Okay, first off that's a pretty big jump from my current 1700 rating but why not aim high? Some of this I've written in another thread, but this is an attempt to put a little more structure into it. Now hopefully I can stick to it. Here goes:
I. Analyze the board every move using the following system:
1. Take a look at the board with fresh eyes, setting aside, for the moment, my plans, expectations, and concerns about the position that I had on my last move. Ask myself the following questions:
(a) Are any of my pieces undefended or hanging?
(b) On my opponent's next move, can he create a strong pin or exploit an existing one?
(c) Can he fork any of my pieces (pay attention to pawn and N forks as they are easiest to miss).
(d) Does he have any discoveries or double attacks?
(e) Does he have any potential checks and if so, how do I meet them?
2. Having run down that list, what does his last move then threaten?
3. Turning to what I can do on my move, run through the list a-e to determine if I can win material on my move, setup a combination, or strong initiative. Now ask myself, whose threat is stronger? If his is stronger, then find the move that best meets or parries his threat. The ideal move, if I must defend, should also setup a threat of my own or create some other complication.
4. Either way, write down the candidate move(s) and, going through each move once and once only, make it on the analysis board. Pay attention to the resulting new position, and whether attacking, counter-attacking, or defending, keep the the following in mind:
(a) What is his most likely response to my threat, sacrifice, capture, check, or defensive move?
(b) Has my move left a previously defended piece exposed to capture or exposed my K to a check I can't meet?
(c) Has it dangerously weakened my position?
(d) Does he have any surprise resources?
5. If several moves are involved in a sequence, work through each move on the analysis board repeating each of the steps in (4). Work through variations once and once only. Use a tree to keep it organized and terminate each variation with a short, concise and honest evaluation.
6. If no forcing sequences, threats or combinations exist, look for quiet moves aimed at improving my position and or weakening/cramping my opponents. Candidate moves should do one or more of the following:
(a) Increase my hold on the center.
(b) Increase the pressure on whichever sector of the board I am attacking.
(c) Create or increase the pressure on a weakness in my opponents position.
(d) Open lines for my pieces.
(e) Increase the mobility/activity of my less active pieces.
(f) Restrict the mobility of my opponents pieces.
(g) Create strong squares that my pieces can exert pressure from and from where they cannot be easily chased away.
(i) Create (protected) outposts in my opponents camp.
(j) Improve my pawn skeleton with the idea of creating the conditions of the previous goals and/or the (future) creation of a passed pawn.
(k) Keep in my mind that middle games can suddenly become endgames. Were this to happen now, would it be decisive? If it would, and in my favour, work toward exchanging toward the endgame. If it wouldn't, avoid those types of exchanges and either try to improve my endgame prospects or bet the farm on the middle game.
(l) Where an exchange of pieces is offered or possible, ask myself who benefits from the exchange? Which piece is more active? Does either piece play a key role in either attack or defence? If its a N, does it have valuable outposts it can occupy? If a B, is it the "good" or the "bad" B.
II. Play regularly to stay sharp, but not to excess which will only lead to sloppiness. Avoid playing too much blitz.
III. Analyze and annotate RHP games after they're over with the written notes made during the game at hand. Compare your analyzed variations and evaluations with the actual moves made in the game. What did you overlook and why? Were your evaluations accurate? After you've done the initial analysis the old-fashioned way, run the game through an engine to see what you missed and to get an objective comparison of evaluations that you can compare to your own.
IV. After you've completed your analysis, play through at least one Master level game that followed the same line (however far it was followed) as was played in your game. Choose a game where the colour you played either one or drew. Play through it as though you were that player, covering the moves your player made and deciding for yourself what you'd move before seeing what was played. Try to figure why the move played was stronger than the one you'd chosen. If time permits, play through another game in the same line where your colour lost. This time just try to determine why the losing player lost.
V. Analyze the opening phase of your blitz games and the opening phase only. There is no point in spending an hour going over a game you played in 5 minutes. There is a point, however, in following it up until it departed book and determining if the non-book move was bad, why it was bad, or if it was sound enough but just not fashionable. Look a little further into the line with an opening book or database to expand your knowledge of that variation. If time permits, quickly play through (in 5 minutes or so per game) a few Master level games that were played in this line.
This time you're not attempting to find the best moves, or why, but merely to get a feeling for the flow of the game. What kinds of tactics were used? Pawn structures? Which wing of the board did each side concentrate on? How did they occupy or control the center? What kinds of flank pawn moves were made? Did they castle same side or opposite side? Were pawn storms used or mainly piece play? Was a minority attack employed? A mating attack? What was the general plan from each perspective and can you spot any thematic moves or sequences aimed at realizing that plan? Doing this will increase your understanding of the opening and help you avoid situations where you're stuck wondering what to do, or simply chose plans and moves that are at odds with the focus of the opening.
VI. Be graceful under fire. Remember its just a game, you are not a Kasparov, a Tal, or a Capablanca. Its not whether you win or lose that matters, but what you put into the game and what lessons you can take away from it.
