Chess VII

Thaniri

1264 Posts

January 19 2014 04:24 GMT

After last blog, I decided to change my game length in order to focus more on the calculating part of the game at the behest of don_kyuhote and many of my chess friends. At first, the switch between playing more on intuition/principle was quite difficult. Often I would find myself in a position where no moves would come to mind whatsoever. I was so used to playing whatever felt right that I had a hard time finding the moves that WERE right.

As with any discipline, it is obvious that one should begin by creating a solid foundation to build skill upon. While I was playing blitz, the games were built upon my poor foundation. With this change to 15|10 I intend to deepen my understanding of the game by forcing myself to analyse and calculate each move.

Practicing anything has a common link, Josh Waitzkin in his book The Art Of Learning called it "making circles within circles."

The idea is that you practice the basics until they become second nature, then build upon those basics with slightly more complicated techniques until they are second nature, and repeat ad infinitum as competition gets tougher.

I don't want to have to THINK and calculate about a trading war over a pawn, I want to immediately KNOW the result of trading on whatever square.

Imagine if a concert pianist had to actually think of an individual note during a performance. Thinking of what chord comes next would become a real problem as it detracts from the more complicated ideas such as a cresting crescendo or the conveyance of an emotion.

Or a professional starcraft player, do you really believe that every X seconds he has to remind himself to make an SCV? He automatically knows he has to make an SCV, the same way he knows he has to breathe.

Now, I don't claim that within one week I suddenly changed from a blind player to a calculating beast that can predict any optimal continuation, but there has been improvement.

You the reader will also get a better experience out of my blog as I can go into more detail behind each move, and my thoughts as the games progress, because this time around there are actual thoughts going into the moves and not shaky chessic principles.

I recommend that the blog be read like this, so that you can read my comments throughout while also being able to see the board for yourself.

-----

+ Show Spoiler +

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=703154320

1. e4 e6 2. e5 d5 3. d4 c5 4. Nf3 g6 5. Bb5+ Nc6 6. c3 Bd7 7. Qa4 a6 8. Bxc6 Bxc6 9. Qc2 Qa5 10. Bd2 Ba4 11. b3 Bc6 12. c4 Qb6 13. cxd5 Bxd5 14. Be3 Qb4+ 15. Qc3 cxd4 16. Bxd4 Rc8 17. Qxb4 Bxb4+ 18. Nbd2 Bxf3 19. gxf3 Bxd2+ 20. Kxd2 Ne7 21. f4 O-O 22. Ke3 Nf5+ 23. Ke4 Rfd8 24. Be3 Kg7 25. Kf3 Rd3 26. Rhd1 Rxd1 27. Rxd1 b5 28. a4 Rc3 29. Rb1 Nd4+ 30. Ke4 Nxb3 31. axb5 axb5 32. Bd4 Nxd4 33. Kxd4 Rh3 34. Rh1 Rh4 35. Ke4 f6 36. exf6+ Kxf6 37. Kf3 h6 38. Kg3 g5 39. fxg5+ hxg5 40. Rb1 b4 41. Ra1 b3 42. Ra8 Ke5 43. Rb8 Kf5 44. h3 e5 45. Rxb3 Rd4 46. Rf3+ Ke4 47. Re3+ Kf5 48. Rf3+ Ke4 49. Kg4 Kd5+ 50. Kxg5 e4 51. Rf5+ Kc4 52. Re5 Kd3 53. Kg4 e3+ 54. Kf3 exf2 55. Kxf2 Rh4 56. Kg3 Kd4 57. Rg5 Re4 58. h4 Re5 59. Rxe5 Kxe5 60. Kg4 Kf6 61. Kh5 Kg7 62. Kg5 Kh7 63. h5 Kg7 64. h6+ Kh7 65. Kh5 Kh8 66. Kg6 Kg8 67. h7+ Kh8 68. Kh6

-----

I am playing the French as black again, it is my go-to online opening and I feel like I am learning more about it every day. This game in particular blew my mind around the middle.

Similarly to the game in last week's post, the game starts with

1.e4
2...e6

2.e5
2...d5

3.d4

It poses difficult questions to me, perhaps I should fiancetto my black bishop instead?

I play 4...g6 planning to fiancetto the bishop again, but then I think of this and I realize that it is not a move that would make sense. In order for that bishop to make a move on the evil d pawn, it must first get rid of the e pawn, and in order to do that I would have to push my f pawn up and sacrifice my king safety. It no longer seems like a good idea and I abandon it completely.

