When? I'd say somewhere around 1400!
Well, I mean during the game. Should I begin during the mid game or end game or the opening?
There are a lot of traps in the opening, so probably you should start as early as possible.
but what's the chance of me having a game like that though?
thats typical cafe chess...just playing without being aware of what you are doibg. My local cafe chess buddies play that way and often complain that they think they play worse against me than normal...because they just striaght up hang pieces. I explained that I actually know exactly what blunders they will make in any position,...its easy...so i just direct the game towards a position where they will make that blunder. First they didnt believe me but i proved it by calling out their blunders right before they moved. Seriously...you make yourself like a robot when you dont think.
After you've mastered finding all forcing moves for both sides, meaning you no longer hang pieces or miss tactics.. then what else is left that needs improvement?
After you've mastered finding all forcing moves for both sides, meaning you no longer hang pieces or miss tactics.. then what else is left that needs improvement?
shell_knight was hinting at this above, but one of the key things you need to do is build a position where a crowning combination would make sense. You seize the centre, bring your pieces out, find a safe place for your king, try to keep your pieces coordinated, look for weaknesses in your opponent's set-up, and target them. A winning combination is only the logical culmination of the groundwork you lay earlier in the game.
I have been using the tactics trainer here and this new method that I've discovered (finding forcing moves) is actually making solving tactics here more enjoyable and less confusion.
After you've mastered finding all forcing moves for both sides, meaning you no longer hang pieces or miss tactics.. then what else is left that needs improvement?
shell_knight was hinting at this above, but one of the key things you need to do is build a position where a crowning combination would make sense. You seize the centre, bring your pieces out, find a safe place for your king, try to keep your pieces coordinated, look for weaknesses in your opponent's set-up, and target them. A winning combinationis only the logical culmination of the groundwork you lay earlier in the game.
I'm starting to think you are Fabiano.
I'm starting to think you are Fabiano.
I get that a lot. I think it's just the sunglasses.
I'm deliberately coming back to this article and rereading everything you suggested and it really starts to make sense. I feel like I'm internalizing these ideas.
I'm going to take a practical approach towards analyzing all games not just my games, but every game by looking for the most forcing moves for every different position during a game.
Should I do this for both sides or just my side and when do I do this?
of course you have to do it for both sides.
Here's a tricky one:
Using this puzzle as an example. Looking for forcing moves makes solving them much easier. Always look for frcing moves first:
1. Are there any checks?
2. Are there any captures?
3. Are there any threats?
There are 2 checks - Nf6+, and Qf7+ Now you have 2 lines you need to calculate out to see if they work.
22.Nf6+ Bf6 loses a piece, and now the only foricng move white has is 23.Qf6 which loses the queen.
22.Qf7+ Kf7 23.Be6++
If there were no checks, then you would look for any captures. You will look for all captures, even the bad ones. This helps you to see the entire board.
And if there are no captures, you llok for any threats.
Are you confient that's the correct order of sequence? Check for checks as the first thing, then captures, then threats.
So it's safe that I work on detecting all checks for a good amount of games before I move onto mastering looking for captures.
look at every single one for both sides. You dont need to go into huge depth, but at least note all the responses for each forcing move. If anything looks interesting you can examine further.
Honestly, I had no idea chess was that simple. When I play, I really don't look for checks or captures. I just subconsciously play without being aware of what I'm doing.
not only are people who play 'subconciously' going to sometimes miss simple tactics...they also are extremely predictable. Its very easy to trick someone who plays this way.
Been thinking about what you said. You're right, I feel like I am very predictable when playing against a stronger or of equal strength opponent. Now I know why. They have considered all possible forcing moves and utilizing that in their planning.
So once I get better at seeing forcing moves in any game, what's next towards improvement? So is that why stronger players draw so frequently with another top player is because they are all seeing every forcing moves in positions?
What about in bullet? Do stronger players see all forcing moves in bullet instantaneously?
Here's a tricky one:
Using this puzzle as an example. Looking for forcing moves makes solving them much easier. Always look for frcing moves first:
1. Are there any checks?
2. Are there any captures?
3. Are there any threats?
There are 2 checks - Nf6+, and Qf7+ Now you have 2 lines you need to calculate out to see if they work.
22.Nf6+ Bf6 loses a piece, and now the only foricng move white has is 23.Qf6 which loses the queen.
22.Qf7+ Kf7 23.Be6++
If there were no checks, then you would look for any captures. You will look for all captures, even the bad ones. This helps you to see the entire board.
And if there are no captures, you llok for any threats.
Are you confient that's the correct order of sequence? Check for checks as the first thing, then captures, then threats.
So it's safe that I work on detecting all checks for a good amount of games before I move onto mastering looking for captures.
As a general guideline its checks, captures, and threats.
Checks - Obviously because it requires a King move. Now thats limiting your opponents choices :-)
Captures - Gains a piece, and can force yur opponent to capture back
Threats - I do threats last for the ssame reasons i gave above.
