05 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by Papyn Chasewhen you need advice on your failures/weaknesses, post lost games. won games are far less useful for that.
looking at your games, it certainly isn't aggression you're lacking, you've got plenty of it.
[Event "RHP Blitz rated"]
[Site "www.redhotpawn.com"]
[Date "2007.10.6"]
[Round "?"]
[White "novichek"]
[Black "Papyn Chase"]
[Result "1-0"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 d6 4.Bb5 Bg4 5.Ne2 Bxf3 6.gxf3 a6 7.Ba4 b5 8.Bb3 Na5 9.c3 Nxb3 10.Qxb3 Nf6 11.Qc2 Qd7 12.d4 Be7 13.Bg5 O-O 14.O-O-O a5 15.dxe5 Nxe4 16.Bxe7 Rfb8 17.exd6 Nxf2 18.dxc7 Qxc7 19.Bd6 Qc4 20.b3 Qh4 21.Bg3 Qh6 22.Bf4 g5 23.Bxg5 Qxg5 24.Kb1 Nxd1 25.Rg1 Qxg1 26.Nxg1 Ne3 27.Qd2 Nf5 28.Qg5 Ng7 29.h4 Rbe8 30.Nh3 Re1 31.Kb2 b4 32.c4 Rae8 33.Nf4 Rd1 34.Qg2 Ree1 35.h5 Rb1 36.Kc2 Rec1 37.Kd3 Rd1 38.Ke4 Re1 39.Kd5 Rbd1 40.Kc5 Re5 41.Kc6 Rd8 42.h6 Rc8 43.Kd7 Rc7 44.Kxc7 Rg5 45.Qxg5 1-0
(ambiguous move on 39 fixed)
you dropped material, game over. you let that pawn go up on the board, big trouble ahead. "A passed pawn is a criminal which should be kept under lock and key. Mild measures, such as police surveillance, are not sufficient." - Nimzowitch. your piece cohesion is also often all over the place. LPDO - "loose pieces drop off".
I'd say your tactical abilities are not on the level your risk taking requires. how are you doing on CTS?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 07
- Moves
- 27653
06 Oct 07
Originally posted by Papyn ChaseI had a couple of experiences like this in my chess career, especially when I first started to learn "real" openings (like playing 1. e4 and developing my knights instead of say 1. a4 and developing my rook). Although I won some games, I would regularly lose to people I used to beat. After maybe 6 months or so, I got it worked out and I clearly played at a different level (lots better) after that, but it did take some time. So I'd say, keep at it and eventually things will "click".
...
I've played some games I was really proud of, wins, draws and losses, but quite heavy on the losing side. Does this new approach to chess, thinking methodically take time to master? Or am I missing something. By the way, even when rated lowly now, I don't play those below 1500.
Help.
06 Oct 07
Thanks for the replies and help guys. Yea, I know posting losses would help a whole lot more. It's just that last night that was my only loss there.
My tactical ability doesn't suit my sense of adventure, thanks Wormwood on that. Maybe some were sufficient but it's better to strive to play the correct moves. One other big weakness of mine is that I would play moves, though unsound, have high chances to make the other guy commit errors because of the need to calculate longer lines. I survived sometimes in Blitz but against strong players or when it's being played over long time controls it brought disaster.
My CTS rating is now going around 1530~1550. I make sure I always stay within below 30 points of RD. My peak CTS rating was 1580 something nearly a month ago. Last December it was just over 1400 so I know I'm making progress at that department. Success percentage is slowly building up. After 5,000 problems last year it was 64% and slowly I've been able to raise the percentage (that's hard considering the number of problems I've already tried!) to 68.5%, trying to get to 70% by the end of the year. I understand the virtue of trying to think and then solve even if points get deducted because of the time penalty. I learn nothing from hoping for correct answers from problems I can't solve properly.
I didn't realize people here were so helpful as to give opinions, pointers and advice. It's much better than Fritz's annotations which was only full of brute analysis. I'll train for the next month or so for a minor tournament (4th November) and post all the games here if I need some more help.
Thanks a lot, again, guys.
07 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Papyn Chaseit's very hard to keep yourself from doing that tasty, complicated move which has some obscure refutation. but the thing is, if it has a refutation, the 'good' outcomes do not exist. the refuted line is the only one that exists, the rest are just figments of your imagination. it's no different from leaving your queen en prise. if your opponent fails to take that queen, it's a blunder for him. and we can't willingly count on our opponents committing that kind of blunder, can we. no matter how tasty it looked.
Thanks for the replies and help guys. Yea, I know posting losses would help a whole lot more. It's just that last night that was my only loss there.
My tactical ability doesn't suit my sense of adventure, thanks Wormwood on that. Maybe some were sufficient but it's better to strive to play the correct moves. One other big weakness of mine is that I w and post all the games here if I need some more help.
