The 200 points question

why I am not in the next class (in order of value)

1.tactics, tactics, tactics
2.lazy calculation
3.limited endgame skills
4.eye problems
5.too much swindling


edit: also-failure to analyze my own games.

these 6 things I am currently working on

why I am not 2000


Stupid opening, stupid middle game, do not know what is an stupid attack, stupid endgame, can't use my stupid queen, being the worst stupid player of all stupid time and insulting my stupid self and not analyzing the stupid game,

I am not a stupid computer.

I am only a stupid human.

So, I don,t have those stupid 200 points.

Stupid life, this is my stupid answer.


Another stupid question ?

Not caring enough.

My problem is my passive play. I know I have good tactical vision, above my rating level, but I always make safe moves and never get to use my tactical vision because I end up in passive boring caro kann and slav positions.

So I have decided to play different openings and take risk, I will play the sicilian and grunfeld as black and e4 as white, let's see if that helps.

I also suffer from the "I investigate 1 move, it doesn't work, I investigate another move, it doesn't work, I suddenly spot a third move that I can't refute in a split second and Iplay it immediatly" syndrome.

I really have to stop doing that. 😠

Originally posted by Gatusso
I really have to stop doing that. 😠

Yes, OK, but that is more improving in the margin of your current playing strength - your real playing strength, "understanding of chess", does not really change because of this. Perhaps that's what I was looking for - how come you don't understand as much of the positions as the guys rated 200 points above you.

Another example then, Internet bullet game. I'll comment what's going on below, main point being my LACK of PLAYING STRENGTH.



1. e4 ... thank god it's not 1. d4, as I would have had to put back the c pawn back to c7, relocate the cursor to g8, pick up that piece, etc., it's all quite bothersome
1. ... c5 yippee I know this, it's called the Sicilian
2. Nf3 ... thank god it's not something like 2. d4, 2. c3 or 2. Nc3, en garde!
2. ... d6 yippee I still know this
3. Bb5+ what? wut?
3. ... Bd7 confusion (you see I took 7 seconds, most of it probably to adjust the mouse from g8, pick up the right piece, move it to the right square, that sort of stuff 😛)
4. Bxd7+ check
4. ... Qxd7 yay I managed to premove this
5. c4 wut?
5. ... g6 I don't know this so I'll just make the standard move, had that pawn under my mouse cursor already anyway
6. Nc3 premoved that one
6. ... Bg7 wow I premoved that too, pretty risky as 6. Ne5 could've been played as well
7. d4 "oooh, that's not a problem"
7. ... cxd4 ... as I'll just take it and be safe
8. Nxd4
8. ... e5 while thinking this, I bang out another incautious premove
9. Nb5 whoopsee how am I going to cover that pawn... hmm...
9. ... Bf8 I must be a genius, got it all covered
10. Nd5 whoopsee I guess not
10. ... Nf6 whoopsee where is that resign button
11. Nbc7+ Heinzkat resigns, sends applause and logs out.

Mind you this was at the end of an hours-long maniacal clicking session, that must be part of the severe incautiousness too. I signed out after this game 😛 But the underlying concept is that I do not have the playing strength of someone rated 200 points higher, because I simply miss the ready knowledge on the intricacies of many openings, in this case 3. Bb5+, I would not even know under what name it is known.

Originally posted by heinzkat
Uhu, but when you get a "new position", the gaze immediately goes to the Kings

(at least for me)

My "gaze" starts with the pawns. The kings, thereafter.


I'd imagine when it comes right down to it, most of us are weak simply due the fact that
introspection is a difficult science. Flexible edification being the most important tool
therein.

My weaknesses

A love for unclear desperate positions
opening tricks - i find myself in autopilot early on...completely backwards of "when" it belongs.

king safety - I routinely overestimate attacks, and sometimes weaken myself in fear of my opponents useless prodding

staticism - By this I meen a lack of dynamic play. When positions have lost any piece
of uniformity; I feel as though hanging from a high place, losing my grip.

centralization - often is a key to victory, but much much much to often I chase the
idea of centralizing pieces, at a drastic cost which I ignored.
ADD:EDIT:WHATEVER: I suppose this is a small part of a bigger issue.
Continually seeking "known" benifical "factors" of positions, rather than seeking
a fluid "strategy". Most often, I am chasing tiny ideas rather than better laid out
long term plans. Sometimes just the opposite though, I'll miss easy shots due to
"simplification mode". :'(

indecisiveness - although it doesn't seem a poison in CC, in faster timed games i
simply cannot keep up. I sometimes think this may be a curse of analyzing my own
games so often.


