How would you describe 1700-1900 players? What should I look for, how deep my blunder checks have to be ??? Do they make mistakes, and exactly how subtle ones ?!!Sometimes it is deceiving because the really good players win but not necessarily "blow you out of the water" (i.e. up a few pieces early etc). With very careful play could be approximately equal materially, but still end up losing. That is because the underlying position always favours them due to their deeper overall understanding of assessing a position.
You can easily avoid blunders like hanging your queen in first 5 moves, but it is not always easy to avoid the "forced" blunders that occur due to tactical opportunities good players create from their overwhelming positional pressure.
So running a blunder check via computer or doesn't always reveal the root problem.
Quote:
How would you describe 1700-1900 players? What should I look for, how deep my blunder checks have to be ??? Do they make mistakes, and exactly how subtle ones ?!!
I am pretty sure he does not mean blunder checking with a computer.
(I hope not - I can hear No.1 sharpening up his axe).
FORGET GRADES - you cannot put a number on a brain.
Here is a statement I made when giving a lecture to an audience
containing GM's and IM's in 1995/6.
The subject of grades came up and the pre-game influence
they can have.
"If there has to be a number that indicates a player's strength.
Then let it be 2200.
Everybody over 1800 and under 2700 has the same grade. It's 2200.
During any game every player within these markers (1800-2700) is either
capable of playing up to this level - or down to this level.
Your brain is not a computer you cannot set a playing level on it.
So you weaker players are all now 2200. Play to that level.
If you think you are 2200 you will play like a 2200.
And you strong players you must aim to play above this standard."
The some wag then put his hand up.
"I'm 2200 what do I do?"
"Leave the room." (laughter and applause).
Originally posted by ivan2908I agree completely. I play too much by diverting attention somewhere and exploiting weaknesses elsewhere and this means I get trounced by players who have a more global view of the board.
Yep, that has sense after all 😲
First time in my RHP history I am playing 1700-2200 players and I have tendency to think in pretty primmitive way, looking for cheap attacks etc. These guys need some other approach 😲
No kidding, I developed absymal mental and playing attitude because I played too much lower rated opponents 😲
I think this is the point where I would need to start studying chess properly, something I never did.
Originally posted by KatastroofKatastroof's theory clearly suggest that the way to improve is to constantly play stronger players. Well, at first blush this strikes one as logical, even appealing. But there is a definite downside to his approach to chess improvement which is most unappealing: One continues to improve, but because one is always playing stronger players, ONE RARELY WINS. What's the point of improving if you don't get to win?
An observation:
learn game - play much stronger opponents(simply because everyone is much stronger) -> very rapid improvement of skills.
after a while you play a mix of opponents but most are still much stronger -> rapid improvement of skills
then a big decrease in stronger opponents happens -> slow improvement of skills
and finally you only play str ...[text shortened]... er opponents every now and then -> further improvement of playing skills almost completely ends.
Originally posted by bassohi, i am 1500 rated player, i have played Cinco, rated 2100 three times and been beaten three times, my rating went down by one point, its a win win situation for me, not only do i get to play someone really strong which results in an excellent game of chess, but when i lose I can generally see why, and my rating decreases by a mere 1 point, i can get to play the openings that i have learned, had an excellent game with the closed Sicilian until my theory ran out, it felt like a real game of chess, interesting sensation that, no deviation on move 3 like what usually occurs at my level, moves that i would have considered earlier, those one move attacks are practically useless and i am now forced to consider alternatives, yes its true one or two inaccuracies and i am doomed, but its a small price to pay for such excellent instruction, whats the fun in playing with a dead mouse, surly the fun is in the chase, in the struggle, for me anyhow, once the struggle is over, whether winning or losing the fascination of the game somehow is lost.
Katastroof's theory clearly suggest that the way to improve is to constantly play stronger players. Well, at first blush this strikes one as logical, even appealing. But there is a definite downside to his approach to chess improvement which is most [b]unappealing: One continues to improve, but because one is always playing stronger players, ONE RARELY WINS. What's the point of improving if you don't get to win?[/b]
Originally posted by bassoYou'll beat the stronger ones on occasion,no worries.And if you join a club and/or play in a league you'll meet weaker opposition too.There are your wins.
