I wanted to ask, respecting the study of tactics. Is it a good idea to study the "1001 ways to checkmate" mentioned? By "study" I mean training on recognizing the patterns contained until you can spot a position on the book and instantly know what's going on (I guess this will imply not only memorizing the positions and the answers, but finding the answer and asking "What clues are present in the position that may alert me that this combination is posible?"). Or, if not, what would be an organized source from which you can learn the two move mating patterns? So far I've been solving puzzles and used www.chesstactics.org, and little by little I'm getting familiarized with different kind of patterns, but I'm curious as to how did the experienced players here tackle the study of tactics when you started out.
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
jojojopo, I just want to remind you, again, that this isn't a thread to discuss general questions of chess pedagogy. You can certainly post your question in a thread on tactics, learning tactics, etc. .There are plenty such threads on chess.com
The quick answer to your question, is yes, of course, learning any patterns, any which way you can, will be helpful. If you find it helpful to consult the tactics server on here at chess.com, chesstactics.org, Weteschnik, Horowitz, chesstempo, Bain, Reinfeld, Coakley, Averbakh, Chernev, Heisman, Yusupov, Alburt, etc., etc., then you will find it helpful. There are hundreds of chess tactics books out there, hundreds of thousands of pages of puzzles. Any way you learn them will be helpful, whether by explanation, or by brute force pattern exposure, or more likely a combination of the two with the emphasis on exposure.
But let's not turn this into a general chess pedagogy thread, nor a chess tactics pedagogy thread, nor a book review thread nor a site review thread. That's not what this thread is for. thanks.
I have a small chess book collection,Reinfeld's book is one of the books I own;I think its a very good workbook.
I love books, I saved a 1795 copy of Philidors "How to Play Chess" when we had to sell everything & would you believe it was in the box that got water damage when we spent a couple of years in a Motorhome!
What a treasure! Is i t possible to restore water damaged texts?
Sadly no, water damage unless superficial is the end, I can't even find the book, I think it was thrown out with the others in a sodden mass of several books glued together. We are still looking for it, if it does turn up I will scan some of it & feature it in my thread on rare & unusual books
Lol
Somebodysson
You, my amigo, are learning very fast. Sitting on your hands seems trivial at first. But, this game we play is a disciplined game. I am especially encouraged by your annotation regarding sitting on your hands. In other words you are well on your way to becoming a "PROFESSIONAL GUNSLINGER"
I will analyze this game soon.
ok. a few things.
1. Jaglavak said that this game was worse than previous games. I agree. I made more moves in this game without carefully considering the move by move implications of the move. I spent less brain power thinking of my moves, made them more quickly, moved more according thoughts rather than calculations. Also, I only now understand that playing the QG, as previously agreed, could have been a sounder approach than the taking up of the new Stonewall, based on the promise of a strong attack. When faced with a few moves that didn't fit in with the stonewall attack, I was caught with a position that made no sense to me.
2. Jaglavak's annotations of my opponent's good moves as good moves is very very helpful to me. It is important for me to develop respect for my opponents, to not think that they will play bad moves for me. Also, his brutal annotations of my half moves is also very important. See below what I say in the next version of my annotation.
I will now go and re-annotate my game. There will likely still be ridiculous maxims, but I will try to do a better job of it.
The following quote from Jaglavak is possibly the most telling. I will have to become more secular in my approach, to quote Jaglavak from an earlier post. I am too much of a believer in the comforting power of maxims.
The comforting power of the maxim is such that even when you are consciously unsure of the moves worth, you will play it anyway!
The following annotation is a truer reflection of my thoughts during the game. I will study Jaglavak's and any other serious annotations, to learn better how to play chess seriously.
