Buenos días
Any tips for a slow beginner?
Sort:
Oct 24, 2020
0
#104
Here - I tried to explain things using words and less variations (helps to understand concepts). I also tried to explain how you would go about finding certain moves and ideas.
I did the analysis first without an engine, and then I checked the lines after, and they are sound. There are some moments where I don't understand why you played a certain move, so it would be helpful if you could explain me your thought-processes behind some ideas. If you have any questions, let me know 
It's a lot, but I think the concepts are highly instructive, so I think it would be a good idea to look at them thoroughly. I also have some recommendations for videos, and other things you can do to improve (based off of this game) - just respond to this, and I can give the materials to you. If you have any other games you want analyze then lmk
@wornaki
Oct 24, 2020
0
#105
drobilka wrote:
Here - I tried to explain things using words and less variations (helps to understand concepts). I also tried to explain how you would go about finding certain moves and ideas.
I did the analysis first without an engine, and then I checked the lines after, and they are sound. There are some moments where I don't understand why you played a certain move, so it would be helpful if you could explain me your thought-processes behind some ideas. If you have any questions, let me know
It's a lot, but I think the concepts are highly instructive, so I think it would be a good idea to look at them thoroughly. I also have some recommendations for videos, and other things you can do to improve (based off of this game) - just respond to this, and I can give the materials to you. If you have any other games you want analyze then lmk
@wornaki
Nice comments. I noticed that you run an engine eval on my game. Many of my moves are suspicious on 2 accounts: my and my opponent's level and it's a blitz game. Having said that, you can know get a grasp on the type of play that I play here winning on time on the basis of tactical shots not being that obvious to my opponents. Yes, there were ways for white to play tactically, but a 1K level player is unlikely to find them, much less so in time trouble. For instance, I know for sure it's highly unlikely a beginner will sac a bishop on f7 with check. on move 7 of one of the lines you gave me.
You say you don't understand 23. Nh6... well, I just wanted control over g4. Nothing beyond that. Same with bg4 being a wasted move. The idea was to show I can get there and provoke f3. Sure... white has the C file and can play Rc7 and Ne6 at will, but will he? Well, it turns out he won't. *chuckles*
Ask yourself... as a beginner, would you have noticed many of the lines you have showed me for white? The engine eval says that I made a couple of blunderds, and mistakes. I'm fine with that. However, besides the obvious "mistakes" of b6 and g6 (done on purpose) to play something different, most of my play in that game is dry enough that my opponent would have to see far beyond their level to see how to punish me. And then there's the time factor, working against my opponent.
In conclusion, thank you very much for the game analysis. I actually agree with many of your lines and many of the moves you suggested for both colors. I hardly ever analyze my blitz games, because I consider it rather useless to see variations when I was trying to move rather quickly without allowing obvious tactics and without hanging pieces. If I win, it will most likely be on time.
Oct 24, 2020
0
#106
I ran the engine only after I did the annotations. All the ideas are 100% mine. The main points were intuitional, and I would probably play in blitz myself. Regarding your "level", that's the whole point - we want to get you there
The problem is, if you want to improve, you aren't so much trying to beat players your level, rather, you are trying to get a richer understanding of the game, and amass more positional and tactical knowledge. That's why I pointed out those moves - you need to familiarize yourself with tactical sequences, because most players over 1200 would sac the bishop, and if you want to get to that level, you need to not blunder those moves (its a one move deflection tactic)
But why do you want to control g4? was there some sort of threat? Same with provoking f3, I just don't understand why you want to do that.
As a beginner, I would have found the tactical opportunities, not so much the positional concepts. I started playing two years ago, and was sub 1000 on chess.com for around half that time (one year), and I remember I was good tactically (since tactics are something you can practice and get immediate results), but I had no positional understanding whatsoever.
Okay, i'm really confused here. Are you trying to get better at chess, or just get better at blitz? Because in a classical game, any 1000-ish player would have found the tactical sequences (even the one winning a pawn), it wouldn't be too "beyond their level". You also talk about the time in that context, which is confusing. Again, all your "strategies" are geared around beating players your level, in blitz, and not about trying to get a better understanding of chess. If you just want to get better at playing people your level, and don't actually want to get better at chess, I can't really help there, because you're just going to stick to the same strategies. As a beginner, I used to resort to similar stratagems myself, found success in blitz, but failed miserable in longer games. It took a while to un-learn these bad habits, and set in place new habits focused around improving my chess knowledge, rather than just playing for tricks. It was rough at first, but it netted fast improvement in the long-run. I also fail to see why anyone would make mistakes on purpose.