He plays 5.Bb5+, not that I care, I will respond with 5...Nc6 just like last week's game. Should he trade the bishop for the knight I will have the superior center control.

He plays 6.c3, presumably to overkill the protection on the e pawn. He recognizes that it is the central piece in this game and does NOT want it to be killed. In his position I would have castled, as he can defend that pawn with his queen if need be, and should I mount more pressure on that pawn he can THEN play c3.

Now 6...Bd7 is a different move than I played last week. Wingpawn mentioned that playing a6 here is not a good move because it does not actually achieve anything for me. It is better to use that move to develop my middling pieces further, a6 can be considered a wasted tempo in that regard because his response will be to either retreat the bishop to a4 or to trade for the knight. Neither of those moves make my position much better in terms of development.

He actually mounts pressure on my bishop with 7.Qa4.

This move is interesting, and I saw two main reactions to it. I could play Ne7 to defend, then fiancetto my black bishop and castle, or... a crazy thought popped into my mind. What if I got my white bishop onto b5?

The second idea became my obsession in the game, and it got tense.

I played 7...a6, and could feel wingpawn physically cringe from halfway across the planet, but I didn't care.

He trades, 8.Bxc6 8...Bxc6.

Now his queen is forced to back off somewhere.

He chose 9.Qc2

Interestingly, it’s at this point that my breakthrough breaks down.

Should I play Bb5 like I wanted to, I will be stopped by a4, and will lose a lot of tempo. I desperately searched for a way to continue to put pressure on his king and decided to play 9...Qa5?

This move was a mistake, and after 10.Bd2 I mentally deflate. My plan doesn’t look so solid any more, and I will lose a lot of tempo. Losing tempo while being at least 3 moves away from castling seemed like a death omen to me.

I continue to make poor decisions with 10…Ba4. His response was 11.b3, and just watch me waste time, and him chase me around.

11...Bc6

12. c4

12...Qb6

Things are looking awful for me until 13.cxd5?!

My opponents continual refusal to castle becomes are huge weakness now, and it’s at this point that I begin to envision a rook endgame. If I trade my white bishop for his knight on f3, he will have a lot of pawn islands and doubled pawns, and almost all of my pawns are on white squares so I do not care too much about his black bishop.

13...Bxd5!

Just a few moves earlier I felt like I had lost the game, now I was certainly up a pawn, if not outright winning the game after this.

He defends the d pawn with 14.Be3, but his position is untenable.

I play 14...Qb4+, which puts him into a bad spot.

He wants me to either back off or trade with 15.Qc3, but I have something better in the pipeline.

15…cxd4

He is forced to respond with 16.Bcd4

If my opponent realized he needed to castle earlier, it was probably after 16...Rc8 where I forced the queen trade.

17.Qxb4
17...Bxb4+

He was probably fixated on the need to castle so he played 18.Nbd2, which plays right into my plan of the rook endgame. This move allows me to play 18...Bxf3, forcing 19.gxf3 and giving him a very poor pawn structure.

He will have a doubled pawn, and three distinct pawn islands, whereas I would have only two pawn islands. If I successfully trade down to an endgame here, I will be in a huge advantage because of this.

I play 19...Bxd2+ because of my plan to trade down, and also because it puts his king closer to the center and therefore in a more precarious position.

The second point is debatable as to whether or not it was actually good for white or black because it developing your king is a crucial part in winning any endgame.

He is again forced to play a move, this time it was 20.Kxd2.

We develop for a bit.

20...Ne7
21.f4
21...O-O

Now, when he plays 22.Ke3 he gains considerably more center control than me, it will be a long time before my king will be able to contest his position.

I played 22...Nf5+ in an attempt to push his king out of the way.

He responds by playing 23.Ke4 which puts his king further into the center.

I didn’t really know what to do about his center position. Looking back I should have taken his bishop with my knight in order to simplify things and emphasise my advantages while minimizing his.

I play 23...Rfd8, and he has to run his bishop somewhere, he chose 24.Be3.

Now not is all bad at this point, I have control over both files with my rooks, but the position would have been a whole lot better had I taken out his bishop earlier.

