05 Jun 09
Originally posted by WumpusI must admit that I did just break that 2000 mark. Whether or not it will stay there I guess I will see.
erikido, yes... I have respect for a player that can maintain a 2000+ rating. (I have to take your word for it though, I see you have no correspondence rating here yet.) I'm having a rather difficult time just to break 1600. So what is your opinion? Is analyze board a bad idea?
As to your question. I would say that I would only use it occasionally on long lines which I can't possibly calculated out in my head(I have a pretty good ability to calculate out in my head so this isn't all that often). If it is something that is just past my reach or one where my intuiton is leading me in one direction I will not use the analysis board. Obviously what is obviously beyond your reach will vary from person to person.
I also take into account whether or not I will actually learn anything from going to the analysis board. Going through a 30 move deep analysis(just a random number really)- will that really help my game in any way? Personally I don't think so in a lot of cases. So that brings about the next point.
AM I playing this specifc game just to win or do I really want to boost that rating a bit? (If I feel my rating has gone below where it should and I am having a harder time getting opponents the quality I feel I should be playing against I will make sure my rating is going up. Other than that I don't ever really worry all that much about rating.)
05 Jun 09
And sort of related to that issue- I would say writing notes without using the analysis board would be a much better use of time. You start to see how you are thinking and why you are missing things. Then you aren't just playing a bunch of different moves and "learning" what is the best. You are now learning about your flaws in logic and which things are simply board visualization issues(which you obviously wouldn't learn if you were just playing the moves out.
Take for instance this game....
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=21260551
After looking over my notes I would realize that at the time I completely missed that it was possible on the previous move to play g4 (I thought I couldn't because if I took with the bishop then the queen would take c4. BUt, a strange oversight that the queen would be tied down to the knight. This was a piece visualization issue. ) If I don't write down my thoughts I just look back and think to myself why didn't I play g4 was it this or because I decided getting the king off the g file and bringing the rook over then pushing g4 was a better plan.
05 Jun 09
Well answered, thank you.
I'm a rather "safe" player that tends to avoid sacrifices and certain complex positions. With correspondence chess I prefer these! In one game, I sacrificed a bishop on the h7 square to check a castled king. There was no clear mate, but though "analayze board" I could see that all reasonable lines will lead me to a position where I at least get my material back.
If that has been an OTB game, I would not have made the move. So in these instances, it is definitely helping my chess. The more obvious positions I still calculate in my head. I do have the ability to calculate long positions in my head (you get better with it with the chess books you read and you don't have a board handy.)
So, to conclude: "Use analyze board... but be cautious - it can ruin your game."
05 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by WumpusHi
So, to conclude: "Use analyze board... but be cautious - it can ruin your game."
The quote is simply not correct! The only thing that might ruin your sight, is not looking 😕
Additionally I would recommend setting up a real board rather than just clicking some moves on a computer "analyze" board.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by WumpusYup that about sums it up.
Well answered, thank you.
I'm a rather "safe" player that tends to avoid sacrifices and certain complex positions. With correspondence chess I prefer these! In one game, I sacrificed a bishop on the h7 square to check a castled king. There was no clear mate, but though "analayze board" I could see that all reasonable lines will lead me to a position w ...[text shortened]... dy.)
So, to conclude: "Use analyze board... but be cautious - it can ruin your game."
Sounds like some practice in attacking/sharp positions may take you to that next level. I actually used to be a fairly "safe" player as well. But, I realized I was missing lots of tactical shots because I wasn't quite sure of myself(also some lack of skill). So what did I do? EVERY time I saw a sacrifice that MIGHT work I would play it. I did that in all the games I played(I wasn't playing tournaments or anything). You start to see what works, what doesn't and why and most importantly it starts building confidence. Pretty soon I had people complimenting me on how creative I was. Later Hertan's book forcing moves helped greatly as well. HOpe that helps
05 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Garnothwell, back to the original question - it didn't specifically mention (or imply, for that matter) OTB, I think it was generally about *improving* your game (wasn't it, Wumpus?). I've no idea as to what the ratio of OTB vs. CC on this site is, but I believe some of us don't really have any aspiration (or time/opportunities etc) to play OTB chess other than some casual game with your mother-in-law perhaps or your uncle. I hadn't played chess for 20 years (some casual game once a year doesn't count) before joining this site and the reason I joined wasn't excelling in OTB 😉
If you want to increase your rating for OTB chess, please DON'T use analyze board,
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by WumpusYou have a classic chess block that I call the "material whore syndrome."
