the opening is one of the last things that one should study. if you know a bunch of book lines, but don't know the principles behind them, then it is useless. in my opinion the opening looked fine. erikido is right about the opposite sides castling.
i hope this helps.
Look here.
If your child's rating is 1300, he should be learning tactics till 1600 USCF. Tactics trainer would be extremely helpful.
While your boy tried his best, I don't think it's a good idea for him to play in a tournament where he is so badly outrated in every single game
I couldn't disagree more.
Just out of curiousity, why? We all know that it's beneficial to play stronger opponents, but when all your opponents are 900 or more points higher rated, I think the benefits are mighty slim and outweighed by the discourgement factor that comes from losing game after game. In fact, when there is no realistic chance of winning, I think there is a danger that the young player will become satisfied with "putting up a good fig ht" instead of trying to win.
From both a learning and a fun point of view, I think this young man would be better served by playing opponents a couple of hundred points higher, where a really good effort on his part might get him a win once in a while
Not going to go into a lengthy discussion, but since I reacted to you I suppose you deserve an answer.
It's a feeling I have. Or a conviction. Of course I can't prove it.
When I learned the rules of chess at age 16 I soon understood what is the best way to improve. And that was to get my a$$ kicked as hard and as often as possible. I moved heaven and earth to be allowed into tournaments with players way above my strength (I didn't have a rating yet).
So when I hit about 1800 strength after about 2 years I was always competing in tournaments 2000-2400 strength.
They annihilated me game after game, and it was tough. But I persisted. I never thought about ratings, couldn't care less. I just wanted to play and play and play and improve. I wanted to know what they knew. But without knowing it I also picked up a lot of bad habits that were almost impossible to filter out of my game later on. In fact I still suffer from that today. Well, I stopped playing actively about a decade ago. But I'm sure the bad habits are still lurking in the background.
I reached +- 2450 Fide without any guidance, training or support since I never was a youthplayer.
I'm sure if I would have had the opportunity to compete and analyse with topplayers at a young/younger age I would have easily reached 2600+.
This because they play and think in such a completely different way than the players I was playing all the time. It's like they play a different game.
NR.
Thank you, chessdragonboge, I will tell him. :)
Erikido23, thank you for the insight; he liked your ideas. Although, not sure I understand why he shouldn't have studied opening theory. He does know the principles of opening theory but wouldn't he have been better off if he knew The Rug Lopez more thoroughly?
Not saying openings should be completely avoided. But, avoiding dropping material is primary goal. I don't seriously study the game much any more and my blitz rating hovers about 1700- I still find I blunder material a lot. The best strategy in the world never works if you hang mate or blunder large amounts of material.
So again openings should not be completely avoided. But, finding the correct ideas and plans in certain openings should be the primary goal. What is the pawn structure, what pawn breaks are we looking for, what pieces are generally bad in the specific opening. Are there any standard sacrifices? These are the things he should be trying to learn in the opening
does your son have a chess.com account i would like to play against him i am not too far from his rating thx
Thank you, chessdragonboge, I will tell him. :)
Erikido23, thank you for the insight; he liked your ideas. Although, not sure I understand why he shouldn't have studied opening theory. He does know the principles of opening theory but wouldn't he have been better off if he knew The Rug Lopez more thoroughly?
Not saying openings should be completely avoided. But, avoiding dropping material is primary goal. I don't seriously study the game much any more and my blitz rating hovers about 1700- I still find I blunder material a lot. The best strategy in the world never works if you hang mate or blunder large amounts of material.
So again openings should not be completely avoided. But, finding the correct ideas and plans in certain openings should be the primary goal. What is the pawn structure, what pawn breaks are we looking for, what pieces are generally bad in the specific opening. Are there any standard sacrifices? These are the things he should be trying to learn in the opening
And to elaborate just a little more on opening theory study aspect. At the lower level rating theory will not be played more often than not. If you understand the strategic ideas in the opening then you will be more prepared to meet out of book moves. You will also be able to (eventually) remember the theory more easily because it gives you context.
I never liked history until college when I had a teacher who taught it like it is story time. Not, this happened on this date and this happened on this date. But, this happened which had this effect etc. He never tested on dates, as long as you understood the time frame and context. This is a good analogy to blindly memorizing moves and understanding what moves are doing.