I still have the opportunity to kill his bishop with Nxe3, but I’m bad and decide to begin developing my king with 24...Kg7

He plays 25.Kf3, giving me a free bishop kill on e3 after 25…Rd3. Right? Right?!

Well, no. This was me thinking I was awesome, but being selectively blind instead. Had the f2 pawn not existed, my plan would have been brilliant, but instead he can play 26.Rhd1.

Here I have a few options. I could move Rdc3 to double my rooks and to discourage any trading.
I could trade rooks. I could move Rdd8 to encourage a trade. Rcc3 to double the rooks.

The problem with all of these options is that in each of them I lose control of one of the two files that I had previously. There is no “good” here, I just have to try to play the “least bad” move.

I went with 26...Rxd1 27.Rxd1

In retrospect, this was NOT the least bad move I could have made.

Here you can see that my king will never cross the d line because of his rook, restricting my mobility severely.

My knight can not move anywhere particularly useful right now, and my king is on a black square which means his bishop could become a threat at some point.

I don’t like the state of the game any longer for black, but an important idea behind all competition is “I’m not dead yet.”

+ Show Spoiler +

This is taken from The Art Of Learning, it is from memory though so forgive me the details:

There was a lady trying to cross a busy New York street during rush hour and was looking left and right for cars on the road. When she determined it was clear she proceeded to walk, but was narrowly missed by a biker. She turned to yell at the biker for being an idiot while continuing to walk forward and was hit and killed by a car that had come around the corner that she didn’t see while distracted.

As briefly as possible, it is emotional detachment from the state of the game that is important here. Before this point in the game, it was clear that black was winning, however, now that the game is even, it does not mean that the game is losing or lost.

Don’t be the lady who got hit by a car and let minor setbacks spiral out of control into a loss.

27...b5 is my way of trying to salvage the situation.

His rook might have the d file, but I have the c file, and nothing may cross that file to defend the a and b pawns. That is my new point of focus.

He plays 28.a4

I do not want to take that pawn, because that would mean later on, if I was able to push that pawn to queen it I would have to queen on the a1 square. The a1 square is black. He has a black squared bishop. Hopefully you can see how that is not an ideal situation for me.

I want him to take my pawn on b and have my queening square be b1, a white square, so I play 28...Rc3.

He must have known that was my plan, and played 29.Rb1

Good thing I did not commit mental suicide, because I saw the opportunity for 29...Nd4+!

This move forks the pawn on b and his king. He can not take the knight with his bishop or he will be put into check by my rook.

He played 30.Ke4 in a kneejerk reaction to my fork, I would have considered Kg4 in his shoes, but because of the inferior pawn structure that white has perhaps his move was the best possible one.

I obviously play 30...Nxb3, and he curiously responds with 31.axb5

I don’t like this move at all from white because of the queening square discussion we had earlier, but because of the threat of Rc4 fork, he is trying to minimize his damage.

I play the intuitive move 31...axb5

And he plays 32.Bd4, which should result in a win for me.

Since I have the pawn advantage this game, I can afford to trade my knight for his bishop, and him going for my passed pawn wastes tempo with which I can destroy his remaining pawns and ultimately queen one of my own.

32...Nxd4
33.Kxd4
33...Rh3
34.Rh1

Now I have two plans, an interesting thing that happens when you have the advantage in an endgame.

I can simultaneously pursue two different strategies, and when he inevitably defends one, the other will succeed because of my sheer manpower advantage over him.

The first and most basic plan is to queen my b pawn. The second is to destroy his pawn structure.

If I want to queen this pawn, I need to get his king out of this green square, and I will do that by advancing on the kingside and forcing his king to move in the other direction.

The two plans are intertwined in a way.

34...Rh4 forces his king one square farther out of the big green square above 35.Ke4, but f6 would have been a better move because it has the same idea behind it but better in every way.

I move 35...f6, forcing
36.exf6+
36…Kxf6

Then he plays 37.Kf3

Look at the green square now!

Black is clearly in the lead now, with a passed pawn that can threaten to queen, white will find it difficult to defend his remaining pawn structure.

I play 37...h6 to mount indirect pressure on his f4 pawn, with the intention of playing g5.

He plays 38.Kg3 to scare my rook, but
38...g5 don’t care.

g5 don’t give a damn even after 39.fxg6+
39...hxg5

He plays 40.Rb1 as his position is fairly solid for the time being, and he can’t allow my pawn to advance too far forward.