Again, these are guidelines, and the positin will dictate what you need to do. Calculating forcing moves first makes your job easier.
I just had a revelation. If you haven't already answered this then this would be the time but I think you've already answered it. When analyzing your own games where you've lost, do you go back to look for forcing moves as the very first thing in the process before analyzing the most threatening moves? Now it feels like analyzing will take a great deal of effort for both sides since I have to considered all forcing moves and captures and threats.
What is the difference between a forcing move and a threat? In general, a forcing move contains a threat.
based on what I've read so far, forcing move could be like a position where you take a pawn that's already heavily guarded, basically throwing pieces away with with checks and capture and a threat would be a sequence of moves that actually will win the game. There was a lesson in the chess mentor where you have to note down evrey forcing moves in a position EVEN if you're giving away material. That being the first layer of visualization I'm guessing.
What is the difference between a forcing move and a threat? In general, a forcing move contains a threat.
For example in a game that someone posted above, the move Bxf6 was suggested. That person noted that as a forcing move although it wasn't played in the game. Or maybe you mean every capture is a threat?
Bxf6 doesn't seem threatening when it's guarded by a pawn.
I feel liek I'm not up to pair talking about stuff with 2000+ pointers (Fiveofsowrds, alexsmohr) so I will just say nothing instead of making a fool out of myself.
also, remember that you do not need to calculate in every position. You only need to calculate when there is "contact" between the pieces. In other "quiet" positions there might not be any checks or captures, and those positions require a different thought process.
That's the "when" to calculate. On "how" to calculate that is a skill you can learn, and apply when doing puzzles. At first it will be very hard, you'll make a lot of mistakes, probably get some headaches, and you'll probably miss lots of ideas/moves. But keep at it, and ultimately it will get easier.
I feel liek I'm not up to pair talking about stuff with 2000+ pointers (Fiveofsowrds, alexsmohr) so I will just say nothing instead of making a fool out of myself.
Huh, I'm glad they are responding since they know what works and what doesn't.
also, remember that you do not need to calculate in every position. You only need to calculate when there is "contact" between the pieces. In other "quiet" positions there might not be any checks or captures, and those positions require a different thought process.
That's the "when" to calculate. On "how" to calculate that is a skill you can learn, and apply when doing puzzles. At first it will be very hard, you'll make a lot of mistakes, probably get some headaches, and you'll probably miss lots of ideas/moves. But keep at it, and ultimately it will get easier.
One thing I discovered which led me to this revelation is that I have to consider every possibility in this game which means I have to visualize moves that I wouldn't play, moves that are less forcing than others but still must come to my awareness during the game.
I've come to discover that this the only way I'd feel comfortable at the board.
I've been looking for a solid explanation about this for a long time and finally this is making sense to me. I'm just going to try it out for a while.
I have learned from a few people that forcing moves are not really that important.
Why are they not important?
Riv4L wrote:
One thing I discovered which led me to this revelation is that I have to consider every possibility in this game which means I have to visualize moves that I wouldn't play, moves that are less forcing than others but still must come to my awareness during the game.
I've come to discover that this the only way I'd feel comfortable at the board.
I've been looking for a solid explanation about this for a long time and finally this is making sense to me. I'm just going to try it out for a while.
You most definitely do not have to consider every possible move in all positions. Do you mean instead possible responses by your opponent? That is actually easier than you might imagine.
For example in response to a regular check, there are only three possible ways to respond (capture, block, or move). Yes, you need to consider all three. But if it is a knight check you only have to consider two (capture and move...blocking is not possible). If it is a double check you only have to consider one (move...capturing and blocking are not legal).
Or let's say a bishop is threatening your queen. You still have the same basic defensive ideas (capture, block, move your queen) but you can also now (legally) defend your queen, and you can launch a counter-attack. In that position, it would be a total waste of time to completely calculate all of your checks, captures, and threats. Instead, you only need to look for moves that create an equal or greater threat. That would include attacking your opponent's queen with your minor piece (an equal threat) or you could attack the queen with a pawn (greater threat) or go for his king (greater threat).
Knowing what defensive replies are available helps you become a better attacker, and improves your ability to calculate.
When I'm drunk, I usually don't touch the chess piece. I do, however, touch the steering wheel. However, I must use my bike now as I have no drivers license anymore.
look at every single one for both sides. You dont need to go into huge depth, but at least note all the responses for each forcing move. If anything looks interesting you can examine further.
Honestly, I had no idea chess was that simple. When I play, I really don't look for checks or captures. I just subconsciously play without being aware of what I'm doing.
Heisman says that those who don't have a habit of looking at all forcing moves are artificially limited to U1600 tournament elo as they are never completely safe from 1 move blunders.
Chess is that simple? Well I suppose. Congrats on discovering one of the necessary (but not sufficient) conditions of rising past class C due to e.g. not moving pieces to undefended squares that are attacked.