Yaroslavl wrote:
I finally remembered that it was GM Ron Henley who told and analyzed 3.cxd5 with me. His assessment of the move is White's capture on d5 is premature. It breaks the tension in the center too soon and the settled situation in the center gives Black a clear plan. Tomorrow I am going to post the first 20 moves of a game together with annotations and a working diagram so that you can play the game on my post. In the interim the first 20 moves of the game are: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.Nc3 Qa5 5.Bd2 Qf5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.h3 h6 8.Qb3 e6 9.g4 Qa5 10.e4 Qb6 11.Qxb6 axb6 12.Bf4 Bb4 13.Bd3 Bxc3 14.bxc3 Kd8 15.Bg3 Bd7 16.a3 Ne7 17.0-0 Bc6 18.Ne5 Rf8 19.f3 Nd7 20.Nxc6+ Bxc6
Yaroslavl! We look forward to the game. This looks like a QGD, and I will study it.
Jaglavak, I redid the annotation. I notated every move, except, I think, for 1 d4. I put in everything that I thought during the game. Its embarrassing, but its true. I guess those people, Silman in Amateur's Miond (which, as everybody who knows me knows by now I haven't read) showing Amateur's faulty thinking. Well, if you can call what I did in this game 'thinking' ...I think tha'ts a bit too generous. I did reacting. I did gambling. I did hoping. I made moves with my eyes half closed, in some cases, like my last move, it looks like I was looking at half the board. Yes, better than half closed it is more like I make moves looking only at a subsection of the board. 'Half moves' is an imprecise term. What you call half moves are moves based on maxim's without looking. I also make a type of move that is a move based, not on a maxim, but based on looking at only half, or less, of the board. that's another type of half move. A 'half-board' move.
Jaglavak, the new every move annotation is in #474.
Got it. You didn't annotate 4...O-O. This castles" as soon as possible". What do you think of that move?
hehe, yeah, I guess I missed that 
. Not a bad move at all, not bad at all.
Sombodysson,I looked over your game and have a few thoughts.I don't know if this a better or worse game,overall than the previous ones you have posted.However,the errors in this game are as striking as the previous ones.
This game went off the rails very early.Moves 3,5,and 6 are all done way too soon.All white is doing is pushing pawns against a king position that can easily stop them with a few pawn pushes of its own,in fact those pushes,like d5,are pawn advances that black will do anyway to grab some share of the center and get it's own pieces out.This will result in whites pawns advanced, but vulnerable,and the white king in a dangerously rickety position.In fact, whites evaluation of the position on move 6 could not be more wrong,c4 won't stop d5,and whites king isn't safe.
Whites move 7 is very risky.White is creating a self-skewer of the Q+R,there is no real threat to Ra8,black can block it and develope multple ways,aiming for moves like Nc6--Bb7--Rb8,then it's the white queen and rook who are threatened.There is no better way to ensure you will be forced onto the defensive than by placing your pieces onto squares where they will surely be attacked and forced to retreat.
White moves 8,9,10 are extremely risky.Single-handedly these three moves place white on the defensive and wreck white's position.These pawn moves can only be answered one way by black,and that way creates severe postional problems for white as well as creates very dangerous tactical threats by black.None of these moves are forced on white,they all were voluntary.By move 10,white faced defending a potential skewer on the a8-h1 diagonal,a half-open e-file to the uncastled king,and a potential discovery on the queen(which will probably be a double-attack to boot),as well as any complex combination working off of any/all of these three elements.From 11 onwards,instead of moving knights and pawns,white needed to be getting his king to safety and moving the Q and R out of the line of fire.Instead whites thinking about attacking...the same mistake seen in every previously posted game.As a note,on move 16,white still had the possiblity of salvaging something from the tactical mess with NxN.
White didn't lose this game because of half-understood maxims,problems of misuderstandings in mobility and targets and move-linking;white lost this game because he violated many/most of the principles of opening play: too many pawn moves,ignoring king safety,refusing to castle, failure to develope pieces, and moving the same pieces multiple times.Adding further problems is a pronounced inability to recognize the difference between a good and bad pawn move,as well as a general lack of understanding of very basic positional fundamentals.As well as the old bugaboo of the only way to meet a threat is a blind counter-attack.
