The 200 points question

For me, the main problem - I think - is my approach of the game.

It always is, as if I am doing something for the second time in my life - I know I have done something with it before, but for the rest the conclusions of the previous encounters evade me.

Well, that definitely applies to my openings. For example. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 - this is an opening that often arises. However, I always try something different with it, whatever I feel like at that particular moment, and I can always be caught out by an annoying ... Qb6 (Qxb2) maneuver.

I never sit down behind the board with a clear plan on how I am going to work out this next point. I move a few pieces and hope the plans offer are offered by the pieces themselves - i.e. I look at what the pieces can do and adjust my strategy based on that.

At the same time, this is my main strength -- I take nothing for granted. I always have to recheck everything, and in that process, I may discover more about the position than my opponent does. At the same time, this need to check out every triviality of a position (or else I just don't "GET" it) backfires often when I have been doing so for five moves or so in a row and then not feeling like repeating that process completely on move six.

Another aspect is that often I play chess because I'm just addicted to moving around the chess pieces, with no further intentions behind it. I tend to put things in perspective and I am just missing the blind, rücksichtslos fanatism to "win", to beat my opponent, that fighting spirit. I just enjoy the chess experience.

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.

Hmm I don't quite agree about the centre approach, it depends completely on where the pieces/Kings stand. I.e. if there is a backrank mate my eyes definitely will not going to be bothered about what is happening in the centre??

I never sit down behind the board with a clear plan on how I am going to work out this next point. I move a few pieces and hope the plans offer are offered by the pieces themselves - i.e. I look at what the pieces can do and adjust my strategy based on that.

This is well said, and how I feel most games.

Originally posted by dirtysniper
This is well said

Too bad about the typing mistake (remove the first "offer" and it is correct)

Originally posted by heinzkat
For me, the main problem - I think - is my approach of the game.

It always is, as if I am doing something for the second time in my life - I know I have done something with it before, but for the rest the conclusions of the previous encounters evade me.

Well, that definitely applies to my openings. For example. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 - this is an openin sm to "win", to beat my opponent, that fighting spirit. I just enjoy the chess experience.

I know your openings are better than mine, but that still sounds like you lacked the certainty which comes from having stuff down cold. I feel similar uncertainty with my opening & middlegame positions, where they do actually feel familiar, and I do see certain typical ideas which I then try to make work. but I DON'T have it down cold, so that I could put a finger on a move and say immediately that 'this is correct' in the situations where it's feasible. (obviously there's always gonna be situations for which you simply can't prepare yourself, but at least my own openings are quite damn far from even having the basics down in the aforementioned manner. which I'm currently trying to correct with systematic opening training.)

have you ever worked on your openings in a systematic way? I mean beyond the 'getting sort of familiar with the ideas' kind of way, which will probably be okay as well, but requires other resources to compensate for.

Originally posted by orion25
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 ab ...[text shortened]... btw, I think it is exactly that that keeps me from getting those 200+ points, pure laziness...

The point of my numbers are not the rating points themselves, but the relative %s. The numbers are an attempt to put it perspective the relative importance of my weaknesses in relation to a 200 point improvement. I think this approach does work and gives a general idea of the aspects I should concentrate on for the biggest relative benefits. The conclusion from my numbers is that I should train tactics slightly more than half of my study time for optimum improvement. Of course, I was under the influence when I wrote that post, so it might be imaginative, but I still don't see the problem with it.

The thing about facing a thing for the "second" time is just me in general. I know I have done something with it before, have spent thought on it... yet I don't remember the outcome. Yes I am weird 😛

I inquired about ways of learning "the openings" earlier on here, but the general consensus was that it is absurd for someone over 2000 to ask about basic openings. I have known all the basic principles for years and of course I play according to them, yet when I am in a Trompowski there is a whole lot of things I simply don't "know" about after only three or four moves. In fact, I have no clue what to do with it. So I just improvise like I always do, making some moves, and see what kind of a show the pieces have in store for me today. But if there is some sort of resource where you have gotten all your opening wisdom from, feel free to share.

In corr. chess I generally compensate for my lack of opening decisiveness by looking over my opponent's previous games (especially their losses; and wins vs. highest rated opponents, know what to avoid) and try to copy the opening and to bring on the board the same type of position in which they started drifting in their previous lost game(s).

Originally posted by Maxacre42
The point of my numbers are not the rating points themselves, but the relative %s. The numbers are an attempt to put it perspective the relative importance of my weaknesses in relation to a 200 point improvement. I think this approach does work and gives a general idea of the aspects I should concentrate on for the biggest relative benefits. The conclusio ...[text shortened]... when I wrote that post, so it might be imaginative, but I still don't see the problem with it.

