Trying to play like Petrosian and failing

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I don't understand this. The man became an IM. He got paid lots of money to teach young chess players. Why is it a crime for an IM to not be a GM? I mean, he's already up there with the best in my eyes. He did more with his "IM-level talent" than most grandmasters ever will. How many grandmasters can say they were featured in the Chessmaster series? Personally, and this is my opinion, I think Waitzkin was too busy teaching people chess to become a GM. I might be way off-base, though.


Larry Kaufman was 61 when he became a GM. If it takes you 30 years(that's how long I think it took, for Kaufman to become a GM), are you really all that talented? Like I said, it's hard to quantify chess talent as anything other than mere intelligence. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. Just look at John Nunn, the man was extremely intelligent, and he was very good at solving tactical puzzles.

So to me, IQ = tactical ability/calculating ability It's the math of chess. Chess engines are dominant in that area, which requires a computer to power their calculations. The human brain is effectively an extremely powerful supercomputer.

The difference between an 1800 and 2000 is mainly tactical ability. Which usually means the difference between the positional skills of both players isn't as great as the difference between their tactical ability. The 1800 just can't win games the same way. He cannot see as far, he will lose to some tactical oversight. He will make good, solid positional moves even catching the 2000 with a great positional sacrifice, but he cannot win.

The 2000 used to be an 1800. He already had the tactical ability. All he had to do was increase his positional chess playing abilities so he could get to 2000. I think you would call this "half-arsed" studying.

Look at chess computers. For years they outplayed grandmasters in tactical situations, but they had issues when it comes to understanding positions the same way as grandmasters. Thanks to grandmasters and international masters, chess computers caught up with grandmasters and just outplayed them with ease. It makes sense to me. If you're not as smart, you study more to catch up. This is often seen in academics. They call them overachievers. Let's say you're the talented one. Here's what happens: You dominate in dynamic positions, but struggle in quieter ones. Basically, you study to catch up with the guy who *had* to study more to catch up with you. Now that you both understand as many positions, the one who dominates in dynamic positions win. It's a never-ending cycle.

If this theory isn't correct, then there are 2 other conclusions to be drawn: Chess except for the main requirement of having at least a 100 IQ, has nothing to do with intelligence. The other one is that chess has EVERYTHING to do with intelligence.

This would imply that solving tactics for the sake of solving tactics never helps anyone. Mikhail Tal was not one to study tactics for the hell of it. Apparently, the trick isn't to solve lots of puzzles, but to get better at solving them. This makes Michael De La Maza's theory problematic for those who want to get over 1800. There are far, far too many tactical tests to study to get better at solving them. Especially for the average guy off the street.

Someone who gets 50% of the tactical problems needs to get to 52.5% solving rate in a month. If after studying his butt off, he cannot make a 2.5 percent improvement every month, he lacks the gift. This is okay. He can still improve. Now all he has to do is study the positional side of things, practice, and he should be okay.

I'm the guy who lacks the gift. I got to 1600 from 1400 just by practicing and learning from my mistakes. At one point, just like every other chess player, I will have to hone my tactical skills. I'm happier at this point not doing tactical problems.

Originally posted by hamworld
I don't understand this. The man became an IM. He got paid lots of money to teach young chess players. Why is it a crime for an IM to not be a GM? I mean, he's already up there with the best in my eyes. He did more with his "IM-level talent" than most grandmasters ever will. How many grandmasters can say they were featured in the Chessmaster series? Persona ...[text shortened]... my tactical skills. I'm happier at this point not doing tactical problems.

My youngest son is very intelligent and went to a science health and enginerring magnet school for high achievers and was in as special gifted group in that school that took college level classes and he graduated Valedictorian.
He was given a couple IQ tests then and scored in the high 180's each time. He also graduated summa cum laude in college as the top student, like a valedictorian. I was busy with work during his childhood days and was not playing chess during those times, when he was at home. So now, he could not give a hoot about chess. Too him it is a waste of time and he is probably right.

