23 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour debate with Greenpawn reminds me of Yermolinsky's excellent book The Road To Chess Improvement.
opening traps and tactics do nothing for me, sorry.
When a younger Yermo played in Russia - there were two distinct styles of play. On one side were the 'spit and polishers' - delighting in positional play, proud of their ability to win games without many - or preferably any - tactical skirmishes. They liked to take a few small advantages - a Knight outpost here, an enemy pawn weakness there - and slowly build them up into a decisive advantage. They preferred slower openings like white systems with Bg2, and Queen's Gambit Declined. Yermo counted himself among their number, and his first chess idols came from this school of thought.
On the other side were the tacticians - guys who deliberately steered games into messy tactical skirmishes. They were willing - and often did - make positional concessions in favor of dynamic advantages - like attacking chances against the enemy King, or even just initiative in the center/strong wing. They preferred openings like the classical King's Indian Defense, where Black accepts a cramped Queenside and center for attacking chances against the enemy King, or the open Sicilian, where Black rushes to get Queenside play before White's attack becomes too dangerous.
Yermo became aware that the spit and polishers did not always beat the tacticians; in fact, some of the tacticians had higher ratings and gave the polishers fits. Yermo himself plateaued at around 22-2300 and had the same problems playing higher-rated, tactical players. He became frustrated with his inability to defeat some of them.
Then he begin to use more tactical ideas in his games. He noticed that his fellow spit and polishers would sometimes reject the best lines simply because they involved some tactical complications. It was like a dare they could not accept. So, they backed off - and Yermo was able to improve his positional advantage as well! It was almost as good as trading pieces when ahead in material - the person who is down fears trades, and puts his pieces on awful squares rather than exchanging them.
By studying his own games and inserting some tactical ideas into his play, Yermo improved. He came to the conclusion that both styles had a right to exist.
His point is an excellent one. Even at the highest level - Tigran Petrosian, a World Champ known for his slow, positional style - often retreating pieces only to redirect them to a better square! - was capable of vicious attacking play, especially in blitz games and simuls. Boris Spassky is an excellent example of a guy who could play both ways - his style was described as "Universal".
I see positional play and tactics as equally valuable tools. I think you lose something by deliberately omitting weapons from your arsenal. At the highest level, now more than ever, the players are strong in all phases of the game. Their openings are delicately prepared, their positional play is smooth, their tactics are sharp, and they are well-versed in the endgame. Gone are the days of champions like Wilhelm Steinitz, who loved to win pawns so much that he often ignored the other disadvantages it brought. I think the turning point was Alekhine's win over Capablanca for the world title; a dangerous attacking player beat a flawless positional player at his own game.
Originally posted by SmittyTimeThis is interesting indeed.
Its clear to me that GP 34 and Q are going to have to play each other to settle this once and for all. One game each as white, one as black.
We can call this series "The Airing of Grievances".
Make it happen.
I've had a few messages from others that alludes to some supposed 'rivalry' between Mr. Pawn and I. Personally I think we're on the same team. We're both just a couple of hawing jokers looking to have some fun. We both have fun with the game and get a good feeling when we give others who love the game some advice (no matter how ill-advising we are!). Like when you teach a youngster how to stay upright on his bicycle for the first time.
The shot about Mr. Pawn being angry is a joke.
I almost wrote "Mr. Pawn is green with envy" - it seemed funny, but was just too pointed. So it was edited out. An airing of grievances you say? Interesting title. I personally would be excited to play with Mr. Pawn. I have previously asked Mr. Pawn if he would enjoy a game, he had said at the time he was too busy for me.
Instead I'm playing with Kings and Pawns.
If you can't have one pawn, use another. 😉 (again just joking!)
My feelings are such that if Mr. Pawn and I were near one another we'd just buy each other a brew or two and have a good laugh. He's a bit heavier into the "tactics" (odd way of describing it I still think) school than I am. I'm a bit heavier handed in the endings school than he is (this doesn't mean I'm better at "endings" or he's better at "tactics"😉. I think we both can agree that both schools of thought will help make an expert player - and that both are required avenues of study to varying degrees.
If we don't agree on that, then I'm just lost.
As far as robbie's game is concerned. I'm a bit suprised at all the thumbs down. The same with my own post. This is the place to talk chess. Robbie is on topic, so lets give him a hand for posting some of his blitz chess. Its not a masterpiece - but I didn't see any advertising to that effect. I just see a young player struggling with finding his comfort zone.
Does he need some tactics work? sure. You do too. (and me)
Does he need some openings work? sure. You do too. (and me)
Does he need some endings work? sure. You do too. (and me)
Does he need to be more familiar with ideas in his system (master games)? Yes.
...and you do too. (and me)
P.S SwissGambit really nailed the whole issue.
Q
Originally posted by SwissGambitExcellent post. I would add that Spassky underestimated Petrosian before their match in 1966, because he was sure - he is better in tactics. After the match (won by Petrosian) Spassky had to admit that Petrosian is excellent tactician.
Your debate with Greenpawn reminds me of Yermolinsky's excellent book The Road To Chess Improvement.
