ChessPub Forum - What's wrong with me?

Gerbarts Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 62 Joined: 03/21/08	Re: What's wrong with me? Reply #35 - 06/17/08 at 15:43:23	Post Tools	Print Post
	Paddy, tactics is very important but I don't agree with the advice many beginners get about devoting all of their time to solving puzzles. Getting good at tactics does not necesserily only have to do with quantitative knowledge about different tactical motives but may just aswell have to do with a deeper chess intuition. For example, if you don't know what a mating attack looks like how do you know to look for a mating combination. Therefore I think learning about strategy and reviewing master games etc. is just as important. Chess is definetely not automatic as some would like it to be, such as simply solving chess puzzles. Ofcourse, that is just my view and I know I'm not that experienced


	IP Logged

Gerry1970 Senior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 482 Joined: 02/01/06	Re: What's wrong with me? Reply #34 - 06/17/08 at 13:09:29	Post Tools	Print Post
	Hello All: Studies are recommended a lot as part of a study plan, e.g. in Paddy's post, Aagaard, Beim, etc. Aagaard recommends they they not all be difficult as otherwise one can get discourage - I think he said some should be of medium difficulty. Any collection of studies that is graded on difficulty? If not, what are some of you favorite books with studies? Thanks in advance, Gerry


	IP Logged

Paddy God Member Offline The truth will out! Posts: 965 Location: Manchester Joined: 01/10/03 Gender:	Re: What's wrong with me? Reply #33 - 06/17/08 at 11:11:05	Post Tools	Print Post
	[quote author=Gerbarts link=1212517344/30#32 date=1213265443] Hmm, tactics are important but in my opinion very overestimated in public. "/quote] Gerbarts. What do you mean by "in public"? I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Why should so many GMs tell us to practice tactics, if it is not useful? Or are you implying that strong players have some other secret that they are not telling us about?! It seems clear is that, although each of us has to find what works for us, there is great deal of testimony from strong players, if not quite a consensus, that practising tactics is somewhere between useful and essential. I suggest that one key for weaker players who are serious about improving is somehow to detach the ego from tactics training and not to let oneself be discouraged if finding the solution to a puzzle proves difficult or impossible. In such training, the PROCESS (exercising the "chess muscles") is much more important than the PRODUCT (finding the correct answer). Another key is to get organized and devise a programme, particularly in the weeks before a tournament. Here's the strong Canadian GM (and former Candidate) Kevin Spraggett's take on it: "To improve tactics it is no secret that problem solving is beneficial (good old work) . When I have to train for a big tournament, about two weeks before it is scheduled to begin I start spending not less than 2 hours per day just solving problems. I divide the work into two parts. The first part I concentrate on speed of solution, and the next part I concentrate on accuracy, especially with respect to seeing all of the variations (and not just the main line). For the first part I try about 10-12 studies, I time myself with a clock, and I record the time for each solution in a log book. I don't care too much about side lines, or accuracy (I am really only interested in seeing the way to win in the principal line). In the second part of this training, I may only try one problem if it is very difficult, and it may take me a whole hour to solve (if I do) , but what I am looking for is completeness of solution. I also record my results in the log book, but I am very hard on myself: getting the solution is not important, for I subtract marks for missing some variation or some important idea. My experience has shown me that my speed of solution and accuracy of solution improve with practice. Two weeks for me is an optimum period that my experience has shown works best for me. What works for you is something that you can only know by experimentation.... On the day of a game I also try between 30 minutes to 1 hour of problem solving. I find that these problems right before the game really wake me up and get me ready to 'fight' as soon as I sit down at the board." Spraggett is still a very active player, now resident in Europe and playing successfully in a lot of Opens. I am sure that most Forum members would benefit from reading all of his articles at http://www.kevinspraggett.com


