Originally posted by tomtom232its all airy fairy, i personally find studying endgames to be the best, calculation,
Its just a more specific suggestion, but basically the same thing Thabtos posted. Getting rid of your specific weaknesses, but more to the point, getting rid of the weaknesses that are most likely to hamper you're ability in the positions you get on the board should definitely pay more noticeable dividends.
visualisation, specific techniques that you can learn and even master contribute to a
sense of accomplishment.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieVery little time on the actual opening beyond learning the basics like control the center, develop and castle. The only thing you want to know from the opening are the main lines... Get familiar with these which shouldn't take long assuming a familiarity with openings.
can you suggest a study plan Tomo, like a simple one, 30 mins tactics, 30 mins on
opening, 30 mins on middle game, 1 hrs on endgame, 1 hr annotating games, 1 hr
playing etc etc
This brings me to a case in point, we like to study openings because they are easy to learn. Why are they easier to learn? There are less possibilities in the opening and more good moves, and every move we make the possibilities increase while the amount of good moves decrease until the pieces and pawns get traded away and we're in the endgame... But then there is usually only one or two good moves.
Then you should proportion your study time fairly evenly between, tactics, positional(pawn structure and endings at first. When you diagnose your weakest link spend more time on that.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCalculation is much easier when you know what's going on and what both sides are trying to achieve.
its all airy fairy, i personally find studying endgames to be the best, calculation,
visualisation, specific techniques that you can learn and even master contribute to a
sense of accomplishment.
Anybody could calculate 100 moves when in a perpetual check... It is this ability that allows us to realize the position is a draw with absolute certainty, but I couldn't even calculate two moves ahead if I dont even know what's happening on the board.
Whatever you find best is great. My aim isn't to deter you from studying endgames, my aim is to convince you to learn a specific set of endings to a specific opening instead of jumping between different endings... Not only does this ease the load of information but it allows us to put our study into practice more immediate and often which makes the positions more familiar and easier to retain.
I think most of us find a way of playing which we feel halfway competent at early on in our chess career and then tend to play like that for ever! For example a lot of players learn one or two tricky openings, win a few pretty games against other beginners and then stick to that opening repertoire for the next two decades.
What worked for me twice is deliberately playing outside my comfort zone. I got to 140 ECF (BCF as was) standard by playing the Stonewall Attack every game as white, knowing a few mating patterns and being hopeless at endings. I didn't make any more progress for a few years and then switched to 1.e4. I also "learnt" a proper defence to 1.e4 (the French Defence) rather than playing 1.e5 and making it up as I went along, although I didn't know it well. After one bad season where every game ended up with a position that I wasn't used to, my grade gradually crept up to about 160.
I languished at this sort of level for about five years until I finally realised that my attacking style hardly ever worked against people anywhere near my grade. I just wasn't good enough to get better results playing in that way. So I started deliberately playing more positionally, even against weaker opponents who I knew I could blow away with an unsound attack.
This took longer to show results and I tended to draw more games. But after about two years the results gradually started improving and I started drawing against stronger opponents (something which never happened before) and grinding down weaker ones in endings almost all the time.
This is the way I play now and my ECF grade is slightly inflated at 192, but I'm certainly a 180+ player and feel confident about getting at least a draw against anyone below International Master level.
So, my advice is cut back on the studying and tactics training - just play more chess, but try to play in a different way to what you have been doing. If you're a stodge merchant, play some gambits and learn to attack when you're material down. If you're more of an attacking player then switch to 1.c4 or 1.d4 for a year or so and learn what those strange terms like "controlling the centre", "advantage of the two bishops" and "isolated queen pawn" are all about and how you can win games even when your opponent doesn't miss anything obvious.
Originally posted by Fat Ladyyes this I can understand this as it somewhat reflects my own experience. It seems
I think most of us find a way of playing which we feel halfway competent at early on in our chess career and then tend to play like that for ever! For example a lot of players learn one or two tricky openings, win a few pretty games against other beginners and then stick to that opening repertoire for the next two decades.