Sure no problem
I would recommend you play more rapid chess - I'm open to playing some next week.
Oct 24, 2020
0
#107
Typically at my level in blitz... if you don't allow many obvious tactics (that a 1K player can spot immediately) and you play extra fast, then you're likely to flag your opponent. That's why I play this way here. I don't play seriously... I would never play e5 as a reply to e4. If I did, I would never play 2.nf6, i'd rather play the Petrov or the Phillidor then allow an Italian game (which is played annoyingly by people my own level). If I did play 2.nf6 I would never play 3.b6, but I may play a6 or Bc5 (probably not the latter because, while classical, it's annoyingly counterintuitive to me). The obvious point in all this diatribe is simple: the way I play chess here is meant to minimize the chances for obvious tactics from obvious patterns by white and to play a bit unsoundly with white to see if I can spot a tactic or two Some of my last draws, for instance in a bishop's opening (where I lost a rook and a bishop and allowed a devastating queen incursion) or a badly played 1.g3 game with white (was a piece down, after a pawn fork I willingly fell into), I just played for activity and achieved perpetuals. Why? Because that's the typical way it works when you play blitz as if it were bullet at this level 
Oct 24, 2020
0
#108
drobilka wrote:
But why do you want to control g4? was there some sort of threat? Same with provoking f3, I just don't understand why you want to do that.
Simple. I wanted to be annoying. Being annoying in blitz gets your opponent thinking... Their time is consumed with an annoying move (which can be objectively bad), then you win on time
Remember, the way I play here is just for the sake of playing. It's not serious chess
Oct 24, 2020
0
#109
wornaki wrote:
Typically at my level in blitz... if you don't allow many obvious tactics (that a 1K player can spot immediately) and you play extra fast, then you're likely to flag your opponent. That's why I play this way here. I don't play seriously... I would never play e5 as a reply to e4. If I did, I would never play 2.nf6, i'd rather play the Petrov or the Phillidor then allow an Italian game (which is played annoyingly by people my own level). If I did play 2.nf6 I would never play 3.b6, but I may play a6 or Bc5 (probably not the latter because, while classical, it's annoyingly counterintuitive to me). The obvious point in all this diatribe is simple: the way I play chess here is meant to minimize the chances for obvious tactics from obvious patterns by white and to play a bit unsoundly with white to see if I can spot a tactic or two Some of my last draws, for instance in a bishop's opening (where I lost a rook and a bishop and allowed a devastating queen incursion) or a badly played 1.g3 game with white (was a piece down, after a pawn fork I willingly fell into), I just played for activity and achieved perpetuals. Why? Because that's the typical way it works when you play blitz as if it were bullet at this level
See above post. I edited it.
"Okay, i'm really confused here. Are you trying to get better at chess, or just get better at blitz? Because in a classical game, any 1000-ish player would have found the tactical sequences (even the one winning a pawn), it wouldn't be too "beyond their level". You also talk about the time in that context, which is confusing. Again, all your "strategies" are geared around beating players your level, in blitz, and not about trying to get a better understanding of chess. If you just want to get better at playing people your level, and don't actually want to get better at chess, I can't really help there, because you're just going to stick to the same strategies. As a beginner, I used to resort to similar stratagems myself, found success in blitz, but failed miserable in longer games. It took a while to un-learn these bad habits, and set in place new habits focused around improving my chess knowledge, rather than just playing for tricks. It was rough at first, but it netted fast improvement in the long-run. I also fail to see why anyone would make mistakes on purpose"
If you're not playing chess to improve, I can't help, even if I want to, sorry 
Because the advice I'm giving you won't apply in, as you put it, "blitz games against 1k players" - it's advice meant to be applied to richen your understanding of the game, and take you to a ~2000 level in blitz over the course of a year.