Well answered, thank you.
I'm a rather "safe" player that tends to avoid sacrifices and certain complex positions. With correspondence chess I prefer these! In one game, I sacrificed a bishop on the h7 square to check a castled king. There was no clear mate, but though "analayze board" I could see that all reasonable lines will lead me to a position w ...[text shortened]... dy.)
So, to conclude: "Use analyze board... but be cautious - it can ruin your game."
MATERIAL ISN'T EVERTHING! It is just one of a bunch of factors on the board. You have to weigh them all. If your gut is telling you to go with a certain line you shouldn't discard it automatically just because you lose a pawn or even your queen! In my observation of my own games, I find that when I have a "gut instinct" its because I have seen something like it before even if I didn't remember it at the time.
A good way to get rid of this is to purposefully go with your gut instinct IN EVERY GAME and go over EVERY GAME, win or lose, in which you have a gut instinct to figure out why it did or did not work. After doing this for a while you will start to understand why certain patterns work, when they work, and when they don't work. Then you will be able to find your happy medium. I find that my gut instinct is the correct idea 99.9% of the time but occasionally it will be the wrong move. By not throwing an idea out just because I lose material I may be able to make the idea work.
Sorry for rambling but I get really frustrated when people use the "I play safe" excuse. There is no safe. There is correct and not correct(notice I don't say best since in many positions what is best for you isn't best for me.) I also get frustrated when people equate "safe" with "positional." they are not the same! I mean look at petrosian! He made countless positional sacrifices and by their very definition a positional sacrifice cannot be safe.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by erikidoWhoops, I didn't see this post before I replied to wumpus. I completely agree with your method to quit being safe.
Yup that about sums it up.
Sounds like some practice in attacking/sharp positions may take you to that next level. I actually used to be a fairly "safe" player as well. But, I realized I was missing lots of tactical shots because I wasn't quite sure of myself(also some lack of skill). So what did I do? EVERY time I saw a sacrifice that MIGHT work ...[text shortened]... reative I was. Later Hertan's book forcing moves helped greatly as well. HOpe that helps
05 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Wumpusi am sorry guys for having to say this, you are falling into a bad habit, of looking at the game through a serious of variations, this is not good, i take, she takes, they retake, we retake, its no good. instead you should be looking at the game positionally!
Well... that's what we do with OTB play. By playing the moves by hand, you can easily analyse much deeper into the search tree.
05 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat does looking at the game positionally mean? I ignore my opponents threat of mate in 3 because my pawns are prettier?
i am sorry guys for having to say this, you are falling into a bad habit, of looking at the game through a serious of variations, this is not good, i take, she takes, they retake, we retake, its no good. instead you should be looking at the game positionally!
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by erikidoDon't mind him. He doesn't understand it quite yet. He is in the process of learning what he is trying to understand. 😛
What does looking at the game positionally mean? I ignore tactical my opponents threat of mate in 3 because my pawns are prettier?
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by tomtom232I am presently in the process of trying to figure out what this post meant. I am sure it was probably funny. But, at the end of a graveyard shift it just sounded like charlie browns teacher.
Don't mind him. He doesn't understand it quite yet. He is in the process of learning what he is trying to understand. 😛
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by erikidowhat is it you don't understand about positional play, have a think about that for a moment or two, then you will understand what the intent of the post was about, rather than dismissing it because of your, well what can we say, perceptions?
What does looking at the game positionally mean? I ignore my opponents threat of mate in 3 because my pawns are prettier?
05 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232lol, if one misses a mate in three, one is hardly looking at the position, positionally is one? for then we shall have misunderstood a key component of the position, that naturally being, king safety. oh why must i battle against ignorance my entire life? 😛
Don't mind him. He doesn't understand it quite yet. He is in the process of learning what he is trying to understand. 😛