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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 06 Aug '10 06:58 / 1 edit
    Many years, Tactics, Endgames, Master games, Tournaments, Club play, Thousands of dollars spent on hundreds of chess books, Books read but not understood, Books read and understood but it never showed in games, started late at 26 years old, Have lost to people who don't study the game, Can solve tactics problems but fail to produce them on the chess board, I almost got a draw against a GM in a simul and the next day I lost to an 8 year old who was 1200...while he slurps his soda and picks his nose, Been ahead in material against stronger opponents and still lose every time, Can't seem to get past 1600, I honor the Chess GODS, yet I get no help...

    The "Retreating, re-grouping and cowardice nature" of the Chess pieces is driving me to be a Checkers player. (My attempt at blasphemy to anger the GODS)

    ...No lightning strike.

    Ya, you say "Checkers was solved"...Sure it was...If you have the brain power to analyze all the moves, which come to, 10 to the power of 20 then yes every game is a draw. So is Chess, with perfect play it is a draw, I think the numbers are 10 to the power of 47 for chess, or higher. I heard once there are more atoms in the universe, so give Checkers and Chess a break.

    With perfect play, all mind games are a draw. If they weren't, why would we play?
    Please ignore me. I am just upset that I cannot get better at Chess.

    Why did I mention Checkers? I saw a Checkers position today that was a forced win that I solved in my head that was way deeper than any chess position I have solved. And it wasn't forced, most Checkers positions have plenty of "waiting" moves just like Chess.

    (Essentially it was forced, but you had to find a few waiting moves)

    How did I see a Checkers position? I was at the Library looking at the Chess books they had and there was a Checkers book. So I read the introduction and flipped through it, most of the tactical solutions are tough, the average being 15 moves deep, wtf? This is Checkers right? So I tried one and I got it. Maybe I got it due to a study of Pawn play? Or just being able to analyze possible variations. I DON'T KNOW. Then I solved the next one, and the next. You can't say it was due to the lack of mobility of the pieces because Checkers positions are tough as nails. Not being able to retreat and re-group your pieces has to make you tremble at the Checkers board. I know I have made attacks in Chess that didn't work and I re-grouped my pieces and tried a different route, not so in Checkers.

    Why am I defending Checkers and why can I solve those positions better than Chess positions? I DON'T KNOW.

    So I look into some Checkers tournaments and...

    The Chess tournaments I go to have about 300 people. I looked up some Checkers tournaments and they average 30 for small tournaments and almost 100 for the American Nationals. (Standard 8x8 Checkers)

    I refuse to quit Chess and become a Poker player, which many have done. Why do they put the Poker books right next to the Chess books at bookstores?
    I have some money to give, maybe I should try to spark some interest in Checkers tournaments

    I'm not new to internet Chess but I am new to this website and I am sorry for me crying.

    Tired and frustrated at Chess.
  2. Standard member Thabtos
    I am become Death
    06 Aug '10 07:27
    Imagine how bad the four guys you've beat on here feel then.
  3. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    06 Aug '10 12:56
    Originally posted by To be chesstinued
    Many years, Tactics, Endgames, Master games, Tournaments, Club play, Thousands of dollars spent on hundreds of chess books, Books read but not understood, Books read and understood but it never showed in games, started late at 26 years old, Have lost to people who don't study the game, Can solve tactics problems but fail to produce them on the ches ...[text shortened]... w to this website and I am sorry for me crying.

    Tired and frustrated at Chess.
    hundreds of books imply that you've done more reading than training. the amount of training should outweight reading by something like 100 to 1. otherwise it's just procrastination, and will likely gain you nothing but anecdotal chess knowledge.
  4. 06 Aug '10 13:09
    Originally posted by To be chesstinued
    Many years, Tactics, Endgames, Master games, Tournaments, Club play, Thousands of dollars spent on hundreds of chess books, Books read but not understood, Books read and understood but it never showed in games, started late at 26 years old, Have lost to people who don't study the game, Can solve tactics problems but fail to produce them on the ches ...[text shortened]... l lose every time, Can't seem to get past 1600, I honor the Chess GODS, yet I get no help...
    So in other words, just like the rest of us.