	IP Logged

Gerbarts Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 62 Joined: 03/21/08	Re: What's wrong with me? Reply #32 - 06/12/08 at 10:10:43	Post Tools	Print Post
	Paddy wrote on 06/12/08 at 08:41:51: Paddy wrote on 06/06/08 at 23:59:46: Matemax wrote: "Solving diagrams has a definite drawback: You know that there is a solution and therefore you find it! It makes us masters of solving tactical chess situations. In real games you do not know if there are solutions around, but you think that they should be there, cause you have seen and solved so many similar tactical puzzles." Of course, this is a snag, but that is absolutely no reason not to do it anyway, since solving positions (endgame studies as well as tactics) serves to exercise the "chess muscles"; any form of training that does this is far from being a waste of time. Once a player has mastered basic tactics in a systematic and repetitive way (so that the brain becomes familiar with a large number of tactical patterns) it is good to go on to mixed exercises, where you don't know the theme, such as you find in chess magazines, Informator or books such as Albert's 300 positions. I think strong players have always spent some of their available training time practising in this way. "The quickest way for most players to achieve better results is to improve their tactical ability." GM John Nunn “I grew up solving hundreds of small tactical puzzles from books and magazines…" GM Jon Speelman. "Reinfeld's 1001 Sacrifices and Combinations became a constant companion at home and school." GM Larry Christiansen. I could go on. They've all done it. Additional recent evidence: The USA continues to produce native-born grandmasters. The latest is Joshua Friedel (born 1986) who has been putting together some good results in the last few months. "Josh told CLO (ed. Chess Life Online) that he credits his recent bump in skill to his work with GM Alexander Goldin as well as some changes in his own study habits. Josh always thought tactics were his strongpoint in chess, but he noticed that he still lost a lot of half-points due to oversights. So lately he has been working on both ends of the tactical totem pole. He solves super-difficult Dvoretsky problems and also runs through dozens of easier problems on the tactical training server chess.emrald.net." Hmm, tactics are important but in my opinion very overestimated in public. It is definetely not 99% tactics and 1% strategy in my opinion. I'd say they are equally important. I personally know one IM and one FM who both have lower ratings on CTS than myself which is below 1700. If you browse CTS ratings chart you can see that there are at least one or two titled players who have ratings below 1700 and imagine how many there are that do not show they are titled in the first place. Again, I'm not sure how well CTS reflects your tactical streangth though. It is however an interesting observaration I think.


	IP Logged

Paddy God Member Offline The truth will out! Posts: 965 Location: Manchester Joined: 01/10/03 Gender:	Re: What's wrong with me? Reply #31 - 06/12/08 at 08:41:51	Post Tools	Print Post
	Paddy wrote on 06/06/08 at 23:59:46: Matemax wrote: "Solving diagrams has a definite drawback: You know that there is a solution and therefore you find it! It makes us masters of solving tactical chess situations. In real games you do not know if there are solutions around, but you think that they should be there, cause you have seen and solved so many similar tactical puzzles." Of course, this is a snag, but that is absolutely no reason not to do it anyway, since solving positions (endgame studies as well as tactics) serves to exercise the "chess muscles"; any form of training that does this is far from being a waste of time. Once a player has mastered basic tactics in a systematic and repetitive way (so that the brain becomes familiar with a large number of tactical patterns) it is good to go on to mixed exercises, where you don't know the theme, such as you find in chess magazines, Informator or books such as Albert's 300 positions. I think strong players have always spent some of their available training time practising in this way. "The quickest way for most players to achieve better results is to improve their tactical ability." GM John Nunn “I grew up solving hundreds of small tactical puzzles from books and magazines…" GM Jon Speelman. "Reinfeld's 1001 Sacrifices and Combinations became a constant companion at home and school." GM Larry Christiansen. I could go on. They've all done it. Additional recent evidence: The USA continues to produce native-born grandmasters. The latest is Joshua Friedel (born 1986) who has been putting together some good results in the last few months. "Josh told CLO (ed. Chess Life Online) that he credits his recent bump in skill to his work with GM Alexander Goldin as well as some changes in his own study habits. Josh always thought tactics were his strongpoint in chess, but he noticed that he still lost a lot of half-points due to oversights. So lately he has been working on both ends of the tactical totem pole. He solves super-difficult Dvoretsky problems and also runs through dozens of easier problems on the tactical training server chess.emrald.net."


