1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.GAMES.CHESS.MISC

  • Okay, I've got it all figured out now.

    From Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 25 20:09:38 2025
    Just kidding. However, I did make a first step.

    I've been working on a comprehensive checklist for each turn like that
    2300 GM I was playing must have had.

    1. Gauge threats.

    Look where the queen can play if still on the board. Look what's
    developed, any open diagonals of bishops, etc.

    This is often in itself enough for a move. If there are no threats you
    can do what you like.

    Why am I telling you this? Because I want more...
    --
    Hasbro

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby@21:1/5 to William Hyde on Sat Jul 26 18:47:10 2025
    William Hyde wrote:
    Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
    Just kidding.  However, I did make a first step.

    I've been working on a comprehensive checklist for each turn like that
    2300 GM I was playing must have had.

    1.  Gauge threats.

    Tactics are fundamental, yes.  Is your opponent threatening anything?
    Did his move create an opportunity for you?

    Chess, Teichmann said, is 99% tactics.  You will improve most rapidly if
    you study tactics, but too many players instead study opening theory,
    only to find themselves lost as soon as they exit their memorized
    variations.

    Playing over master games will by itself give you a feel for openings.
    Not much time should be spent on positional play until you stop dropping pieces to short combinations.  And you'll get a feel for it anyway,
    playing over games.


    Look where the queen can play if still on the board.  Look what's
    developed, any open diagonals of bishops, etc.


    That's a bit random.

    No it's not. I was still talking about gauging threats. Look where the
    enemy queen can play. Look what developed enemy pieces can do. Look at
    any open diagonals of enemy bishops, etc. This is the way you can gauge immediate threats in the next turn. It doesn't cover knights two moves
    away though.

    You obviously thought I was talking about my queen, my developed pieces
    and my bishops.
    --
    Hasbro

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to wthyde1953@gmail.com on Sun Jul 27 13:51:41 2025
    On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 15:36:34 -0400, William Hyde
    <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

    Chess, Teichmann said, is 99% tactics. You will improve most rapidly if
    you study tactics, but too many players instead study opening theory,
    only to find themselves lost as soon as they exit their memorized
    variations.

    Fundamentally openings is all about getting the kind of middle game
    you want where if you're at all like me is where you get to exercise
    what you can do in tactics.

    My main problem has always been blunders around the 3 1/2 to 4 hour
    mark which has probably taken a minimum of 250-300 points off my
    rating through the years.

    I well remember one game when I (about 1700 at the time) W v 1600, W v
    1900, D v 2300 (a game I should have won - I was crushing positionally
    around move 30 but bungled the endgame where I'm usually pretty
    strong) and L vs 1950 - no blunder but horrible judgement in
    exchanging to the endgame

    And then in the next tournament (in early September) lost to in back
    to back rounds vs two junior brothers who were 1300 and 1400 but were
    2050 and 1900 3 months later. Talked to their dad who figured they had
    played 300-400 games vs each other over the previous summer

    That was around the time that I began playing less and organizing more
    which is why that FIDE certificate on my wall says IA rather than
    IM....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to wthyde1953@gmail.com on Wed Jul 30 22:50:40 2025
    On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 17:35:06 -0400, William Hyde
    <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

    As I have a tendency to fall asleep early in the game and wake up with a >horrible position, my main advantage has been opponents who blunder in a >winning position around the same time.

    But mainly because they try to blitz me. In one game against an A
    player I had ten minutes left to his two hours, was two pawns down, with
    a cramped position, weak pawns, and eighteen moves to go.

    He decided not to "let me think on his time", but guess who was the
    better speed player? My flag fell eight moves past the time control, by >which time he was about to be mated.

    One of the top Soviet era GMs (Kotov in Think Like a Grandmaster if
    memory serves) says blundering in the opponent's time trouble is one
    of the fundamental errors even GMs make.

    It's when I have a superior but not clearly winning game that I tend to
    lose in the last half hour of the first session. Generally I use up
    too much time trying to convert the win, and blunder.

    Which is why you and I are not rated 300-400 points higher :)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Blueshirt@21:1/5 to William Hyde on Fri Aug 1 13:24:54 2025
    William Hyde wrote:

    The Horny Goat wrote:


    Which is why you and I are not rated 300-400 points higher :)

    The Canadian open in Quebec in 1981 was my peak in terms of
    insanity. In all but one of the games I lost, I was winning.

    Don't feel bad. Losing from a winning position is something
    we all do... I've almost made a career out of it!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)