My advise is to practice more
Trying to get to 1400
Sort:
Sep 16, 2020
0
#23
I you had bothered to read my post I was talking about PUZZLES.
P. U. Z. Z. L. E. S
Sep 16, 2020
0
#24
I shall re-explain. On puzzles I have a rating around 1900. But when I solve these I am mostly not using calculation. Which is rather puzzling (excuse the pun). So I wonder how high I can get using just pattern recognition.
Sep 16, 2020
0
#25
Sneakiest_Of_Snakes a écrit :
@MarkGrubb Unfortunately, puzzles and actual game application are completely different. When doing a puzzle, you know there's a right move and thus, your mind begins to spot for motifs and ideas you've learned when doing puzzles. In a real game, you don't know when a tactic exists and they usually don't if your opponent is playing decently enough. I've seen some people with 2000+ ratings in tactic trainer but still be around 1000 rating in live chess as they can't get to the positions with tactics in them.
Instead of just practicing tactics (still important to do them!), it's important to garner a positional understanding of the game as well.
Sep 16, 2020
0
#26
MarkGrubb a écrit :
I would have thought harder puzzles would help develop your calculation and visualisation skills, unless I mistunderstand calculation. You need the puzzles to be hard enough that your fast pattern recognition cant help you so you have to find candidate moves based on checks, captures, threats, then calculate the puzzles strongest replies, etc. and visualise the position as it changes. To solve hard puzzles , you'll be evaluating multiple lines in this way, probably 4 to 6 moves deep. If you are doing 5 to 10 puzzles every day like this your calculation skills should strengthen over a few months. Calculating out a mating attack when the king has multiple escape squares and defensive resource is hard work. I'm surprise you've got to 1900 without this.
Here is a game played by a french GM with ONLY Posotional moves;NOT ONE TACTICAL MOVE:
Couldn't see the game but bare in mind that tactics includes the threat of tactics. e.g. an opponent doesn't have to fork two pieces for tactics to exist, the threat of this alone will exert control over squares. If pieces are defended then this is due to the threat of tactics against undefended pieces. IMO it is impossible to play a game without a strong presence of either the execution of threat of tactics.
typo. the execution or threat of tactics.
Sep 16, 2020
0
#29
MarkGrubb a écrit :
typo. the execution or threat of tactics.
Look at it and you may learn something:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=925&v=dzrqYqwkUZM&feature=emb_title
Sep 16, 2020
0
#30
I watched most of the video. Botvinnik System. Some time ago I was tempted, but discovered black can avoid it. Positions tend to be blocked - very Petrosian-esq. I agree that the opening tends to be positional rather than tactical. I am still blunder prone, so I do Tactic Trainer here and low-level tactics elsewhere. I have a sneaking suspicion that practising low-level tactics is perhaps more useful in avoiding blunders. I feel I may be quite advanced positionally but rusty in tactics. It is quite tempting to choose a positional repertoire rather than a sharp one. But I decided this area needs strengthening 'focus on one's weak areas'. Bronstein once said that Botvinnik could only see two moves ahead. This got me thinking that maybe Botvinnik simply broke down long calculation into small tactical chunks. This is making me wonder if that is what I am doing to get as high as 20xx in Tactic Trainer. Which is why I wrote my original post.
Richard, when you do the puzzles are you solving them in chunks or working them out completely in your head? Say it is a 4 move puzzle (but you dont know this at the start) do you go for the strongest move you see (so sort of guess the first move), move the piece, and then look for the next move, and so on. Or are you solving it fully in your head before making any moves?
Sep 16, 2020
0
#32
Mark, I definitely do not solve it all in my head. I make what I intuitively feel is the strongest move. Sometimes I can see two moves ahead, beyond that it is just blurry. This is why I feel encouraged that Botvinnik could only see two moves ahead. Somehow he must have been breaking down the problems into two move chunks.
Sep 16, 2020
0
#33
I think I do this to some extent already. Say I spot a possible knight fork. Unfortunately the square that the knight would land on is defended. So I work backwards. First tactic is remove/decoy piece away from that square. Second tactic is to land my forking knight on that square. So a 4-move tactic broken down into two 2-move tactics. This i why I am wondering whether it is possible to get by without calculation. i.e just being familiar with two move patterns.
I watched the game. It was very interesting, thank you. Black resigned after white doubled up his rooks on the h-file forming a battery, which is a tactic 😁. I know he's a GM but I think their claim of no tactics was based on a very narrow definition. They may have explained in the commentary but my french isn't good enough.
Sep 16, 2020
0
#35
MarkGrubb a écrit :
I watched the game. It was very interesting, thank you. Black resigned after white doubled up his rooks on the h-file forming a battery, which is a tactic 😁. I know he's a GM but I think their claim of no tactics was based on a very narrow definition. They may have explained in the commentary but my french isn't good enough.
The goal was to only improve his pieces and not to look at all for any calculation.
He wanted you to understand that it's possible that someone can win a game without the need of any Any calculations;he play simple move to improve his position.
He never said he was avoiding any tactics;he is showing you that you can win with a very fine strategic play if you work on it like him.
Thanks for watching!
git gud. dats how u get 1400. stop being a luser okay?
@Marie-AnneLiz. Thanks for the summary. I'll watch it again a few times. I managed to follow some of it from arrowd. It was instructive to see how he was manoeuvring his pieces to support his pawn advances.
Sep 17, 2020
0
#38
At your level, focus on tactics. I have said to a countless number of players below 1800 that tactics are what decide games, openings do not really matter at the sub 1800 range, rather focusing on basic opening principles are what you should focus your attention on along with tactics and endgame study.
Sep 17, 2020
0
#39
MarkGrubb a écrit :
@Marie-AnneLiz. Thanks for the summary. I'll watch it again a few times. I managed to follow some of it from arrowd. It was instructive to see how he was manoeuvring his pieces to support his pawn advances.
More than that he explain that with some move he make in the opening he sure to impose his opening and prevent the opponent to use the grunfeld and push them to play the east indian.
Someone help me please!