Most of all; following "dogma" when a clear exception stares me in the face.


-GIN

Originally posted by Nowakowski
introspection is a difficult science. Flexible edification being the most important tool therein

You seem to have found a way to introspect and gain 400 points playing strength some months ago 😲 Whaddiyyoudo? Did you edify flexible? Any details would be most welcome PLZ

Originally posted by heinzkat
You seem to have found a way to introspect and gain 400 points playing strength some months ago 😲 Whaddiyyoudo? Did you edify flexible? Any details would be most welcome PLZ

Hard work, and dedication.

The keys to growth in any subject really are the same. Not that you'd ever follow any
advice I'll give heinz, but I think you probably suffer from a lack of mental discipline.

That being, sometimes you do a few puzzles and maybe a few blitzes and then read an
article, maybe watch one game, and part of one more, and play some more blitz, and
then just maybe you'll kinda look at your CC games, think about playing, and then
maybe change your mind, and then you'll think about some blitz, ... Or maybe ...

Or ...

How many hours a day do you spend playing Chess?
How many studying chess?

In your study how much time is allocated to your games?
How much is allocated to the games of others?
How do you select the games of others?

When you finish playing, how long do you look at each game?
Do you ever annotate your games?
Are there more words explaining your moves, or more variations improving them?



Your study habits are what improve your play (that is just your work ethic of course)
and if you want to get better, then shape it up.

One good tip, is write down what you accomplish. Not what you do, but what you
accomplish. If you have any type of self drive, you'll find the short list each day to
be an unbearable mascot.


-GIN

Give me your list 😛

Originally posted by heinzkat
Give me your list 😛

Todays?
Tomorrows?
Yesterdays?

if you have a real interest in my method heinz, i'll share.
its not easy, nor fun.


but i doubt your really interested. seems like goading to me 🙂
if you are, simply pm me. like i said, i'll share. 🙂

Mind you this was at the end of an hours-long maniacal clicking session, that must be part of the severe incautiousness too. I signed out after this game 😛 But the underlying concept is that I do not have the playing strength of someone rated 200 points higher, because I simply miss the ready knowledge on the intricacies of many openings, in this case 3. Bb5+, I would not even know under what name it is known.[/b]

I am confused, you tell me that you mean understanding and such, but you are basically giving an example of lack of opening knowledge, which has nothing to do with playing strength or the understanding of chess.

That variation is called the rossolimo, I know that but you would kick my ass anytime, nothing to do with understanding or skill.

Originally posted by Gatusso
an example of lack of opening knowledge, which has nothing to do with playing strength or the understanding of chess.

it most definitely has. the opening is all about understanding your positions.

Originally posted by heinzkat
Another example then, Internet bullet game. I'll comment what's going on below, main point being my LACK of PLAYING STRENGTH.

[pgn][White "***"]
[Black "HK"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 {1} 1... c5 {1} 2. Nf3 {1} 2... d6 {0} 3. Bb5+ {1} 3... Bd7 {7} 4. Bxd7+ {1} 4... Qxd7 {0} 5. c4 {1} 5... g6 {1} 6. Nc3 {0} 6... Bg7 {0} 7. d4 {1} 7... cxd4 {1} 8. Nxd4 {0} ...[text shortened]... ngs, in this case 3. Bb5+, I would not even know under what name it is known.

yeah, looks like a clear case of insufficient opening theory. book up.

Originally posted by wormwood
it most definitely has. the opening is all about understanding your positions.

I know that. thats not what I meant. What I mean to say is that you cant get to Heinzkats level without understanding the positions, so he just missess the knowledge of concrete variations. That does not necessarily show a lack of understanding but is easily fixable by just studying openings and building a repertoire, which is exactly what Heinzkat should do to improve I think.

Lack of opening knowledge does not equal lack of opening understanding IMHO.