I don't see why you were considering getting a coach if you aren't going to play "serious chess"
Oct 24, 2020
0
#110
I want to improve, but for that to occur, I have to get back to serious chess mode. I decided when i first came here that I would not play serious chess (maybe exceptionally I would) in this platform. However, I'm open to playing serious chess elsewhere. My attitude to tactical motifs, positional control and general willingness to calculate are deeper when I get into serious chess mode. My opening repertoire is quite different. My middlegame decisions are generally different. I strive for very different pawn structures...
Once I go back into serious chess mode, I will most likely not come here as often
Oct 24, 2020
0
#111
wornaki wrote:
I want to improve, but for that to occur, I have to get back to serious chess mode. I decided when i first came here that I would not play serious chess (maybe exceptionally I would) in this platform. However, I'm open to playing serious chess elsewhere. My attitude to tactical motifs, positional control and general willingness to calculate are deeper when I get into serious chess mode. My opening repertoire is quite different. My middlegame decisions are generally different. I strive for very different pawn structures...
Once I go back into serious chess mode, I will most likely not come here as often
Sorry for the late response - my laptop died :/
Chess improvement is like running a marathon. What you're doing is running in the opposite direction from the end goal, and expecting everything will be fine when you "finally" decide to start running in the right direction. It doesn't work like that. You have to make up for all the ground - you need to un-learn bad habits, learn proper ones, and work twice as hard, than if you didn't decide to build these bad habits in the first place.
Oct 24, 2020
0
#112
drobilka wrote:
If you're not playing chess to improve, I can't help, even if I want to, sorry Because the advice I'm giving you won't apply in, as you put it, "blitz games against 1k players" - it's advice meant to be applied to richen your understanding of the game, and take you to a ~2000 level in blitz over the course of a year.
I don't see why you were considering getting a coach if you aren't going to play "serious chess"
I tell you what. I'll take your offer of rapid games (15+10 sounds OK, but even 10+0) is fine. That way I think you can help me get better and it won't be in vain, because I will play very differently. I'm willing to do that, just to "prove" that I'm open to learning chess and that I can play seriously enough to "merit" someone like you providing me with very valuable advice. I think that could work for both of us. You would have a willing student to train a bit of your coaching on (if you so want it) and I would get nice analysis and advice. Are you up for that?
Oct 24, 2020
0
#113
wornaki wrote:
drobilka wrote:
If you're not playing chess to improve, I can't help, even if I want to, sorry Because the advice I'm giving you won't apply in, as you put it, "blitz games against 1k players" - it's advice meant to be applied to richen your understanding of the game, and take you to a ~2000 level in blitz over the course of a year.
I don't see why you were considering getting a coach if you aren't going to play "serious chess"
I tell you what. I'll take your offer of rapid games (15+10 sounds OK, but even 10+0) is fine. That way I think you can help me get better and it won't be in vain, because I will play very differently. I'm willing to do that, just to "prove" that I'm open to learning chess and that I can play seriously enough to "merit" someone like you providing me with very valuable advice. I think that could work for both of us. You would have a willing student to train a bit of your coaching on (if you so want it) and I would get nice analysis and advice. Are you up for that?
Yes, of course! I can play sometime next week at this time. (I would play right now, but I think it would be beneficial to give you some time to adjust to rapid time controls, and i'm supposed to be self-studying AP bio rn, and my parents would kill me if they realized I was playing chess instead lol)
All I'm looking for is that you want to improve, and I'm glad to hear you've changed your perspective on this!
Before we play -
- practice some rapid chess
- do some tactics, it doesn't matter how quickly you solve them, I just want you to get the right answers
Looking forward to it, and if you want, you can send me any games/questions you have in the meantime. If you're going to send me games, annotate them with what you were thinking, and send it to me. The annotations don't have to be perfect, i just want explanations, and want to know what you were thinking - ideally don't use an engine.
drobilka wrote:
wornaki wrote:
Typically at my level in blitz... if you don't allow many obvious tactics (that a 1K player can spot immediately) and you play extra fast, then you're likely to flag your opponent. That's why I play this way here. I don't play seriously... I would never play e5 as a reply to e4. If I did, I would never play 2.nf6, i'd rather play the Petrov or the Phillidor then allow an Italian game (which is played annoyingly by people my own level). If I did play 2.nf6 I would never play 3.b6, but I may play a6 or Bc5 (probably not the latter because, while classical, it's annoyingly counterintuitive to me). The obvious point in all this diatribe is simple: the way I play chess here is meant to minimize the chances for obvious tactics from obvious patterns by white and to play a bit unsoundly with white to see if I can spot a tactic or two Some of my last draws, for instance in a bishop's opening (where I lost a rook and a bishop and allowed a devastating queen incursion) or a badly played 1.g3 game with white (was a piece down, after a pawn fork I willingly fell into), I just played for activity and achieved perpetuals. Why? Because that's the typical way it works when you play blitz as if it were bullet at this level
See above post. I edited it.
