yureesystem wrote:
... Those who argue never reach 1800 elo ...
"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)
Opening Theory Is Pointless For Most People That Will Ever Play. Why Bother?
Sort:
yureesystem wrote:
... where is your proof that what you say is true, ...
Is proof possible on this sort of issue?
yureesystem wrote:
... What is holding back most players is that they are incompetent in their tactics and will never have decent rating. ...
Why not simply tell such players to do more work on tactics?
yureesystem wrote:
... Why stay at 1200 or lower do something about it that will give you results, and that is not studying opening; ...
Can results be improved by improving one's ability to avoid going "very wrong very quickly"?
yureesystem wrote:
... I am close 2000 in daily and if I continue to study more on tactics and endgame I will go up even higher.
it is perhaps worthwhile to think of the 1974 words of Paul Keres:
".... How should you open a chess game? There is no one correct method, no single course which all students must follow. ..."
yureesystem wrote:
... The amateur who is tactical beast will beat the so call positional player, that is a fact. Every talented junior was superb tactician and is not the other way around "positional".
Do you think it is equally easy for everyone to become a "tactical beast"? Aren't there a good many who have not been a "talented junior"?
yureesystem wrote:
... Who has the higher rating? My highest otb 2110 uscf, very few players get to 2000 elo and I am now at 2010 uscf. I enter any rated fide tournament I will be at 1900 and with some study get to 2000 fide in six months.
Does higher-rating necessarily mean better-at-advising-others?
Before tactics, how do you select your best move? The answer is “strategy”... so maybe it is a matter of studying material appropriate to your level, whatever the subject.
Oct 13, 2017
0
#310
Danny, it's amazing how quickly tactics get involved in chess.
The first move may be driven by abstract considerations, but it quickly becomes tactical, even on move 2 in some cases! Remember, the fastest checkmate possible is a two-mover, and there are many ways to lose in the first five moves. Almost none of those are covered in any depth by "theory" because most masters already know that stuff!
Yes, exactly. It must also be noted that the blunders in class player games tend to happen after one or two serious mistakes have already been made, and they often don't look that much like a tactics problem.
Oct 13, 2017
0
#312
Everyone knows how to get to the 8-9 move mark and think's they're doing well, but they're getting close to 20 moves. After that time you're in the middle game, which means that everything is different for the next few moves, since there are so many possible moves. Which means you can't study for it. So I don't think that studying moves pays off. Doing well in the middle game is best, I guess.
That was my experience at my recent rated OTB tournament... I played 4 games against players rated between 900-1200. There weren’t any big blunders before the middlegame, but plenty of moves where the engine eval changed between 0.5-0.8 pawns without free pawn grabs or “stupid E player who studies openings walked right into a knight fork” moves. A master looked over those games and said there were many examples of weak moves, improper plans, premature release of tension (either pawn tension or pressure on a particular point), misplaced pieces, and lack of awareness of targets.
Oct 14, 2017
0
#314
pawn8888 wrote:
Everyone knows how to get to the 8-9 move mark and think's they're doing well, but they're getting close to 20 moves. ...
I'm guessing you haven't really been following the likes of Magnus Carlsen. He shows that quite often, even strong GMs can get into lost positions by move 9 or 10! There's still a tremendous amount of chess that hasn't been explored, and there are many, many traps that will sting the sleepy chess player.
Oct 14, 2017
0
#315
SmyslovFan wrote:
pawn8888 wrote:
Everyone knows how to get to the 8-9 move mark and think's they're doing well, but they're getting close to 20 moves. ...
I'm guessing you haven't really been following the likes of Magnus Carlsen. He shows that quite often, even strong GMs can get into lost positions by move 9 or 10! There's still a tremendous amount of chess that hasn't been explored, and there are many, many traps that will sting the sleepy chess player.
William Napier put it well, when he said "It is astonishing how much hot water a master can wade into within the first dozen moves, despite a century of opening exploration".
Optimissed wrote:
... This O.P. is fundamentally dishonest ...
I did not agree with the comments, but I thought that they were sincere.
Oct 17, 2017
0
#317
I took Amtrak to the Reno Western States Open this past weekend. On the way back home, someone must have recognized me at the tournament, and asked me to sit with them to go over there games. This person was rated around 1200, and had played up in the C section. 4 losses, and 2 draws. There constant excuse for each loss? "I messed up my opening theory" We went over the games, and i had to inform them that they lost because they missed a simple tactic, hung a piece, or violated opening principles. The person tried to defend there position by saying: "Well i am working on the accellerated dragon" (Shocker) So i asked to see there game(s) with the accellerated dragon? The reply was "I just showed it to you" I had to let them know that playing 1...d5 2...c5 3...g6 is not an accellerated dragon, and that its not even a sicilian. "But it must be...i fianchettoed my bishop"
J.Murakami, made my case, those two games he posted result in miss tactics or mishandle the attack; even among GMs tactics are important and its even more among amateurs level.
yureesystem wrote:
... even among GMs tactics are important and its even more among amateurs level.
Is anyone here arguing that tactics are not important among GMs and not even more important among amateurs?
JMurakami wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
J.Murakami, made my case, those two games he posted result in miss tactics or mishandle the attack; even among GMs tactics are important and its even more among amateurs level.
Chess is mostly solved by tactics. However, it matters the preparation, both before the game and during it so that the pieces are where they have to be. So, saying those games were decided by missed tactics or mishandling the attack is over simplification. Both Geller and Keres knew how to calculate, attack and defend as the best; it's just that they both fell into inferiority due to inaccuracies, and all their tactic abilities couldn't revert the situation.
--------
PS: Bronstein said he couldn't calculate 14.Bxh6 up to a clear position, but thought that the piece activity based on the Nf5 more than compensated the material, based on his experience with the Spanish. Back in 1955, that was as obscure as it gets (piece activity wasn't a concept used in western books). I recall more than a dozen annotators calling it a "positional sacrifice", hehe.
You are too strong to understand that amateurs play really bad, what good is it to get a won position and you don't know how to win it; because you can't attack or you really bad in tactics. How many players in this forum can win the game from Geller vs,Keres, after 18.Bxh6!, its not so easy and most would choke it. Studying tactics for a low rated amateurs does more good than harm, he practice the art of calculating and visualize positions in his mind, and I say about 95% here don't understand positional at all, they talk about the importance of positional skills but they don't implement any sound positional concepts in their games.
... To prove my point how many commenting here and you low rated have not gone to at least 1800 fide or uscf, I bet it is your inadequacy is in tactics. ...
You "prove" something by declaring, "I bet ..."?