visualize it but after 5-10 moves I'm lost. If the moves are logical and
obvious (such as capturing something) it is easier for me to visualize and >> follow along, but if the moves are strategic, I quickly forget and have to >> start over.
Until you are very strong, it's best to play over games with a board. On the other hand, reading games without a board increases your visualization skills.
Endgame books are perhaps best for this. There are few pieces to keep track of, and in the process you learn endgames, a very valuable skill. I recommend something concise at first, like Averbach's "Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge".
I learned a lot from this book, especially as it gives games which are far from perfect. Lasker sometimes describes the mental state he was in before a particularly bad blunder, which helps you be alert to similar problems in your own mindset.
Also there is a valuable lesson: before a tournament game don't go drinking with Jacques Mieses until 4 am. I never have.
I won a lot of speed games and one tournament game with his comments on the Nimzowitch defense (1e4 Nf6 2d4 e5). This isn't a trappy line where white may lose easily - he can get a perfectly decent game. But players below 2200 will often make one of the positional errors Lasker points out, and black will get easy equality or even a slight edge.
Above all, it's a very enjoyable book.
William Hyde
This is what my IM friend tells me as well. The problem is that I'm very
periodic when it comes to my chess. I might have too much to do for
months, and then things calm down, and I go for a chess diet for a
month, then life gets in the way, and no chess for some months. On the
other hand, you do get the impression that Lasker was kind of chess
addicted in his youth, so maybe my slow approach is a good thing after
all! ;)
On the other hand, Lasker did become a rich man, so his obsession with chess didn't handicap him much.
And as you know, without chess he'd have become a doctor rather than an engineer and would not have become rich.
Endgame books are perhaps best for this. There are few pieces to keep
track of, and in the process you learn endgames, a very valuable skill. I >>> recommend something concise at first, like Averbach's "Chess Endings:
Essential Knowledge".
Yes, I find that either few pieces are good, or extremely "obvious"
moves, like re-capturing.
One lesson I wish I had learned when starting is to pause before recapturing. Once in a while there is a vastly better move out there, and it's the type the opponent will often overlook in his calculations.
That's also very easy since it just "flows"
from the game. But the challenge when going beyond 4-5 moves is to
remember if that other piece was captured or not, did it move or not?
That's when it tends to become confusing.
Michael Basman saved a game in just this way. In a poor position he entered a long combination which would be good for his opponent, if after eight moves or so he remembered that his rook was no longer on f8. It appears he did not so remember, and Basman won.
His opponent was master strength, so there's hope for the rest of us yet!
Another thing that stuck is a game he goes through (don't remember which
one) but the lesson was that the winner created complications, by not
playing the obvious move, to throw the opponent off his game. Probably
not useful at all for my level, but I love the strategy, especially when
your opponent is running out of time It's lovely to then create all
these options for your opponent to think about, instead of just creating
one logical move for your opponent where he does in fact not have to
think, but can just move automatically. Lovely!
When you are lost, it's always useful to confuse the opponent, even if the move you play isn't the best.
In my last tournament game, I offered a pawn in a lost position. Declining the pawn won immediately, but the pawn could be taken in three ways. My opponent's thoughts were thus entirely directed to which way the pawn should be taken, not if it should be taken.
Taking the pawn proved fatal. He could perhaps have drawn, but when you've just thrown away a win your thought processes tend to suffer.
It took the old Fritz program about ten seconds to decline the pawn.
William Hyde
And as you know, without chess he'd have become a doctor rather than an
engineer and would not have become rich.
Btw, do you feel that chess ever interfered with your own work or have
you always been able to keep it under control?
My work has always interfered with my chess.
I've taken years away from the game, and sometimes my career has taken me to places where I couldn't play much.
For example, I did my MSc in a town where mostly I played against much weaker players. When I got back to Toronto my speed chess was simply horrible. It took me at least six months to get back to where I had been.
Yes, this is very obvious from studying some of the games in the book. I
might see a PxP, and then think to myself, ahhh, now the next move will
be the corresponding recapture, PxP, only to see some move on the other
side of the board. The recapture then was "saved" since it can always be
executed later, if the alternate move creates some threat or something
the opponent needs to react to.
That also reminds me when I play 3 or 5 minute games, which I'm bad at
and don't enjoy. So when stressed, there's always the "fiddle with a
rook", move an A or H pawn, in between, if I cannot figure out something
good to do.
I used to love these, but my right hand just won't work the mouse fast enough. You will find it easier to move more rapidly if you have some sort of plan in mind. It is difficult to attack rapidly and accurately, easier to defend. The defense often wins on time.
It took the old Fritz program about ten seconds to decline the pawn.
Computers can be so boring sometimes. ;) But I discovered when I play a
lot of lichess, that at difficulty 4 or 5 (and this must be at least 2
years ago or so) the computer would absolutely refuse a queen sacrifice.
So you could kind of "game" the computer by offering a stupid queen
sacrifice, and at level 4 or 5 (probably 4) it would on principle refuse
it, and you would gain by it.
I may have to give this a try.
I've noticed that 2200 players regularly make errors that level six would punish. Nonetheless I don't think level six is rated that high.
I think I came up to level 6 out of 8 and that's when it started to get
frustrating.
Six is quite tough, thought its actual strength seems to vary according to server usage. I've posted some rotten games against six here in the past.
It also has an interesting historical dimension as well!
He was a well rounded individual. Still playing into his 80s, still coming up with original moves.
Though he never got to Japan, he became a reasonable go player too, for a westerner of his day.
William Hyde
But didn't it get boring to play against weaker players?
It certainly did. But there was not much else to do in that town but drink.
A friend did teach me the German card game Skat (also mentioned by Lasker who played with Richard Strauss) and that filled up some time. I played Asian chess with a friend from Malaysia, and go against a pretty good Korean player, giving him rook odds at chess.
"What is this, quads or something?", asked Andy, my first opponent in Toronto after I made a particularly stupid attacking move (quads means a move worthy of !!!!, generally used sarcastically as few moves are worthy of that). I came to the sudden realization that I had been using crap attacks to beat weaker players, because they worked. Thanks to Andy, I found this out early.
Hmm, maybe I should brush up on my Colle and give it a go? I find that
when you take some time off, studying and thinking, sometimes when you
come back, it does feel fresh, and it is sometimes also easier to detect
progress, than if you play every day.
This is true. When I came back after six years off I was 200 points stronger. Then I took six more years off and was 200 points stronger again. I've now taken 30 years off from tournament play. Clearly I am now over 3000.
I don't think it's a good idea to play a level that always beats you. Find one where you can win about a quarter of the time.
William Hyde
I don't think it's a good idea to play a level that always
beats you.
Find one where you can win about a quarter of the
time.
William Hyde wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea to play a level that always
beats you.
Wise words.
Sunday afternoons in my house wouldn't be the same though.
Find one where you can win about a quarter of the
time.
If my siblings have more children, I have a chance! ;-)
D wrote:
Dear rgcm:ers,
I'm currently about half way through Chess secrets I learned from the
masters by Edward Lasker.
I've begun to read the book again. It's as good as I recall.
If you want more stories of chess players and chess culture, I recommend
Lasker's other books and also:
"The Reliable Past"
"Russian Silhouettes"
Both by GM Sosonko from his New In Chess Column. Most of these are about Soviet players. Sosonko was a dissident whose career was somewhat derailed by his decision to leave the USSR, so you are not getting the party line here. One interview was with Baturinsky, the Party official who ran much of Soviet chess for so long. Even after the fall of the USSR, in an interview in a cold room in a cold city, the ancient ogre is keeping his secrets.
A third book "Smart Chip from St Petersburg", was not quite as good but well worth reading.
Then there's "The Bobbby Fischer I knew and other Stories" by GM Arnold Denker and former inhabitant of this group Larry Parr.
Forget the Fischer bit. Sure, it's a good essay, but the meat of the book is other, less well known, stories. I'm sure the publisher insisted that the word "Fischer" in the title would double sales, and I'm sure that was correct. But the essay on Albert Pinkus was far more interesting, as were others.
For a very different point of view there's Donner's "The King". This used to be a very expensive book, but last I looked used copies were available.
William Hyde
D wrote:
Dear rgcm:ers,
I'm currently about half way through Chess secrets I learned from the
masters by Edward Lasker.
I've begun to read the book again. It's as good as I recall.
If you want more stories of chess players and chess culture, I recommend >Lasker's other books and also:
"The Reliable Past"
"Russian Silhouettes"
Both by GM Sosonko from his New In Chess Column. Most of these are
about Soviet players. Sosonko was a dissident whose career was somewhat >derailed by his decision to leave the USSR, so you are not getting the
party line here. One interview was with Baturinsky, the Party official
who ran much of Soviet chess for so long. Even after the fall of the
USSR, in an interview in a cold room in a cold city, the ancient ogre is >keeping his secrets.
A third book "Smart Chip from St Petersburg", was not quite as good but
well worth reading.
Then there's "The Bobbby Fischer I knew and other Stories" by GM Arnold >Denker and former inhabitant of this group Larry Parr.
Forget the Fischer bit. Sure, it's a good essay, but the meat of the
book is other, less well known, stories. I'm sure the publisher
insisted that the word "Fischer" in the title would double sales, and
I'm sure that was correct. But the essay on Albert Pinkus was far more >interesting, as were others.
For a very different point of view there's Donner's "The King". This
used to be a very expensive book, but last I looked used copies were >available.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 489 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 55:56:51 |
| Calls: | 9,673 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,719 |
| Messages: | 6,170,994 |