20 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by powershakerI think that you are right to some point, but I really dont want to become the best blindfolded chess player of my city, I just want to be able to hold and calculate the game in my mind, I used to play with some of my high school friends and we took some time before playing a hole game but we were able to play most of the games to the ending and even to mate, and I consider this helped me a lot since i was able to solve a lot of puzzles in my mind and now I have some trouble with that.
With your rating, I would forget playing blindfold chess. I would more readily study tactics, endgames, and then tactics, and then some more endgame. And, always open with e4. 🙂 In fact, I wouldn't even think of playing blindfold chess until I personally hit 2200 master. Then, I may think about it. For now, let's just concentrate on playing good ch play good chess. That was his goal. I only ended up World CHess CHampion, he concluded. 🙂
For example, check this user's profile "ilywrin", and solving it I had some trouble.
20 Oct 06
Originally posted by BedlamTotaly agreed,
Id say learning to play blindfolded is a sure way to get better at chess, especially for endgames, some positions need 8-15+ moves deep caculation. I wouldnt say learning to play the whole game blindfolded is a must but because it will improve your visualization when caculating it helps avoid blunders and see further down lines thats got to be good.
Also ...[text shortened]... speaking from an OTB point of view. Blindfolded isnt really a must for correspondence players.
20 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by powershakerOk, I mostly am able to play the spanish opening, but other than that is a lot more dificult, it means that I know better/Am more familiar with that opening.
I think what you're truly attempting to say - though you do not realize it - is that a good vizualization of the chess board is a good thing. Lev Alburt says this also in his chess course, of which I am a student. Anyway, yes, a good visual understanding of the chess board I believe is paramount to becoming a stronger and stronger chess player. Diagona No wonder you love blindfold chess. I'm talking to the class player - not you. Cheers!
20 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by BedlamI do see your point. But, isn't that what Lev Alburt teaches in chess course? Close your eyes with the knight on a1 and tell me what squares the knight should travel through to get to h8? I see what you mean, but I wouldn't give blindfold chess lessons to a 1300 player if he's trying to get to 1400 or 1500. Let him study tactics and endgame first! And, yeah, let him try to visualize the chessboard in his mind with a lone knight, etc... Do you see where I'm coming from? Bedlam, I would love for you to write a book entitled, "How to teach the beginning chess player to become stronger through blindfold chess." I'd love to read that one, especially if he was say 8 years old. Boy, that kid would get bored and he'd hate you for it! HAHA!
Im saying you should be able to look 10 moves deep and still see the board crystal clear. 🙂
Playing blindfolded chess is only a way to improve your visualization and calculating abilities two essential weapons of every chess player. I dont play blindfolded chess just for the sake of playing blindfolded chess nor do I play correspondence just for the sake red, a lot of them came from bad visualization and calculating and not from lack of theory etc.
20 Oct 06
Originally posted by SupermanInteresting that you say this. Here's my story. When I was taking Lev Alburt's Chess course (volumes I & II) I not only studied the course, but I took what Lev Alburt said seriously concerning visualization and knight sight. Alburt said you need to know the board in your head without looking at the board - including diagonals, where pieces sit at the beginning of the game and the name for their squares. Good familiarity is good. Superior familiarity on a blind basis is ideal. Anyway, because he says this, I got my 10 year old niece (she's so cute) to quiz me on the squares. She would ask, "What color square is e1?" Easy right? It's dark, because it sits next to the White Queen's light square and as we know Queen goes on color? Anyway, she would quiz me over and over until I could immediately tell her without hesitation the color of that square. Do you see? So, yes, understanding the chess board without sight of it is a very important exercise that must be attained. However, blind in and of itself does not teach all facets of the game and does NOT help a player grow in a well rounded chess player who progresses into the higher realms from beginner to master. Rather, I would think, that a player who commits himself to becoming well versed in visualizing the chess board would automatically - through much dedication and study - develop the ability to play blindfold chess.
I think that you are right to some point, but I really dont want to become the best blindfolded chess player of my city, I just want to be able to hold and calculate the game in my mind, I used to play with some of my high school friends and we took some time before playing a hole game but we were able to play most of the games to the ending and even to mat ...[text shortened]... hat.
For example, check this user's profile "ilywrin", and solving it I had some trouble.
I hope I got my point across on this response.
20 Oct 06
Originally posted by MarinkatombWell, I can play a single game blindfold, and I was doing it before I ever took Lev Alburt's course. And, blindfold chess never made me a better player. Serious study developed my chess. And, personally, I like to look at the pieces and touch them. They're very beautiful! I didn't buy a nice chess set, so I can close my eyes and stuff. LOL
What you don't realise is that playing with a blindfold forces you to take a completely different approach to the game. When i play here, i can open up the analyse board and experiment. I can move each piece around and see what things look like. When i play OTB, i can do a similar thing, but more limited. I can follow one line and forget about the curren ...[text shortened]... lay a couple of games with a blindfold on and you'll realise exactly what i'm talking about.
20 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by MarinkatombDid you know, Marinkatomb, that there was a scientific study done on just what we're referring to? A number of players - categorized by different rating strengths - were given a chess position to look at on a chess board for like say 5 minutes or whatever. Finally, the board was taken away. Now, the players - rated from woodpusher to grandmaster - were required to take some chess pieces and reconstruct the position they were shown. True story by the way.
