Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Improving at chess


  • 17 months ago · Quote · #21

    Hugh_T_Patterson

    Player longer time control games to start. Dedicate some time each day to study the game, dividing the time between opening, middle and endgame studies. Go through your opening. Are each of your opening moves adhering to good opening principles. Play for development rather than fast attacks. In the middle game try to move your pieces to more active squares before launching an attack. Most players at your level are not good at closed positions so use that to your advantage. Play through as many endgames as possible. Balance study with actual play. Repeat, do not play fast games. While Blitz is fun, it can actually reinforce bad habits. Study master level games. Watch videos, especially those of IM Andrew Martin, who provides great explanations to every move made in the game!

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #22

    pdve

    i see many good ideas here especially the poster who recommended studying tarrasch's ideas.

    i agree with andrei_vine that silman is just a lot of bullcrap. yet a lot of people swear by him. my coach insists that silman is even better then kotov and my coach is a brilliant player, being capable of playing 8 games simultaneously blindfolded!

    i am personally still undecided about silman. personally i like gufeld's chess strategy. but i still have a nagging feeling that i need to perfect the basics first!

    i think at one point of time karpov was asked how one should train at chess and he said not to forget the classics-nimzowitsch, tarrasch, capablanca, alekhine.

    my personal favorite player is alekhine.

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #23

    waffllemaster

    And I can only assume "donkeypunch_anna" knows all about nasty personal attacks.

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #24

    ah93704559

    Good advice here about how to improve at chess. Stop picking on DonkeyPUnch just because she is a girl. It isn't nice and pretty soon guys we wont have any lovely ladies gracing us with their presence if you keep acting childish!

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #25

    Likhit1

    pdve wrote:

    i see many good ideas here especially the poster who recommended studying tarrasch's ideas.

    i agree with andrei_vine that silman is just a lot of bullcrap. yet a lot of people swear by him. my coach insists that silman is even better then kotov and my coach is a brilliant player, being capable of playing 8 games simultaneously blindfolded!

    i am personally still undecided about silman. personally i like gufeld's chess strategy. but i still have a nagging feeling that i need to perfect the basics first!

    i think at one point of time karpov was asked how one should train at chess and he said not to forget the classics-nimzowitsch, tarrasch, capablanca, alekhine.

    my personal favorite player is alekhine.

    I'm not qualified enough to argue with what many great playeres here have said but I myself love Silman's books,I nver get bored while reading them and Ive found it helpful too,but maybe that's just me.

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #26

    Ferric

    ah93704559 wrote:

    I dont buy this crap about avoiding blitz. Blitz is chess. Same rules same everything, just a different amount of time to make your moves in. Your opponent has the same amount of time as you do. You just gotta adjust regardless of what time controls you are playing. I have found improvement (though I admit it is slight) by going over a GM chess game or two every day...daily study of tactics, 15 minutes of Jeremy Silmans reassess your chess edition 4, and 15 minutes on the same authors endgame book. After that, I play an hour or so of blitz and then a couple of 30 minute games against my friend or the computer set on 1650! (I have Fritz)

    I love to play blitz too. I have found that it makes you lazy. 30 min games are still pretty fast and they turn into blitz games in no time at all. Blitz is observation, slower games gets the strategy going. I will never stop playing blitz although.

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #27

    waffllemaster

    IMO Silman's idea at its core is obviously correct.  Assessments and plans exist because there are differences between the two positions.  Whether you want to break it into 7 imbalances, more, or less, the ideas (expressed though the moves) are all true.  And things like pawn structure, initiative, and superior minor pieces inarguably exist in chess.

    In practice things like concrete variations, referencing long term memory, and even intuition may have more to do with finding good moves.  And it's true players often obfuscate what went on during a game, to themselves as much as anyone, by wrapping a narrative around the sequence of moves.  I think Silman's imbalances are aptly described this way.  But the "truth" that's lost through his translation is only to make certain ideas accessible to newer players.  I would never try to stick to his system rigidly when playing a game, but the ideas that exist in the moves and positions he shows are real and make for good instructional material.

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #28

    mldavis617

    Common sense would suggest that learning from multiple sources might be better than sticking to one regimen.  I am always torn between wanting to complete a series of books (Yusupov comes to mind along with others) or to alternate among many recommended authors and books.  In the end, it's a matter of hard work more than a specific source.  There is no other way IMO.

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #29

    jesterville

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #30

    waffllemaster

    LOL jesterville

    Laughing


Back to Top

Post your reply: