02 Oct 08
Originally posted by tomtom232yes tomtom, this has been my experience with Ct Art-3, some of the simpler problems are solved simply by recognizing the pattern from memory, i dunno if this is supposed to happen, or is good or bad, the chess tactice server is a little more unpredictable and some of the solutions astounding, my rating their at present is 1630, much higher than my RHP rating, so i dunno, you kind of get used to that as well!
If doing tactical exercises in books counts as reading then I'd do more. CTS can be mastered given enough time by a person with a good memory.
02 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by carpistelol, i meant to say, help me get to 1600 and you will have my undivided attention!
If you are serious enough to spend more than a year getting better send me a msg and i will help you. If you aren't really, then no hassle, don't msg me because it will take at least a year there are no short cuts.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, pattern recognition is what you want but when you start remembering the specific problems and the solutions to them then you are no longer helping yourself and its time to move on to some other source of tactics.
yes tomtom, this has been my experience with Ct Art-3, some of the simpler problems are solved simply by recognizing the pattern from memory, i dunno if this is supposed to happen, or is good or bad, the chess tactice server is a little more unpredictable and some of the solutions astounding, my rating their at present is 1630, much higher than my RHP rating, so i dunno, you kind of get used to that as well!
Originally posted by BascianoTo master anything, there are no shortcuts. Study and play. Have fun. You have to lose lots of games to get better, but with learning you can win lots of games as well.
How is everyone doing - iv known the basics to chess for many years and have played from time to time but have never put in any time to play and take it seriously - now is the time that i want to take it seriously.
Im currently reading and re reading Teach Yourself Chess by William Hartson and im playing around with a copy of Fritz 9 that i picked up. I ...[text shortened]... ge in my chess playing or should i just read more books.
Many thanks
Regards
Basciano
Longer games are better since you are forced to think about your moves. You have more time to open yourself to new ideas and evaluate them.
Stronger and more experienced players can utilize shortcuts in many types of positions so they can make moves without calculating without a significant drop in playing strength so they will be good at blitz. Blitz, in my opinion, is the crack of chess. As Fischer says, blitz kills ideas, and I agree. The game gets nicer as you improve; many stronger and some experienced players may develop the ability to play blindfold chess.
Play whatever openings you like.
Tactics are of utmost importance. They are the tools you need so you can play the game. If you do not know about forks, skewers, discovered attacks, deflections, or more complex concepts such as zugzwang and triangulation, you will be at a disadvantage.
Tactics and strategy are closely linked; you need tactical knowledge to be able to form strategy.
Analysis of games is the basis of all of my study as well as disciplined thought processes. There is no substitution to learning chess than studying and understanding chess positions and theory that will come up in a game. Start with the older masters (Morphy, Capablanca, etc.) and proceed to studying games of the current generation. They have some profound ideas so I would recommend playing some games, working on tactics so you can begin to understand what is going on in master games.
I enjoy chess literature but I know it is unnecessary for learning.
The key in chess strategy is to understand the salient points in a given position and then to create a plan to actualize achievable goals. So the tactical knowledge is a must so you know exactly what is going on so you can form an effective strategy.
Chess is a dynamic game; so you need to have dynamic strategies. Many players restrict themselves by following rules too closely. Play with creativity! For me, the ideas are what make the game fun.
I believe that concepts such as pawn structure and certain nuances of development are of importance, but these concepts are of greater significance when playing against higher level opponents – I think that some masters have a relatively weak understanding of some facets of pawn structure and development.