I can't picture the position in my head, or at least i can't picture the whole position at once. When a piece moves i follow all the moves it can make from it's new position and remember the important squares it can attack. I build up the position based on threats, rather than blindly remembering the position. I often have to recount the moves a piece has made in order to remember where it is. Seems to work though.
Guess what the findings were? It seems the grandmaster never missed the position and reconstructed the position perfectly, only maybe missing one or two pieces. And, as reason would allow us to believe, the woodpusher really bungled it all up - maybe just a few pieces placed correctly from memory.
Now, why I'm telling you about this experiment - which really happened by the way - is because I say we all try to be better chess players and we'll become better at memorization and familiarity with the chess board. 🙂 Thank you! I'll take my bow now.
20 Oct 06
I learned the colors of squares using flash cards. I put, say a1 on one side and dark on the other. It didn't take me long to memorize all the squares and their colors. It didn't help my game one bit. Then i realized that the colors don't mean a thing. Chess can be played on square of all one color, as long as you have 64 squares. It's the relationship of the pieces and pawns that's important. If you know that a bishop on a1 and h8 oppose each other, that's more important than the color of the squares. Oh, one more thing, I used to play a game called Knight's Tour where you'd move a knight around to cover all the squares on the board. There are software versions you can download for free. There's a method for doing it, but i never got the secret. I always had a few squares left behind and my knight would be stuck. Anyway, i found it helped my knight play in closed and open positions. Since i would have to look quite a few moves ahead in knight's tour so that i wouldn't get stuck.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
21 Oct 06
Originally posted by powershakerErm.......let people learn whatever they want especially if they want to learn it.........Superman wants to learn it and if he does it will give him a clear edge over everyone who cant play blindfolded.
I do see your point. But, isn't that what Lev Alburt teaches in chess course? Close your eyes with the knight on a1 and tell me what squares the knight should travel through to get to h8? I see what you mean, but I wouldn't give blindfold chess lessons to a 1300 player if he's trying to get to 1400 or 1500. Let him study tactics and endgame first! A ...[text shortened]... he was say 8 years old. Boy, that kid would get bored and he'd hate you for it! HAHA!
Do people really study one thing at a time? Iv got 4 chess books on the go and studying many more things from all parts of the game blindfolded chess included.
The book title would be "How to teach the any chess player to become stronger through blindfold chess" 😛
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
21 Oct 06
Originally posted by powershakerVisualizing the chess board when playing blindfolded......I know some people who do try and sometimes succeed at doing this but for me I recall the piece arangement without much board detail...for me learning the square colours of the board and learning to play blindfolded are quite different.
Interesting that you say this. Here's my story. When I was taking Lev Alburt's Chess course (volumes I & II) I not only studied the course, but I took what Lev Alburt said seriously concerning visualization and knight sight. Alburt said you need to know the board in your head without looking at the board - including diagonals, where pieces sit at the ...[text shortened]... op the ability to play blindfold chess.
I hope I got my point across on this response.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
21 Oct 06
Originally posted by powershakerDo you think they got to GM's without maxing out their calculation and visualization skills? 🙂 Being able to calculate well/visualize the chess board arent products of being a GM, its GM's being a product of those skills.
Did you know, Marinkatomb, that there was a scientific study done on just what we're referring to? A number of players - categorized by different rating strengths - were given a chess position to look at on a chess board for like say 5 minutes or whatever. Finally, the board was taken away. Now, the players - rated from woodpusher to grandmaster - wer ...[text shortened]... at memorization and familiarity with the chess board. 🙂 Thank you! I'll take my bow now.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
21 Oct 06
Originally posted by buddy2Thats so true, at least for me. If I now try to picture a game I played and run through it in my head the square colours arent visualized in any real way...its the pieces and the relationship between them.
Then i realized that the colors don't mean a thing. Chess can be played on square of all one color, as long as you have 64 squares. It's the relationship of the pieces and pawns that's important. If you know that a bishop on a1 and h8 oppose each other, that's more important than the color of the squares.
21 Oct 06
Originally posted by BedlamQuite true. That is true. Can't disagree with that.
Do you think they got to GM's without maxing out their calculation and visualization skills? 🙂 Being able to calculate well/visualize the chess board arent products of being a GM, its GM's being a product of those skills.
21 Oct 06
Originally posted by BedlamOh, I slightly beg to differ. The colors of squares are very important. Suppose we look at a position and realize that white is taking control of the white squares with his white squared bishop and black is going to play on the dark squares? Bedlam, surely with your rating, you understand that opposite colored bishops have some meaning? A seasoned player knows to keep the right bishop - not the wrong colored one depending on what his opponent has. Colors do not matter? Well, what color is the a1-h8 diagonal? Dark. By the way, I didn't look, and I type pretty fast. hehe But, seriously, colors of squares do matter very much - especially in some tactical situations. It is not so difficult to calculate if you already have the bored in your head. Do you see? No, I will agree that it's not AS IMPORTANT AS KNIGHT SIGHT! Man, if you don't have knight sight, you should hang it up. And, this ability grows if you can maneuver the knight on a board without having sight of it. Helps with combinations, too.
Thats so true, at least for me. If I now try to picture a game I played and run through it in my head the square colours arent visualized in any real way...its the pieces and the relationship between them.