15291 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Also your idea to 'punish' Black by exchanging Queens and leaving his King in the center isn't really a punishment at all, in fact you usually want your King in the center after exchanging Queens and a few pieces anyway so he's already there!
I did a few tactics puzzles and I'm no so sure that information is all that useful. Overall it didn't take long to get to 1300 and the breakdown of skills are about what I would expect.
It's safe to say my tactics are not seriously suffering for my skill level. If anything the small number of puzzles I did do seems to suggest spotting simple mates is a weakness of mine. According to the data I should be learning mating nets which might be a good skill to have. I don't even know what desperado is so I'm not surprised I got 0% on that. Double check I'm also not surprised I got 0% on that. I'm not a big fan of forceing moves just to force a move. Some people are a fan of it, I'm not. Everyone has their own style.
Another thing of interest to note which is not surprising is the time it takes me to solve the problems compaired to the average time spent by others on the puzzles. I play a lot of blitz so I should be faster at spotting things.
I mean really, for everyone who is saying tactics are the way to go, how much time do you spend in that tactical trainer?
You don't get it, do you? Tactics are what determine whether you see a winning sequence that forcibly wins material, or miss it and continue to unnecessarily allow your opponent to fight on. They're also what allow you to see danger and not lose any of your own precious material, at least not without good reason. I mean seriously...isn't it much easier to play a game of chess when you're playing with an extra knight/bishop/rook/etc. against your opponent?Aside from this, it's impossible to have a good sense of chess strategy without having a good foundation in tactics. A large chunk of openings (speaking of this) establish very well known pawn structures after the first 10-15 moves. Many of these structures have pawn breaks that are desireable for one side or the other to achieve. And often times, the only way to make these well-known desireable pawn breaks is through tactics. You only have 3 pieces controlling the d5 square to your opponent's 3 pieces and a pawn, for example, but because you noticed that in pushing ...d5, you also discover an attack against your opponent's queen (or something), you both exploit a tactic and achieve a desireable strategic aim.Now it takes time to learn the common tactical motifs. Instructor and NM Dan Heisman suggests there are roughly 2000 that one needs to know in order to achieve master level status. But go through a few tactical puzzles a day (consistently) and believe me...you'll be amazed at the patterns that you first notice and then proceed to become ingrained with. Eventually, you'll become so good at spotting certain tactics that you can just tell by mere instinct that they're there. You won't even have to consciously try to detect them anymore. And this is precisely the level to which you want to get with tactics.And personally, I've gone through at least 4 tactics books at this point. I have others I'm still working on. And I've spent countless hours on the tactics trainer (check my profile statistics if you don't believe me).Also, another point to be clear on: chess is a war game. Which means it's about trying to force your will on your opponent. The point being that forcing moves, while not always good moves, are what you should be most focused on examining first in any chess position. Start with checks (since those are most forcing), then captures, then threats. Examine all of those moves (even the seemingly ridiculous-looking ones) before examining anything else. Which means yes, play more slow chess and less speed games, because you won't have time to examine every check/capture/threat in a speed game. Speed chess is primarily about instinct and memory. If you already have bad chess-playing habits (which it sounds like you do), then speed games won't help you unlearn them very efficiently.
Here is an article featuring games by beginners reviewed by Dan Heisman.
Tell me what's so great about playing a 15 minute game against someone who is just going to trade off all the pieces and get to a drawn endgame? The idea that most long time control games are going to be high quality is stupid.
This portion looks commentable. Firstly, long time control games may not all be high quality (look at my last few standard games, I missed pieces and missed mates) but they are better than blitz games. More time to think, fewer mistakes on average.
Secondly, what makes you think people will just trade off pieces to reach a drawn endgame? There are multiple issues with that first quoted sentence:
Well, not to launch a personal attack here. These are issues that many beginners (not just yourself) have. If you just want to have fun and improve at your own pace, what you're doing is fine. I play 5|0 for days I can't really be bothered to think and just want a quick fix too. But if you want to get serious and improve as fast as you can, then taking most of the sensible advice from the forum would be good.
