Apparently most chess trainers set up a training system based on their student's strengths and weaknesses, and since I don't have a trainer for myself I have decided to play as many games as possible with as many opening systems to determine what kinds of positions and openings work well for me. I hope that will help me determine my 'chess style' as such. I have posted few of my recent games for scrutiny by you guys and hope you can comment on the game and my style by going over few of them.
I suggest you define a few questions to ask you opponent after each game. It is very important to hear how your opponents interprete your game. There is a slight chance of a biased selfevaluation towards what kind of player you would like to be.
Did that make sense?
.
farbror: My general question to everyone is - after viewing the above games..how would you define my chess style. As in what kind of player would u consider me. Its been said that aggressive players should study specific openings to enhance their chances of winning while positional players should use a different set in a likewise manner. So it would be interesting to know what a third person evaluates from these games.
Hello, I just got past 1900 in online chess. So, my basic aim to reach expert level on chess.com is at least alive for now and within grasp. I figure once I reach 2000 without the help of opening database or any other such help, I would start studying chess from the basics up! I think I will start with J. R. Capablanca's book 'Chess Fundamentals' recommended by an old chess enthusiast. I guess that will put me on a solid foundation to go for another classic 'My System' or 'Art of Middle Game' [these are the only books in our library for general chess instruction].
Someone advised me to analyze my own games..so I am putting forth couple of lightly annotated games of mine.
I just crossed 2300 in Tactics trainer..and I am pretty sure I will be getting past 2350 and even 2400 soon enough. But none of that is helping my game I feel. Not many games I play, end up in flourishing tactics or sacrificial combos. Most of my games have been dull drudgery won due to some error by my opponent. Quite franklly I remain suspect of the whole 'Chess is 99% tactics' verdict. Instead I am thinking of turning my attention to solving endgame compositions which are more likely to occur. Any suggestions?
Computer workout is one solution and chesstempo.com is offering endgame problems (2/day for freebie members).
yay ! I've crossed 2140 in online chess without any database help of course and am happy abt it. My aim is to reach a decent 2200 mark here and maintain my rating above it. I still havent started to study any book as yet, but have browsed through the games of Botvinnik, Kamsky and Kramnik so far in the mean time (total 9), and have been impressed to say the least. Hopefully with a slight maturity in the positional judgement I can cross 2200. I am not sure how that relates to an OTB rating but certainly above 1600 USCF I'd say. 600 point inflation is understandable or am I way off the mark here? Here's one of my latest games for your scrutiny.
Hi, I am new to this group and I have no idea what should be addressed in one's training regimen. In any case I don't have a training module per se. I just play chess..have been doing so for around 18 months or so. Almost everyone advises me to select openings etc. according to my style. But I am yet unsure of what my 'chess style' is and how does one go about determining it. Should I let it come through on it's own..or strive to have a particular style. I am not even sure if I already have a distinct style or so. I play chess the old school way - 'whatever works need not be fixed!' Having said that, I would appreciate if some members in here play online games with me and give me feedback on what I lack in my chess education - which I can then address later on making it the focal point of my training. Well good luck to all on your chess endeavors !