What worked for me twice is del nd how you can win games even when your opponent doesn't miss anything obvious.
to me fatlady that you have, through the process of practical play come to certain
realisation concerning what i term chess realities, for example that its an inherently
strategic game and we should therefore play strategically. Here on timeforchess i
win almost all of my games against players of my own strength playing against
weakened pawn structures or in endings. I never hardly ever go for crazy attacks,
the experience of seeing them refuted next move was rather apparent. I think that
we differ for i tried to play Sicilian for ages and came to the conclusion that its
simply too complicated and sharp for me. I like clear and simple position so I
switched to ...e5 and don't mind the black side of a Ruy or playing the Giuoco Piano
its far better than being pawn stormed by f3, g4, h4 and h5 every time, but again it
took me ages to realise this.
Endings have made a difference somewhat, although not in ways I expected. I still
don't know what a Lucena position is or a Philidor or how to reach them, so I am
determined to learn as much as i can about rook and pawn endings.
Originally posted by tomtom232how can you learn specific endings to specific openings, you would need to miss out the
Calculation is much easier when you know what's going on and what both sides are trying to achieve.
Anybody could calculate 100 moves when in a perpetual check... It is this ability that allows us to realize the position is a draw with absolute certainty, but I couldn't even calculate two moves ahead if I dont even know what's happening on the board.
...[text shortened]... ctice more immediate and often which makes the positions more familiar and easier to retain.
middle game entirely and go straight for an ending, like in some variations of the
Berlin defence for example. Is it not the case?
Originally posted by Fat LadyI started playing regular chess only when I joined this site (early Sept)... and this is pretty much what I am doing now.
So, my advice is cut back on the studying and tactics training - just play more chess, but try to play in a different way to what you have been doing. If you're a stodge merchant, play some gambits and learn to attack when you're material down. If you're more of an attacking player then switch to 1.c4 or 1.d4 for a year or so and learn what those strange ...[text shortened]... about and how you can win games even when your opponent doesn't miss anything obvious.
I recently started opening with 1. c4 just to see what it's about... not a lot of success so far (got battered in one game, think drew another) but asides this I am currently "experimenting" under different lines, and seeing whether I can still hold a position from going a piece, or 2 pawns down etc.
It is from games you lose that you learn more... so why not experiment into unknown lines? And into uncomfortable positions? It is tricky games like these that develop your thinking... at least this is what I am finding at the moment
Originally posted by Fat LadyThank you for not saying psychology.
I think most of us find a way of playing which we feel halfway competent at early on in our chess career and then tend to play like that for ever! For example a lot of players learn one or two tricky openings, win a few pretty games against other beginners and then stick to that opening repertoire for the next two decades.
What worked for me twice is del ...[text shortened]... nd how you can win games even when your opponent doesn't miss anything obvious.
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainall my games lead to tricky unknown lines practically, why put yourself at a disadvantage though by deliberately dropping material?
I started playing regular chess only when I joined this site (early Sept)... and this is pretty much what I am doing now.
I recently started opening with 1. c4 just to see what it's about... not a lot of success so far (got battered in one game, think drew another) but asides this I am currently "experimenting" under different lines, and seeing wh ...[text shortened]... mes like these that develop your thinking... at least this is what I am finding at the moment
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLike I said, openings tend to end up in certain endings, certain pieces get swapped off and a certain pawn structures tend to show up more often. Certain openings lead to certain middle game plans and tactics. Study these, get "comfortable" with them then move on to the next opening.
how can you learn specific endings to specific openings, you would need to miss out the
middle game entirely and go straight for an ending, like in some variations of the
Berlin defence for example. Is it not the case?
Originally posted by Fat LadyVery well written. I tend to follow similar principles with one exception. Your last suggestion/advice was to switch for a while from 1. e4 (attacking player) to 1. d4/c4 (positional play) or vice versa. I do these alternate styles rather with the different colours, ie. I usually play with an attacking style with white (1. e4), and often play positional with black (e.g. hedgehog). Anyway nice insights. I think similarily, but wouldn't be able to summarise it like that.
I think most of us find a way of playing which we feel halfway competent at early on in our chess career and then tend to play like that for ever! For example a lot of players learn one or two tricky openings, win a few pretty games against other beginners and then stick to that opening repertoire for the next two decades.
What worked for me twice is del ...[text shortened]... nd how you can win games even when your opponent doesn't miss anything obvious.
Originally posted by ChessPraxisI don't see how one can learn much chess in an hour or two. You can't even learn much ches psychology in an hour or two. 😏
The most game changing books I've read besides Nimzowitch's writings are The Art of War, and Why you lose at Chess (Reinfeld) Both are easy to read and the later provides a critical view of ones self. Worth the hour or two to read them both.