Also, to add on to deafzed's points, tactics are the foundation of chess. Strategy and planning means nothing if you miss your opponent's dropped pieces/tactics or worse, give your opponent free pieces/tactics. And talk of a chess "style" is not applicable until you're past 2700 FIDE. (Only half-sarcastic here, the point is that until you can thoroughly understand [?] any position on the board, there is not much style to talk about. Picking between entering dynamically balanced complications or an equal technical game is style. Missing a winning tactic just because you don't like forcing moves or the resulting complications is not style.)
Check this out.
Tactics is a disaster.... I put a few days into the tactical trainer and big deal..... I got up to 1400 according to the tactical trainer. Now my live games are horrible. Straight losses and I'm down to 1100 and falling.
My defence is gone. I'm not paying attention to what my opponent is doing. I might as well be playing blind folded. I'm not reading the position and thinking of a plan. I'm not trying to get my pieces to work together towards that plan. I'm just stairing off into space waiting to find the tactic so I can get a cookie.
Aaaaaaaand that's why you don't just play blitz. You just learned some new stuff and you simply won't be able to use it at speed yet. Everyone goes through this.
You don't wait for tactics, you work to get positions where the tactics favor your plan. Tactics flow naturally from superior positions.
If you're serious about improving then I strongly suggest you take a look at NM Dan Heisman's Novice Nook column:
He focuses a lot on developing your thought process, which is very important and something that just bashing away at the TT won't really teach you. For example: one of the first things you should be doing on your turn is looking at your opponent's move and figuring out why they made it - what threats are they making now that they weren't before? Also, one of the main uses of tactics is actually defensive - to avoid giving tactical opportunities to your opponent, thus keeping your pieces safe.
From what you say above, it sounds like your thought process needs some work. Also, playing longer time controls would help you to improve it.
my rating (national as i dont have fide) is 854, i usually play against people at 1300-1400 etc, and i win most of those games,
Ratings are math. The math does not work that way.
well thats how it is, my rate:854 (now its actually 1012 though) and i beat players at 1300-1400 rating is not everything!
This article seems to match with my experience. It references some openings I've tried and has a lot of ideas for openings I havn't tried yet.
What this implies is that you have (for now) poor chess intuition. Though fear not, for this aspect of your chess-playing can be improved.Second point to note: "Tactics flow from a superior position" (as I believe Fischer is quoted as having said). In other words, your position already has to be better in order for any sort of tactic to ultimately work in your favor.How do you know whether or not your position is better? The short answer is (again) chess intuition. The stronger chess player has better intuition (among other things) than the weaker player. Meaning he can do things like sense danger, insecurity in his oponent's king position, imminent zugzwang, when it's correct to sacrifice material in return for some kind of compensation, etc. better.Oh, and he can typically sense when his position is superior enough such that favorable tactics should be available to him.How does one improve his chess intuition? The best way is to go through annotated master games. The annotations (if they're good at least) will explain the underlying ideas/themes behind certain moves. In other words, they help instill a better sense of strategy.Are you starting to have a better understanding of how tactics and strategy go together and how you can't really separate one facet from the other?
The only reason Fischer became world champ
by Stavros_34 a few minutes ago
Fatal Mistake of the Day
by X_PLAYER_J_X 2 minutes ago
Sideline responses to Nimzo-Indian?
by Reb 2 minutes ago
5/30/2015 - Full Out Assault
by ScaccoLento 4 minutes ago
Grünfeld defence books?
by Reb 6 minutes ago
why didn't chigorin become world champ
by Reb 10 minutes ago
Why is Stockfish making this obviously bad move?
by Tatzelwurm 13 minutes ago
Judit Polgar would of been able to beat all male champions
by alex-rodriguez 18 minutes ago
by ThisisChesstiny 20 minutes ago
Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set
by D2_To_D8 25 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!