1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. c3 Nf6 4. Qa4+ {Wrong!. You are meant to wait till Black takes the e4 pawn and then play this check.} 4... Bd7 5. Bb5 Nc6 6. Na3 a6 7. Bd3 Nb4 8. Qd1 Nxd3+ {The Black Knights now create havoc in the White ranks.} 9. Ke2 Nxe4 10. Rf1 Nf4+ 11. Ke1 Nxg2+ 12. Ke2 Nf4+ 13. Ke1 Bg4 {A wonder-blunder. I wonder if he meant it. Black blunders a piece but by luck he can win it back. } 14. Qa4+ {White wins the Knight on e4 after all. This is the delayed version of the trap.} 14... Qd7 15. Qxe4 Ng2+ 16. Kd1 d5 {Sadly the Queen can be chased away from defending the f3 Knight. 17.Qe2 Nh4} 17. Qd3 c4 18. Nxc4 dxc4 19. Qxd7+ Kxd7 20. Ke2 Nh4 21. Rg1 Bxf3+ 22. Ke3 e5 {Black is building a mating net.} 23. b4 g6 24. d3 Bh6+ 25. Rg5 Bxg5
Originally posted by greenpawn34 Actually this trick has more success on here with 4.Be2 rather the 4.h3.
[fen]rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/3p1n2/2p5/4P3/2P2N2/PP1PBPPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 4[/fen]
The idea is the same, 4...Nxe4 5.Qa5+.
(4.Be2 develops a piece and does not weaken g3.) 🙂
However back here....
[fen]rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/3p1n2/2p5/4P3/2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 4[/fen]
D ...[text shortened]... is building a mating net.} 23. b4 g6 24. d3 Bh6+ 25. Rg5 Bxg5[/pgn]
Hey, guys, what has been lost in this discussion of the game of chess
(and within that context,
improving our performance as competitive players)
is that chess is a game.
It is a source of pleasure.
It is why we play the player and not the position.
It is how chess as a game differs from the solving of a puzzle,
a solitary activity.
The purpose is not developing the minor pieces,
or increasing their mobility,
or deploying and maintaining threats,
or building the tension,
or seizing the initiative,
or playing for the future of the position,
or increasing the yield of one's assets
(one's forces or pieces or fortress or pawn structure),
or maximizing a position's dynamism,
or attacking on defense,
or transforming one advantage into another --
as with any game,
the purpose is simply
Originally posted by YourWorstKnightmare Hey, guys, what has been lost in this discussion of the game of chess
(and within that context,
improving our performance as competitive players)
is that chess is a game.
It is a source of pleasure.
It is why we play the player and not the position.
It is how chess as a game differs from the solving of a puzzle,
a solitary ac ng one advantage into another --
as with any game,
the purpose is simply
to have fun.
sledging is fun, bouncing on a trampoline is fun, water parks are fun, roller coasters
are fun. Chess is about winning and losing. Winning is fun and losing is not.
Losing is actually the real fun.Because you can't improve without many many many many defeats.
So if winning is fun , the only way to do a lot of winning is do a lot of losing.
Because winning and playing good is even more fun than winning because your opponent played awful.
Originally posted by Roper300 Losing is actually the real fun.Because you can't improve without many many many many defeats.
So if wiining is fun , the only way to do a lot of winning is do a lot of losing.
Because wiinning and playing good is even more fun than winning because your opponent played awful.
I have never been fond of losing. I was having a discussion with someone else who stated that it did not matter to them if they lost to something that was beautiful, i disagreed, we play to win the game! Losing is beneficial, yes, in that we get to understand why we lost, but i disagree, its never fun.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie sledging is fun, bouncing on a trampoline is fun, water parks are fun, roller coasters
are fun. Chess is about winning and losing. Winning is fun and losing is not.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I was listening to a Magnus interview in which he stated that there are many people who know a lot about chess but cannot seem to improve, why is that the case?
Hi Robbie- Just my opinion, but I think this has to do with the fact that chess requires a great deal of effort and dedication in order to improve, and to play at a high level. Most people are also concerned with earning a living, a social life, and other daily activities. These things won't improve one's chess game. Most of the greatest chess players in history were not only talented, but spent a massive amount of time and effort on improving their skills. I guess it's all a matter of what's most important to us. 🙂
Originally posted by bill718 Hi Robbie- Just my opinion, but I think this has to do with the fact that chess requires a great deal of effort and dedication in order to improve, and to play at a high level. Most people are also concerned with earning a living, a social life, and other daily activities. These things won't improve one's chess game. Most of the greatest chess players in his ...[text shortened]... fort on improving their skills. I guess it's all a matter of what's most important to us. 🙂
this is true Bill, however, it appears to me that with some basic understanding, great improvement can be made, even within a limited time. I have heard that the best way to improve is to join an chess club? why should this be the case? simply because i suspect that one becomes exposed to a certain pool of chess understanding (different from mere chess knowledge) and thus the environment that one saturates oneself in permeates our thinking and we must surely make some improvement for if Andrew Soltis is to be believed, we learn chess subliminally. Thus one is exposed to ideas and these ideas translate into a kind of chess vocabulary which we can utilise in our own games. Understanding is the primary thing to be grasped and this takes experience to a degree, so yes i suspect that time and effort are indeed a factor, but even so, some little improvement can be made.
I read the first and last page, but not the others, so at the risk of repeating something:
One's understanding of any subject develops over time, and is always imperfect. One effect is that old or missing knowledge can get in the way of learning the new stuff. It contradicts one's existing wisdom so the brain rejects it. The theories of chess we develop for ourselves, e.g. bishops are better than knights, can be a drawback in progressing. The rule that a bishop is better than a knight is to stop beginners overvaluing their knights while they're learning how to avoid giving pieces away for nothing. Past a certain stage you shouldn't be worrying about relative values of pieces but on the position in front of you - someone who persists in believing that bishops are better would tend to overvalue them which will lose them the odd game and keep their rating down.
I think what sometimes happens to people is that some assumption about the game that they should have dropped is slowly weakened without them really being conscious of the process and they then suddenly improve by 200 points because their mind is freed from it's shackles.
So if you're stuck at 1,800 it's possibly a matter of clearing out some old knowledge about the game which was helpful as a beginner, but are holding you back now. I think the big mistake is to expect linear progress and then become discouraged when it doesn't happen.