It is a fact that everybody makes mistakes in chess and all players can improve. The more you learn the more profound the game can become. All the best and kick some chess butt.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by alexstclaireIt's a rather crude and offensive way of putting it, but essentially he's right. The reality is that If you're not capable of thinking for yourself and figuring out how to study and improve at chess, then you can surely write off any hope of becoming a serious chess player. There won't be anyone telling you how and what to think about when you're playing in a tournament.
i agree with the above statement, truly, if you have to ask these questions you totally suck, and will never be good...never ever, just give up
Is this the end of the world? No. If you enjoy playing chess, then there is nothing wrong with spending time playing chess. Chess clubs and tournament halls are filled with players at all levels. Playing this game certainly won't do you any harm, and may even do you some good.....or at least help in keeping you out of trouble.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by BascianoYou're already looking for a "get rich quick" approach to chess, which is the reason why Americans typically get CRUSHED like little bugs when they play against the Eastern Europeans, who are willing to put in the time and effort to develop a deep understanding of the game. Fischer, of course, was an exception, but one could make a very good argument that Fischer was more of a Soviet chess player than an American one. He taught himself how to read Russian long before he reached puberty. This was so that he could study the games and analysis of the Soviets. He knew, even at such a young age, that the American chess culture was a joke and he's even said, more than once, in interviews, that the Russian chess masters were his heroes.
Dont worry, i would never worry about people like that - Thanks for the advice, i just want to go about things the right way and not waste valuable time on stuff at this stage that i will get to know further down the line, i think some people try to take in too much too fast - i have a good grounding for the game - i just wanted other players advice oln wha ...[text shortened]... y have done when they started to take the game seriously.
Thanks again
Regards
Basciano
I realize that you're not an American, but you seem to have the same "7 simple steps to success" mentality. I have news for you.....chess is an EXTREMELY complicated game. Even the top players in the world admit that there is still an enormous amount of theory for them to still learn. There is no "simple" way to become a stronger chess player.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by YugaGood post! You're correct about stating and restating the importance of tactics, although I'm not sure I agree with your statement "you need tactical knowledge to be able to form strategy". I think of tactics as the fuel that makes strategic ideas work. So I think you have it backwards. You start with strategic considerations and THEN work out the tactics that make the ideas possible or not. But you are correct that these two phenomena work together. Those who focus on tactics without developing their strategic understanding will peter out in the neighborhood of 1800-2000. They will find it immensely difficult to improve their rating beyond that.
To master anything, there are no shortcuts. Study and play. Have fun. You have to lose lots of games to get better, but with learning you can win lots of games as well.
Longer games are better since you are forced to think about your moves. You have more time to open yourself to new ideas and evaluate them.
Stronger and more experienced players can ...[text shortened]... he more you learn the more profound the game can become. All the best and kick some chess butt.
Conversely, the player who focuses on strategy but has weak tactics will fare even worse. Shortly after I began playing OTB tournaments, when I was rated in the mid 1800's, I had a friend who started playing tournaments at the same time as I did, who was rated about 150 elo lower than me. I had a perfect tournament record against him, and even in our blitz/bullet games I would dominate him to the tune of about 90-95% wins. A mere 150 elo difference should not account for such domination, but my opponent was an educated man and an imbalanced chess player who loved trying to come up with deep strategic conceptions, yet had a disdain for working out the tactics in a given position. He thought of tactics as being cheapos and underhanded play and would grumble as I would destroy him game after game, even though I had a lost position in some of those games.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'd say, in my experience, of course with good chances of being wrong, that repitition of a good problem set over and over is much better than solving new problems every time.
yes tomtom, this has been my experience with Ct Art-3, some of the simpler problems are solved simply by recognizing the pattern from memory, i dunno if this is supposed to happen, or is good or bad, the chess tactice server is a little more unpredictable and some of the solutions astounding, my rating their at present is 1630, much higher than my RHP rating, so i dunno, you kind of get used to that as well!
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by MindWarsIn evaluating a position, you are correct - strategic considerations must be considered first. So heuristics [ simple guidelines ] are employed to reduce tactical considerations and then a few squares, targets and lines are considered. I do not think there are significant differences in calculation depth of players master level or above so the difference is in strength, I think, is in employing heuristics, which are largely based on strategical considerations. All chess players wishing for mastery must have a strong tactical foundation and a relatively strong understanding of strategy.
You start with strategic considerations and THEN work out the tactics that make the ideas possible or not.