The good news is this is all easly fixanble.First and foremost start by reading up on the basics of strong pawn and weak pawns;the material provided by chess.com is suffienct to completely fix this problem.You are a premium member so you have access to all you need.Next you need to do the same with opening principles,in every game you have posted you are ignoring many of said principles.As long as you continue to do this you are simply going to lose the vast majority of your games.Tactics? You need to develope a method for recognizing danger,both for yourself and your opponent.Dump your openings and play 1.e4 and 1...e5,the less pawn pushing you have to do right now the better.You are choosing to play openings/defenses that require,at the very least, some positional skill,of which you have none,to play successfully.So avoid this issue by playing less postionally demanding openings until the problem gets rectified.And last but not least,your thought process,as exemplified by most of your move notes this game..isn't working...still.Hopefully this will give you some ideas about how to go about fixing some issues.In closing,white was not beaten by blacks good moves,but by whites own blantantly bad ones.The wounds were all self-inflicted.
first, a beginner's question, that I have asked in another forum, and didn't understand the answer. Wolf 183 wrote variations in two different colours, in 16. and 18,16 and 18 in grey and in red. What is the difference between the notes in grey and the notes in red? What does the different color signify?
Jagalvak wrote:
8... exf5 9. gxf5 I realized that g5 then ...Ne4 and black's knight is fine.
Only now does white look to see how black would have responded to g5, so it is too late to determine if there is a way prepare a ‘net’ with a move that would take away the Nf6 escape square and only then playing g4-g5.
Jaglavak, notes like this teach me chess. The idea of preparing a net before making a move, the idea of preparing a future move, is important for me to learn.
as does the following teach me chess
10. fxg6
A bad move, improving the mobility of blacks Nf6 because it puts the Q under a discovered attack after 10...fxg6. Furthermore, once the Nf6 moves f2, only defended by the King, comes under attack.
as does this teach me chess
12... Qe7 eliminates the pin on the c-pawn as the Bb7 is now defended. I mentioned this “looking at the piece that just moved” aspect of chess as a primary of finding ways to win material, and suggested that you use it as part of you three step method.
as does this teach me chess
13. Nc3 Nbd7
The c6-pawn is pinned again. This N is a problem piece for black has it has no forward mobility. 13...Na6 planning ...Ndc7-d6 exchanging off whites Nf4 may have been a better idea.
and Wolf183
10. fxg6?No, no, no. Opening the f-file only exposes your queen to a potential discovered attack. You should leave the pawn on f5, only taking on g6 when you are safe and all your pieces are in position for the attack.
corroborating what Jagalvak wrote above. Thank you Wolf183 for your work.
And thank you everyone. I have LOTS to learn, but as aronchuck and everyone wrote, it won't all get learned in a week, but I"m going to have to start doing something different, and doing it different consistently, to make progress.
the errors in this game are as striking as the previous ones.
your thought process,as exemplified by most of your move notes this game..isn't working...still.Hopefully this will give you some ideas about how to go about fixing some issues.In closing,white was not beaten by blacks good moves,but by whites own blantantly bad ones.The wounds were all self-inflicted.
badger_song, I had to laugh, admittedly, a painful laugh, but a laugh. My thought process is not working. My openings are not working for me. I have a pronounced inability to distinguish between good and bad pawn moves. Although I 'know' the principles of opening play, when I play a game I believe that the realities on the board force me to violate them, and I violate them, unknowingly, at the board. And, I contradict my thought processes from one move to the next.
All true. Aside from that, I'm doing everything right!
Lots to learn. I think its going to take something like discipline. I think I'm going to have to adopt a hyper-skeptical attitude to my own thinking, my own evaluations. Its going to be very difficult. Its hard to be skeptical of one's own 'truths'. Its really hard.