I distinctly remember not having a crystal clear plan as to how I was supposed to break his position with his king so far forward. Because of his king’s aggressive positioning, I can not move my king very far up.

So I default to the first plan.

40...b4

I should have realized that 41.Ra1 was an indirect threat to my passed pawn, but I didn’t foresee it at all and recklessly played 41...b3.

I could have kept the dream alive, but my focus crumbled and I played 42...Ke5

The game devolves into a draw.

I could not defend my passed pawn any longer, and because of the way our pawns are structured neither of us will be able to maneuvre the other king out of his fortress.

After trading rooks on move 58 on e5, it was a clear draw because of the magic square and the queening square being a corner.

GG.

+ Show Spoiler +

Clocking in at over 3,000 words, I can only see these blogs getting progressively longer and more intricate as I get better at both writing and chess. Or perhaps shorter as I will have to use less words to explain myself. We will see.

As always, I ask you all for criticism on my play and my writing, I want to make this a quality blog and can't wait to reveal what's in store for next week.

I added the alpha-numeric grid, and tried to be a little bit more detailed behind my thought process of each move by request from last week.

Also, does anyone know if there is a way to make notes in BBCode, the same way you do in programming where it doesn't show up in the end result?

hp.Shell

United States2527 Posts

January 19 2014 07:26 GMT

Yeah, BBCode comments are used with [c] tags but aren't compatible with TL afaik.

Definitely had some problems with the opening and tempo, as you said, having to run around with your bishop and queen while he advanced his position. Your concepts however seem to be improving. I like your note about "point all pieces at his king," that's not something I thought much when I still played. I was more concerned with control of the center, and control over his pieces, trapping bishops in pawn boxes and the like. (Though that last example is rare.)

I don't particularly like that you took his underdeveloped pieces with your attacking pieces, for example 19...Bxd2+. Of course it's fine at this level as your plan is to trade down but it really gives him a chance to use his scary bishop to his advantage. I probably would have started pushing pawns up a and b after that, if I was him.

The knight not taking the bishop was kinda neutral I guess - neither good nor bad - but probably would have advanced your agenda best after 24. Be3 (...Nxe3) because this gives him the option of doubling on e: (25. fxe) However he probably would have taken with the King here. More pieces in the center can't be bad though.

There was really nothing you could do to prevent the rook contesting your open files. The only thing to do is run or trade, as you said. As your plan was to trade, you did the right thing in trading. (26...Rxd1)

I like the knight fork on 29...Nd4+. This is a game-winning move. (And 29. Rd1 a game-losing mistake....)

33...Rh3
I prefer 33...Rc3 here. It keeps the king off the c-file and attacks both 2-pawns at once. It can be easily defended with 34. Rf1 but that's a really bad spot for a rook to be in, especially with all those pawns you have on the Kingside.

When he moved the king out of the box 37. Kf3 you should have advanced the passed pawn. If you don't he can easily move his king back in later, before you decide you don't want a free queen (or a dead white rook). I suppose he assumed you wouldn't move your own king forward (37...Kf5) attacking the f4 pawn, because you obviously can't protect the passed pawn with your rook while the f4 pawn is there. So I guess the best move here is not 37...b4 but instead 37...Kf5! Now you're two pawns ahead.

38. Kg3 allows him to move his rook away from defending his pawn on h1. Attacking your rook is a bonus. I like your response, 38...g5 but I would prefer 37...Kf5 as above.

41. Ra1 your pawn is still fine here. I don't see the problem until 42. Ra8. Then you would want to move your rook to the b-file with (42...Rb4) protecting your free queen. (or dead white rook)

42...Ke5
If the rooks weren't an issue here, I prefer 42...e5 instead. The key in the endgame is to advance your pawns, and defend the ones that look like they have a good shot at Queening, while attacking the king and saving your pieces. But advance the pawns!

Too bad losing that pawn on 50. Kxg5. Bad mistake there, leading up to that move. At least you didn't allow any skewers or pins on your rook-king duo.

Good job forcing the draw. I feel like you had this game won the entire time. You just made a couple bad mistakes in the endgame, that's all. I'd focus on studying endgame tactics, and moving your pawns when you can afford to. 44...e5 was too late, I feel.

