27 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34Underpromotion was the only way to keep Black in check, so it was the first thing I looked at after 1...Kh7.
Hi SG.
It's hard to explain how it all fits in. It just does.
Discovered check wins the Knight.
Where did the under promotion idea come from - why did you think of that?
Why do you keep looking when you have no more sensible check left?
Where did the Queen sac come from?
What did you see first. The idea of the Queen sac or the R & N mating patt ng to be interesting. I'll put the results on The Corner.....
....perhaps even YouTube it.
Once Black's King is on the run, you look at all checks simply because they're forcing moves. Who cares if they seem sensible at first. Just look at all forcing lines and try to find a mating pattern at the end of one of them.
27 Oct 09
Who cares if they seem sensible at first. Just look at all forcing lines and try to find a mating pattern at the end of one of them.[/b]That is how I do it- forcing moves have few branches, and it is easier to look deeper and calculate things to a conclusion. As John Nunn says, "One shouldn't play positionally when mate is available".
Paul
28 Oct 09
Originally posted by Pariah325These are the games that Du Monts quotes in his light notes.
Okay, Greenpawn, thanks for the link to 200 miniatures. But my count is more about 313 total games between those two links. So, where do the extra 113 games come from?
You have to play them out as well. As you go along you will start to spot
an error and almost 'feel' the coming combination.
If there is any move you don't quite understand then you have to figure out
the reasoning behind it.
These moves were played by humans. Let their losses be in your guided light.
28 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by dubnikovaoh, missed this post earlier.
This is a great thread!. My RHP rating is hovering around 1600, yet I feel that I don't desreve anything higher than, may be 1400. My victories are mostly results of opponenets' blunders and blatant chess blindness. All of my opponents have a lower rating to start with. My loses are due to either lack of attention or inferior chess knowledge.
I try to for 35 years and restarted only a year ago. I want to play so my brains doen't go to pot...
I began playing chess at 30, about 4½ years ago. I've heard countless of times people claiming "you can't get good at chess if you don't begin as a child". by now I regard that myth as busted. not that I was especially good, but I'm good enough, and it happened fast enough, to feel confident that it has nothing to do with age. I've just done a ton of work for it, as simple as that.
just wanted to get that out of the way, so you can forget any age-related doubts about your improvement. it's all elbow grease, work, training. and simple training at that. -there are no shortcuts, everybody has to do the same ridiculous amount of training to get better. every now and then you'll meet people who claim they didn't do anything, but in my experience every single one turned out to be flat out lying. there's reasons for that, but they're unimportant. the main thing to realize is: nobody ever got anything for free, they all worked their ass off for years and decades.
so, that's the motivational part. the training tips you've already seen in this thread, so I won't go there again. but about patterns & memory, here's the 'secret': nobody remembers them just like that. the trick is repetition, doing it over and over and over again. not just until you understand it, but until you can't get it wrong. and even then revisit it every now and then.
I can't mate fritz with Q vs. R under a minute because I've carefully considered all patterns and techniques. I've done that too, but it's not the real reason. the REAL reason is that I've mated fritz thousands of times. the correct, or at least 'good enough' moves come instinctly by now, and I probably couldn't forget them even if I tried. - the same applies to all areas of chess. you need to 'overtrain' things.
and you're right about keeping your mind agile as well. there's no difference between mental excercise and physical. stop using your brain, and it will deteoriate. start thinking 'oh I'm so old already, my mind is fluff' and it wil deteoriate. fast. the brain requires exercise to keep fit.
but keep teasing your brain with problems, work those little grey cells, and they will stay functional. doubly so if there's some kind of medical problem working against you.
I think chess at old age is exactly what the doctor ordered, or at least should order.
29 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodI have great respect for your respect for hard work. I agree with every single thing you've said but this sentence.
to feel confident that it has nothing to do with age. I've just done a ton of work for it, as simple as that.
I think chess comes kind of easier or more natural to kids. With 3 hours of daily work children jump to master ratings in no time (like a few years). I've seen many examples of this. They can learn faster. Their transition from a beginner to an expert is amazingly quick. This is no excuse for older people of course, it can be compensated with more work and being more organized. I think everyone can get to a master rating with hard work.
29 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by philidor positiontrue, but they study slower. they simply don't have the skills nor experience, and they can't force themselves to focus. then again, they have more energy & enthusiasm, which also compensates for their lack of learning technique.
They can learn faster.