    That's okay, I hope the cry did you some good.
  5. 06 Aug '10 15:45
    I am glad this forum was there for you. Do you feel better now? :-)
    As far as a GM vs a 1200 player, what i find is the lesser ranked players can be frustrating to play. I have lost to some. Why? Because they play unorthodox such as first move is a3. It messes with my mind and sometimes I can't recover. On the other hand learn key prinicples such as fight for control of the center and you can overcome the unorthodox play.
    Chess is a great game but like anything it can be frustrating. As has been said by others, put into action what the books say. However every game should teach you something that a book just can't teach. Study your losses more than books. At least that is my feeble advice.
  6. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    06 Aug '10 15:50
    Originally posted by Porky1016
    I am glad this forum was there for you. Do you feel better now? :-)
    As far as a GM vs a 1200 player, what i find is the lesser ranked players can be frustrating to play. I have lost to some. Why? Because they play unorthodox such as first move is a3. It messes with my mind and sometimes I can't recover. On the other hand learn key prinicples such as fight ...[text shortened]... a book just can't teach. Study your losses more than books. At least that is my feeble advice.
    I think this is great advice. If you don't really, truly understand why you lose, then any study is blind. Recognition of the problem is the beginning of the solution.
  7. 06 Aug '10 17:26
    The only reason to quit chess is because you are no longer interested in playing it. Why did you buy all of those books? Did you expect to become a GM? If you did, then chances are you were just fooling yourself. What percentage of chess players reach that status? Is it because the other guys didn't put enough time and study into it?

    When it comes to getting better, it just means we have to widen our search to find people who present a challenge, but they are still out there. There will always be someone much better, unless you are one of the very few.
  8. 06 Aug '10 17:41
    There's always golf.
  9. 06 Aug '10 17:44
    How much money is wasted trying to get better at golf?
  10. Standard member nimzo5
    Ronin
    06 Aug '10 17:49
    I drew GM Spassky in a simul and then the next game I played lost to a 14 year old kid from the local chess club.. who just happened to be a kid by the name of Sam Shankland...

    Likewise I spent a year of hyper dedication to the game- my rating didnt budge I was stuck in the 1700's- didnt matter what I did, I just couldn't string together a good tournament to nudge my rating up. So then I took some time away from the game. I came back renewed, and excited to play again.. my rating went up 250 pts in the next 6 months.

    Focus on the process and let the ratings points work themselves out- frequently your rating will suffer before you make a leap in playing strength.
  11. 06 Aug '10 19:03
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The only reason to quit chess is because you are no longer interested in playing it. Why did you buy all of those books? Did you expect to become a GM? If you did, then chances are you were just fooling yourself. What percentage of chess players reach that status? Is it because the other guys didn't put enough time and study into it?

    When it comes to ...[text shortened]... still out there. There will always be someone much better, unless you are one of the very few.
    No I knew I would never be a GM or even a Master. I bought the books because it became an addiction. If it was new, I wanted it. I haven't even studied 5 % of them.
  12. 06 Aug '10 20:07
    Originally posted by To be chesstinued
    No I knew I would never be a GM or even a Master. I bought the books because it became an addiction. If it was new, I wanted it. I haven't even studied 5 % of them.
    Eladar's right, the important thing is whether you enjoy playing chess. Everything else is secondary, unless you happen to be making a living from your chess games. As long as you're an amateur, then don't worry about your rating. Do what you enjoy. Hobbies should be relaxing, not stressful.
  13. 06 Aug '10 20:26
    Well, my new Chess Life magazine came in the mail today and it seems to be cheering me up.
  14. 06 Aug '10 20:38
    Originally posted by To be chesstinued
    No I knew I would never be a GM or even a Master. I bought the books because it became an addiction. If it was new, I wanted it. I haven't even studied 5 % of them.
    Been there, but didn't do that. I count myself lucky in that I've only bought about 7-10 chess books and two chess programs. That was over about a 3 year period. I've put serious effort into about half of them, but have not completely 'digested' any of them, not even one time through. When I mean digested, I mean played through and worked on them.

    My chess experience has been only though the internet. Perhaps when the kids are gone I will join a chess club. If I get the bug I might play in a local tourney! I'm hoping one day to get an 'official rating' so that I can have a number and be classified!
  15. 06 Aug '10 20:51
    Originally posted by To be chesstinued
    Why did I mention Checkers? I saw a Checkers position today that was a forced win that I solved in my head that was way deeper than any chess position I have solved
    I've got a puzzle you might be able to solve for me.

    Why is 1. f4 bad and if it isnt, why isnt it played at higher levels more often?

    Come join me on my crusade to prove that the Birds Opening is the best opening!