This is coming from my past experience. I haven't played in probably close to a year now. But it's like riding a bicycle, they say.

sertas

Sweden874 Posts

January 19 2014 08:26 GMT

both sides broke the fundamentals of openings several times. Moved same pieces way to many times without even acomplishing anything. Then black got a winning possition pretty early but failed to finish due to missing some tactical finishes that were available. Didnt look to closely at the endgame but black missed 32... Nd2 checkmate. And 35... g5 easily wins. And 42... Rb4 also completely wins. 48... Ke4 is also obvious misstake. Rf5 a lot more natural. 57. Kxh4 is the most basic win that exists in the game for white.

I would say that opening principles, endgame principles and learning tactics is the 3 big things that is lacking in your play. But i would focus on learning combinations since you had a lot of (fairly basic) combinations that would win this game that you missed and your opponent missed just as much.

Your strength in this game was your possitional play to get the winning possitions in the endgame. But your tactical play couldnt finish it.

Omnishroud

1073 Posts

January 19 2014 09:43 GMT

Planning out your alotted time in chess is a huge part of the game, i used to find myself finishing 15|10 games with 10+ minutes on the clock wondering why i was playing so poorly.

Its very important to manage your time correctly and use all of it effectively.

Qwyn

United States2779 Posts

January 19 2014 09:53 GMT

I don't play chess, but I just want to let you know that the quality of this blog is really awesome. Thanks for putting so much time into this!

Jayme

United States5866 Posts

January 19 2014 11:48 GMT

Everytime I see Qa5 or Qh5 with two undeveloped minor pieces in order to create artificial pressure on the king I cringe inside. I don't know what it is about this move that is so attractive initially (I did it too) but all it does is allow your Queen to be chased around the board...resulting in complete loss of tempo.

What I find particularly intriguing about your play as that your basic positional play is pretty damn good...almost too good really because your tactical play doesn't always keep up with it

You simply missed a lot of completely winning moves, including a checkmate. You have good combinations and ideas, just gotta drive them home.

Slayer91

Ireland23335 Posts

January 19 2014 12:19 GMT

Just want to mention: I glanced at both chess blogs, you're playing the french; why are you trying to fianchetto the black bishop? You are fianchettoing into a closed diagonal it makes no sense. The standard idea of the french is to put press on the centre:
Attack D4 with Nc6, C5, Qb6, and possible Nh6-f5
Attack E5 with Be7, f6, 0-0 and open the f-file

in particular the wasted tempo of g6 allows the white B-b5 move. Normally the white bishop is a problem piece in the french because you want it on D3 but it blocks defense to D4, so you have to go Be2 which blocks the E-file for your rook later.
You could do like Q-a5+ or Q-b6 to block these while applying pressure and developing

wingpawn

Poland1342 Posts

January 19 2014 12:35 GMT

Well, compared to your previous effort, this is certainly some improvement.

First of all, I think when you go 4...g6, you can plan to develop like this: h7-h5, Bf8-h6, Bh6xc1, Ng8-h6 and Nh6-f5. The drawback of that is that you give your opponent a chance to exchange his "bad" Bishop that could later get stuck behind his dark-square pawn chain. But at least all your pieces can come out of back row comfortably.

Also, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself about 9...Qa5. It's a dubious move, but it managed to provoke your opponent to play 12. c4 eventually, which was great for you, because your light-squared Bishop came out of the prison (note that even though he blundered with 13. cxd5?? you would still play ...dxc5 later and free the Bishop yourself - because he gave you the opportunity to get rid of your d-pawn).

After 18. Nbd2 you have very strong position and there's no need to exchange stuff unless you can grab material or get winning attack with it. You could play 18...Bxf3 19. gxf3 Rc2! 20. Be3 Bc3 and White will start dropping pawns because he is tied to the defense of Nd2. That line of play gives up none of your activity and actually picks up material basically for free.

33...Rf3 was much stronger than 33...Rh3, because you attack 2 pawns at once and, one way or another, f2 and h2 (or f2 and f4) will both fall.

35...g5! was another good shot (instead of 35...f6). The idea is that f4-pawn is pinned to the King and will be taken by your Rook because 36. Rg1 h6 defends the g5-pawn and now Rh4xf4 is inevitable.

