Reluctance to calculate will sharply limit your potential.
Study players whose games you enjoy. I started with Fischer and Capablanca, whose styles are quite clear and natural.
Who should I study?
Sort:
Dec 20, 2016
0
#3
Openings teach you openings. Endgames teach you chess. (borrowed quote-you can look it up yourself) best wishes moving forward
Thanks for the recommendations. I am not reluctant to calculate, but I am a positional player. Sorry for the confusion.
See a lot of chess videos, it works very well!!!
Dec 20, 2016
0
#6
choose a very strong player or world champion who plays closest to your style to study also it can help to study games from players like Capablanca Petrosian and Karpov
MuensterChess wrote:
"... I ... like to ... avoid calculating if I can evaluate a position instead. ... my endgame technique is lacking. ... Should I study a player which is similar to me, so that I can learn to maximize my style, or ..."
It might be hard to find a book about a player with those characteristics.
Dec 21, 2016
0
#8
MuensterChess wrote:
I'm around 1800 uscf rated, and I'm making a push this upcoming year to 2000. I have many plans for 2017, among them being to study games from famous players. My play style is one which stays flexible, and positional. I also like to stick to the rules, and avoid calculating if I can evaluate a position instead. I seem to do okay in the opening, good at the middle game, but my endgame technique is lacking. So, who should I study? Should I study a player which is similar to me, so that I can learn to maximize my style, or should I study a player that is different from me, so that I can improve my weaknesses? Does who I study even make that much of a difference?
I dunno, entering a position without calculating much is a bit of a gamble IMO. and sticking to the "rules"? who exactly doesn't stick to the rules? are you talking about positional ideas or something? those are definitely not rules.
but anyway, criticism aside, I recommend dvoretsky's books
slowdeath22 wrote:
I dunno, entering a position without calculating much is a bit of a gamble IMO. and sticking to the "rules"? who exactly doesn't stick to the rules? are you talking about positional ideas or something? those are definitely not rules.
but anyway, criticism aside, I recommend dvoretsky's books
Allow me to correct myself. I don't avoid calculating. I was exaggerating my style with that statement. I try to reach a positions which require less calculation, and more evaluating the positional ideas. Sticking to the rules is something that every chess player does, but not every player sticks to the positional "rules" established by famous past players. For instance, Simon Williams, although he is a much better player than most of us, he is notoriously known for bending the rules to create chaos on the board. If I were to go against a style like his, I would steer towards a simple game where I slowly build up an advantage, while my opponent would steer towards positions which require sharp calculation. I should have just said that I am a positional player, because that's simply who I am. Thanks for the recommendation. I already have his endgame manual, and plan to study it this year. It's good to know that other people like his books.
This thread is taken
Fischer seems to have a fairly straightforward style like myself. I probably start by studying his games. Thanks for all the recommendations so far.
MuensterChess كتب:
MuensterChess كتب: I'm around 1800 uscf rated, and I'm making a push this upcoming year to 2000. I have many plans for 2017, among them being to study games from famous players. My play style is one which stays flexible, and positional. I also like to stick to the rules, and avoid calculating if I can evaluate a position instead. I seem to do okay in the opening, good at the middle game, but my endgame technique is lacking. So, who should I study? Should I study a player which is similar to me, so that I can learn to maximize my style, or should I study a player that is different from me, so that I can improve my weaknesses? Does who I study even make that much of a difference?[EDIT]I don't avoid calculating, but I am positional player who sticks to the positional "rules". I still calculate, but I think that evaluating is just as important at times.
I'm around 1800 uscf rated, and I'm making a push this upcoming year to 2000. I have many plans for 2017, among them being to study games from famous players. My play style is one which stays flexible, and positional. I also like to stick to the rules, and avoid calculating if I can evaluate a position instead. I seem to do okay in the opening, good at the middle game, but my endgame technique is lacking. So, who should I study? Should I study a player which is similar to me, so that I can learn to maximize my style, or should I study a player that is different from me, so that I can improve my weaknesses? Does who I study even make that much of a difference?
[EDIT]
I don't avoid calculating, but I am positional player who sticks to the positional "rules". I still calculate, but I think that evaluating is just as important at times.
From your description of your playing style, it sounds like you might like...
"Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy" by John Watson...
https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Modern-Chess-Strategy-Watson/dp/1901983072/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
the book is provocative in that it challenges some conventional dogma relating to positional play and strategy....
also of possible interest...