	IP Logged

Gerbarts

Junior Member

Offline

I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 62
Joined: 03/21/08

Re: What's wrong with me?
Reply #30 - 06/07/08 at 17:23:03

Post Tools

Print Post

TopNotch wrote on 06/07/08 at 03:17:11:

Gerbarts wrote on 06/03/08 at 18:22:24:

OK, here is the deal.

Seeing tactical motifs I feel isn't that difficult. Most of the times I can find the idea rather easy, even in books such as Imagination in Chess, Combination Encyclopedia etc. but many times I miss a variation which would be crucial in a game.

Here is a typical mistake I made in what should be an easy puzzle:

In this position I used perhaps one minute and then I felt satisfied I had found the answer 1.Rxf7 Kxf7 2.Qh7+ Ke8 3.Ne5 and I simply said to myself that he would not be able to avoid mate next move... But I missed 4...Ne3+ with the idea of giving luft for the king by moving the queen.

My question is why I keep on making these mistakes and how can I train to avoid them. How do you get the motivation to analyse 110% instead of just 99% like myself? I understand I am a bit lazy sometimes but in my opinion, if you are a good player this shouldn't matter- you should simply SEE it. How can I get to this stage where I don't just stop analysing because I feel I have found it. This is bugging me a lot!!

The answer to the puzzle was 2.Ne5+ Kf8 Kh7 (2...Ke8 3.Qg6+).

My national rating btw is 2052 if anyone wonders. In order to reach 2100 or higher I feel have to stop making mistakes like these which is why I'm asking for practical suggestions (preferably from people rated above me).

Well the first move that instantly ocurred to me was Rxe6, but then I realised that white is already a piece down in the diagramed position, so he need be more precise.

Back to your original question, you seem to fall into a common trap that many aspiring amateurs do by thinking they know and understand more than they you actually do. Such thinking is counter productive, in my ecxeperience the more you play and study chess the more you realise you don't know.

Like many amateurs you see a puzzle in a book and more or less guess at the solution based on the first attractive looking tactical motif without any structured analysis. In a conversation I had with a former chess coach the following statement came up 'If owning and reading many, many chess books was enough to make one a strong player then almost everyone would be a master', although I agree with this statement to some degree I would not dismiss the value of a well written instructional chess book to a players development.

My advice to you Gerbarts is to forget Dvoretsky for a moment which is quite advanced, and focus your attention on mastering the basics first. I would reccommend Dan Heismann's Novice Nook articles on the chess cafe website as an excellent training resource, there he explains important concepts such as time management, analysing forcing lines first, and the often overlooked technique when analysing of considering all threats, captures and checks before deciding on the correct course of action. Had you followed this last essential technique, Black's Ne3+ would not have escaped your attention.

Of course I cannot solve all your problems in two paragraphs but at least I can share with you that mastering the fundamentals of analysis goes a long towards developing a reliable and good thought process.

Toppy

I agree, I think the fact that I think I understand more than i do is hampering my development at the moment.

Thanks for the advice. Regarding Heisman I have read most of his articles and I think they're great for understanding your thought process and playing what he calls "real chess". I really wish I had come across his column earlier.

IP Logged

TopNotch

God Member

Offline

I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male

Re: What's wrong with me?
Reply #29 - 06/07/08 at 03:17:11

Post Tools

Print Post

Gerbarts wrote on 06/03/08 at 18:22:24:

OK, here is the deal.

Seeing tactical motifs I feel isn't that difficult. Most of the times I can find the idea rather easy, even in books such as Imagination in Chess, Combination Encyclopedia etc. but many times I miss a variation which would be crucial in a game.

Here is a typical mistake I made in what should be an easy puzzle:

In this position I used perhaps one minute and then I felt satisfied I had found the answer 1.Rxf7 Kxf7 2.Qh7+ Ke8 3.Ne5 and I simply said to myself that he would not be able to avoid mate next move... But I missed 4...Ne3+ with the idea of giving luft for the king by moving the queen.