VII. Expand your knowledge of the crucial elements of the game tactics, endings, strategy, openings - by drawing on the great chess literary works. And remember that chess is a game that is played with all elements as a whole, and not in isolation, and therefore complete, well annotated games must not be neglected if one is to understand the interplay of the elements. To that end, my initial (phase I) reading plan is as follows:
a. Chess Tactics for the Tournament Player by Alburt etc.
b. My System, revised algebraic edition, by Nimzowitch.
c. Capablanca's Best Chess Endings by Chernev.
The first two I plan to read on alternate days. The 3rd, a collection of 60 games, I will read through by studying one game per day, and thus complete it in 2 months. I should finish the first two much sooner, and as I do I will substitute a book of the same "type" (tactics and strategy, respectively). Openings I'll study only in the manner mentioned previously. Endings will be studied only when I reach similar endings in my own games. This reading list is still relatively tentative, not the structure but the specific books. I have a library of about 25 books and its possible I may find something more suitable to begin with.
Anyway, that's a lengthy post I know. But one doesn't build a house without a blueprint, and in my case, I'm more inclined to discipline myself to work at something if I lay down a detailed means to get there rather than simply toss out a lofty goal. And probably even more inclined if I share it publicly. One caveat, to anyone who is up to taking up the gauntlet and trying a similar approach: from past ratings gains know that however hard you work at it, it can take months before things start to "gel" and results appear. In fact, paradoxically, your rating may even drop and stay down for a time before it begins inching up.
Anyway that is all. Appreciate it that anyone actually took the time to read this whole thing and comment. 🙂
Originally posted by scandiumGood post. Good determination. I'd be more than happy if I had the time to put in this much effort.
Okay, first off that's a pretty big jump from my current 1700 rating but why not aim high? Some of this I've written in another thread, but this is an attempt to put a little more structure into it. Now hopefully I can stick to it. Here goes:
I. Analyze the board every move using the following system:
1. Take a look at the board with fresh eyes, setti anyone actually took the time to read this whole thing and comment. 🙂
Anyway, good luck on your way up.
Originally posted by kbaumenIn CC everyone has the time. You have, if you chose, up to several weeks to make a single move. No matter how pressed for time one is, with such time controls available steps I-II are easily achievable, though they'd likely need to be broken down more piecemeal and in this case notes become much more critical. Likewise the need to manage one's game load, since if you're putting this much energy into your games then no matter how much time you have (or don't have), this level of focus needs to be confined to a reasonably small number of games, else it'd be to easy to either become overwhelmed or start cutting corners (or both).
Good post. Good determination. I'd be more than happy if I had the time to put in this much effort.
Anyway, good luck on your way up.
Step III also requires not taking on too many games since more games equals more games to annotate. Again, time is not a factor since analysis and annotation need not be completed in one sitting, but can also be done piecemeal as time permits.
For step IV, time constraints would simply mean limiting oneself to a single master game and perhaps spending only a minute or 2 on each move.
Anyone who has time to play blitz has time for step V. In fact, step V is all about spending less time playing blitz and using that now surplus blitz time to learn something from your blitz games. Most blitz games are 5 0. Step V says spend the 5 minutes quickly going over the opening of the game with a book/database after its over rather than wasting another 5-10 minutes by simply starting a new game immediately.
VI is about psychology, time is not involved. VII requires some time for reading but there are many chess books, and many good ones require no more effort than it takes to read a novel. And books are even easier to read one bit at a time, as time permits.
Thus, its a misconception to believe this is about having the time or putting the time into it. Its not about time at all, its about preference. Almost anyone who can play multiple CC games on RHP can follow this system or an abbreviated version of it. But most chess players, whether they realize it or not. and I can respect this since its true of me as well most of the time, just want to play, not improve. Few people beyond the novice stage improve solely from playing; most people who do improve do so by implementing, whether they realize it or not, a variation of at least some of the steps I listed whether its looking over their own games, discussing them with a "mentor", doing chess puzzles occasionally, or even just reading some of the threads in this forum and elsewhere).
Thanks for the positive feedback. Its also generated some discussion via PM, and from that discussion there's a little more I can still add to this plan that, I think, would make a valuable addition in improving one's analysis process. I plan to add the addenda later, with credit to the forum member who brought the subject up to me and with whom I've been having that discussion.
Originally posted by exigentskyOkay here is the addenda I wanted to add that arose during a discussion of candidate move analysis between myself and Mark Adkins. Note that I am borrowing these ideas from Master level reading I'd long ago done but can no longer remember, and therefore I can't cite the original sources. Although its worth pointing out that ih8sens once suggested something similar to one of these ideas in another thread. First some background to clarify the ideas, then the addenda.
This seems really great! I hope it works for you. I'll definitely borrow most of it and have already been using some of it for a while (for example, expanding my opening knowledge through blitz).
As I wrote Mark:
"The two biggest flaws in my present approach (I haven't yet begun to implement the new approach described in my forum post yet) are two that are common to most players at are level.
The first is a tendency to jump from one variation to another, and then back and forth among them as candidate moves are repeatedly looked at, dismissed, and then looked at again to try and look a little farther before again wandering off the path....