When a younger Yermo played in Russia - there were two distinct styles of play. On one side were the 'spit and polishers' - delighting in positional play, proud of their ability to win games without many - or preferably any - tactical skirmishes ...[text shortened]... title; a dangerous attacking player beat a flawless positional player at his own game.
Lets take 10th game of this match for example:
23 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOn the note to your thirteenth move, I would like to point out that a pawn is really only "isolated" if it is on an open file and attackable.
thanks Q for the games, it has not been entirely in vain, 10 min blitz on FICS.
[pgn] [Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "2012.02.23"] [Round "?"] [White "?"] [Black "?"] [Result "*"] [ECO "B00"] [Annotator "carrobie,robbie"] [PlyCount "92"] [EventDate "2012.02.23"] [SourceDate "2012.02.23"] 1. e4 e6 {the idea is of course not to play the French defenc ...[text shortened]... ught} Rg4+ 43. Nxg4 fxg4 44. Kxg4 a5 45. Kf3 a4 46. hxg6 hxg6 *[/pgn]
Originally posted by SwissGambitBy studying his own games and inserting some tactical ideas into his play, Yermo
Your debate with Greenpawn reminds me of Yermolinsky's excellent book The Road To Chess Improvement.
When a younger Yermo played in Russia - there were two distinct styles of play. On one side were the 'spit and polishers' - delighting in positional play, proud of their ability to win games without many - or preferably any - tactical skirmishes title; a dangerous attacking player beat a flawless positional player at his own game.
improved. He came to the conclusion that both styles had a right to exist,
yes SG, sure thing, but when i stated that tactics and opening traps dont do anything
for me, it was not a dig at Greenpawn or his style of play or the validity of setting
traps, it was a purely subjective statement based upon my experience, i really dont
get any joy or excitement from these elements, its simply 'not where its at', for me.
Its not that i think they are less valuable or are not worth studying or that positional
play is intellectually superior, its simply a matter of personal taste. What it boils
down to is this, ill do anything for an easy life, yes i am lazy, if i can get away with
not needing to calculate very much i will, I admit it, I am a lazy lazy chess player
who will do anything for an easy life.
24 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you want to improve your play (and I believe you want) you should understand your weaknesses and try to overcome them. After taking a look at your games and playing game with you it seems to me that you has two main problems:
By studying his own games and inserting some tactical ideas into his play, Yermo
improved. He came to the conclusion that both styles had a right to exist,
yes SG, sure thing, but when i stated that tactics and opening traps dont do anything
for me, it was not a dig at Greenpawn or his style of play or the validity of setting
traps, it was uch i will, I admit it, I am a lazy lazy chess player
who will do anything for an easy life.
1) Making moves too fast.
Even in 10 minutes blitz you should not play like bullet. But you play so fast even if you have a 3 days to make your move, as I`ve noticed during our game. This throws away away many tactical opportunities and also leads to many moves you can`t explain after the game. 18...d4?!, 34...Re8? and 35...f5? are good examples.
2) Knowledge of typical ideas.
Each opening/opening setup has its own typical ideas - plans, typical combinations etc. Knowing them helps you to save your time & energy and not to make mistakes, due to lack of knowledge. It also reduces damage made by too fast play. For example pressure on e4 is one of the main themes in Owen's Defence (actually that is the name of 1.e4 b6 opening - not Queens Indian Defence). It could help you to consider options of attacking e4 and play 8...Bxc3 9.Bxc3 dxe4 instead of 8...Be7?, if you remembered that during the game. Also remember your 14.Bh3? in our game - no player with knowledge of ideas in this setup would play such a move (there are always some exceptions, based on tactics, but no more than 1% ).
If you will be able to charge off these drawbacks, your play should improve for at least 100-200 points.
I understand that you may not like this post, as responses you probably wanted to hear are "Well played", "Thank for sharing". "good stuff" etc. Unfortunately panegyric will not help you to improve.
Originally posted by Pacifiqueactually I have no real interest in playing CC, i only play my friends and after my
If you want to improve your play (and I believe you want) you should understand your weaknesses and try to overcome them. After taking a look at your games and playing game with you it seems to me that you has two main problems:
1) Making moves too fast.
Even in 10 minutes blitz you should not play like bullet. But you play so fast even if you have a ank for sharing". "good stuff" etc. Unfortunately panegyric will not help you to improve.
clan ends, i will not be playing any more. I am well aware of how much time to use
in a ten minute blitz game, for contrary to your assertion that i play it like bullet, I
am constantly in time trouble, making your assertion in this matter unfounded and
completely out of context, yes i play too fast in CC, but i wont be for long.
During our game I was more concerned with what i perceived to be a
condescending attitude, for example, you stated and i quote, 'you have no real
threats', 'tactics tactics tactics', do you really think for one minute i did not see
the tactic, of course i saw it, i merely didn't think that it was dangerous, not because
i did not see it but evaluated it incorrectly therefore instead of replying to, 'tactics
tactics tactics', and comments like, 'you have no real threats', i merely kept quite
and wanted the game to finish as quickly as was possible. I was glad when it was
over.
Its not a case of liking or not liking your comments, I have my own chess truths to
work out and i dont think I can be helped, for i am both too proud in spirit and too
stubborn, but I thank you for taking the time. Have a pleasant day.