19 Aug 06
seeing as I don't play OTB, nor am I "training" for it, I just play CC, and depending on my mood and the will to win, I will use opening books, databases, and of course Notepad and the analysis board to look 8-12 moves ahead. **
CC chess, IMO is the aim for perfection, Duboius and "pychological" play won't get you far, but solid idea's, tactic's, openings and stratgedy will.
Also, CC is a great opurtunity to learn ---In my CC games I will often find myself playing complex endings, And because of the amount of time I have, i'll go off and read a chapter in a relevant endgame book, then move - hence, I learn.
And I somewhat doubt the use of the analysis board is detrimental to visualization skills, I should imagine it neither harms or helps.
**most of the time I simply can't be bothered to do that mind.
19 Aug 06
Originally posted by RahimKI couldn't agree more. In fact, i feel that if you do 10-30 tactical problems a day (even with a day off here and there) then you will have strong visualization (whether or not you use the analyze board). CC chess helps all around, openings, middlegame planning, and endgame. Plus it's fun! Isn't that what really matters?
If you want to improve your chess, join a club and start playing OTB chess. Anyone who can't share in this moment is missing out greatly.
Anyways, I'm on this site to improve my OTB play. I used opening databases in my games here and when I play OTB after awhile I start remebering my openings from here and thus play better opening in OTB. So CC helps me fo ...[text shortened]... ctics and solely uses the analyse board would have really bad calculation in OTB games.
19 Aug 06
Originally posted by ShinidokiI don't agree with that statement about the visualization.
seeing as I don't play OTB, nor am I "training" for it, I just play CC, and depending on my mood and the will to win, I will use opening books, databases, and of course Notepad and the analysis board to look 8-12 moves ahead. **
CC chess, IMO is the aim for perfection, Duboius and "pychological" play won't get you far, but solid idea's, tactic's, ope ...[text shortened]... her harms or helps.
**most of the time I simply can't be bothered to do that mind.
Lets take this example, You reach a point in several CC games where tactics come into play and you have to calculate several moves deep for each game. Because you are lazy you use the analyse board so you don't have to calculate. After a while you get use to this laziness and don't both calculating in your head. You get very use to moving the piece on a real board or the analyse board.
Now you play an otb game at a club and have to calculate a variation out. You will find it exteremely hard to calculate it because your skill are weaker now and plus you are lazy. You wish you could just pick up the pieces and move them.
I play both otb and cc a lot and i'm telling you this from experience. It does happen.
19 Aug 06
Originally posted by RahimKOk....I'll tell you how I use the analysis board -- because I don't simply "move pieces"
I don't agree with that statement about the visualization.
Lets take this example, You reach a point in several CC games where tactics come into play and you have to calculate several moves deep for each game. Because you are lazy you use the analyse board so you don't have to calculate. After a while you get use to this laziness and don't both calculating ...[text shortened]... m.
I play both otb and cc a lot and i'm telling you this from experience. It does happen.
I'll get to position 1, and using my mind (and my mind alone) I'll look at a few possibilites 2-3 moves ahead, if the look promising I'll scroll foward to that position(s) and look a further 2-3 moves ahead.
I don't mindlessly move every peice, in every possible way -- like a computer.
That way -- I'm actaully looking deep enough to win CC games and at the same time, actually thinking.
19 Aug 06
Originally posted by ShinidokiSometimes in OTB you have to calculate further then 2-3 moves deep and having an inbetween position is not possible.
Ok....I'll tell you how I use the analysis board -- because I don't simply "move pieces"
I'll get to position 1, and using my mind (and my mind alone) I'll look at a few possibilites 2-3 moves ahead, if the look promising I'll scroll foward to that position(s) and look a further 2-3 moves ahead.
I don't mindlessly move every peice, in every possible ...[text shortened]... m actaully looking deep enough to win CC games and at the same time, actually thinking.
Meaning if you have to calculate 6 moves deep, you might not be able to do it but if you calculate 3 moves deep, then set up that positon then calculate 3 more moves deep you get your 6 move deep. One way is easier then the other but is not possible for OTB.
I'm not saying what you are doing is wrong or anything like that, I'm just saying using the analyse board is bad for OTB purposes.
21 Aug 06
Originally posted by wormwoodYes but do you play the games unaided or does the opening come from a DB. Do you move the pieces or how do you develop your analytical skills?
tööt tööt.
🙄
edit: ever heard the frase: "the best way to progress as a chess player, is to play a lot of slow games?"
Did you think the likes of the KKs or Fischer were born as champs or did they learn their chess (learn the opening, middlegame and endgame)?
22 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by z00tin CC I select my opening moves by analysing database moves. if I don't like where the game is going, I don't follow it. if I see a 'good move' that no master played, I find out why. so, I learn my openings better, analyse, AND don't brand my brain with the feeble opening practices a 1600 would develop on his own. - what's the use of learning bad habits if you can avoid them? would a master encourage you to strengthen your bad opening habits? I doubt it.
Yes but do you play the games unaided or does the opening come from a DB. Do you move the pieces or how do you develop your analytical skills?
Did you think the likes of the KKs or Fischer were born as champs or did they learn their chess (learn the opening, middlegame and endgame)?
I know what you're getting at though. you probably think people using databases are just copying the moves, thus learning nothing. well, some are, and are some not. those who are, can be set up pretty easily, as they seldom know what they're doing if you divert from book. (you can usually spot them from choosing always the best scoring lines, regardless of the score being caused by weak opponents blundering etc.) some even do extensive research on their moves (the best CC players), that's what the long time controls are for. - it's all about how you use the time. you can throw it away, or you can use it to teach yourself to play better chess.
as for moving pieces, I first find the threats, then candidate moves (these I play in my head), then play them out on the analyze board. this might take from hours to over a week, and then it usually becomes quite iterative process of course.
about KK (?), fischer and other greats, I don't believe for a second that they were born a champ. not even capablanca. I believe they worked on their game with great persistense, wether they admit it or not. knowledge, especially procedural knowledge, doesn't appear from thin air.
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by z00tYou are misleading everyone here! Anyone who logs into the ICC site will immediately be forced to see this message:
ICC does not bar the use of engines and so you have the top ICC exponents actively using programs in their games. One ICC grandmaster beat an early version of Hydra using several programs (and of course the opening databases and opening books). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Nickel. Why didn’t he play without any engine assistance (he used a combination ...[text shortened]... TB chess? Is it that the "assistance" in CC nullifies chess ability completely?
z00t! z00t!
** The use of chess-playing programs is not allowed **
** unless you have a (C) label.
Soooo, now that everyone knows you have deliberately tried to mislead them, nothing you say has any value anymore.
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugJust a thought but when I read that I did not think of ICC = Internet Chess Club.
I tried explaining that to Zoot Zoot in another thread but he chose to completly ignore me and continue going on about the titled players at ICC that use engines to get their title. 🙄
I thought of International Correspondence Chess - ICC. Maybe that's what he was talking about. Lots of CC places do allow engine usage, and I think he was refering to that.