I'm going to keep trying. Next game is Monday night at the chess club.
Sorry for all the pawn moves everyone, and the not castling. At least I could manage in the next game to make a point of consciously not violating those. But I thought I was making targets. I thought my pawns were targetting his pawns. Balls. My pawns were doing nothing but I was trying to play a bastard stonewall that had neither stone, nor wall.
Sorry you lost how you did, I know from experience how frustrating that can be.
Ok, the Stonewall Attack as proposed by Horowitz & Reinfield. I think this is a good opening for your repertoire & will serve you well up to a moderate club level. I used that book for a year or more until I was ready to expand my opening repertoire.
There are several key points to the Stonewall Attack that need to be understood to make it work for you. If you are going to play from a purely tactical stance it may not work so lets see if you should continue with it.
In a previous post I mentioned that a basic understanding of an openings ideas & objectives was something I used in combination with tactical play & the Stonewall is great for tactics once you get the ideas behind it into your head into your head. It is an opening that will leave you floundering if it fails but will set you up for some spectacular victories when it works. It doesn't require much to understand the key points & there are a couple of lines from Black where you have to abandon it & transpose to something else like a Queens Gambit.
So the key points are :
1/- the LSB on d4 is central to the eventual attack & should be preserved if at all possible.
2/- After ….Pf4 your Kings knight is headed for the e5 square where is causes black major headaches. It is supported by the d5 & f4 pawns & if Black attempts to exchange it off recapture is almost always done with the f pawn which then kicks the Knight off f6 if it is there removing a key defender to blacks Kingside & opening the f file for your Rook.
3/- The main weakness for White is the e4 square which should be protected by an early Queens Knight to d2. This does lock in your DSB & the rook on a1 but black suffers from similar problems so don't panic is the key here.
4/- Finally the g4 & g5 pawn push requires a little bit of timing, too early & you don't have the pieces in place to support the attack & too late & black may have set up countermeasures.
The major problem with the book “How to Think Ahead in Chess” is that it completely ignores how to attack a fianchettoed kings position (unless there has been an update to a later edition) & that is by far the best defence from black. If you see an early ….g6 from black it may be better to go to plan B & play a Queens pawn game purely from a tactics standpoint as Jaglavak & others recommend.
5/- There is a key defensive move to preserve your LSB Pc3! It sets up the Stonewall pawn structure & provides a retreat on the b1 – h7 diagonal for the Bishop should black attempt to exchange it off. Without that Bishop all Horowitz & Reinfields work goes down the drain very quickly.
In summary I like the Stonewall Attack for club level play, it has some element of surprise in it & is very solid at that level, so the question here is how much theory behind a chosen opening fits in with the concept of tactical play? I don't think the Stonewall is an opening you can play without at least a bit of theoretical understanding of the underlying concepts but if you do then it is rich in opportunities for tactical play in the middle game & if it works it usually ends in the middle game.
Your game when looked at purely from a Stonewall point of view reflects a lack of depth in understanding the opening. You got some bits right & missed a couple of others. Some openings require more understanding than others as they are designed & have evolved over the years with certain specific concepts in mind & as your focus is on tactics that may make for some difficult choices.
3 of us have read the book, Jaglavak, yourself & myself, maybe others know it too. I adopted its philosophy & used it for about 2 years & it worked for me. I found that is allowed me to focus on 3 openings plus variations & that allowed me to keep things simple & concentrate on other things like tactics etc. So others may have some ideas here. You have to make some sort of choice for your openings the question is what is the best choice?
I see you mentioned my thread on the Stonewall so have another look at the 1st game I posted & compare the difference in how the attacks were set up. It may help you decide whether you want to go further with it or abandon it for more tactical openings.
Heres the link for anyone following this thread & wants to know what the hell I am talking about.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/the-stonewall-attack-in-action-at-club-level?page=1
sorry, that's #453, not #153.