I think the most distinct advantage kids have is not their faster neural learning speed, but their complete lack of responsibilities. they simply have more time & energy to spare. but when it comes to studying, I can cram through the same material in a few weeks that takes them a full year. and I can study much more complex things at that, they simply don't have the necessary abstractions available.
well, I guess you also kinda said that same thing in your latter paragraph. 🙂
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by wormwoodi wonder if the analogy of a child learning say language is fitting. the child absorbs and is able to formulate and express itself, later in life there is no consideration really given to grammar or other intricacies, its just a natural expression, whereas those who shall learn a language later in life, although they shall reach and often surpass the native speaker in vocabulary, there is something to be said for natural expression.
true, but they study slower. they simply don't have the skills nor experience, and they can't force themselves to focus. then again, they have more energy & enthusiasm, which also compensates for their lack of learning technique.
I think the most distinct advantage kids have is not their faster neural learning speed, but their complete lack of res ...[text shortened]... available.
well, I guess you also kinda said that same thing in your latter paragraph. 🙂
29 Oct 09
Think it is a the childs sponge like minds and as WW said a total lack of responsibility.
They do not have to work 8 hours day or worry about all
other things adults have on their plate.
Also agree older people can become good players.
I did not start in earnest till I was 22 in 1972. Also I knew lad who learned moves at
56, he was a total Rooks odd player. When 60 he was approaching 1800
and a good solid chess player
But adults really have to work at it and want it.
Trouble with the adults I coach is some come with a whole load of baggage
of bad habits that I have to unload. Years of self teaching can do a lot of harm.
They double pawns at every chance they get.
Chop great Knight for miserable Bishops.
Move pawns when they cannot think of anything else to do.
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by wormwoodhas anyone read Piaget's work on children psicology, and learning? basically he separetes learning in 4 distinct phases, 1st phase (up to 3 years old) is learning to speak and walk. 2nd phase (up to 8years), the child learns to think, but only about concrete things. He can add, but only if he sees the stuff being add. He needs to see thing happening in front of him. 3rd phase (up to 14 years) The child begins to be able to think about non-visual things (for example solving mathematical equations). 4th phase, the child begins to learn about abstract things (for example filosophy).
true, but they study slower. they simply don't have the skills nor experience, and they can't force themselves to focus. then again, they have more energy & enthusiasm, which also compensates for their lack of learning technique.
I think the most distinct advantage kids have is not their faster neural learning speed, but their complete lack of res ...[text shortened]... available.
well, I guess you also kinda said that same thing in your latter paragraph. 🙂
If we look closer at this we can see that most vital chess abilities only start devoloping at 8, 9 years of age (3rd phase), and will only reach optimum ability much later. Also some ability will only devlop later, the philosophical aproach to the game, strategy, lead. We can now understand, then, that a child may have superior learning ability, but he won't have the ability to see (non-concrete) things as an adult would, as he gets older less and less so, but still he won't have the easiness older people have.
But the most interesting insight this gives us is about prodigies. Why do some children have more potential, why can someone learn easier than others? Because they enter these phases earlier and therefore can understand teachings easier than children without this precocity, they can think about non-concrete stuff earlier, they can calculate further etc etc.
I hope I have made any sense.
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by orion25Piaget observed 4 main development stages:
has anyone read Piaget's work on children psicology, and learning? basically he separetes learning in 4 distinct phases, 1st phase (up to 3 years old) is learning to speak and walk. 2nd phase (up to 8years), the child learns to think, but only about concrete things. He can add, but only if he sees the stuff being add. He needs to see thing happening in front ...[text shortened]... -concrete stuff earlier, they can calculate further etc etc.
I hope I have made any sense.
Sensorimotor 0-2 years (sensory information gained through mouth and hands to learn about objects etc.)
Preoperational 2-7 years (children are influence by how things look rather than logical reasoning)
Concrete operational 7-11 years (children are now capable of using logical reasoning)
Formal operational 11 years onwards ( children are capable of engaging in abtract thoughts)
But there are some critism of Piaget's Stages:
Just to give you some ideas:
-Children are generally more able than Piaget gave them credit for
-Emphasis is on what children cannot do.
-Abilities are acquired (more) gradually rather than incrementally with changes within stages.
-Cognitive development is more dependent on environment and culture than Piaget realised
-Adults are not as good as ‘formal’ or abstract thought as Piaget thought.
I think if you read Piaget's stages you have to see Vygotsky's sociocultural theory as well and compare them.
Vygotsky argued that children are particularly likely to learn from others when there is only a small gap between what children are able to do on their own and what they could do with little help from someone more skilled.