 points

- Getting to know more variations and nuances in my openings with white = easy 25 points then steady slow improvement afterwards

- Getting good visualization skill through blindfold play = 40 hopefully

- Getting some sweet tactical ability - priceless (steady to +100 and beyond)

I feel like my positional play, solidity, strategy (playing with good plans and knowing which are the good piece trades) and transition from middlegame to endgame are above my level and I try to play around those strengths.
Paul Leggett
Chess Librarian
The Stacks
Joined
21 Aug '09
Moves
113572
28 Nov '09 03:061 edit
Originally posted by heinzkat
Question: why is your playing strength not 200 rating points higher than it is now? What elements of chess are holding you back?
To answer the question more directly, it is very likely that no one can answer it without a personal epiphany, hard self-analysis, or the help of an objective third party, such as a coach, trainer, or friend.

In other words, knowledge of which elements would allow for study and correction, and a 200 point gain (working with the theme of the question, of course). It may well be the case that each player does not really know (they "don't know what they don't know" ), and that the discovery of that knowledge is the key to their growth.

I can say that, tongue only partly in cheek, that if I would remember that my opponent's knights can move backwards to capture stuff, I would have avoided several losses. It's a blind spot I have that has happened enough to make me laugh at myself now when it happens.

Paul
Small Animal
Joined
11 Jan '09
Moves
65330
28 Nov '09 03:40
While I respect Paul Legget, and his many posts, I still feel the Beer holds not just myself, but many of us from our true Chess rating.
RevRSleeker
CerebrallyChallenged
Lyme BayChesil Beach
Joined
09 Dec '06
Moves
17848
28 Nov '09 04:31
Originally posted by dirtysniper
While I respect Paul Legget, and his many posts, I still feel the Beer holds not just myself, but many of us from our true Chess rating.
Though it's intimated after blunder ( best excuse ?? ) I feel confident that you may well be in a minority 🙂
AudreyxSophie
Joined
11 Jul '09
Moves
43994
28 Nov '09 04:59
I play 1. f4, So I am the evil one, and that is why i am not rated 200 points higher.

The evil must lose.
orion25
Art is hard
Joined
21 Jan '07
Moves
12359
28 Nov '09 09:22
Originally posted by Maxacre42
For me precisely :

- endgame calculation training = steady progression to 20 points improvement

- Improving my transition from opening to middlegame = 15 points

- Getting to know more variations and nuances in my openings with white = easy 25 points then steady slow improvement afterwards

- Getting good visualization skill through blindfold p ...[text shortened]... ansition from middlegame to endgame are above my level and I try to play around those strengths.
I don't think training translates directly into rating points, my friend. Even chess-ability doesnt translate directly into rating points, though rating is an indicator, we can find 1500s who are better than many 1600. Ratings stem from various other instances that not chess-training, as well, mostle the ability to handle situations, ability to forsee and ability to apply the knowledge. Also, of course, as stated, your caracter as a person. (I can hardly expect to become a master if I don't have the confidence to start an attack when needed, or instead think I am great and therefore play slopily, or am just plain lazy and procrastinate a lot)

btw, I think it is exactly that that keeps me from getting those 200+ points, pure laziness...
jonrothwell
Joined
12 May '07
Moves
8718
28 Nov '09 10:501 edit
This article might interst some of you and it may also help towards those two hundred points.

http://www.psychology.gatech.edu/create/pubs/reingold&charness_perception-in-chess_2005_underwood.pdf

Basically it asks how you look at the board? Scattergun approach, logical sequence(I.E. square to square), fixation on one part of the board, looking at individual pieces.

Amateurs tend to do one of the above or something similar whereas masters tend to see the whole board by initially concentrating on the centre of the board and 'seeing' everything with their peripheral vision. This way they notice patterns and the power and connections between the pieces.
Ajuin
Joined
10 Oct '09
Moves
3027
28 Nov '09 11:04
Originally posted by wormwood
lousy opening
catastrophic middlegame
weak attacking technique
bad endgame

tendency to ignore getting weaknesses in favour of attacking chances
lousy calculation
tendency to choose complications over solidity
pawn blindness
Pretty much what he said
PatzerLars
pawn grabber
Joined
06 Mar '08
Moves
7996
28 Nov '09 11:432 edits
Good question. I think it is definitely the blunders and ridiculous oversights that tend to happen in my game.
Examples:

Game 5591786 15. Re3 ?? At the end I got lucky.