ChessDragonBoge. Principles behind opening moves 1st, got it! Makes sense.:)
CM Thunder_Penguin. While I agree tactics is important to practice, I think it depends on the person, not just the rating. My son wants to know the "why"behind what he's doing and is happy when he learns something he didn't know, especially about chess. He likes to make logical moves and isn't reckless in his play. Except, that he moves too fast and sometimes sees the danger a beat too late. So, I think it's good to give him good books & arm him with knowledge and give him a solid foundation. Someday, he will access all that he knows and put it into action during his games, and then I think he'll be an excellent chess player. :)
Nobody really - In theory, I agree. I do think at the highest levels they are playing a completely different game. I also wish Magnus Carlsen was our neighbor and would come over daily to play & analyze with my son. :D Sadly, for us, I don't think any chess players in that stratosphere would consent to play my 11 year-old, regularly, if at all. Also, he wouldn't want to play if he never won. It wouldn't be any fun. So, I think a mix of opponents is necessary and playing the board rather than the opponent is important. Then no matter who you're playing; you're practicing the best chess you know. However, your point is taken and I will do my best to find some high rated opponents. :)
Erikido, thank you for explaining all that in detail. I, now, understand what you meant and why you're advised not to study openings too early. We will have to see if there are gaps in his understanding of the principles behind the Ruy Lopez and opening theory in general. I won't overload him with studying lots of openings. However, since he really likes the Ruy Lopez, I feel he should study it, as well. :)
NabeelRafid - he just sent you a challenge. :)
wait he is the guy with 1500 rating
Yes, Nabeel, he has an online chess.com rating of 1545. When I spoke of his rating earlier, I was talking about his USCF rating which is much lower. :)
Nobody really - In theory, I agree. I do think at the highest levels they are playing a completely different game. I also wish Magnus Carlsen was our neighbor and would come over daily to play & analyze with my son. :D Sadly, for us, I don't think any chess players in that stratosphere would consent to play my 11 year-old, regularly, if at all. Also, he wouldn't want to play if he never won. It wouldn't be any fun. So, I think a mix of opponents is necessary and playing the board rather than the opponent is important. Then no matter who you're playing; you're practicing the best chess you know. However, your point is taken and I will do my best to find some high rated opponents. :)
Erikido, thank you for explaining all that in detail. I, now, understand what you meant and why you're advised not to study openings too early. We will have to see if there are gaps in his understanding of the principles behind the Ruy Lopez and opening theory in general. I won't overload him with studying lots of openings. However, since he really likes the Ruy Lopez, I feel he should study it, as well. :)
NabeelRafid - he just sent you a challenge. :)
yes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with studying theory if he enjoys it. I assume fun is number one at this time. When people talk about memorizing opening theory they are saying not that it is bad just that for improvements sake there are more efficient uses of your time. But, we don't always have to be efficient. It is a game after all. Do what makes you enjoy the game more
Thanks, Erikido23. Hopefully we can find a balance between fun and effective. :)
well he fared better than me against a CM master. here it is i played like crap http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=91908586 analysis is appreciated
well he fared better than me against a CM master. here it is i played like crap http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=91908586 analysis is appreciated
no offense but u did play like crap
i know i don't normally play like that
ur son has a great opening choice Fischer exchange variation of Ruy Lopez .......bt m not an expert here.....i can only say this to ur son
Work Hard buddy........ u just need practise and exposure....Good luck...
While your boy tried his best, I don't think it's a good idea for him to play in a tournament where he is so badly outrated in every single game
I couldn't disagree more.
Nobody only plays against Rybka :)
Really though you only improve by playing better players. You won't become world class playing against Patzers.
Imagine playing your entire life never having met someone above 1300 your entire life, and you've never lost a single game. Then going against Magnus Carlson, nothing can prepare you for that.
Thank you, chessdragonboge, I will tell him. :)
Erikido23, thank you for the insight; he liked your ideas. Although, not sure I understand why he shouldn't have studied opening theory. He does know the principles of opening theory but wouldn't he have been better off if he knew The Rug Lopez more thoroughly?