"Learn From the Legends..." by Mihail Marin...
https://www.amazon.com/Learn-Legends-Chess-Champions-their/dp/1784830046/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482330048&sr=1-1&keywords=learn+from+the+legends
Those look like wonderful books. Thanks very much. It seems as though it is just as important to improve on weaknesses, and strengths.
Dec 21, 2016
0
#15
MuensterChess wrote:
Thanks for the recommendations. I am not reluctant to calculate, but I am a positional player. Sorry for the confusion.
Saying "I am a positional player" is just as bad as saying "I don't calculate".
So many amateurs go around saying that they are a Positional Player, or a Tactical Player, or a player that is ADD or ADHD with no patience for games over 25 moves, or a myriad of other limiting factors that will make you a complete failure!
You must ALWAYS have a strong positional grasp of what is going on!
You must ALWAYS have an eye open for tactical combinations that are available!
You must ALWAYS realize that chess is a 2-player game. You may like a slow, positional game, or you may like the French Defense, but all factors about chess require two! You can't force your own desires in the position and expect to succeed!
Classic case: You have a position where there is a "safe" knight move to d2 and a "risky" knight sacrifice on f7 that will cause fireworks in the position and possibly a King Hunt.
A "positional player" will play the "Safe" knight move.
A "wild tactical player" will play the "Risky" knight sac.
A "chess player" will evaluate both scenarios and play what is appropriate for the position! If it calls for breaking open the center, and waiting will just allow the opponent to catch up in development. If it calls for safe, sound moves because the opponent currently lacks a weakness, then patience is necessary.
All chess biases will slow you down! Just the hard facts!
MuensterChess wrote:
I'm around 1800 uscf rated, and I'm making a push this upcoming year to 2000. I have many plans for 2017, among them being to study games from famous players. My play style is one which stays flexible, and positional. I also like to stick to the rules, and avoid calculating if I can evaluate a position instead. I seem to do okay in the opening, good at the middle game, but my endgame technique is lacking. So, who should I study? Should I study a player which is similar to me, so that I can learn to maximize my style, or should I study a player that is different from me, so that I can improve my weaknesses? Does who I study even make that much of a difference?
[EDIT]
I don't avoid calculating, but I am positional player who sticks to the positional "rules". I still calculate, but I think that evaluating is just as important at times.
"I don't avoid calculating, but I am positional player who sticks to the positional "rules". I still calculate, but I think that evaluating is just as important at times."
You re the player that i love being paired against in tournaments. As soon as i hear these players saying these things, i start praying we are in the same section. The best piece of advice i can give you is to grow past this "Im a positional player" "Im a tactical player" nonsense. All its doing is slowing your growth.
Play the board, not the style.
"... these days all grandmasters know very well that chess isn't only about playing good moves. In the majority of positions, there are a number of possible moves of roughly equal merit, ..." - GM John Nunn (2014)
chesster3145 wrote (~11 days ago):
... Karpov himself said: "Although I may have cause to prefer a slow positional grind over complicated tactics, if the position offers me only one objectively good choice, I take it!"
*this quote is not exact*
"... If it is quite clear that you are winning most of the tactical slugfests that occur in your games, you may wish to make tactical play the central aspect of your game. ... If, on the other hand, no further progress is being made after 6-12 months of tactical training, it is likely that you are at a point of diminishing or zero returns. If you are still losing games through tactical mistakes, try to dampen the tactical potential of your games ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)
RussBell wrote:
From your description of your playing style, it sounds like you might like...
"Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy" by John Watson...
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708094414/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/smcs.pdf
RussBell wrote:
... also of possible interest...
"Learn From the Legends..." by Mihail Marin...
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708233457/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review500.pdf
I'm around 1800 uscf rated, and I'm making a push this upcoming year to 2000. I have many plans for 2017, among them being to study games from famous players. My play style is one which stays flexible, and positional. I also like to stick to the rules, and avoid calculating if I can evaluate a position instead. I seem to do okay in the opening, good at the middle game, but my endgame technique is lacking. So, who should I study? Should I study a player which is similar to me, so that I can learn to maximize my style, or should I study a player that is different from me, so that I can improve my weaknesses? Does who I study even make that much of a difference?
[EDIT]
I don't avoid calculating, but I am positional player who sticks to the positional "rules". I still calculate, but I think that evaluating is just as important at times.