Katastroof's theory clearly suggest that the way to improve is to constantly play stronger players. Well, at first blush this strikes one as logical, even appealing. But there is a definite downside to his approach to chess improvement which is most [b]unappealing: One continues to improve, but because one is always playing stronger players, ONE RARELY WINS. What's the point of improving if you don't get to win?[/b]
I've seen many players reach a certain level and then just constantly play weaker or equal opponents.They lose maybe 7 games a year but have been at the same level for 10 years or more.I'm sure they have fun winning and if that's what you want that's fine by me.But if you want to keep improving I think it's a good idea,I'd even say a must,to keep playing stronger opposition.
Originally posted by Katastroof
But if you want to keep improving I think it's a good idea,
I'd even say a must,to keep playing stronger opposition.
Correct. Totally agree.
I'll add:
To improve quicker and become more rounded as a player.
A coach is a good idea. Some lessons from a good player realy helps.
What was it Lasker said?
Something about learning more from 10 lessons in 10 weeks
than you would from 10 years of self-study.
Really, a mix of opponents is best. You definitely want to challenge yourself with stronger opponents. But a diet of opponents who are all much stronger can be discouraging. Furthermore, even if it's not discouraging, these opponents will tend to adhere to a limited number of moves in certain openings, and a weak player who learns simply by experience how to respond to these moves, may be left completely at sea when facing not so strong opponents who make different moves in the opening. After all, an error is only an error (in chess) if you know how to "punish" it. There are some moves which, while relatively weak, will gain an advantage if not quickly responded to in the right way.
So, there is no substitution for comprehension as opposed to incomplete rote knowledge, and you should play a variety of opponents so that you will also face (relatively) weak moves and learn how to respond to them so as to gain an advantage.
An example is someone who plays only strong chess engines, learns how to counter a move sequence so as to draw, and then faces much weaker opponents, only to flounder because he has no idea how to respond to their relatively weak opening moves.
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsGood points.However,if you start at the bottom you'll come across all the bad moves while moving up the ranks.In reality I think you'll always have a mix of opponents.Only playing against an engine is the worst thing you could do,imo.But I'm biassed,I don't like the critters.
Really, a mix of opponents is best. You definitely want to challenge yourself with stronger opponents. But a diet of opponents who are all much stronger can be discouraging. Furthermore, even if it's not discouraging, these opponents will tend to adhere to a limited number of moves in certain openings, and a weak player who learns simply by experience ...[text shortened]... nly to flounder because he has no idea how to respond to their relatively weak opening moves.
PS: you told me to remind you.Found that book yet? 🙂
Originally posted by KatastroofRe: that book: Haven't even looked yet! It's in storage. So, expect a delay of a few days. But please remind me (preferably in PM, as I'm most certain to see it there) at frequent intervals.
Good points.However,if you start at the bottom you'll come across all the bad moves while moving up the ranks.In reality I think you'll always have a mix of opponents.Only playing against an engine is the worst thing you could do,imo.But I'm biassed,I don't like the critters.
PS: you told me to remind you.Found that book yet? 🙂
Originally posted by bassoErrr....I did.I said: "You'll beat the stronger ones on occasion,no worries.And if you join a club and/or play in a league you'll meet weaker opposition too.There are your wins."
Many good points have been made. In fact, I am inclined, as I was not before, to play more stronger players (presently, I rarely do). But no one has even attempted to answer my question: What's the point of improving if you don't get to win?
Originally posted by bassoWell, the point of improving is to play a better game and come to a better appreciation of the game (including what it takes to make a good player). But, heck yeah, you'll want to win sometimes. I suppose that IF you keep improving you'll reach a point where you even beat master (or even grandmaster) rated players sometimes. But at any rate, in the meantime, a MIX of opponents gives you a chance to see (and demonstrate) your improvement by winning some games that you wouldn't have won before.
Many good points have been made. In fact, I am inclined, as I was not before, to play more stronger players (presently, I rarely do). But no one has even attempted to answer my question: What's the point of improving if you don't get to win?