02 Feb 10
Originally posted by WulebgrI took lessons from a master several summers ago. MY USCF has improved about 250-300 since then.[/b]
I make a lot of hasty moves that cause me to lose. Haste is caused by carrying too many games. Right now I have one here, but fourteen and nineteen at two other sites. Last week I had ~45 games in progress--too many. I also play online blitz most days and OTB as often as possible.
I aim to achieve an USCF expert rating. All forms of online chess are seco ...[text shortened]... I took lessons from a master several summers ago. MY USCF has improved about 250-300 since then.
wow that's pretty cool trout fly dude, can i ask you, what did the master do that you could not do yourself? was it aspects of your play that were difficult to see were weak? for its well understood that its almost impossible to see ourselves as others see us, and objectivity we are told, is one of the governing principles in chess.
02 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThats where the word "Introspection" becomes important in your studies.
for its well understood that its almost impossible to see ourselves as others see us, and objectivity we are told, is one of the governing principles in chess.
hence all of my "ridiculous" and "out of place" ramblings on self annotation, and
edification of annotations. Introspection
03 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe helped with a lot of little things. He helped hone my repertoire in the French, which he plays well. It helped to think through games together (I sometimes hear little things that he said echo in my head when I'm playing). His compliments helped build confidence.
I took lessons from a master several summers ago. MY USCF has improved about 250-300 since then.
wow that's pretty cool trout fly dude, can i ask you, what did the master do that you could not do yourself? was it aspects of your play that were difficult to see were weak? for its well understood that its almost impossible to see ourselves as others see us, and objectivity we are told, is one of the governing principles in chess.[/b]
He was a weak master, and a college student when I took the lessons. In fact, his rating dipped briefly below 2200 that summer. But, his current USCF and FIDE ratings are both over 2300 now.
I still learn mostly from books, from free and really cheap online lessons via Playchess, ICC, ChessBase, Europe-Echecs, etc., and from analyzing games at my local club with players slightly stronger or slightly weaker than myself. There's no single road to improvement, even blitz helps a little when it does not become obsessive.
03 Feb 10
Originally posted by Wulebgrmmm its realy interesting. i have always wondered if lessons would help but pride and a sense of independence has led me away from it. its the folly of the self educated 🙂
He helped with a lot of little things. He helped hone my repertoire in the French, which he plays well. It helped to think through games together (I sometimes hear little things that he said echo in my head when I'm playing). His compliments helped build confidence.
He was a weak master, and a college student when I took the lessons. In fact, his rating d ...[text shortened]... 's no single road to improvement, even blitz helps a little when it does not become obsessive.
03 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I took lessons from a master several summers ago. MY USCF has improved about 250-300 since then.
wow that's pretty cool trout fly dude, can i ask you, what did the master do that you could not do yourself? was it aspects of your play that were difficult to see were weak? for its well understood that its almost impossible to see ourselves as others see us, and objectivity we are told, is one of the governing principles in chess.[/b]
its well understood that its almost impossible to see ourselves as others see us
"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!"
03 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by philidor positionBut you were talking about my approach to chess, an approach that is obviously so much inferior. You pretend to play some sort of sophisticated level, while I just play some moves and see where it leads me
please don't distort what I said there. it should be obvious it wasn't your chess level I'm talking about.
03 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Green Paladinlol, from my Athenian friends profileits well understood that its almost impossible to see ourselves as others see us
"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!"
An thers a han, my trustee feer! An gees a han o thyn!
And we’ll tak a right gude-willie-waught, fir ald lang syn. 🙂
03 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by heinzkatBut you were talking about my approach to chess, an approach that is obviously so much inferior
yes, I was talking about your approach to chess, and I never used words like "inferior". I just said it was "way too simplistic," mainly referring to the part where you said: "If your worthless analysis is enough to take out the other guy, then it's enough. Just keep your pieces & king protected and apply some pressure here and there, make some threats, screw the other guy. That's all that matters.." Looking at this again, yes, I find this way too simplistic.
You pretend to play some sort of sophisticated level, while I just play some moves and see where it leads me
what? I never pretended I play some sort of sophisticated level, nor implied you didn't. you are making things up. you sure don't take criticism well.
03 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by heinzkat"way too simplistic" doesn't belong anywhere near "silly and stupid." it just means I believe you have oversimplified a complicated matter.
I read it as mine being "way too simplistic, silly, stupid" vs. your own approach, which must be better, of more distinction and prestige.
Don't make me angry. 😛
of course I believe my approach is better, since we are discussing about it, it almost comes by definition, if I thought your approach were better, I would adopt that approach and it would be my approach too. but I never implied a "must" or something.
it's ok to be angry, but it's not ok to accuse people of being pretentious about their game without even the actual hint of it.
03 Feb 10
2 edits
Where did I say pretentious
😛
We're reading each other incorrectly [+ my messages are poorly phrased]
"That view is way too simplistic", I disagree, it is how Chess is/should be played🙂
Just keep your pieces & king protected and apply some pressure here and there, make some threats, screw the other guy. That's all that matters.