Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member mikelom
    Ajarn
    11 May '11 14:00
    There are many.

    However, I believe one of the greatest is skills is that you DON'T always have to take.

    Many positions where a take is expected, but provides a greater cover of tactical play, and the take is refused can, scare an opponent into fear of WTF is going on?

    What are your favourite skills? ( castling when unexpected, giving a sac... the list is large ).. let's have examples please.

    -m.
  2. 11 May '11 16:02
    Originally posted by mikelom
    There are many.

    However, I believe one of the greatest is skills is that you DON'T always have to take.

    Many positions where a take is expected, but provides a greater cover of tactical play, and the take is refused can, scare an opponent into fear of WTF is going on?

    What are your favourite skills? ( castling when unexpected, giving a sac... the list is large ).. let's have examples please.

    -m.
    For me the two biggest revelations that improved my chess were,in order of occurance:
    a) ignoring the opponents threat
    b) not pushing pawns

    It may not sound impressive but they really made a world of difference.
  3. 11 May '11 17:37
    Originally posted by mikelom
    There are many.

    However, I believe one of the greatest is skills is that you DON'T always have to take.

    Many positions where a take is expected, but provides a greater cover of tactical play, and the take is refused can, scare an opponent into fear of WTF is going on?

    What are your favourite skills? ( castling when unexpected, giving a sac... the list is large ).. let's have examples please.

    -m.
    rather interestingly i just watched a video presentation by Igor Smirnov in which he
    states that in many instances to take is a mistake. Why? because it usually gives
    more mobility to ones opponent.
  4. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    11 May '11 19:28
    "it depends on the position."


    taking is not a skill. not taking is not a skill either.

    the skill is to know when to take and when to not. which is a combination of the skills of evaluating positions AND directing the game where you want it to go. the more personal your style is, the more you'll emphasize the latter. the two aspects are separate, but not mutually exclusive.



    the best skill? the ability to sit down and work hard. nothing else comes even close.
  5. 11 May '11 19:51
    Originally posted by wormwood
    "it depends on the position."


    taking is not a skill. not taking is not a skill either.

    the skill is to know when to take and when to not. which is a combination of the skills of evaluating positions AND directing the game where you want it to go. the more personal your style is, the more you'll emphasize the latter. the two aspects are separate, but ...[text shortened]...



    the best skill? the ability to sit down and work hard. nothing else comes even close.
    this is interesting, for i have a tendency to calculate everything, which of course may
    not even find the best move and chess players love to take their opponents pieces, so
    this tendency needs to be fought as well. Knowing when the position is balanced,
    knowing when to unbalance it to advantage, knowing when to simplify to an endgame,
    knowing when to introduce complications, knowing when to sharpen it with advantage
    and when to kill it, knowing which minor pieces to exchange and why with advantage
    has perplexed me for ages. I follow master games and see that the masters
    exchange pieces but fifty percent of the time i cannot understand why they have
    exchanged minor pieces. It must have something to do with planning, for in many
    instances there is not even the hint of something tactical, i dunno, it remains an
    unsolved mystery at present.
  6. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    11 May '11 20:11 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I follow master games and see that the masters
    exchange pieces but fifty percent of the time i cannot understand why they have
    exchanged minor pieces. It must have something to do with planning, for in many
    instances there is not even the hint of something tactical, i dunno, it remains an
    unsolved mystery at present.
    I don't understand those either, mostly. often those mystical ones are related to endgames, at which I'm horrible. I just ignore such things as useless (to my level) fiddling.


    on your calculation problem, maybe you're letting the game flow into positions you can't possibly calculate? I find it's extremely common among lower rated players. the lower rated, the crazier positions they'll jump into head first. (and I'm like that too.) - look at kramnik. he can calculate the pants off anyone, and he's STILL extremely unlikely to willingly go into that 'crazy position'. calculation isn't the answer in an uncontrollable situation. some things you just have to take from practical stance, you don't allow what might become too complex.

    not that you should adopt kramnik's deadly boring style, but it's just something to think about. cannibalize what you can use, toss out the window the rest.
  7. 11 May '11 20:18 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by wormwood
    I don't understand those either, mostly. often those mystical ones are related to endgames, at which I'm horrible. I just ignore such things as useless (to my level) fiddling.


    on your calculation problem, maybe you're letting the game flow into positions you can't possibly calculate? I find it's extremely common among lower rated players. the lower rat ething to think about. cannibalize what you can use, toss out the window the rest.
    this is really interesting for i play lots of persons who are lower rated than me and they
    give me more trouble than the 1800s, indeed i have recently won three games against
    1850's with one draw and one loss from five and at the same time I lost a totally
    scrappy game against a 1450? and now i am getting my butt kicked from another
    1400, how the heck is that? How does one keep the game clear and logical as
    opposed to chaotic and complicated?
  8. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    11 May '11 20:34
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    this is really interesting for i play lots of persons who are lower rated than me and they
    give me more trouble than the 1800s, indeed i have recently won three games against
    1850's with one draw and one loss from five and at the same time I lost a totally
    scrappy game against a 1450? and now i am getting my butt kicked from another
    1400, ho ...[text shortened]... is that? How does one keep the game clear and logical as
    opposed to chaotic and complicated?
    tell me when you find out. 🙂


    seriously though, playing against lower rated opponents is often very hard because of the unorthodox positions. I assume learning to deal with it is one of the milestones on the road of getting better. I mean when I throw those curve balls at stronger people, they mostly chew it and spit it out as a equal position. or better for them.

    and against lower rated I usually manage the same, but not always. and it's never easy.

    what I usually try to do, is head for solid pawn structures, protected pieces, overprotecting, just try to make it as solid as possible until the smoke disappears. wait until they do something stupid. them you pounce, and rip them to shreds without mercy.
  9. Donation ketchuplover
    G.O.A.T.
    11 May '11 21:29
    The greatest "skill" is taking 0.000000000000000000000000000000002 seconds/move instead of 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds/move

    You lose half as fast!