Originally posted by Bedlamlol. Okay 🙂 I'll try to keep that in mind.
Silman's a pillock. People who are still making mistakes often shouldn't study GM games. Once you have a soild game and want to start to make stronger moves then move onto FM games, think of it like trying to swim, do you dive in the 5 metre part or the part where you can stand up and swim around and but can always put your feet down if you need to.
Originally posted by EnigmaticCammy two cents:
...I was just browsing through that thread and saw something that totally fits my bill; I tend to focus too much on openings. Rarely do I lose out of an opening but instead to a tactical blunder in the middle or end game. Maybe I'll try to focus solely on tactics instead of openings from now on...
learn opening principles, pick up one opening for white, two for black (against 1.e4 & 1.d4), and stick to them. this way you'll gain experience on those particular openings, and still avoid wasting time with lots of opening theory.
the single most important aspect for 1500's and under is tactics. tactics tactics tactics. thousands of tactical problems, tens of thousands. try to do some every day.
go through your lost games too, figure out where you lost the game, and what you should have done. this is probably the second most important thing after tactics, and will work at any level. you can't fix it, if you don't know what's broken.
going through a lot of master games will give you a feel how things should go. but it won't affect your performance until you stop dropping pieces. nothing will. that's why tactics are so important at 1500 and under.
endgame. -there are different views on this, as on everything else, but my take is it doesn't have any effect until your games reach endgames. mine almost never reach that stage at 1678, but I think it depends a lot on how aggressive player you are.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
At OTB level one of the main differences seem to be time spent on moves, the lower teams always finish much earlier than the better teams, im not sure if this is because lower graded players dont understand as much so they dont consider as many possiblities or if its a lack of caculation done, maybe a bit of both I guess.
I tend to choose slower and more positional openings to avoid tactics. Do you think I should try more aggressive games like e4 instead of d4 as white and c5 instead of e6 as black, forcing myself to work out those tactics?
You should always play the strongest move you can, without fear of being wrong holding you back.
As I said I would play a game and see if I could improve your thought process.
Silman's books taught me a lot so I'll return the favour in some small way with this post.
Don't discount his books, everyone has different tastes and you may end up disagreeing with his method but hey, Aagaard and John Watson disagree a lot but both of their opinions are valid and educational.
Originally posted by BedlamNow thats unreasonably harsh. I agree that the Amatuers mind wasn't helpful (to me), but Reaccess Your Chess was the most influential chessbook I have ever read. While most amatuers know that double pawns = bad, do they know when they are good? Do they consciencly think about outpost squares or backward pawns? or for a more advanced topic colour complexs?
Silman's a pillock. People who are still making mistakes often shouldn't study GM games. Once you have a soild game and want to start to make stronger moves then move onto FM games, think of it like trying to swim, do you dive in the 5 metre part or the part where you can stand up and swim around and but can always put your feet down if you need to.
hmmm....
personally I don't think Studying GM games ever helped me (unless it was part of a lecture, where everything was explained) the reason was simple I could never understand why they made the moves they did.....
for example, philidors mate is a 3-4 move sequence, I only learnt it about a month ago....
now, if i can't spot and play philidors mate when its right in front of me what are the chances of me understanding why "Qb3" was played?? (defending the sequence)
I do however think reviewing games is a good way to learn.....personally I study the games here, (by 1800 players upwards) the reason being is that they are not too far advanced (which means i can understand why "X" was played) and a the same time, the games are played at a standard i can learn something from....
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by zebanoI think most amatuers consider outposts and backward pawns. I won the book "Amatuers Mind" in an internal club chess competition. Ironic that you would have to play better than the books aimed at level to win it 🙂
Now thats unreasonably harsh. I agree that the Amatuers mind wasn't helpful (to me), but Reaccess Your Chess was the most influential chessbook I have ever read. While most amatuers know that double pawns = bad, do they know when they are good? Do they consciencly think about outpost squares or backward pawns? or for a more advanced topic colour complexs?
I only said Silman was a pillock for suggesting that people should look at GM games, if we could truely understand the principles and why moves were played then we would already be GMs.
Originally posted by BedlamI'll also look at GM games to get an idea of a plan. Sometimes my opponent will bring me down a variation I don't play very much of an opening I play a lot, and I'm kinda hesitant on what to do. Reviewing a bunch of GM games from that position really helps.
I think most amatuers consider outposts and backward pawns. I won the book "Amatuers Mind" in an internal club chess competition. Ironic that you would have to play better than the books aimed at level to win it 🙂
I only said Silman was a pillock for suggesting that people should look at GM games, if we could truely understand the principles and why moves were played then we would already be GMs.
Originally posted by EnigmaticCamYes! shh keep that a secret.
I'll also look at GM games to get an idea of a plan. Sometimes my opponent will bring me down a variation I don't play very much of an opening I play a lot, and I'm kinda hesitant on what to do. Reviewing a bunch of GM games from that position really helps.
Go over master game in the variations you play and pick out the ideas that work and don't work.
As for you question, I say play 1.e4 and don't worry about tactics. The games are lively and your tactics will improve. Don't be scared, we all miss tactics now and then. Whatever you choose, 1.d4 or 1.e4 stick with it.
As for master games, Old games from masters are great to go over. They always use to crush their competition and the plans are easy to pick out. With new GM's Kasp, Anand, etc... They play against stronger players and keep changing their plans during the game and it's hard to pick out their plans.
So Morhpy, Marshall, Capablance etc.. are great master.
Reading through books such as logical Chess move by move is good also. Online lectures, www.chess.fm. I watch them when they post new ones. Free lectures 🙂
For what it's worth to anyone who cares:
Openings- Pick an opening and stick to it. I like to play 1.d4, but have been forcing myself to play 1.e4 because I know that the positions tend to be more tactical early in the game, and that is where I need the most work. As far as studying the opening, go to any database (free online databases at chessbase.com, chesslab.com, and shredderchess.com) and pick 20 or so games in an opening to play through quickly to get a feel for where the pieces belong before you make an in-depth study of particular lines (this advice was given to me by an acquaintance who is an ICCF Master).
Endgames- You can get enough basic endgame info from Pandolfini's endgame course to get you by. I like to think of this book as Endgame's 101, very basic, but still usefull. I now use Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, which is in my opinion the best instructional book available for endgames.
Planning- There are lots of different authors who give their ideas on how to formulate a plan. The common thread seems to be the idea of a structured process. I don't believe that this is quite accurate, because I don't believe that the strong players (masters and above) really do go through a step by step process on each move. But most of us aren't masters, and need to learn to walk first. I think Silman's Reassess is a very good book, but with any strategy book, you can't maximize your gains from it until your tactics are in order.
Tactics- Go over 10-20 tactics puzzles daily, preferably with solutions of 4-5 moves at the most, because these will be the ones that you are most likely to spot in an actual game situation. There are plenty of resources for online tactics puzzles if you want free, but I like to have a book handy that I can take with me. 20 puzzles is a pretty easy number if you have them with you whenever you have a little downtime (like say, in the bathroom... 😉 ).
RHP has an analysis board, use it. Replay the last few moves in a game to get a feel for how the game was going. Then try to understand what your opponent's threat is. When you have that done, your next move may suggest itself. Before moving, play your candidates out on the analysis board to check for tactical accuracy. When your games are done, run them through an engine to see where you may have gone wrong (even in your wins, it is likely that you made some blunders!). That's pretty much it for anything useful I have to offer. I hope it is helpful to someone.
If you're under 1600 just spend all your time working on tactics. No joke. Nothing else really matters a'tall.
However, if you ignore that advice like I did, I really recommend Tartakower's 500 Master Games of Chess. It shows you why a lot of the openings are the way they are and how to refute the kinds of mistakes club players will make on move 5 or 8 (or 2, if you're talking the Marshall defense to the Queen's Gambit).
It also has some of those old masters games Bedlam and I like so well. Which feeds back into tactics, tactics, tactics.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by JusuhDifferent strokes for different folks I guess. The books i'd do would be the Yasser lot, first, amazing beginner books. Then Ludek Pachman's "Modern Chess Strategy" Next would come Ending books, Nunn's are good. And then openings, followed by "Art of Attack in Chess" or "My System". Id say that would give most people 1700 without much bother, well alongside regular play and tactical training.
because Silman teaches chess and does it very well...
I think Silman`s book "Reassess your chess" was very good and beneficial for me. I like it.