My question is why I keep on making these mistakes and how can I train to avoid them. How do you get the motivation to analyse 110% instead of just 99% like myself? I understand I am a bit lazy sometimes but in my opinion, if you are a good player this shouldn't matter- you should simply SEE it. How can I get to this stage where I don't just stop analysing because I feel I have found it. This is bugging me a lot!!

The answer to the puzzle was 2.Ne5+ Kf8 Kh7 (2...Ke8 3.Qg6+).

My national rating btw is 2052 if anyone wonders. In order to reach 2100 or higher I feel have to stop making mistakes like these which is why I'm asking for practical suggestions (preferably from people rated above me).

Well the first move that instantly ocurred to me was Rxe6, but then I realised that white is already a piece down in the diagramed position, so he need be more precise.

Back to your original question, you seem to fall into a common trap that many aspiring amateurs do by thinking they know and understand more than they you actually do. Such thinking is counter productive, in my ecxeperience the more you play and study chess the more you realise you don't know.

Like many amateurs you see a puzzle in a book and more or less guess at the solution based on the first attractive looking tactical motif without any structured analysis. In a conversation I had with a former chess coach the following statement came up 'If owning and reading many, many chess books was enough to make one a strong player then almost everyone would be a master', although I agree with this statement to some degree I would not dismiss the value of a well written instructional chess book to a players development.

My advice to you Gerbarts is to forget Dvoretsky for a moment which is quite advanced, and focus your attention on mastering the basics first. I would reccommend Dan Heismann's Novice Nook articles on the chess cafe website as an excellent training resource, there he explains important concepts such as time management, analysing forcing lines first, and the often overlooked technique when analysing of considering all threats, captures and checks before deciding on the correct course of action. Had you followed this last essential technique, Black's Ne3+ would not have escaped your attention.

Of course I cannot solve all your problems in two paragraphs but at least I can share with you that mastering the fundamentals of analysis goes a long towards developing a reliable and good thought process.

Toppy

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones

IP Logged

Paddy God Member Offline The truth will out! Posts: 965 Location: Manchester Joined: 01/10/03 Gender:	Re: What's wrong with me? Reply #28 - 06/06/08 at 23:59:46	Post Tools	Print Post
	Stigma wrote on 06/06/08 at 21:11:55: Matemax wrote on 06/06/08 at 20:59:49: There are two important factors to decide: important and urgent - if something has both attributes you have to work on it (school !) - if its only important (chess ) you can work on it later. Tasks which are only urgent and are not important can be ignored until they become important. And if something is neither important nor urgent delete it! This logic sounds familiar - have you by any chance read "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Covey? Oh, If I had only followed his recommendations more often... I thought the point of the urgent/important management stuff is that in most organisations "the urgent tends to drive out the important". In chess terms, this could mean, for example, that having to prepare the openings for your next tournament hinders you from learning your rook endgame theory, as you've been meaning to do for ages! Matemax wrote: "Solving diagrams has a definite drawback: You know that there is a solution and therefore you find it! It makes us masters of solving tactical chess situations. In real games you do not know if there are solutions around, but you think that they should be there, cause you have seen and solved so many similar tactical puzzles." Of course, this is a snag, but that is absolutely no reason not to do it anyway, since solving positions (endgame studies as well as tactics) serves to exercise the "chess muscles"; any form of training that does this is far from being a waste of time. Once a player has mastered basic tactics in a systematic and repetitive way (so that the brain becomes familiar with a large number of tactical patterns) it is good to go on to mixed exercises, where you don't know the theme, such as you find in chess magazines, Informator or books such as Albert's 300 positions. I think strong players have always spent some of their available training time practising in this way. "The quickest way for most players to achieve better results is to improve their tactical ability." GM John Nunn “I grew up solving hundreds of small tactical puzzles from books and magazines…" GM Jon Speelman. "Reinfeld's 1001 Sacrifices and Combinations became a constant companion at home and school." GM Larry Christiansen. I could go on. They've all done it.


