i agree with robbie actually, rj .
my slow improvement has seen me realise how faulty the 'knowledge' i have learned about chess and needed to un-memorize it or forget it to make it clear.
and all the opening rubbish i memorized as a beginner, jeez what a waste of time, dont do it !
so chess to me now is like slowly learning something new and binning the old 'truth', basically chess is just an endless pain journey!
Originally posted by simonwells999I memorized a lot of openings in my earlier days and I think that helped me win $4500 in my rating section at the World Open in Philadelpia in 1982 in which my rating went to 1817 USCF. But after 30 years away from chess I remember only a little portion of those openings now. On RHP I can just rely on the books to get me out of the openings now because my memory ain't worth a sshiit anymore. I have gotten caught in too many opening traps since I started back playing OTB, so I still need to know enough about the openings to avoid them. I hate that I am learning that the hard way by losing.
i agree with robbie actually, rj .
my slow improvement has seen me realise how faulty the 'knowledge' i have learned about chess and needed to un-memorize it or forget it to make it clear.
and all the opening rubbish i memorized as a beginner, jeez what a waste of time, dont do it !
so chess to me now is like slowly learning something new and binning the old 'truth', basically chess is just an endless pain journey!
A few things are essential to improving beyond the 1700 level. First, you have to stop calculating. Reti was once asked how many moves in advance he calculated, and he famously said "none". No doubt that was hyperbole; he could certainly have calculated 10 or so in advance, when necessary. Calculating (visually imagining) moves in advance is error-prone and exhausting. Avoid it.
2) you have to learn what you should be doing instead of calculating, which means playing based on general principles (or positional judgment). This means, essentially, no longer trying to find the right next move, but rather how to evaluate the attacking and defensive potentials of the position and to formulate a plan to exploit an opponent's weaknesses and accentuate your own strengths. Once you have a viable plan, the moves will suggest themselves.
3) you have to learn when to recognize positions in which principles will under-determine a definite course of action (within the parameters of your plan), and calculation (accurate, of course) becomes necessary.
4) you have to learn how to calculate accurately, when you calculate at all. There are techniques for improving calculation accuracy while extending calculation depth--for example, the "square" trick for figuring out whether a remote king can stop a lone advanced pawn from queening.
All these things can be learned, but unfortunately not by studying master games because the annotations usually just list variations, not what and how the master was thinking (whether calculating, or weighing principles) in the crucial minutes leading up to his decision.
In the absence of a mentor, two good reference books on how to think in terms of principles are by Richard Reti: "Masters Of The Chess Board", and "Modern Ideas in Chess."
Originally posted by moonbusYou say you can improve by stop calculating. I say that is nonsense. 😏
A few things are essential to improving beyond the 1700 level. First, you have to stop calculating. Reti was once asked how many moves in advance he calculated, and he famously said "none". No doubt that was hyperbole; he could certainly have calculated 10 or so in advance, when necessary. Calculating (visually imagining) moves in advance is error-prone and ...[text shortened]... nciples are by Richard Reti: "Masters Of The Chess Board", and "Modern Ideas in Chess."
Originally posted by moonbusHow can you 'calculate accurately' if you have to 'stop calculating'?
A few things are essential to improving beyond the 1700 level. First, you have to stop calculating. Reti was once asked how many moves in advance he calculated, and he famously said "none". No doubt that was hyperbole; he could certainly have calculated 10 or so in advance, when necessary. Calculating (visually imagining) moves in advance is error-prone and ...[text shortened]... nciples are by Richard Reti: "Masters Of The Chess Board", and "Modern Ideas in Chess."
Originally posted by RJHindsThe order of the points I made is non-trivial. I said you should stop calculating first if you want to improve, not stop calculating forever. Most beginners start by calculating, and this is natural and correct. You will, however, reach a maximum rating of about 1700-1800 by simple calculation. The reason is that, if you do not have the capacity to correctly judge the quality of the position as it is now, it avails you nothing to be able to calculate positions quantitatively 10 or 20 or even 60 moves ahead, for you would not be able to judge THEM correctly either, as favorable or unfavorable, to be steered toward or to be avoided.
You say you can improve by stop calculating. I say that is nonsense. 😏
Once you have reached a level of, say, 1900, which is to say, having a basic understanding positional judgment, you will return to calculation (when necessary) as a useful supplement to, rather than as the primary, mode of chess thinking.
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe statement is rather excellent, moonbuses meaning if i may be permitted to interpret it, is that when we look at a position, we simply refrain from calculating variations which may have little to do with the dynamics of the position and which are exhausting and prone to aberration. Refraining from calculating is the course of wisdom for by doing so we shall look at other elements which have a real bearing on the position, pawn structure, weakened squares, mobility of pieces, etc etc the only reason that one needs to calculate is either to determine the tactical soundness of a plan or when the pieces come into or are about to come into direct contact.
How can you 'calculate accurately' if you have to 'stop calculating'?
My remarks were addressed to Robbie Carrobie, the first poster to this thread. His rating suggests that he has probably attained 99% of what is attainable by brute-force-calculative modes of thinking and that he himself has already realized that he has reached the 'bonk' point of no further returns. Getting over the next hurdle of chess proficiency will not be achieved by more of the same HARDER, but only by something radically different. My statement that he should stop calculating was deliberately formulated to perplex and paralyze the calculative faculty of a player at that threshold of proficiency--a chess koan, if you like.
(RJH is well beyond this stage, so he may safely disregard everything I say.)