Like you said, 42...Ke5 is a mistake. You had easy win with 42...Rb4, supporting the passed pawn. If he ever tries to catch it by putting the Rook on b1 and King on c2, you just allow that, exchange Rooks and then pick up rest of his pawns with King, making another Queen. And if he waits with Rook on b1, you first activate your King and Rook as much as you can, then move your King over to c2 yourself, after which he has to sacrifice his Rook for a pawn and lose the endgame anyway.

46...Ke4? is also bad. Going back and doing nothing with 46...Kg6 is a simple draw, wheras here, you give him some slim chances to fight for a win.

You're lucky he didn't play 57. Kxh4 Kxe5 58. Kg5 and it's all over, as your King cannot reach the h-pawn because White King will always cover his way to it. When he finally exchanged the Rooks, the draw was obvious.

imBLIND

United States2626 Posts

January 19 2014 23:28 GMT

Black's goal in the closed french is to dismantle his pawn center by cxd4 and aiming all your shit at that square. If you wanted to use early queen shenanigans, just use the Scandinavian or something. Just do 5. ... c5, take the d-pawn as quickly as your development permits, and then just start pressuring that d4 square. If you aren't able to dismantle that center quickly enough, you're going to have an extremely difficult time getting your king side pieces out. Your king's knight was stuck on the back rank until move 20 and had to go to e7 because f6 is being attacked by that e5 pawn. Get rid of that center, and your life will be so much easier.

Alternatively, you can attack e5 directly, but that involves opening up your king side as well as your queen side and is slightly dangerous if you are not familiar with the positions.

Also, why are you so keen on fianchettoing your dark squared bishop? the a3-f8 diagonal is already open for your bishop and is more useful than the closed a1-h8 diagonal. The only reason to fianchetto the dark squared bishop is if you already have an attack on that diagonal, which you didn't have.

I would also try experimenting with blocking that Bb5 check with your light squared bishop. That bishop is not as valuable for black as it is for white in the French. If he exchanges, take back with the queen. If he retreats, you can now play ...a6 to secure the c6 square for your knight.

19...Bxd2+ is not a good move. Better would be Rc2 or something that attacks that square.

While end game theory is important, I would focus on trying to win with early and mid game tactics. g6, Bxd2, and Qa5 are all tactical errors that can be easily fixed.

Thaniri

1264 Posts

January 20 2014 01:50 GMT

#10

@hp.Shell
Damn, comments are so useful in bigger documents.

Thank-you for all of your input, I will think about your advice. I agree with your points.

@sertas
I think that my tactical skill might be severely lacking because I had played blitz and only blitz for so long. Under those conditions I never practiced finding clever moves and just tried to play for broader strategic ideas. I've been using chesstempo.com to work on it.

This game had an abnormally poor opening from me, it's a work in progress I agree.

@Omnishroud
This game ended taking about 40 minutes in total. I am working on using all of my time, but this is my first week playing standard and I am not expecting myself to be able to focus for an hour+ yet.

Thanks for your advice!

@Qwyn
Thank-you, it's a work in progress.

@Jayme
I had never played that queen move before. It was an idea that popped into my mind and I found out it was not the best plan. I subscribe strongly to the Day[9] strategy building technique of exploring into the wild and hectic game and then making adjustments as you lose.

I'll definitely try to become a more tactically crisp player. It is a recurring theme that people comment on how tactically weak I am.

@Slayer91
I am trying to fiancetto the black bishop because having no plan is worse than having a bad plan. I've learned my lesson and this is the last game I will try it.

I will put your ideas into practice, maybe I'll come to like one of them.

@wingpawn
I need to rework my understanding of early game development with the french, that is why I don't think I will play Qa5 again. It leads to too much wasted tempo and like imBLIND mentioned I need to think about killing the d4 pawn to be able to develop my pieces better.

Thanks for your advice, I definitely agree with you.

@imBLIND
Developing on the kingside has always been a struggle for me when I play a closed french. Thanks for this idea, I will definitely try it.

As mentioned above, I won't be trying to fiancetto the black square bishop any longer. It was a silly move behind the thought process of having a bad plan as opposed to no plan at all.

Both the endgame and the tactical parts of my play are my weakest points. I think it is more important for me to learn to play an endgame at first though, and then build a tactical understanding off of endgame principles. Or something.

I'm not even rated 1,000 on chess.com, what do I know? All I know is that most very highly rated players advise learning the endgame first as a noob chess player.