Thanks a lot, again, guys.
I'm just as prone to take on the 'adventure' as you are, but the more I can adhere to the idea of correct moves, the better I play. I like to stretch that boundary as much as I can though, but it almost always backfires when you break that boundary and make the move you know is not good. and oh it hurts when the opponent refutes it. the win by an incorrect move doesn't feel that great either.
I've been doing about 90% success rate on CTS for some time now, and strongly suggest you do the same (if you're not doing already). the low success rate will just reinforce the bad habit of moving before you're ready. in time you'll gain the points back, with far greater training effect. 1550 CTS at 70% corresponds to about 1350-1400 max at 90%, so that's the kind of rating drop you're looking at. it's also useful to realize that the rising success rate requires an exponential increase in the correctly solved problems. 80% is 1 failed in 5, 90% is 1 in 10, and 95% is already 1 in 20. so it gets harder the higher you get, but is well worth it.
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by Papyn Chasesimilar happens to me these days but a bit on a higher level...after reading some Silman I think mostly to plans, ideas, good squares, bad placed pieces...and I started to miss simple tactics (in OTB games)...
All my life I was an average player and about nearly a year ago I think my rating's somewhere around the 1700 range in the playchess server. I've been playing the same way for many years and couldn't find any way of getting better. I decided to buy a few books and other resources on the net and later have spent hours studying Silman and Znosko-Borovsky b ...[text shortened]... thing. By the way, even when rated lowly now, I don't play those below 1500.
Help.
why wasting time to think at some 5 moves plan when he will go different in 2 moves and bring some threats...
I hope that in time I may get back on track with both long plans and accurate tactics this time...
09 Oct 07
doing about 90% success rate on CTS for some time now, and strongly suggest you do the same (if you're not doing already). the low success rate will just reinforce the bad habit of moving before you're ready. in time you'll gain the points back, with far greater training effect. 1550 CTS at 70% corresponds to about 1350-1400 max at 90%, so that's the kind of rating drop you're looking at. it's als ...[text shortened]... 0, and 95% is already 1 in 20. so it gets harder the higher you get, but is well worth it.[/b]I've done very little CTS and have a rating of under 1100 and just under 80% success rate. What you seem to be suggesting is a better way of looking at it - if I have this right: - ignore the rating and concentrate on building up the success rate.
Just out of interest how much time per session and per day do you typically spend on CTS?
09 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Mahoutwhen I trained seriously, I did 200-400 problems a day (2-3 sessions). now I'm doing it just for fun, maybe 20-100 a day. a 100 problems takes roughly an hour done properly. with a low success rate you can do considerably more, but you learn slower. it's also a lot more rewarding to get those long stretches of corrects in a row.
I've done very little CTS and have a rating of under 1100 and just under 80% success rate. What you seem to be suggesting is a better way of looking at it - if I have this right: - ignore the rating and concentrate on building up the success rate.
Just out of interest how much time per session and per day do you typically spend on CTS?
I started at 1050 two years ago, and have passed all my 'competition' along the way. of course I've also done more problems than anybody else (except oberdan), but the real reason is that my way simply works. I've tried a lot of different methods along the way, and high success rate with continuous persistent daily work is the fastest way to improve.
there's always people who think low success rate with maximal rating improves them better, but they always hit a wall after the initial rise. they never listen.
after 104,000 problems oberdan has not improved, 93,000 and clyk is 50 points lower than where he started. I've done 94,000 problems, and my improvement is steady. 1640 at 90% and rising.
the most important thing is to be persistent, no long breaks. but equally important is to avoid burnout. burnout kills your training for months (been there done that, twice), so watch out for that. high percentage is a lot more exhausting, but you also learn more.
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by wormwoodOK - thanks very much for the insight.
when I trained seriously, I did 200-400 problems a day (2-3 sessions). now I'm doing it just for fun, maybe 20-100 a day. a 100 problems takes roughly an hour done properly. with a low success rate you can do considerably more, but you learn slower. it's also a lot more rewarding to get those long stretches of corrects in a row.
I started at 1050 two yea ...[text shortened]... o watch out for that. high percentage is a lot more exhausting, but you also learn more.
11 Oct 07
Originally posted by Papyn ChaseI think I read a book once that said when you change how you play your results will be worse in the beginning but if you stick with it they will surpass your previous results
All my life I was an average player and about nearly a year ago I think my rating's somewhere around the 1700 range in the playchess server. I've been playing the same way for many years and couldn't find any way of getting better. I decided to buy a few books and other resources on the net and later have spent hours studying Silman and Znosko-Borovsky b ...[text shortened]... thing. By the way, even when rated lowly now, I don't play those below 1500.
Help.