I stand by my statement that you (anyone at that level of proficiency, ca. 1800) should stop calculating. "I take, you take, I take, you take, I take, you take, I take, you take, ad inf." is no improvement over "I take, you take." However, "I get a good bishop and you get a bad bishop after 'I take, you take'" IS an improvement (over both of the previous variations). Get it? Now, go read Reti and find out how to determine when a bishop is good or bad. Then read Hans Kmoch's "Pawn Power in Chess"--that and Reti's 2 books (mentioned previously) will put you over the 2000 threshold (without having to memorize a single fad opening).
Everything you know about chess, up to now, is comparable to what you would know about love by watching porno films: reciprocating motion, nothing more, nothing profounder. Rejoice , for you are about to be initiated into the real magnificence of this game!
Originally posted by moonbus"The biggest problem I see among people who want to excel in chess - and in business and in life in general - is not trusting their instincts enough." - Garry Kasparov
My remarks were addressed to Robbie Carrobie, the first poster to this thread. His rating suggests that he has probably attained 99% of what is attainable by brute-force-calculative modes of thinking and that he himself has already realized that he has reached the 'bonk' point of no further returns. Getting over the next hurdle of chess proficiency will not ...[text shortened]... joice , for you are about to be initiated into the real magnificence of this game!
not bad post but needs to be made clearer:
you need 2 things in chess to improve(must be both):
1. accurate calculation skills (my main aim playing here by NOT using the analysis board)
2. accurate position skills (looking at a position and accurately knowing who is if anyone stands better, and why, and what strengths and weaknesses each side has, king safety etc., and how for either side to improve their position)
other factors are important in chess, like good concentration, strong willed, etc. but these are personal factors and need to be worked at separately to chess skills. funnily enough i think these personal factors are the hardest to improve as they are are character, and ultimately make the difference between a strong player and an average player(under 2300 fide).
Originally posted by simonwells999Oh yes, I agree that there are other factors in addition to learning the principles of positional evaluation and learning when and how to calculate accurately. Many of the additional factors have to do with what I would call mental hygiene (concentration skills, short term memory skills, etc.) and are applicable beyond the chessboard (traits of highly effective people, etc. etc.). All of these things can be learned and therefore improved through repetition.
not bad post but needs to be made clearer:
you need 2 things in chess to improve(must be both):
1. accurate calculation skills (my main aim playing here by NOT using the analysis board)
2. accurate position skills (looking at a position and accurately knowing who is if anyone stands better, and why, and what strengths and weaknesses each side has, k ...[text shortened]... d ultimately make the difference between a strong player and an average player(under 2300 fide).
I'm not sure that chess instincts can be learned, but, insofar as they are present in a given player, they can be consciously accessed and refined through mentoring. This was convincingly demonstrated by the Soviet system of grooming chess prodigies.
Those who make it near the top in the world ranking system must surely have something else, too: a killer instinct, almost a mania, not merely to win but to win-or-die. Think of Fischer and Tal, for example.
And, as mentioned, factors pertaining to personal character or temperament can also be relevant to success in chess. Think of Petrosian and the word "tenacity" comes to mind, for example.
These latter factors are probably innate, not learnable, and therefore 'improvable' only in the sense that, if present at all, they can be refined through training and discipline--but if lacking, cannot be instilled in the person in question. He who is lacking such innate abilities (killer instinct etc.) may reach a considerable height by diligent application of strategic principles and calculation, but will be outfoxed by the Laskers and Kasparovs of the world.
"First, you have to stop calculating."
Been saying that for years.
Weaker players calculate a lot more in their games than stronger players.
The stronger players know when to dive into the think tank.
Weaker player spend time and energy calcualting at all the wrong moments.
They have not yet obtained the skill of recognising a critical position when hard
core calcualtion is needed.
It comes with practise and play and looking at other players game perhaps with
a view of noting them up. You need to spot the critical game turning moments,
missed possible shots, a sneaky trap (and then you have to decide how plausible it is.)
A quicker win. Sometimes this is nit-picking but there will be games when you
have to spot the shot when it's your only chance and it's on the board for one move.
So get into the habit of not relaxing when winning. Find the cute wrap up if
your instinct is telling you there is one on. Trust the gut.
Try it...pick a game, any game. The number of this thread is 150399.
So look at Game 150399
On the surface a nothing game, Black hangs a piece, then his Queen, White mops up.
But the editor drops this game into your lap and you have to find the key moments
where your notes will go. (good practise for spotting critical positions.)
Black let an interesting moment slide past. (has a check with a sac on g3
but does it rebound....White has Nf3 is it a bouncing check!)
Black blunders but to me makes the wrong choice when faced with two evils.
White had a sit on your hands moment forgetting the aim of the game.
(the object being to checkmate the King not win the Queen.)
I'd praise White's alert 25th move killing the game dead.
Perhaps (all depends how I'm feeling) jump on him for not playing 29.Qe8 or 29.Qc5
which picks off the Black Rook. (there is no need to get sloppy, he snafs a pawn instead.)
Here is Game 150399 without notes. Fill in the blanks.
kapperja - SPARGS RHP 2003
Originally posted by greenpawn3410. ... Q-h4+ looks preferable to the text as played by Black.
So look at Game 150399
Black let an interesting moment slide past.
It is worth mentioning that stronger players not only calculate less than weaker ones, and more effectively, but also (at least sometimes) in reverse order. Weaker players invariably assume that forward calculation is the only possible direction: i.e., from the present position, they try to 'see' as many moves as possible forwards, and if no clear win of material is to be gained, they can at best guess what might come next. GMs, while they may do this (more effectively), also calculate in reverse. Certain endgame positions are well known--the Lucena Position, for example. Knowing this, a GM may well take this as his starting point (rather than the present position), and calculate backwards to see whether there is a variation which leads from Lucena to the present position.