I have a good game my chess coach played many years ago against a young Alex Fishbein. Evidently the PGN isn't proper. 🙁 Can anyone fix it and tell me what the problem is??
Long ago I played now GM Alex Fishbein when he was a young master. I was winning the game until I played 76.Rxd4? and then lost my last drawing chances when I got greedy with 80.Qxg6.
Fascinating struggle and one I will always remember.
Brad
Brad Lundstrom (1970) - Alex Fishbein (2224)
Colorado Open, 04.09.1982
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.g3 0–0 5.Bg2 d6 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0–0 e5 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.e4 Ne8 10.Be3 Nd6 11.Nd2 Nf6 12.h3 Be6 13.Qe2 Qe7 14.Rad1 Rfd8 15.Kh2 Nc8 16.Nb3 Nb6 17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.cxd5 Ne8 19.Nc5 Nd6 20.Rc1 a5 21.Rc2 Nbc8 22.Rfc1 b6 23.Na6 Ra7 24.Nb8 Rb7 25.Nc6 Qd7 26.Nxd8 Qxd8 27.Qd2 f5 28.f3 Qd7 29.Bg5 Ne8 30.Rc6 Ncd6 31.Qc2 Qf7 32.a4 Qd7 33.Bf1 h6 34.Be3 Qf7 35.Bf2 h5 36.Bd3 Bh6 37.Re1 f4 38.g4 hxg4 39.hxg4 Rb8 40.Rc1 Rb7 41.Kg2 Bg5 42.Rh1 Bd8 43.Bh4 Bxh4 44.Rxh4 Qe7 45.Qf2 Nf6 46.Rc1 Qg7 47.Rch1 g5 48.Rh6 Nf7 49.R6h3 Nd7 50.Kf1 Nf8 51.Bb5 Rb8 52.Qh2 Ng6 53.Qc2 Rb7 54.Qc6 Nd6 55.Qd7 Qxd7 56.Bxd7 Nh4 57.Ke2 b5 58.Bc6 Rb8 59.b3 bxa4 60.Bxa4 Nb5 61.Rc1 Nd4+ 62.Kf2 Rb7 63.Rc3 Kf7 64.Rh1 Ke7 65.Rhc1 Kd6 66.Rd3 Rb6 67.Rc4 Rb4 68.Rdc3 Rxc4 69.bxc4 Kc5 70.Bd1 Kb4 71.Rc1 a4 72.c5 a3 73.d6 c6 74.Be2 Ng6 75.Rc4+ Kb3 76.Rxd4 exd4 77.d7 a2 78.d8Q a1Q 79.Qg8+ Kc2 80.Qxg6 Kd2 81.Bc4 Qe1+ 82.Kg2 Qg3+ 83.Kh1 Qxf3+ 84.Kh2 Qg3+ 85.Kh1 Qh3+ 86.Kg1 Qxg4+ 87.Kh1 Qh3+ 88.Kg1 Qg3+ 89.Kh1 f3 90.Bf1 f2 0–1
You read so much conflicting advice about how to improve.
What works for some may not work for others.
I don't know how anyone posting on here can really say 'this is the best way.'
Becuase if it was why are they not GM's and if it is why don't do it and become GM's.
I know 100's of good players.
When you ask how they got to become good players
90% of them shrug their shoulders. "It happened."
Fischer gave one of the more honest answers on this subject:
"One day I just got good."
Reading Bronstein's and Nimzovitch's method are never no way on this
God earth going to give you the imagination that both these great players had.
You cannot teach over the board personality. It wins games.
Good players are born and happen to stumble into the game at a young age.
Don't worry about it and don't put yourself down if you are not one of the chosen few.
Play the game, love the game, study the game.
You will get better though the chances are you won't know how.
Here is the PGN of that game with no notes.
Brad Lundstrom (1970) - Alex Fishbein (2224) Colorado Open, 1982
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20026
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI wasn't commenting on the advice he gives, but rather on the way he presents it. I wasn't able to get an overview of his website. This has to do with structuring and layout, not with the content. But it's a personal thing. I'm glad you found something valuable in there. I couldn't.
what is it that you disliked tvochess dude? As far as i can discern the author advocated
1. making a schedule for your training
2. practice tactics everyday
3. use a real chessboard
4. when reading a book, read it more than once
5. look at all the variations etc
6. try to visualise those variations prior to playing them
etc etc etc
all sound advice
Originally posted by tvochessyeah it was a bit muddled for sure and it did lack clarity, but chess literature is like that, take Soltis book, pawn structure chess, it is supposed to read like a kind of novel but you need to go back again and again because of the variations but it contains much that is valuable.
I wasn't commenting on the advice he gives, but rather on the way he presents it. I wasn't able to get an overview of his website. This has to do with structuring and layout, not with the content. But it's a personal thing. I'm glad you found something valuable in there. I couldn't.
So Robbie,
After 8 pages and a lot of posts, have you found the answer to your philosophical question. If you have it, share it with me.
I am trouble by Lasker's statement until I read about Magnus.