Game 4743242 18. Nd5 ?? I had the illusion of winning the piece back with a pawn fork. Ridiculous.

Game 5906044 18. ... Nd3+ simply overlooking all the pins and knight forks.

Game 6231248 Horrible blunders. No comment.

Game 6295895 Tactical oversight. 40. ... Qa2+ followed by 41. ... Qa6 wins bishop. I admit that the Queen check is maybe not so obvious.

Game 6342657 The handling of the Rook endgame is ridiculous.

If you blunder like this in a 3 days/move game, then you can't expect to achieve mastership, no matter how sophisticated your opening play or how deep your strategical understanding is (not that I claim that mine is good).

Whether these blunders were rooted in my character I leave open for discussion.
AudreyxSophie
Joined
11 Jul '09
Moves
43994
28 Nov '09 12:43
one single move can make you lose a game, even if you play 50 brillancys.

taht help, to not get those 200 points.
wormwood
If Theres Hell Below
We're All Gonna Go!
Joined
10 Sep '05
Moves
10228
28 Nov '09 15:24
Originally posted by Paul Leggett
If I may generalize from this, I once read Botvinnik where he made the point that "defects of character" hold players back from being the best. The remark offended me a little at first, but as I have considered it ( and I mean "considered it" for years now), I think I understand what he means, and I think he is right.

I think the term "character" is ...[text shortened]... ng in an OTB tournament in mid January, and I'll know better the Monday after!

Paul
yeah, definitely. my main problem these days is lack of discipline. I know very well how to correct my shortcomings, but actually doing it requires a steady diet of disciplined work, which seems to be beyond me right now. I just dabble at things whenever I happen to feel like it, and that's just not enough if I want it to happen in years instead of decades.

oh, and about the knights moving back, sounds familiar. for some reason it's almost impossible for me to 'not make progress'. if I can't find the solid continuation, I will pick the crazy one instead of going back. then self-destruct later because of it.
wormwood
If Theres Hell Below
We're All Gonna Go!
Joined
10 Sep '05
Moves
10228
28 Nov '09 15:43
Originally posted by jonrothwell
This article might interst some of you and it may also help towards those two hundred points.

http://www.psychology.gatech.edu/create/pubs/reingold&charness_perception-in-chess_2005_underwood.pdf

Basically it asks how you look at the board? Scattergun approach, logical sequence(I.E. square to square), fixation on one part of the board, looking at i ...[text shortened]... pheral vision. This way they notice patterns and the power and connections between the pieces.
well, yeah. but that's a symptom, not the cause. you can't get better by adressing a symptom, you need to address the cause behind it. the masters didn't see the whole board before getting good, anymore than we do. they see it because they've built up more experience, more patterns, more familiarity with their structures. which is summed up as a better board vision. throw a random position at them, and they'll be just as lost as everyone else.

what I'm trying to say, is that you can't train 'seeing the whole board' by trying to look at the whole board. it's impossible. -you get there gradually, by getting more familiar with your positions, knowing better what's where, and building up more patterns/structures/chunks into your head.
heinzkat
Joined
25 Apr '06
Moves
5939
28 Nov '09 16:07
Originally posted by Maxacre42
- endgame = 20 points
- transition opening middlegame = 15 points
- openings = 25 points
- blindfold = 40 points
- tactics = +100 points
That really is not how it works, as orionnumbers pointed out above already. Chess strength is about overall APPROACH.
heinzkat
Joined
25 Apr '06
Moves
5939
28 Nov '09 16:081 edit
Originally posted by dirtysniper
While I respect Paul Legget, and his many posts, I still feel the Beer holds not just myself, but many of us from our true Chess rating.
Sure, you are saying if you laid off the beer you'd be stronger 200 points - that would make you 1300. But why is your REAL playing strength not 200 points higher than that - 1500?

Only Chess Forum

The 200 points question