---

Thank-you everyone for your replies. I would have liked to respond to them in more detail but there are so many. Rest assured though, I did take all of your advice and will be experimenting with it.

NeuroticPsychosis

United States322 Posts

January 20 2014 03:39 GMT

#11

Good game. I was pleasantly baffled by your chess skills!

marvellosity

United Kingdom36156 Posts

January 20 2014 15:06 GMT

#12

Just a small thing OP - you seem to wildly exaggerate the advantages and swings that exist within a game. Like at some point you were way too optimistic about your position, at another far too pessimistic.

Grumbels

Netherlands7028 Posts

January 20 2014 15:14 GMT

#13

Learning the endgame is useful for at least two reasons:

1. You acquire actual skills. Formulating plans in the opening is all guess work. Endgame skills are no guesswork, you learn technique to be able to realize if a position is actually won or lost, and how to convert the position into a win. I think this gives you a more solid foundation for your play.

2. I think that knowing what endgame positions are desirable will be more useful for developing game sense and tactical ability, just because it's so concrete. You can very often spot potential in a position for a good endgame for you and then you can look for tactics or moves to get toward this situation.

Also, just on another note: you are analyzing your games far too much for how low rated you are. You can't just pick up some principles from a chess guide and try to become good at chess. Just play a thousand games first without thinking about them and do what works for you, that way you'll develop actual game sense. Your method is a bit like picking up Starcraft for the first time and then spending all your time trying to emulate a build by a pro. You'll likely have much better results just doing whatever and trying to come up with concepts on your own that are more similar to your tactical/mechanical ability. I would always advise not to get your conceptual understanding ahead of your mechanical understanding.

marvellosity

United Kingdom36156 Posts

January 20 2014 15:19 GMT

#14

Analysing your games is never a bad thing.

edit: I mean sure he could have spent the hour or whatever doing tactics puzzles or playing another game, but looking critically at your games is always fine.

Grumbels

Netherlands7028 Posts

January 20 2014 16:02 GMT

#15

On January 21 2014 00:19 marvellosity wrote:
Analysing your games is never a bad thing.

edit: I mean sure he could have spent the hour or whatever doing tactics puzzles or playing another game, but looking critically at your games is always fine.

I don't know. I feel like conceptual understanding* is often like taking a shortcut and it's more rewarding to have concrete understanding. This entire notion of playing 1. ..e6 and having a game plan associated with it and analyzing moves and refining your gameplan etc seems very odd, given that all the nuances are really beyond the OP's ability. He might as well play 1. ..g5 and have equal success. For instance, the french is a bad opening if you always get cramped and lack development. If you lack the timing sense for when you can develop your pieces you should stop and think and accept that for you it's not (yet) a good opening.

I'm not against analyzing, mind you, but I think that by adopting such a high level perspective you will sooner or later run into a wall where you need a higher basic chess ability to develop, and your conceptual understanding will seem like it will no longer provide you with solid principles to base your moves on.

*as in, using concepts to improve your play.

Thaniri

1264 Posts

January 20 2014 17:22 GMT

#16

On January 21 2014 00:14 Grumbels wrote:
Learning the endgame is useful for at least two reasons:

1. You acquire actual skills. Formulating plans in the opening is all guess work. Endgame skills are no guesswork, you learn technique to be able to realize if a position is actually won or lost, and how to convert the position into a win. I think this gives you a more solid foundation for your play.

2. I think that knowing what endgame positions are desirable will be more useful for developing game sense and tactical ability, just because it's so concrete. You can very often spot potential in a position for a good endgame for you and then you can look for tactics or moves to get toward this situation.

Also, just on another note: you are analyzing your games far too much for how low rated you are. You can't just pick up some principles from a chess guide and try to become good at chess. Just play a thousand games first without thinking about them and do what works for you, that way you'll develop actual game sense. Your method is a bit like picking up Starcraft for the first time and then spending all your time trying to emulate a build by a pro. You'll likely have much better results just doing whatever and trying to come up with concepts on your own that are more similar to your tactical/mechanical ability. I would always advise not to get your conceptual understanding ahead of your mechanical understanding.

I disagree with you strongly.

I have played my thousand blitz games, and I have not benefited much from them.

