Originally posted by ivan2908I play 1. ... e6 which will just about always transpose into a E pawn opening so long as you are comfortable with a few dutch lines.
I hate d4 when I am black ! I play Nimzo-Indian, but I hate it! Is there some sound unsymetrical alternative ? Is Benoni sound? Thanks
Originally posted by ivan2908What is wrong with symmetrical? I suggest a version of the Queens gambit declined, or even the QG accepted.
I hate d4 when I am black ! I play Nimzo-Indian, but I hate it! Is there some sound unsymetrical alternative ? Is Benoni sound? Thanks
If you want to get to 1800, playing solidly is very important, as ive noticed that playing 1800+ people is especially difficult because they don't give you a second chance if you make a mistake. I've played the KID and nimzo, and am back to the QGD and doing fine with that.
As I mentioned before, my goal is to improve drastically. I am working on tactics (CTS, slow problems) and middlegame strategy (Amateurs mind). I will improve my CC chess that is for sure. I think I am making good base for strategic understanding and right planning.
Here's the problem; since it is not easy to absorb all good strategic principles, I found out that, even if I am doing it well with CC by taking time, I can analyze my OTB positions at amazingly slow rate. So now I even play worse than before. I am thinking about minor pieces interplay, weak pawns etc. and what happens - I lose on time!
Or even worse, while thinking I get so confused I start to make stupid tactical two move mistakes. Unfortunately, I started to play OTB in this new way against 1900 rated FIDE. To be worse, he doesn't want to play with me longer games than 10 minutes per player and for me that is abolutely to short.
Should I sharp my abilities on RHP and then when I get better start to implement my new knowledge in OTB games?
Because within ten minutes I can't think about pawn structure and tons of other things. Should I stop play OTB games, at least fast ones until I absorb new knowledge better?
What should I do?
hEHEHEHEHE.
I broke 1600 it was way too easy, with some games I started to play even before I started to annotate every move or blunder check.
It is unbelievable how, if you know some basic stuff you can go from 1200 performance to 1600 just by being disciplined ! !
I hate 1600ish ratings, it is somwhere in the middle, you can't call it weak, you can't call it strong, is the most in-the-middle chess rating, and it sounds bad. 17xx, here the real chess starts !
1734, here I come ! ! !
P. S. Thanks mr. Silman 😛
The idea of annotating every move you do, right before or right after you've done it, is a very good idea! I think that you can reduce the number of gross blunders to at least 50% and raise your rating with at least 50, perhaps even 100 points in a very short period of time.
I will implement this method...
Originally posted by ivan2908Congrats!
hEHEHEHEHE.
I broke 1600 it was way too easy, with some games I started to play even before I started to annotate every move or blunder check.
It is unbelievable how, if you know some basic stuff you can go from 1200 performance to 1600 just by being disciplined ! !
I hate 1600ish ratings, it is somwhere in the middle, you can't call it weak, you 17xx, here the real chess starts !
1734, here I come ! ! !
P. S. Thanks mr. Silman 😛
One thing that we could do in this thread is to put some annotated games in it to discuss ideas.
I already got a short game to put in here but I have to annotate it first. 🙄
And on that game I have to credit Logical Chess Move by Move for the winning move. 😛
Put it here when you annotate it! I am working with Silman's method now, I look for imbalances in position (differences between your position and your opponents) which includes seven things:
- minor pieces interplay (battle and relationship between bishops and knights, you want your pieces to prove themselves superior than your opponents counterparts). Out of all 7 imbalances this one is the easiest strategical concept to absorb. When you have two bishops and your opponent two knights you want to rip open the position, while restricting opponents knights, which, being short range pieces need outpost aka support points etc.
- space (if you have more space than your opponent your pieces are more flexibile, then you try to increase pressure, not to trade pieces etc., in closed positions you usually try to play where your pawn chain points). It is not difficult to recognize this favor but you have to somehow exploit
- pawn structure (strong pawns, pawn chains, weak pawns) it is a broad subject, pretty hard to master completly
- development
- files and squares (you want to exploit weak squares of your opponent, put your rooks on open files, bishops on open diagonals etc.)
- material
- initiative
You have to make a plan around this imbalances, you want to increase the pluses you already posses and accentate your opponents weaknesses.
When you look at just one imbalance it is easy to find your plusses or minuses but judging position by putting together all the 7 elements is quite difficult.
But I am sure that alone that book together with tactics drills can make me improve very very much very soon ! (by "very soon" I mean six months, a year to get to around 1700 OTB and 1800-1900 here)
Originally posted by ivan2908I try to work with that system.
Anyone else works with that system ?
Before, I had so little playing experience that I really didn't know what was wrong with my game. From a month or so ago, I began to play a lot (not here in RHP, but against the computer or at FICS), and I came to realize that after very basic strategic foundation, it really only is about tactics until at least 1800. If the game is closed, I can get winning positions against 1700+ players, but when my advantage comes to the point of a decisive attack and I crush open the opponent's defense finally, I just lose on tactics.
I really don't know what is wrong with me, I study a lot of tactics (1 hour CTS and 1 hour CT-Art everyday), I believe I'm pretty good at solving puzzles (I have a 89.0 percentage on CTS after 3000 tries for example), but I still lose to simple tactics on my games, even against lower rated players.
it's just that I don't have any talent in this game since I've been studying for a pretty long time (1 year or so), or that there's something different needed for success, and I'm not sure what it really is.
I'm slowly beginning to feel it's got to do something with the way you actually think during a game. Believe me, show me those tactical mistakes of mine in my opponent's view on CTS and I will punish them right away, in a matter of seconds actually. But in the game, I just give that opportunity to my opponent with my own hands.
any ideas on this kind of problem? I'm not sure what to do here.
Originally posted by diskamylMaybe you lose because tactical opportunities arises from superior positions. I also practice at CTS, I have more than 5000 or 6000 tries I do not remember anymore. When I play seriously against 1300 suddenly I "see" all kind of beautifull combinations but I do not see them against an 1800.
I [b]try to work with that system.
Before, I had so little playing experience that I really didn't know what was wrong with my game. From a month or so ago, I began to play a lot (not here in RHP, but against the computer or at FICS), and I came to realize that after very basic strategic foundation, it really only is about tactics until at le my own hands.
any ideas on this kind of problem? I'm not sure what to do here.[/b]
It is because weaker player gives you plenty of opportunity to tactically exploit his bad position, his backward pawn, his inferior pawn structure, his vulnerable king, his cramped development, so you can fix your knight on sixth rank and eye for tactical slaughter together with your other well coordinated pieces.
And if he develops solid, has imposing center, plenty of space, powerfull good bishop, open files for his connected rooks it will be much harder to crush him tactically, do not you think so ?
So work on tactics AND on strategy. I think Amateurs mind or Logical chess are excellent choieces.
Originally posted by diskamylgood percentage, but 3000 problems on CTS is still very little. that's roughly 30 hours, or 30 days if you do 1 hour a day. (I used to do that much in a week.) it's a good start, and a reasonable pace, but it's still too little to expect significant improvement. just keep at it daily, and you'll see progress, especially in slow games.
...I have a 89.0 percentage on CTS after 3000 tries for example...
Originally posted by diskamylYou might want to read through some of my recent threads (http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=83779) on this subject. I've come to think that the way many of us drill on tactics simply isn't the best, at least not for everyone.
I [b]try to work with that system.
Before, I had so little playing experience that I really didn't know what was wrong with my game. From a month or so ago, I began to play a lot (not here in RHP, but against the computer or at FICS), and I came to realize that after very basic strategic foundation, it really only is about tactics until at le ...[text shortened]... my own hands.
any ideas on this kind of problem? I'm not sure what to do here.[/b]
I think the key distinction is that you need to know if there's a tactic at all. This is what my thread deals with. If you don't see the details of the position that indicate that there might be a tactic, then you won't find one at all. Missing a tactic of your own is just as bad as missing one of your opponent.
I think you'll find the truth in this by how you find the solutions to your CTS problems. For me at least, I either get the tactic in less than a second (as in, almost instantly) or little at all. Sure, I can sometimes take a second or two and luckily find the solution, but the key point is that my eye/mind sees much of them almost instantly.
So, I think CTS has a diminishing return on the educational value due to the simple fact that you know there is some tactic. I think it would be better to drill against CT-Art, go through all the problems starting from difficulty 10 to 90 and then perhaps drill those in CTS. Even better would be to take a long series of random positions in games and simply determine if there's a tactic or not. This would help train your vision I believe. This would also be in accordance with what ivan is doing. He's using Silman's method to find the imbalances, but the better you can identify them (the more accurately, quicker, etc.) the better you'll be in a position to identify tactics. CTS trains you on tactics; you need something to train you to identify the properties of the position, and whether a tactic or perhaps a more strategic move is necessary.
That was a long run-on paragraph, sorry.
I was able to get just a few points shy of 1800 (before I stopped playing for a while and dropped 300 or more points due to timeout) doing this. I think there's some value there. You might look at a combination of: Personal Chess Trainer, CTS, CT-Art, books like Logical Chess by Chernev and then perhaps the random position idea I was talking about.