My wannabe 1800 idea

Originally posted by diskamyl
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 that you might possibly have the wrong mindset while you're playing games.

In a tactics exercise you know that there is a killer move because you're solving a tactical exercise. During game play there's no one to tell you: "Hey buddy, crush him like a bug with a thre mover!!!". LIke somebody said you need to be able to realise the practical probability of a tactic being possible.

Another possible explanation is the mistake we all make of believing that our opponent will make the worst possible move available. It's idiotic but we all do it and if the other guy is lower rated than us than the probability of doing it goes up the scale!

And one game studying chess isn't that long of a time so don't you put yourself that down.

Originally posted by adam warlock
I think that you might possibly have the wrong mindset while you're playing games.

In a tactics exercise you know that there is a killer move because you're solving a tactical exercise. During game play there's no one to tell you: "Hey buddy, crush him like a bug with a thre mover!!!". LIke somebody said you need to be able to realise the practical p d one game studying chess isn't that long of a time so don't you put yourself that down.

thanks for the responses.

Ivan, believe me or not, but I really do know a lot about chess strategy, more than you'd think a 1600 player would do, by reading books or watching videos, but I'm with the opinion that tactics just rule the game, even strategical ones. you just have to have a body to be able to do what your mind tells you to do, and I think it corresponds to calculation and tactics in chess.

Chesswrick, I had read and even responded in that thread, I agree with you, but I agree more with adam warlock, it seems more about having the right mindset in a real game to me.

having discipline in one's thought in a game, and the psychological aspect of chess is probably a lot more important than it sounds.

wormwood, it's actually 3091 tries and 89.2 % 😛 (by the way, my rating at CTS just sweeps the floor right now, but I made it get lower on purpose -a lot lower than my highest- to get the percentage up, which is probably the better aproach.)

anyway, I wish Ivan2908 good luck, and thanks again.

Originally posted by diskamyl
...to get the percentage up, which is probably the better aproach.

best by test.

Originally posted by diskamyl
thanks for the responses.

Ivan, believe me or not, but I really [b]do know a lot about chess strategy, more than you'd think a 1600 player would do, by reading books or watching videos, but I'm with the opinion that tactics just rule the game, even strategical ones. you just have to have a body to be able to do what your mind tells you to do, ...[text shortened]... ich is probably the better aproach.)

anyway, I wish Ivan2908 good luck, and thanks again.[/b]

Actually, adam and I said the same things but with different words. I'm just trying to think of exercises to help get us into the "mindset" but haven't found anything that really drills it. Playing a lot of games is obviously practice, because you have to focus on getting into that mindset; however, surely there's a more efficient way to really train in that manner without consuming all the time required for a lot of games.

Originally posted by diskamyl
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 least 1800. [/b]

I'm also rated 1700 and I think you over-emphasize tactics too much. While they're extremely important, some positional understanding goes a long way as well. Although no amount of positional understanding will help if you're too weak tactically, tactics don't help either when no tactics are present and some strategic movement is called for.

Originally posted by scandium
I'm also rated 1700 and I think you over-emphasize tactics too much. While they're extremely important, some positional understanding goes a long way as well. Although no amount of positional understanding will help if you're too weak tactically, tactics don't help either when no tactics are present and some strategic movement is called for.

I agree with you, they are connected. You will hardly find tactics is your position is totaly ruined.

Here is diagram from nice Reti's victory. He won by merging some nice calculation and positional evaluation (he played as white).

I have this game annotated. What would you do here? It's white to move.

Originally posted by ivan2908
I agree with you, they are connected. You will hardly find tactics is your position is totaly ruined.

Here is diagram from nice Reti's victory. He won by merging some nice calculation and positional evaluation (he played as white).

I have this game annotated. What would you do here? It's white to move.

[fen]1r3r2/p2q2k1/3p1p1p/2p1pPp1/2PnP1PP/8/PP1QN1K1/1R5R w - - 0 27[/fen]

it's queenside play maybe? for example:

1.Nxd4 ...exd4 (1...cxd4 2.b4 should be good for white)
2.b4 and if black takes, he'll have a lot of weak pawns, but I couldn't see how white could go on after 2...Qb7 (protecting the pawn, x-raying the b1 rook and also attacking e4)

to make it clear:
1.Nxd4 ...exd4 2.b4 ...Qd7 and then what? maybe 3.Qe1, protecting the b1 rook and the pawn?

Originally posted by ivan2908
I agree with you, they are connected. You will hardly find tactics is your position is totaly ruined.

Here is diagram from nice Reti's victory. He won by merging some nice calculation and positional evaluation (he played as white).

I have this game annotated. What would you do here? It's white to move.

[fen]1r3r2/p2q2k1/3p1p1p/2p1pPp1/2PnP1PP/8/PP1QN1K1/1R5R w - - 0 27[/fen]

Nc3-Nd5 with the idea of a possible sac on f6? I don't see any reason to trade Ns, since the white N looks stronger to me on d5 than black's on d4 (white's has targets). I don't think I'd open the Qside with b4 either, since the Rh1, position of the Q, and the h4 pawn all point toward Kside attack.

Originally posted by scandium
the Rh1, position of the Q, and the h4 pawn all point toward Kside attack.

yes, but how is white going to create any weaknesses in the kingside? (without sacking the knight, please! 🙂)

the only weakness black has is the a pawn, and with b4 after the knight exchange (which already creates another weakness because of doubled pawns), there is more to come.