I rocketed from 500 chess.com ELO to 1,000 by playing blitz and have been stuck there for an extremely long time. Because of the concept of making circles within circles, playing "mechanically" is great to learn tactics, but I don't see why I wouldn't be able to learn tactics and strategy at the same time. I can play chesstempo.com's tactics trainer all day, but those are not real games, I enjoy looking at my games and seeing all the missed opportunities I had. THAT to me feels like improving, whereas playing the chessic equivalent of marine split challenge is useful, but not the height of importance.

When I was at the GM level in starcraft I practised almost exclusively mechanics. Marine splitting for hours at a time, and grinding out build orders for 6-8 hours per day every day. The reason it worked in starcraft was that it is a strategically shallow game. There is not much depth to it at all because of how many forced "moves" there are, and "optimal" continuations. Like TLO said, starcraft 2 is an RTT. Real Time Tactical game.

Now, I am not one quite skilled enough to comment on chess yet, but it seems that chess is much less mechanical and much more strategic. Yeah sure, the grandmasters have impeccable tactical skill, but that is not the defining factor between a great chess player and a good chess player.

I often hear comments on young kids being tactical geniuses in the game, but not having developed particularly good positional play. They play from memory, just using tactics out of their tactical toolbox in a mechanical and robotic fashion.

Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing, because the one who learns tactics early will lose some games, and adjust until he is a good positional player too. If that's the case, I will do the opposite. My understanding of tactics has to catch up to my strategic skills. The end result is identical, albeit likely a different style of play will arise.

I don't want to discredit the importance of tactics. In fact, I will be practicing my tactics as much as possible because I know they are a great weakness in my play. But, I do not see any reason to neglect any other aspect of the game.

Grumbels

Netherlands7028 Posts

January 20 2014 17:33 GMT

#17

It depends on if you are just trying to get the highest rating possible. I think a thousand blitz games is both very useful and fun and will prove to be rewarding whenever you are aiming for improvement. You can both improve and have fun by playing a lot with an eye on improving fundamentals.

Slayer91

Ireland23335 Posts

January 21 2014 01:28 GMT

#18

tactics is a prerequisite to strategy in a way. its not really just memory, but there's definitely patterns. I've only played a few games on my chess.com account so im only 1400 and I played a few games earlier and they were pretty much all decided by "tactics", in that stuff happened and blunders happened by both sides (im ridiculously rusty and tactics is the first thing to go).
if you're stuck at 1000 your calculation ability (tactics) is definitely way out of whack
there's nothing wrong with analyzing games, and perhaps blitz games are way too short for a learning player, but it doesn't mean that having bad tactics affects your strategy since strategy is just what you do to improve your tactical position in the long term.
i played this game earlier as white
1.e4c5
2.Nf3Nc6
3.Nc3a6
4.d4cxd4
5.Nxd4e6
6.Be3Bc5
7.Nxc6dxc6
8.Bxc5Qa5
9.Qd6Bd7
10.Qf8#
i barely know my openings at all anymore but this kind of shit happens, so why should i bother until my tactics are good enough again to make it worthwhile to start learning openings and shit again

GolemMadness

Canada11044 Posts

January 25 2014 09:12 GMT

#19

A few thoughts:

Fianchettoing your bishop in this kind of advance french position makes no sense and just weakens your king side. I'm not really sure why you're thinking about what to do on move 3 in such a common line. Do you not usually play the French?

Not sure why you're freaking out about your position early on so much. Yes, a couple of your moves weren't optimal, but he's also spent time pointlessly moving his queen around and traded off his good bishop for no reason.

19...Bxd2+ loses a tempo. He's forced to play something like Ke2 or Be3 to defend his knight, so you can wait before taking it.

23...Nxd4 would win a pawn. For example: Kxd4 Rfd8+ Ke3 Rc3+ Ke4 Rd2 followed by Rcc2

Not sure why you're so focused on trading your knight for his bishop. Unless there's a forced variation like on move 23 that wins material, your knight is better than his bishop. However, d5 is a much better square for your knight, as it attacks f4, blocks the d file for him and has more potential.

42.Ra8 is a blunder, and Rb4 wins. Ra1 b2 Rb1 Kf5 Kf3 Rb3+ K2 Ke4 and black wins.

On move 46, not sure why you keep playing Ke4. ...Kg6 is an easy draw, and if white hadn't wasted time playing Re5 and moving his king back for no reason then it's a win for him. Even at the end, if he doesn't trade rooks it looks like it should be winning for him.

Please or register to reply.

Chess VII

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming