07 Jul 12
Originally posted by hedonistI am sorry but this is not good enough. Playing without a clear goal in mind is suicidal even fromthe opening. After 1.d4 and say 1...f5 I want a simple plan on how I am going to proceed. Playing by principles alone is lazy and the ground work for the middle game is laid in the opening. I dont want endless theory but I also don't want a game without any consideration to strategic principles, I simply don't believe in it.
Well I think the first thing you should do is throw out all your opening books. They are a waste of time and money until you are a good player. Even the most basic looking line has a huge amount of theory to learn, so why go through the pain for so little gain.
Play from the start just using opening principles. You will be surprised after the game to se ...[text shortened]... as a crutch, there is no cure all. Chess is supposed to be hard work, and the more fun for it.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
08 Jul 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34Two pieces up. That black queen's bishop is doing nothing, and continued to do nothing for the entire game. Black was essentially playing not one, but two pieces down. (OK, two pieces minus a very large and expensive pawn...)
Black has just played 10...c6
[fen]r1b2rk1/p4ppp/2p1pn2/qp6/3P4/P3PN2/B2N1PPP/R2QK2R w KQ - 0 13[/fen]
"look at this structure, its the stuff dreams are made of,
a weak c5 square and a backwards pawn on c6."
No mention of being a piece up. That is the stuff dreams are really made of.
Never mind the horsie. Even if the knight could have been retreated, no chess player should ever make that kind of move. It makes your bishop bad with no prospect of it ever becoming good again. Yes, yes, the centre is open... but is it? I call that centre dynamically closed. Black can't open white lines for his bishop without saccing a pawn, messing up his pawn structure, or (and!) letting the white pieces into his position.
White's pointy hat, meanwhile, has beautiful vistas and is threatening the entire board, in particular Black's kingside. Weak squares? You shouldn't be bothered by a single weak square when you're also fatally weakening all your white squares and playing with a piece down - that's getting in the way of your other pieces to boot.
After ...c6, Black was lost strategically and would have been so even if he hadn't been materially lost as well. And the reason would not have been the c5 square. The c5 square is black.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
08 Jul 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo... don't put it there, then? Play the Nimzo instead.
I cannot count the number of times i have been mated on g7 because of the French defence advance variation, I dont like the way the knight gets pushed back from f6 after the e5 advance and its ends up e7 blocking my kings bishop 🙁
Richard
08 Jul 12
1 edit
Hi Shallow Blue.
I like looking at Robbie's games and his notes.
He is a that awkward stage when he is trying to make sense of it all
regarding positional chess v tactics.
I'm way way down the scale when it comes to understanding it all but I do
recognise the floundering part we all go through.
He actually played the game OK. (slack Bb3 moves you can get away with
when a piece up.). He spotted the c6 target and tied up Black.
But his reasoning and explantion were muddled, also he refuses to
switch into basic tactics mode when it appears and is placing strategy
first, tactics 2nd.
You are right about that c8 Bishop.
A line I never mentioned which could easily have been played.
"Playing a combo, for the sake of playing a combo."
Something Ruxton said I am often guilty of:
"you let your imagination take over and you blow good positions
or take needless risks just because you have seen it and it looks pretty."
Guilty. Though here I reined myself in and went looking for a better move.
(Qc1)
Originally posted by Shallow BlueAnd the reason would not have been the c5 square. The c5 square is black, - shallow green white and gold!
So... don't put it there, then? Play the Nimzo instead.
Richard
the c5 square was intrinsically weak, because as GP pointed out, even if black had
attempted to shore it up with b6, it leaves the c6 pawn dead! there is no way that this
type of weakness can ever be compensated for, ever and it remains weak the entire
game. even losing a piece is not enough to warrant a loss, i have dropped many a
piece and still managed to swindle the game because of positional considerations, but a
weak square that really is a weak square is death, every time.
08 Jul 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34He is a that awkward stage when he is trying to make sense of it all regarding positional chess v tactics.
Hi Shallow Blue.
I like looking at Robbie's games and his notes.
He is a that awkward stage when he is trying to make sense of it all
regarding positional chess v tactics.
I'm way way down the scale when it comes to understanding it all but I do
recognise the floundering part we all go through.