GP said some are born with it. Others discover it. But what about the rest of us who are stuck in a rut, never dig out of a whole, are there any answers to how to improve?
If you don't know the answer, then I suppose, you're the one who publishers/ ICC money-seeking leeches are focusing on. Remind me of the Martial Art masters who can offer you secrets of chinese kung fu.
For me, the answer is what Lasker said in the back of the book:
"These examples and models will suffice, if the reader will read attentively, probe deliberately, and probe again and apply what he has read, until at last it becomes his property. Practice is varied; let what is kept in your mind be wholesome, clean, lightweight, and above all, systematic."
In winning the NCAA Football championship so many times, Nick Saban reminds his players always to focus on the process and not the result.
For chess, we must focus on our trainings and understanding - not ratings.
Originally posted by u2kraziemy friend, i produce the synopsis of my understanding to date.
So Robbie,
After 8 pages and a lot of posts, have you found the answer to your philosophical question. If you have it, share it with me.
I am trouble by Lasker's statement until I read about Magnus.
GP said some are born with it. Others discover it. But what about the rest of us who are stuck in a rut, never dig out of a whole, are there any ans the result.
For chess, we must focus on our trainings and understanding - not ratings.
Chess appears to me to be primarily concerned with the mobility of the pieces, all
other considerations are subject to this principle. We develop, to mobilise, we pin, to
decrease the mobility of our opponents chess men, we try to dominate the centre
either practically or dynamically as we understand it has relevance to mobility, thus
all are subject to this guiding principle, mobility of the pieces. With this in mind we
deploy strategies and tactics, both interdependent and not interdependent depending
upon the positions which arise to influence this state of affairs in our favour. We are
testing these strategies and tactics constantly, subjecting them to falsification where
possible, but because of the nature of the game and its almost infinite possibilities, it
is not always easy to see through the complexity, for we are human and prone to
aberration.
Thus it is my opinion and I cite no less a talent than Capablanca, that the course of
wisdom is to avoid complications and to seek at every turn the simplest solution.
This means that in a practical sense, we choose those candidate moves which are
the most forcing first, for in doing so our opponents replies are limited. If we have
no forcing move or variation, we reduce or neutralise our opponents propensity to
force us, and this constant battle between opposing forces will eventually fall in one
direction or remain in equilibrium.
thus in summation
1. chess is concerned above all with the mobility of the pieces, all other
considerations are subject to this.
2. chess because of its complexity is a game of error, we must therefore seek the
simplest solution
3. If we can use force to reduce our opponents replies we must do so, if we cannot,
we must try to reduce their propensity for forcing us
now to illustrate my understanding in a game i recently finished, i am black.
iamatiger 1866 v robbiecarrobie 1861
its enough to make a man tear the pockets from his jeans in despair.
(ill post a better game I just finished against grandpa bobby, awesome game it was)
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's because the other day you ruined with that damned ice
my friend, i produce the synopsis of my understanding to date.
Chess appears to me to be primarily concerned with the mobility of the pieces, all
other considerations are subject to this principle. We develop, to mobilise, we pin, to
decrease the mobility of our opponents chess men, we try to dominate the centre
either practically or dynamic ...[text shortened]... etter game I just finished against grandpa bobby, awesome game it was)
your whisky😵
Originally posted by greenpawn34Wow what a great game! White doesn't play like any 1900 i've ever seen. Very controlled and rather positional. Looking at the opening i thought black had quite a nice grip on c5 and i really thought white was going to have difficulties there but white clearly had other ideas.
You read so much conflicting advice about how to improve.
What works for some may not work for others.
I don't know how anyone posting on here can really say 'this is the best way.'
Becuase if it was why are they not GM's and if it is why don't do it and become GM's.
I know 100's of good players.
When you ask how they got to become good players ...[text shortened]... 85. Kh1 Qh3+ 86. Kg1 Qxg4+ 87. Kh1 Qh3+ 88. Kg1 Qg3+ 89. Kh1 f3 90. Bf1 f2[/pgn]
I cannot see why the game was stopped. (timeout?) 😉
The was a Glasgow player who twice had this position OTB in league games and lost!
Now everyone put your hands together and clap onto the forum...Atomick.
Atomick has won that e4 Knight six times in the exact same move order.
Game 4856262 is just one example.
So Atomick has P. W.6 with this wee stunt.
No. P.6 W.5 L.1 read on.....
Atomick - The Big Fish RHP 2006
Originally posted by greenpawn34its one of these instinctive moves that one makes, unthinking, mechanical, yay, a free pawn! check all checks GB, you know it makes sense 😛
I cannot see why the game was stopped. (timeout?) 😉
The was a Glasgow player who twice had this position OTB in league games and lost!
Now everyone put your hands together and clap onto the forum...Atomick.
Atomick has won that e4 Knight six times in the exact same move order.
Game 4856262 is just one example.
So Atomick has P. W.6 with ...[text shortened]... f3 d5 23. Nc5 {OOPS!} 23... Bd4+ 24. Kh2 Bxc5 {White resigned.} [/pgn]