	IP Logged

Stigma God Member Offline There is a crack in everything. Posts: 3277 Joined: 11/07/06 Gender:	Re: What's wrong with me? Reply #27 - 06/06/08 at 21:11:55	Post Tools	Print Post
	Matemax wrote on 06/06/08 at 20:59:49: There are two important factors to decide: important and urgent - if something has both attributes you have to work on it (school !) - if its only important (chess ) you can work on it later. Tasks which are only urgent and are not important can be ignored until they become important. And if something is neither important nor urgent delete it! This logic sounds familiar - have you by any chance read "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Covey? Oh, If I had only followed his recommendations more often...

	Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
	IP Logged

Matemax God Member Offline Chesspub gives you strength! Posts: 1302 Joined: 11/04/07	Re: What's wrong with me? Reply #26 - 06/06/08 at 20:59:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	Quote: Well up until now I used to sacrifice A LOT of time to chess and quite naturally I should improve like I have I think. "No" - sorry - time and quantity doesnt mean improvement and quality. You may better restrict yourself to a certain time per day for chess (lets say half an hour or maximum one hour) and really work hard and concentrated within this time. At least double the time you should also work similar for your main goal at the moment - to be successfull at school. There are two important factors to decide: important and urgent - if something has both attributes you have to work on it (school !) - if its only important (chess ) you can work on it later. Tasks which are only urgent and are not important can be ignored until they become important. And if something is neither important nor urgent delete it!


	IP Logged

Gerbarts Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 62 Joined: 03/21/08	Re: What's wrong with me? Reply #25 - 06/06/08 at 20:22:10	Post Tools	Print Post
	Well up until now I used to sacrifice A LOT of time to chess and quite naturally I should improve like I have I think. Now I haven't read a chess book at all for the past year probably. My interest for chess now has decreased a little bit which is a bit sad I think. I also have school to think about which I have sort of neglected a little bit until now in favour of chess. Even though I'm not going to become a chess champion or anything, it would be fun to at least be in the very top segment of my club (top is 2500 fide something), say 2200-2300 rating. I will definetely study Tisdalls book as a contrast to Kotov which I have read. I also have "pawn endings" with Muller and "winning chess endings" with seirewan. But endgame books are in my opinion really boring which is why I have never read one from cover to cover. All I know I've picked up sporadically somehow. My goal for a long time has been to study these two books thourougly but I've never got to that point. It simply doesn't interest me as much as other things in chess. Square clearance sacrifice, that's it. I know what you mean with desperado now. I'm doing all puzzles in combinational motifs by Blokh and marking all puzzles I get wrong. Afterwards I can see how many I had problems with from each theme. It will be quite interesting I think.