"Okay, i'm really confused here. Are you trying to get better at chess, or just get better at blitz? Because in a classical game, any 1000-ish player would have found the tactical sequences (even the one winning a pawn), it wouldn't be too "beyond their level". You also talk about the time in that context, which is confusing. Again, all your "strategies" are geared around beating players your level, in blitz, and not about trying to get a better understanding of chess. If you just want to get better at playing people your level, and don't actually want to get better at chess, I can't really help there, because you're just going to stick to the same strategies. As a beginner, I used to resort to similar stratagems myself, found success in blitz, but failed miserable in longer games. It took a while to un-learn these bad habits, and set in place new habits focused around improving my chess knowledge, rather than just playing for tricks. It was rough at first, but it netted fast improvement in the long-run. I also fail to see why anyone would make mistakes on purpose"
If you're not playing chess to improve, I can't help, even if I want to, sorry Because the advice I'm giving you won't apply in, as you put it, "blitz games against 1k players" - it's advice meant to be applied to richen your understanding of the game, and take you to a ~2000 level in blitz over the course of a year.
I don't see why you were considering getting a coach if you aren't going to play "serious chess"
Wornaki has acted delusional on other forum posts.
On one of them, he was complaining that his opponent wouldn't resign in a K vs K and rook endgame because he was too lazy to checkmate the opponent, citing that he had to calculate the rook checkmate out LOL.
”... I take my account here as a ‘joke’ account. ...” - wornaki
"... I shall continue the way it is, right now... playing everything like it was bullet in my account, not playing seriously. ..." - wornaki
"... I think analyzing your games is overrated at the true beginner level. ... I try my best to exchange pieces ... i'd rather develop bad habits than lose all my games ..." - wornaki
Oct 24, 2020
0
#116
chamo2074 wrote:
”... I take my account here as a ‘joke’ account. ...” - wornaki
"... I shall continue the way it is, right now... playing everything like it was bullet in my account, not playing seriously. ..." - wornaki
"... I think analyzing your games is overrated at the true beginner level. ... I try my best to exchange pieces ... i'd rather develop bad habits than lose all my games ..." - wornaki
interesting. how recent were these posts?
Oct 24, 2020
0
#118
chamo2074 wrote:
He expressed interest in changing his habits, though. I'm optimistic.
Hopefully
Oct 24, 2020
0
#120
I have committed to playing serious chess with @drobilka If I ever send him a game to analyze it will be ones in which I played my best. My thought process will be clear for him. Since I will be taking it seriously I will have to cut on the jokey blitz (and maybe even daily) play here, but I will not stop it entirely.
We all have weaknesses (I'll readily admit calculation and deep tactical awareness is mine). I am very fond of closed games and tactical minimization. These days as I'm not playing seriously, I play more classical openings in an unsuccessful effort to like them. But just take a look at this game (bypass the obvious "mistake" of b6, which was played so that we went off theory).
https://www.chess.com/live/game/5628999291
If you compare it to many of my other games here, you will notice 3 things: a) I played a bit more seriously (for instance, taking more time per move), b) I didn't go for any risky tactical shots myself, c) in closed structures my play can be far more intuitive, as well as way more forgiving of my shortcomings.
I don't have a style, but I do have preferences. I want quiet games, I want simple plans and positions that don't require deep calculation while discouraging tactical shots. My rationale is simple. If I win or draw on MY own merits at my level (and not opponent's obvious blunders/mistakes), possibly even beyond that too... it will most likely be because I managed to make easy calculation almost non existent for my opponent.
cool!
i'm eating breakfast rn, but when I finish I'll analyze that for you. i'll try to keep the annotations more text based, focusing on the explanations, rather than variations.