11 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Papyn ChaseFirst, how many blitz games did you play at or near the 1700 rating level before your rating slipped, and was this accumulated by playing large numbers of weak opponents or playing those of similar rating levels as you progressed? For that matter, how many opponents in your slow games had ratings similar to yours as you progressed?
I played around 20+ slow games and the current rating is just slightly higher (in the high 1700s) than my highest ever blitz ratings. The slow games were played at least 40 minutes for the first time control. They haven't suffered much because I haven't been playing longer games on playchess anymore. The blitz ratings however fell from 1700s to... 1300... and it's been like that since the few past months playing thousands of 3~15 minute games.
But, even assuming that you played competent opponents (relative to yourself) and enough games to establish these ratings with any meaning, it still looks to me as if the mystery is solved. The solution: you switched from a tactics based approach appropriate to blitz games, which depend heavily on memorization, intuition, and rapid calculation, to a philosophy of chess which revolves around strategic concepts -- which require reflection and planning to be effective. But you didn't switch to regular chess -- what you call "slow chess". As a result you don't have time to both calculate tactical variations AND ponder strategy.
If you want to develop the strategic/positional side of your game, stop playing so much blitz and start playing a lot more regular chess. Personally I don't play blitz because I believe it encourages bad mental habits (bad chess habits). There are some terrific chess players dedicated to blitz, but nobody will convince me that they wouldn't be better still at chess if they applied themselves to regular chess. Meanwhile, the rest of us, who are still struggling to become good players, should attempt to develop our chess skills in a broader way than blitz encourages.
In order to become a good chess player (something I'm still aspiring to) you need to be able to combine BOTH tactical and positional skills. It's a mistake to regard these as contradictory approaches: they are in fact complimentary skills. Someone who plays only for the tactical shot, move to move, unless they are really some sort of whiz, is not going to play good chess. Someone who attempts to apply strategy and general positional ideas without assessing the actual position on the board before them, AND calculating variations, while simultaneously looking for tactical opportunities, isn't going to play good chess either. You need a balanced approach.
11 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodAnother good point is that any study approach, whether self-taught or not, must be adapted to the needs and abilities, and vulnerabilities, of the student. Some individuals get the best results with massive cramming. Others get burned out on this. Some need to concentrate exclusively on the subject at hand, and do so continuously. Others succeed only by taking plenty of breaks and/or by leavening their studies of the subject with other activities.
when I trained seriously, I did 200-400 problems a day (2-3 sessions). now I'm doing it just for fun, maybe 20-100 a day. a 100 problems takes roughly an hour done properly. with a low success rate you can do considerably more, but you learn slower. it's also a lot more rewarding to get those long stretches of corrects in a row.
I started at 1050 two yea o watch out for that. high percentage is a lot more exhausting, but you also learn more.
Some other possible factors which Papyn Chase should consider:
(1) changes in level/type of physical activity.
(2) changes in degree/kind of chemical use (smoking, alcohol, caffeine).
(3) Changes in sleep amounts and/or sleep schedule.
(4) Other environmental changes, which might cause stress and/or depression and thus cause a deterioration in the ability to concentrate.
It's possible that factors quite aside from his change in approach to chess -- factors coinciding with it but independent from it -- might be responsible, either in part or in whole.
11 Oct 07
Originally posted by Papyn ChaseHere again, this supports my suggested solution to your mystery. It sounds like you, and your opponents, blithely ignored positional considerations, even elementary ones, and as a result the first player to land a significant tactical blow would win. You sound like you calculated a lot of variations and had some tactical insights as a result, so you did fine in such an arena.
. . . When I was a 1700+ patzer, I kept looking out for tactical shots and calculate every forced moves and seemingly meaningless variations. Now as I try to adjust adding new things like creating weaknesses, slow maneuvers, controlling the centre etc, I find that I continue to misevaluate the position on the board. Chess used to be so easy many years a ...[text shortened]... good positional move with the remaining sequences that prove the merit of the initial move.
Now you are attempting to introduce strategic concepts, and you can't relate them to concrete move sequences because you are no longer calculating variations like you did -- as if "positional chess" meant the blind application of general rules and ideas, without calculating variations based on the position before you. It doesn't! In order to prove the merit of the initial move, yes, you DO have to calculate variations out to a reasonable depth. Positional principles DO NOT operate in a vacuum! I should have thought that Silman made this clear (you mentioned reading one or more of his books).
I have two recommendations: First, get a copy of Silman's The Amateur's Mind. Second, start playing CORRESPONDENCE chess -- something RHP is notable for. Stay out of the blitz rooms except for entertainment. The only way you will be able to both apply strategic/positional ideas AND calculate the variations to make sure that your concrete application of these ideas actually works, is if you have TIME to do so. Take the time!