Hmm I'm still not sure, this thread was not really intended to be about "improving"; I intended it to be some explanation of what you are lacking when you are playing a game of chess at THIS VERY MOMENT.

Originally posted by heinzkat
Hmm I'm still not sure, this thread was not really intended to be about "improving"; I intended it to be some explanation of what you are lacking when you are playing a game of chess at THIS VERY MOMENT.

Then, you can split the numbers in half and they become percentages. So it can be put this way : The reason for my lacking to play at a level 200 points higher, is about 50% tactical skill, 15% opening preparation with white and so on.
They are just rough subjective numbers to see the relative impact of my weaknesses on my lack of playing 200 points higher.

Originally posted by heinzkat
The thing about facing a thing for the "second" time is just me in general. I know I have done something with it before, have spent thought on it... yet I don't remember the outcome. Yes I am weird 😛

I inquired about ways of learning "the openings" earlier on here, but the general consensus was that it is absurd for someone over 2000 to ask about basic he same type of position in which they started drifting in their previous lost game(s).

yeah, I've also noticed people often assume all kinds of things just because of the 2000 number. solid endgame, proficient openings, deep positional understanding etc. -and I'm sure some of 2000s do have maybe one of those down, and a working knowledge on others. but the truth is, tactics take a guy a long way, and all the rest simply isn't that crucial until you start banging heads with the big boys who actually do have those things down. the skill doesn't magically appear inside you when The Number increases. it actually has to be laboriously acquired.

another reason probably is that people don't realize how much stuff they don't have down. not an improvement thread goes by that there weren't low rated players who think they're solid on any of it, but ask a 2200+ and they'll most likely say they're not very solid on any area. it's also very humbling to hear run-of-the-mill GMs talk about themself as woodpushers when trying to analyze the super GMs in a tournament. there simply is a LOT of ground to cover, and at 2000 most of us are barely scratching the surface.

well, enough discouraging. 🙂 -what I'm doing about my openings right now, is that I downloaded chess position trainer, and started building opening databases from scratch. like taking up a book on leningrad, and first inputting at least all the mainlines. then adding anti-dutch lines, stuff from videos, favourite games etc, whatever sources I want to include. anytime I find something interesting, or think of a problematic position, when I sort it out I add the results into the tree.

CPT operates based on the concept of 'sub-repertoires', which all the marketing lingo aside simply means having separate databases for each different opening. so I have one of leningrad (well two), polar bear, sicilian, one for each antisicilian etc... so that I can train each one in isolation.

then I just click on the training mode, which gives random lines for me to play through. then I just repeatedly hammer the lines in, over and over and over again. train them until I can't get them wrong.

a lot of it is simply driving the lines into muscle memory, but you also find yourself grasping stuff that was left hazy when you read it in the book. especially the stuff you simply forget in a week after reading it. -but you also deduce new understanding, especially in transpositional situations. some moves which you never understood reading the line in a book, suddenly makes perfect sense when CPT throws the move order variations at you.

it's a lot of work, but at last I'm finding it very beneficial.

For me the problem would be, what lines to insert? I really have no idea.

Originally posted by wormwood
yeah, I've also noticed people often assume all kinds of things just because of the 2000 number. solid endgame, proficient openings, deep positional understanding etc. -and I'm sure some of 2000s do have maybe one of those down, and a working knowledge on others. but the truth is, tactics take a guy a long way, and all the rest simply isn't that crucial unt ...[text shortened]... ions at you.

it's a lot of work, but at last I'm finding it very beneficial.

let me get this straight, wormwood, at the 2000 up level you actually need to punch lines into your brain? But you do know the main-lines right? What you are saying is you need to memorize lesser important lines as well? I had never quite thought about this, but I expected that even at 2000 level it would sufice to know the main-lines...

Originally posted by orion25
But you do know the main-lines right?

Ehm... no. The "main lines" of what opening? All? No. I do not know them

Originally posted by wormwood
yeah, I've also noticed people often assume all kinds of things just because of the 2000 number. solid endgame, proficient openings, deep positional understanding etc. -and I'm sure some of 2000s do have maybe one of those down, and a working knowledge on others. but the truth is, tactics take a guy a long way, and all the rest simply isn't that crucial unt ...[text shortened]... ions at you.

it's a lot of work, but at last I'm finding it very beneficial.

This is the exact same method I used for my openings, and it continues working very well for me. However, don't make the same time-consuming mistake I did. Don't go(inserting moves) too deep in all variations. 90% of them you will never see in your life, which makes 90% of your massive memorizing task completely useless. Even for the unique variations I did encounter that I worked on with CPT, I forgot them anyways when it came the first time to use em, and never saw them again afterwards. In those situations, it's especially more important to know the ''why?'' of the moves than the precise variations. Of course, go super deep in the main and popular lines!

school