Originally posted by ivan2908
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

The Modern Benoni may well be what you're looking for. Here is a quote from my book on it by Richard Palliser as a taster:

1.d4...Nf6
2.c4...c5
3.d4...e6
4.Nc3...exd5
(5.cxd5...d6
6.Nf3...g6
7.e4...Bg7
8.h3!?...0-0
9.Bd3...b5!?
10.Nxb5...Re8
11.Nd2!?...Nxe4

It's only move 11, but already the tactics are flying. Black attempts to target the white monarch and to complete his development with speed. Instead 11...Nxd5 may not be so bad, but regaining the pawn like this isn't really in the spirit of the Modern Benoni. White can respond with 12.Nc4! highlighting the weakness of d6 and ruling out a very useful queen check on a5

12. Bxe4

White must recapture to justify his ambitious last move. Instead Nxe4...f5 regains the piece immediately; while after 12. 0-0 Black is happy to exchange on d2 as White must make an awkward recapture with the queen. Instead 13. Bxd2 drops the b pawn, reminding us of the strength of the g7 bishop once unleashed by the disappearance of the f6-knight.

12...Ba6

Correctly pursuing the initiative, rather than rushing to regain the piece with 12...f5. Furthermore, should the b5-knight ever move, then white will be able to castle kingside - not a bad comeback from the black light-squared bishop after it was prevented from going to g4!

END QUOTE

(All of these first above moves are annotated in the book...bit too much typing!!)

I was tempted to take this up recently but opted for the Kings Indian instead just because of study time limitations - but I may well move on to it in about a year or so when I have some more experience and playing strength.

Originally posted by diskamyl
yes, but how is white going to create any weaknesses in the kingside? (without sacking the knight, please! 🙂)

the only weakness black has is the a pawn, and with b4 after the knight exchange (which already creates another weakness because of doubled pawns), there is more to come.

With white to play those (the idea I gave and the one you gave) are the two plans to choose between. It'd be interesting to see the actual continuation and find out what Reti played.

Originally posted by scandium
With white to play those (the idea I gave and the one you gave) are the two plans to choose between. It'd be interesting to see the actual continuation and find out what Reti played.

This is game from "Acquisition of center, territory and space". Without knowing all your advantages in the position, you can't know what to underline and where to play. It is not always about forced continuation.





" Reti won this position in instructive fashion. He first avoided unnecessary exchanges and than made use of the h file – a file that white can open whenever he desires to do so.


1.Nc3 !

Avoiding exchanges and bringing knight to the active d5 post

1...Rh8
2.Rh3 !

Of course, since White has a space advantage on the kingside there is where he directs it's play. The text follows an instructive but common idea. While will play on the h – hile but, seeing that 2. hxg5 hxg5 allows exchanges, he will only open it when he triples by Rh3, Rbh1 and Qh2. Since black has far less territory on that file, he will be unable to copy White's movements there.

2...Rbg8
3. Rbh1 Qd8
4. Nd5 !

Threatening Kg3, Qh2, hxg5 and Rh7+

4...gxh4
5. Rxh4 Kf7
6. Kf2 Qf8
7. Rxh6 Rxh6
8. Rxh6 Qg7
9. Qa5 !, 1-0


Mate follows 10. Qc7+"


I would never come with that solution. But it is natural and strong. You can't expect that tactics will come alone to solve in the game while you just wait it ... So I will stick to my plan that by drilling tactics and increasing positional understanding I will be able to find more TACTICS eventually.


I particulary like rules like Steinitz about depriving knights from their support points (on 4, 5, 6 rank) so you kill your opponent attack only if you know that.

Strategy is the best friend of tactics. And vice versa. They are in love 😀 ! ! !

Originally posted by ivan2908
This is game from "Acquisition of center, territory and space". Without knowing all your advantages in the position, you can't know what to underline and where to play. It is not always about forced continuation.


[fen]1r3r2/p2q2k1/3p1p1p/2p1pPp1/2PnP1PP/8/PP1QN1K1/1R5R w - - 0 27[/fen]


" Reti won this position in instructive fashion. He first avoi .

Strategy is the best friend of tactics. And vice versa. They are in love 😀 ! ! !

oh please, this is Silman, right? it sounds exactly like him. I just hate the guy, and his annotations as well. He makes it look like one strategical idea ends the game, just like that. I stopped reading him just because of this. his annotations really gives you this kind of artificial feeling, because he never annotates the losing side's moves who in almost each of his examples just blunder tactically.

I really would like to see how many of your games are lost strategically where your opponent just squeezes a win out of you, or are lost just by upto 4-mover blunders.

Originally posted by diskamyl
oh please, this is Silman, right? it sounds exactly like him. I just hate the guy, and his annotations as well. He makes it look like one strategical idea ends the game, just like that. I stopped reading him just because of this. his annotations really gives you this kind of artificial feeling, because he never annotates the losing side's moves who in almos ...[text shortened]... where your opponent just squeezes a win out of you, or are lost just by upto 4-mover blunders.

But those are Reti's moves ! 😲

Originally posted by ivan2908
But those are Reti's moves ! 😲

I didn't say anything about the moves.

nice problem by the way.