He actually played the game OK. (slack Bb3 moves ...[text shortened]... night back to b8 or c7 to get the a-pawn rolling. White is still winning easily.}[/pgn]
yes GP this is an excellent evaluation, but its worse than you expected, there is no
cure, not only do i not like tactical positions, i avoid them, so many times i have seen
what appeared to be a winning combination, only to realise after its execution that it
was fatally flawed! and my position is a house of cards! worse than that, other people
subject me to their combinations and they always seem so sound!
08 Jul 12
Hi Robbie
What you have to embrace is this.
You yourself stated and everyone knows that:
"...tactics flow from a superior position."
What is not well known (well it is but few people mention it.)
Is that tactics can also flow from a terrible position.
Tactical tricks hide under every stone on the chessboard.
08 Jul 12
Originally posted by hedonistI am not sure how you will discover after the game that you've played moves that Grandmasters can't improve on. After all, you've just thrown out all your opening books. 😛
Well I think the first thing you should do is throw out all your opening books. They are a waste of time and money until you are a good player. Even the most basic looking line has a huge amount of theory to learn, so why go through the pain for so little gain.
Play from the start just using opening principles. You will be surprised after the game to se ...[text shortened]... as a crutch, there is no cure all. Chess is supposed to be hard work, and the more fun for it.
Supposedly, studying theory is "too much pain for too little gain" - until the end of the post, where we find "lazy" players using them as a crutch.
08 Jul 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34ahh its so true, there is no getting away from it!
Hi Robbie
What you have to embrace is this.
You yourself stated and everyone knows that:
"...tactics flow from a superior position."
What is not well known (well it is but few people mention it.)
Is that tactics can also flow from a terrible position.
Tactical tricks hide under every stone on the chessboard.
08 Jul 12
Drag your weary bones along to the Scottish Championship currently
being held in Glasgow.
http://www.chessscotland.com/scottishchampionship2012/directions.php
Check out the bookstall (especially the 2nd hand boxes.)
See if you can pick up 'Blunders & Brilliancies'
Look at te blunders from superior positions and brilliancies from lost positions.
(one of my games is in there, I could have had more...many more, my very
own chapter! all the more reason to buy it!).
I'll be there Tuesday, possibly Wednesday.
08 Jul 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI must say I've swindled my way out of weak squares much more often than out of having less pieces!
even losing a piece is not enough to warrant a loss, i have dropped many a
piece and still managed to swindle the game because of positional considerations, but a
weak square that really is a weak square is death, every time.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
08 Jul 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd why would he do that? White didn't have his black bishop any more, either, so covering that square with a knight would do just fine. The real problem would be the plethora of weak white squares, all attacked by White's white bishop, none of them protected by Black's white bishop because that was cowering behind the c6 pawn. That would be the real problem, not that one square out of reach of both bishops.
And the reason would not have been the c5 square. The c5 square is black, - shallow green white and gold!
the c5 square was intrinsically weak, because as GP pointed out, even if black had attempted to shore it up with b6,
Richard
08 Jul 12
Originally posted by Shallow Bluein this instance it was proven that white did not need a dark squared bishop for the
And why would he do that? White didn't have his black bishop any more, either, so covering that square with a knight would do just fine. The real problem would be the plethora of weak white squares, all attacked by White's white bishop, none of them protected by Black's white bishop because that was cowering behind the c6 pawn. That would be the real problem, not that one square out of reach of both bishops.
Richard
square to be considered weak, black did not have one either, its weakness was created
due to the fact that it could not be protected by a pawn, for if the pawn had advanced ,
then it simply left further weakness in its stead, not because of the absence or
otherwise of bishops, me thinks.
08 Jul 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34I canny GP i am working Tuesday and Wednesday, although i would dearly love to
Drag your weary bones along to the Scottish Championship currently
being held in Glasgow.
http://www.chessscotland.com/scottishchampionship2012/directions.php
Check out the bookstall (especially the 2nd hand boxes.)
See if you can pick up 'Blunders & Brilliancies'
Look at te blunders from superior positions and brilliancies from lost position ...[text shortened]...
own chapter! all the more reason to buy it!).
I'll be there Tuesday, possibly Wednesday.
attend, just to smell the wood, or is it plastic chess pieces they play with? oh Fischer, it
really was in vain, dudes with sneakers on, the shame of it! and plastic chess pieces!