	IP Logged

Stigma God Member Offline There is a crack in everything. Posts: 3277 Joined: 11/07/06 Gender:	Re: What's wrong with me? Reply #24 - 06/06/08 at 19:31:58	Post Tools	Print Post
	Gerbarts wrote on 06/06/08 at 13:31:41: When I began playing, three years ago [...] Your progress is certainly faster than mine, so if there's something 'wrong' with you there must be quite a bit wrong with me too Gerbarts wrote on 06/06/08 at 13:31:41: When I began playing I read just about every classic book (Euwe, Korch, Silman, Kotov etc.) except for Tisdall. Do you think this book is worth reading? I think Tisdall is worth reading because his method of calculation is very practical, building on what comes naturally to most players (looking at a tempting line first, going back to a previously calculated line when you suddenly discover a new idea and so on). But I can't quite get over his negative remarks about Kotov. The one thing I think Tisdall didn't get is that he and Kotov are really trying to solve two different problems! Kotov is trying to discipline the undisciplined calculator (originally himself, but now his readers) to stop wandering to on fro without reaching any conclusions, and getting into time trouble. Tisdall on the other hand is trying to utilize his talent for visualisation (considerable, judging from his comments) in the most efficient way, without imposing too much of a rigid system. Kotov's advice rings more true for me, simply because I always felt I was struggling with the same problem as him. But for others it may be the other way around. By the way Tisdall's book is not all about calculation, he also covers a number of interesting training methods, with example positions. Re strategy: I agree with Watson and Dvoretsky recommendations. Also if you read German, Techniken des Positionsspiels im Schach by Bronznik and Terekhin is a good collection of somewhat advanced strategies (the original is in Russian by Terekhin only, but Bronznik added quite a bit of material I think). Something on strategic endgames should also improve middlegame strategy, i.e. the books by LB Hansen, Müller/Pajeken or Shereshevsky. I definitely recommend studying at least one of those three at some point. Real eye-openers are few, but probably for me Avni: The Grandmaster's Mind, Dvoretsky: Positional Play and Rowson: Chess for Zebras qualify. Gerbarts wrote on 06/06/08 at 13:31:41: Williempie, desperado is a very fitting word for blacks defensive move. I've heard it somewhere before but now I know what it refers to. Nice! I hate to spoil the party, but I thought the word "desperado" as a chess term was already taken. It refers to a piece that will be lost and tries to do as much damage as possible before it is taken, often with one White and one Black piece doing their worst on opposite sides of the board. This can lead to some long, funny sequences of captures. Instead I would describe 4...Ne3+ as a (square) clearance sacrifice.

	Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
	IP Logged

Matemax God Member Offline Chesspub gives you strength! Posts: 1302 Joined: 11/04/07	Re: What's wrong with me? Reply #23 - 06/06/08 at 19:16:46	Post Tools	Print Post
	Solving diagrams has a definite drawback: You know that there is a solution and therefore you find it! It makes us masters of solving tactical chess situations. In real games you do not know if there are solutions around, but you think that they should be there, cause you have seen and solved so many similar tactical puzzles. Probably the main focus should be on avoiding mistakes. But thats easier said than done... who doesnt want to blow his opponent out of his shoes with a spectacular move. To win you have to make your hands "dirty" and play the tactical shot - but this may also be the saving or even winning chance for the other guy. "No risk - no fun" - take it easy, we are not professionals, we dont have to live from chess - we enjoy our time with the game and try to improve our play and ourselves (at least I learned more about myself since I play chess than about the game I think ) I can highly recommend reading "7 deadly sins" from Jonathan Rowson (except to my opponents) which covers the psychological mistakes we make.


	IP Logged

Gerbarts Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 62 Joined: 03/21/08	Re: What's wrong with me? Reply #22 - 06/06/08 at 19:14:36	Post Tools	Print Post
	My 5 min rating on ICC is 1700 and my CTS rating is around 1650 with 84% and I believe this is an indicator that I need to work more on calculation and tactics in general. I'm speculating that the day I reach above 1900 on ICC and 1800 my national rating would be at least a hundred rating points higher aswell.


	IP Logged

Gerbarts Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 62 Joined: 03/21/08	Re: What's wrong with me? Reply #21 - 06/06/08 at 18:54:40	Post Tools	Print Post
	Ok I admit, that was stupidly put. I think what I mean is that I know the basics quite well having read Silmans and Euwe's books among others. Before, everything I read was new and exciting and I felt it came very natural. Now however, I'm having difficulties finding resources that help me as much as before. I have read Dvoretsky's positional play. In fact, I have focused 90% of my chess career on strategy simply because it has interested me the most. Recently I did the positions in "Can you be a positional chess genius" by Angus Dunnington and I think I did quite well. Most of the time I understood the position but got the variations a bit wrong. This is one of the reasons why I have decided that I shall try to change focus a little bit towards learning how to calculate better. But whereas strategy seems easy to learn, tactics and calculation is more subtle I feel and I can not see improvement very quickly. I am sure however that with my new interest in learning tactics I will see marked results in the near future. I have only taken an interest in tactics for the past 6 month or so, and even then all I have done is go on chess.emrald.net If you have any other books that you have read recently that can be qualified as eye openers I'd be happy to hear about them.


	IP Logged