@mchill
Of course it is.
His comments and annotations were based on strategy and positional judgement.
So...either you can pay someone to teach you strategy or get a strategy book as a general guide.
You going over your own games means nothing if you don't know strategy. You won't see the mistakes...positionally.
It has to be explained or learned from a book.
Hire a coach or visit websites that explain positional judgement or buy a book.
That's all I'm saying.
You've done more tactics than most I presume.
Now you need to learn positional judgement so you can get into those positions where the tactics and combinations come about.
@contenchess saidPerhaps despite the emoji in my earlier comment, it wasn't clear that the concluding sentence wasn't meant literally. The essence of my comment was that there is ample chess literature on how to play specific middlegame positions, but there seems to be very little on how to formulate a plan in an unfamiliar position.
If he doesn't understand strategic play then him going over his games won't do anything.
He has to learn proper chess strategies.
Weak players can go over their games to find tactical mistakes and opening blunders but chess strategies have to be taught.
Once he learns proper chess strategies and positional judgement then he can find the mistakes in his own games. ...[text shortened]... understanding of positional play, and Steinitz often outmaneuvered him fairly simply"
- Wikipedia
So, how straightforward it would be to learn "chess strategy" depends in part on how one defines the term. My feeling is that learning to formulate a plan in an unfamiliar position would take less time given appropriate guidance, but the sticky wicket seems to be finding such guidance. The choice of course depends also on how a player prefers to approach the game.
Hi Bill,
Here are my comments on Round 3. If the tactics in some of the variations seem obscure, you might focus on the principles being conveyed.
15...Bd6
15...Qd5 would threaten 16...Nxh5 (intending to answer 17. c4 by 17...Nxf4) or 16...Qe4+ (exchanging queens to weaken the anticipated attack after White's eventual g5-break).
18...Rfd8
I don't think it's clear where to deploy Black's rooks, and the tempo expended could matter even in this fairly closed position. More accurate would be 18...c5, intending to answer 19. c3 by 19...cxd4 20. cxd4 Qd5 21. Kb1 (to prevent 21...Qa2) 21...Qe4, reaching a comfortable ending. 21...Qxg2 (instead of 21...Qe4) seems extremely risky after 22. f3 (preventing 22...Qe4), followed by playing a rook to g1. Tempting is 21...Ne4 22. Qf3 Rac8 (with the idea of 23...R(or N)c3 24. bxc3 Qb3+) 23. Rd3 (to meet 23...Rc3 by 24. bxc3 Qb3+ 25. Kc1 Qxa3+ 26. Kd1 Qa1+ 27. Ke2 Qxh1 28. Qxe4), with the prospect of a sharp struggle.
21...Rac8
This seems natural, but the rook has almost nowhere to go along the c-file. More logical is 21...b5 (intending ...b4), for example, 21...b5 22. Qxb5 Rab8 23. Qc5 Ne4! 24. Qxd6 Rxd6 25. Rc1 f6 26. Nc6 Rb7, with Black's having active play for the pawn.
25...Nxf2 (instead of 25...f6) is complex but seems to fare badly after 26. Rhf1 Ne4 27. Rxf7 Nd2+ 28. Ka2 Rdb6 29. Rxa7 Rxb2+ 30. Ka1 Ne4 31. Rac7 Nd6 (31...Rxg2 32. Rc8+ Rxc8 33. Rxc8+ Kh7 34. Ng6 Rxg6 35. hxg6+ Kxg6 36. a4) 32. R1c2, and White seems to have consolidated.
After 21...b5 22. Qxb5, the attacking idea 22...Ne4 23. Qe2 Nc3+ 24. bxc3 Qxa3 seems to fail to 25. Rd2 (Not 25. Nc4 Rab8+ 26. Nb2 Rd5!, intending 27...Ra5.) 25...Rab8+ 26. Rb2 Qxc3 27. Rc1.
25...Qc6
25...Qc4 would maintain pressure on the d-pawn and threaten to trade queens. 26. Qe4 would be met by 26...Rd5, when White seems to have nothing better than exchanging on d5 to reach a drawn ending. White has no time for 27. g5 because of 27...Rxe5 28. dxe5 (28. Qxe5 Qc2+) 28...Qxe4+ 29. fxe4 hxg5.
Not quite as reliable would be to liquidate to a likely-drawn ending by 25...Qxe5 26. dxe5 Rxd3 27. Rxd3 Rc7 (to prevent 28. Rd7).
29...e5
I don't understand this move at all. 29...Qd5 (to meet 30. g6 by 30...Qxh5) seems to postpone White's g-pawn's further advance for at least a few moves. For example, 29...Qd5 30. Qg3 Rd8 (threatening 31...e5).
@FMDavidHLevin
We learn from the past.
We use previous examples from the greats to guide us on our path.
Obviously all of us experience positions that confuse us but to say he can learn more from going over his games by himself than an actual strategy book is ridiculous.
He is obviously lacking positional judgement and strategy...you said it yourself...he is rudderless.
The dude studies tactics...he is fooled to think it is the be all to end all approach.
He is wrong.
We don't win games like Morphy and Anderssen...
We win a pawn or we win the opposition...
We control a diagonal or we have a knight outpost.
The days of combinations are over.
If you win that way your opponent is weak.
Win a pawn...Win the game.
(Obviously I'm being grandiose...lower rated players win by tactics etc etc...but...good players win by strategy and we very rarely see a combination in high profile chess)
@mchill
Mr. Elliott...
Buy "Modern Chess Strategy" by Ludek Pachman. (Old notation)
Or...
Chess Strategy Move by Move by Adam Hunt (algebraic notation)
They explain the "what to do" as far as positional strategy is concerned.
@contenchess saidThank You. I'll consider it.
@mchill
Mr. Elliott...
Buy "Modern Chess Strategy" by Ludek Pachman. (Old notation)
Or...
Chess Strategy Move by Move by Adam Hunt (algebraic notation)
They explain the "what to do" as far as positional strategy is concerned.