- Joined
- 16 Feb 07
- Moves
- 27653
Originally posted by Product PlacementI learned more from annotated games than anything else. Good recent examples are Shirov's "Fire on the Board" books. Lots of positional insight as well as excellent tactics.
If you could single it down to one key thing that made you good at chess, what would it be? Reading a particular book, chess engine game, a tutorial, constant playing etc?
I like chess enough to study it more, I've never had any training or read a book on it, but would like to pursue it further to lift my game. So I wouldn't mind picking up some tips from your suggestions. 🙂
Cheers
- Hayden
Having strong players willing to go over your games with you is really helpful, too.
Never studied tactics through my entire OTB career (and ended a little under 2100 USCF).
Originally posted by ErekoseYou studied annotated games so you did get tactical study.Not with puzzles but tactics nonetheless.
I learned more from annotated games than anything else. Good recent examples are Shirov's "Fire on the Board" books. Lots of positional insight as well as excellent tactics.
Having strong players willing to go over your games with you is really helpful, too.
Never studied tactics through my entire OTB career (and ended a little under 2100 USCF).
FOB I and II are great books.Shirov sure managed to play some great games.Although they're often incomprehensible to me.A bit like Tal's 🙂
I too think annotated games and help of better players are the key to improvement.
Another trick is to find somebody you know (that sounds weird) and to make sure to always stay more or less as good (preferably better) at Chess as (/than) he is. This simple "competition" trick works quite well for junior chess players, as well as for the world's best, and for chess players (sportsmen) in general.
I made my biggest single chess rating leap when I read the original "Secrets of Grandmaster Play" by John Nunn and Peter Griffiths. I had certain ideas about Grandmasters and what made them good, and the book exposed my many misconceptions.
For example I learned that
1. Grandmasters rarely calculate more than 3 or 4 moves deep, and in some positions they move on positional considerations and hardly calculate at all as we understand calculation.
2. Sometimes both players are "feeling their way" through the opening, contrary to my misconception that they are booked solid on everything.
3. On the other hand, sometimes they do have particular preparation, either against a particular line or opponent (Beliavsky-Nunn in the book, a KID Saemisch, is an example and one of my all time favorite games), or simply because they have a new idea and want to test it.
I thought Griffith's contribution to the book was valuable, in that he stops in the book to draw attention to Nunn's thinking in certain positions and situations, and it just changed my whole thinking about the game.
I read the book in the mid 1990's, and raised my OTB USCF rating from the 1400's to a peak of 1848 US ELO in 1995 (but met my wife then, got married in 1996, and my chess has been downhill from there until recently).
Nunn redid the book as a bio/game collection and called it "Secrets of Grandmaster Chess", which is still a good book, but not as valuable as the original IMHO.
Since I mentioned the game, I thought I should show it. GM Joe Gallagher also includes this game in his book on the KID Saemisch, remarking that Nunn played like a man possessed, and only moved a piece backwards once- to collect material, of course!
I recommend inverting the board to play it from the Black side.
Paul Leggett
- Joined
- 16 Feb 07
- Moves
- 27653
Originally posted by Winston SmithOh yes, I totally agree. It just wasn't the puzzle sort of tactics that some players advocate, more like tactics as the arise naturally. It gives better context than studying puzzle-type positions, but is less thorough.
You studied annotated games so you did get tactical study.Not with puzzles but tactics nonetheless.
...
- Joined
- 16 Feb 07
- Moves
- 27653
Originally posted by Winston SmithOh yes, I totally agree. It just wasn't the puzzle sort of tactics that some players advocate, more like tactics as the arise naturally. It gives better context than studying puzzle-type positions, but is less thorough.
You studied annotated games so you did get tactical study.Not with puzzles but tactics nonetheless...
- Joined
- 16 Feb 07
- Moves
- 27653
Originally posted by philidor positionIt helps sometimes to slow down a little so things sink in better. For example, if you want to get better at 3 minutes, try your repetoire at 5-7 minute games. If you're having problems, you sometimes can't figure out what's going wrong at the really fast speeds.
another one. to improve at blitz, I've discovered that the only recipe is to play blitz. nothing else (including tactics) worked at all for me.
But I agee, playing lots of games is key to getting good at blitz.