Originally posted by MahoutBut Mahout my dear man, certainly you must realize that junk posts are in the eye of the beholder. And SG stands for Swiss Gambit, yet another dime-store know it all that haunts these boards on a regular basis.
OK I agree with what you say. I was thinking (although not expressing it clearly) that I wouldn't wish us to be overrun with junk posts whislt at the same time not wishing to imply the op was posting junk.
Still not sure what SG stands for. But thanks for the retraction.
Robbie You say your method is focusing on key squares. How exactly do you train yourself? Are you using Bangiev Squares Strategy? If so I am curious your opinion of his program. If not I am still curious what materials you use to hone your skills in this method as you have a low opinion of Silman and as for writing on strategy he is one of the easier to understand imo. So what materials do you use?
Originally posted by onehandgannyes you are correct my friend, I only this week discovered Bangiev and his square strategy theory, the beauty of this is that you can use anything to train yourself, tactical exercises, your own games and the games of others.
Robbie You say your method is focusing on key squares. How exactly do you train yourself? Are you using Bangiev Squares Strategy? If so I am curious your opinion of his program. If not I am still curious what materials you use to hone your skills in this method as you have a low opinion of Silman and as for writing on strategy he is one of the easier to understand imo. So what materials do you use?
Although he states at the outset that he has in mind someone with a rating of 1800 his ideas are easy to assimilate, make sense and most importantly than all help us think for ourselves, i cannot over emphasize the importance of this, it not only gives me confidence but out of all the methods i have tried helps me formulate and execute simple strategic plans. I do not fully understand everything that he has to say, its not that its difficult, just that it takes some practice. i have only played two games since trying it out, perhaps someone like you could utilize it to an even greater extent.
Silman is Silman, what can i say, yes he is easy to understand, but it is from his perspective, Bangiev really helps you to think for yourself with confidence, - kind regards and sorry if I was a little high handed, i really did mean well - Robbie.
Originally posted by eldragonflyYikes...it hadn't occurred to me that someone might hold such a low opinion of my comments.
But Mahout my dear man, certainly you must realize that junk posts are in the eye of the beholder. And SG stands for Swiss Gambit, yet another dime-store know it all that haunts these boards on a regular basis.
I was thinking of getting that. I do not think his method excludes tactics though. All tactical exercises deal with key squares(which I why I think this whole discussion was more semantic than anything else. You describe the your game with the idea of squares strategy and we say yeah those key squares give you tactical combinations. It is almost impossible to describe the thought process of arriving at the correct moves in any tactical exercise without talking about key squares. And what is the first thing CT ARt does when you make a mistake? It highlights the key squares. I also hear Bangiev vocabulary is little strange to common chess terminlogy probably giving even more semantic problems in the discussion. Anyway from what I understand helps Bangiev helps with the thought process of finding those squares. Let me know how it goes as you get further into it.
Originally posted by onehandgannyes he has his own abbreviations which are taking a little getting used to, its for sake of brevity i think and you are correct his method does not exclude tactics, in fact he advocates in his strategy that certain squares should be taken possession of, depending on the positional dynamics, usually this is achieved positionally and other squares should be attacked, or the pieces defending those squares, driven off, exchanged, tangled up etc generally tactically, once again depending on the positional dynamics of any given situation. This is perhaps where the misunderstandings occurred, when i say positional dynamics, that would of course include tactics as well.😀
I was thinking of getting that. I do not think his method excludes tactics though. All tactical exercises deal with key squares(which I why I think this whole discussion was more semantic than anything else. You describe the your game with the idea of squares strategy and we say yeah those key squares give you tactical combinations. It is almost impos ...[text shortened]... he thought process of finding those squares. Let me know how it goes as you get further into it.
Originally posted by SwissGambithi, i have heard this before, applied to someone else in another post., in the politest terms possible can you describe what it means or how it applies as most of the trolls that i have heard of live under bridges and eat anyone up trying to cross over to the other side to eat the sweet grass, you can private mail me if you wish to be discreet - regards Robbie.
Dealt with trolls much?
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe only one forcing you to do stupid things, is yourself. I can't possibly know how much effort you put on CT-ART, but obviously it's not enough. to give a point of reference, I used 4-5 hours a day on tactics. in bits of course. 1-2 hours a session. and that's not just leisurely hacking away, but working on intensity which makes your head hurt. literally. it's not a figure of speech. no pain no gain. but beware of the burnout, it's the biggest enemy and should be avoided at all costs.
lol, alas, alas my friend i am doomed, i thank you for your sincerity, the monster has been created, the electro/chemical impulses are in motion and as it consumes the creator i must suffer the same fate as Dr. Frankenstein, if all else fails i can always heed your words and return to CT-Art exercises, and if i should ever get good enough to challenge you, we can compare notes - kind regards Robbie.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiebangiev square strategy is exactly the kind of thing you should ignore before you reach a decent level at tactics. which is exactly the reason why he says you should be at least 1800. otherwise you simply won't possess the tools to work out the things you're assumed to know.
yes you are correct my friend, I only this week discovered Bangiev and his square strategy theory, the beauty of this is that you can use anything to train yourself, tactical exercises, your own games and the games of others.
Although he states at the outset that he has in mind someone with a rating of 1800 his ideas are easy to assimilate, make ...[text shortened]... idence, - kind regards and sorry if I was a little high handed, i really did mean well - Robbie.
Originally posted by wormwoodActually i haven't come across anything, so far, that I should have 'assumed ', to know, he explains everything in a very lucid and understandable way, providing references and notes with clear explanations of the key concepts, what can i say, i am now able to think for myself and I thank him for it!
bangiev square strategy is exactly the kind of thing you should ignore before you reach a decent level at tactics. which is exactly the reason why he says you should be at least 1800. otherwise you simply won't possess the tools to work out the things you're assumed to know.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou don't understand what I'm saying, but you should, if you want to improve. the hard thing is, when you'll understand, you won't need me to say it.
Actually i haven't come across anything, so far, that I should have 'assumed ', to know, he explains everything in a very lucid and understandable way, providing references and notes with clear explanations of the key concepts, what can i say, i am now able to think for myself and I thank him for it!
and this is not a koan.
Originally posted by wormwoodI agree with you, really you are absolutely correct, but i need to find it out for myself, how can i explain, its a Platonic philosophical principle, in that all knowledge is merely opinion, in that we take it upon trust from others that these things are so, in order for it truly to be deemed knowledge, for us to know, we must try to discover for ourselves. I will come back to you and say, yes yes, you were right I should have listened, i was a fool.
you don't understand what I'm saying, but you should, if you want to improve. the hard thing is, when you'll understand, you won't need me to say it.
and this is not a koan.
please forgive my ignorance a 'koan' ?? and do you know what a troll is in this context, its been annoying me for ages - regards Robbie.
Gosh!
You lot still at it.
I've not been able to view this site for a while because
Mrs Greenpawn is buying up EBAY.
I've read all the last three pages of posts.
Phew!
Robbie if it's working for you (and the increase in grades
suggest it is) then don't stop what ever it is you are doing.
It's working so don't stop or change the routine.
I suspect you may hit a ceiling come 1900-2000.
(That's between 7 o'clock and 8 o'clock)
If you do then try a different approach to kick you over that
gap between wood pusher and good chess player.
A lot of players just seem to settle in that gap and never get
past 1900-2000. Some I know have been there for 20-30 years.
Me? I appear to go over, slide back, go over, slide back....
And I want to know what a Troll is as well.
How come nobody has called me a Troll?
is it Tactics Rule Over Lazy Learners?