Originally posted by RJHinds
My youngest son is very intelligent and went to a science health and enginerring magnet school for high achievers and was in as special gifted group in that school that took college level classes and he graduated Valedictorian.
He was given a couple IQ tests then and scored in the high 180's each time. He also graduated summa cum laude in college as the to ...[text shortened]... he could not give a hoot about chess. Too him it is a waste of time and he is probably right.

Chess is a waste of time to those who don't like it. If it does not help you achieve your goals, don't play it? If it does, play it? That seemed kind of inflammatory. Were you trying to be offensive?

Originally posted by hamworld
Chess is a waste of time to those who don't like it. If it does not help you achieve your goals, don't play it? If it does, play it? That seemed kind of inflammatory. Were you trying to be offensive?

No. I like chess very much and I wish I had been free to introduce him to this great game. However, he has a masters degree and wants to earn a doctorate. So that I guess is why he does not see any use in it for enjoyment or anything else. Back in my earlier days, my wife would get annoyed at me for spending so much time on chess and we had five children to support. That led me to completely give it up until now that I have finally retired and my children are all grown. I have more time to waste on it now, but I enjoy it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. I like chess very much and I wish I had been free to introduce him to this great game. However, he has a masters degree and wants to earn a doctorate. So that I guess is why he does not see any use in it for enjoyment or anything else. Back in my earlier days, my wife would get annoyed at me for spending so much time on chess and we had five children ...[text shortened]... lly retired and my children are all grown. I have more time to waste on it now, but I enjoy it.

So you think your son's perspective of chess would've changed if you had taught him the game? Frankly, I don't think your son would've changed his mind had he been taught chess at an earlier age anyway. I think people are predestined to fall in love with chess...

Your son seems like an academic at heart. You give him a chess board at the age of 6, and years later he will fall in love with A+'s.

Lasker's quote comes to mind here:
"A friend of mine recently said the following, and I must say I agree with it: 'We are born and we die, and in between these two events of a lifetime, there is a lot of time that must be wasted. Now, whether it is wasted by doing mathematics, practicing law, or playing games, it is really quite insignificant.'"

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Why aren't you playing any chess on here?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Don't bite my head off for being curious. You have a right to keep your own business a secret if you wish. Sorry I asked. I did not know you were concerned about the accusation that I used chess engines during my games. I have addressed that a long time ago. I told them I was not cheating, but many refuse to believe me. I can't help what people believe. I believe God created the heavens and the earth and evolution is a part of the Atheistic religion. So what?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

No one ever said what chess engine they think I was using and they used three of the top moves of supposed chess engine to claim I matched the chess engine and even by using three possible moves I still only matched 70 or 80% at best, I believe the figures were. How is it possible that I could even know what the three top moves were and if I were cheating why would I not use the best move instead of the third best move if I had the ability to know such things? It doesn't make sense.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I already explained that my highest rating OTB was 1817 USCF and that was 30 years ago before I had to quit chess because of too much work. But You should know that if you have the time and the ability to move the pieces around over the board to test out your move, you see errors in your play that you probably would not see OTB. I recently played some games OTB in which I knew I had made a mistake as soon as I made the move (NO TAKEBACKS OTB). Then I touched a piece and realized I should not move it. However, the rules for OTB chess requires you to move a piece somewhere if you touch it. I was a rook ahead when that happened and I lost the game because of it.

Anyway, the point is that anyone should play much better on RHP than over the board when you only have 45 to 90 minutes for the game. When I acheived my highest rating of 1817 I had more time than that for just the first 40 moves. But the chess clubs I play at now have maximum time of 45 minutes at one and 90 minutes for the other one. And of course there is no moving the pieces around on the board to see how things might play out before you move. You touch it, you got to move it for good!

P.S. As far as my analysis goes, you have only seen a few comments that was not meant to protect my reputation as a strong chess player. However, before I had to quit chess, I sent a correction to an article by Hans Berliner and he acknowleged that I was correct on a postcard he sent to me. He said he had gotten his information from an opening book and the analysis was not too good on that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Berliner

Also I beat a chess player rated 1941 OTB recently at the Columbia Chess Club during a 90 minute game in their club championship. He made an error and I pounced on it. Also he had just come back from an OTB tournament in which he had beaten a master rated in the 2200s USCF.