The second tendency is to terminate analysis too soon. As mere patzers we are too materialistic and will stop our analysis of a line as soon as we see that it loses material. This results in countless missed opportunities as often times one or two moves further in the line it can be won back, with interest. In a book I'd read awhile back the author strongly argued that you absolutely must always carry your analysis one move farther than where your intuition tells you to end it. Similarly, another author I'd read recommended making it a habit to look for moves that lose material, since its these moves that from time to time lead to a powerful tactical blow or sacrificial attack."
Mark also pointed out the flip side of this, which is a tendency to terminate analysis too soon because the opponent's "common sense" responses to a seemingly forcing line seem to dictate that he respond in a certain fashion, when in fact he has a surprise resource that superficially looks so bad you dismiss it from consideration (because it loses material, seems passive, weakens his position, etc) when in fact if you'd looked only a little deeper you'd see that its merely the first move of a very strong combination, one that may even be winning for him.
Thus the addenda:
(I) 3a. Can I sacrifice any of my material to open up lines for attack, create a strong initiative, mate my opponent, or win the material back with interest.
(I) 4d. Does he have any surprise resources, including moves that superficially appear "bad", even to lose material, but which completely refute my attack or turn the tables on me?
(I) 5. If several moves are involved in a sequence, work through each move on the analysis board repeating each of the steps in (4). Work through variations once and once only, but carry the analysis one move farther than "common sense" dictates it should end. Use a tree to keep it organized and terminate each variation with a short, concise and honest evaluation.
Originally posted by scandiumI would be that 3(a) was sent to you by ih8sens 😛
Okay here is the addenda I wanted to add that arose during a discussion of candidate move analysis between myself and Mark Adkins. Note that I am borrowing these ideas from Master level reading I'd long ago done but can no longer remember, and therefore I can't cite the original sources. Although its worth pointing out that ih8sens once suggested something anized and terminate each variation with a short, concise and honest evaluation.
Originally posted by tomtom232It was discussions between us, along with a long forgotten point made by some GM in a book I can no longer remember, that was the inspiration for 3(a), yes.
I would be that 3(a) was sent to you by ih8sens 😛
David LeMoir, who is I think an English player of about Master strength, is a very big advocate of sacrificial play and a recent prolific author on the subject. Among other books, he's written Essential Chess Sacrifices, How to be Lucky in Chess, and How to Become a Deadly Chess Tactician. I have the last one but only read the first chapter. This is straying off topic a bit, but anyone looking to add more spice to their games might want to take a long hard look at his books. I keep meaning to get, and actually read, the other 2 as well as the one I have now.
Originally posted by scandiumI wonder if this thinking process can be followed in OTB games, before all moves. is it really done by strong players? all the time? I'd be very interested to know that.
Okay, first off that's a pretty big jump from my current 1700 rating but why not aim high? Some of this I've written in another thread, but this is an attempt to put a little more structure into it. Now hopefully I can stick to it. Here goes:
I. Analyze the board every move using the following system:
1. Take a look at the board with fresh eyes, setti anyone actually took the time to read this whole thing and comment. 🙂
Because I realized that failing to think systematically like this through the whole game is what's costing me points.
Originally posted by diskamylYes and no. Very strong players, from experience and study, know a great many patterns and positions, and have a higher level of chess understanding. This allows them to recognize, at a glance, promising moves while eliminating, without a second thought, moves that us poor patzers may spend a great deal of time pondering. Their calculation ability is almost faster, more disciplined, and much deeper. Thus, in a sense, they do follow this type of process that I've outlined, but much of it at an intuitive level.
I wonder if this thinking process can be followed in OTB games, before [b]all moves. is it really done by strong players? all the time? I'd be very interested to know that.
Because I realized that failing to think systematically like this through the whole game is what's costing me points.[/b]
I think us mere mortals can still use such a system for OTB chess as the one I outlined for CC, but as the time constraints are much tighter OTB it would have to be streamlined.
The upshot is that I strongly believe that as one works through a system such as this, over time it'll become more ingrained, efficient, and require less effort. And the study methods will yield gains in that patterns and positions will become ingrained, increasing one's ability to find the best moves, plan correctly and quickly, and become more consistent as well.
Funny how suddenly my preaching about sacrificing everything but your king only start to catch on once it starts working for me 😛.
Figured now would be a good time to post a disclaimer.
ih8sens ltd. disclaims all responsibility for all damages, whether psychological, emotional, physical, or other 'acts of god' to one's personage due to the implementation of random sacrifices throughout the game.
For more information and a complete legal disclaimer visit me at www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com 🙂
😛.
Originally posted by scandiumWow...that's perhaps the most instructive post on RHP I've ever seen! You could probably turn that post into an award-winning article! Great job!
Okay, first off that's a pretty big jump from my current 1700 rating but why not aim high? Some of this I've written in another thread, but this is an attempt to put a little more structure into it. Now hopefully I can stick to it. Here goes:
I. Analyze the board every move using the following system:
1. Take a look at the board with fresh eyes, setti ...[text shortened]... anyone actually took the time to read this whole thing and comment. 🙂