Yaroslavl wrote:
See my post #46
oh, thank you Yaroslavl. I made my post the same time you made your post #46. Thank you. Now I have some research to do. talk to you all later.
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
Sort:
I want to thank all of you who contributed to this thread. I am a less than mediocre player who reads threads like this which might offer some useful advice.
I would easily rank this as the most interesting and stimulating one I have ever seen. I will ponder it frequently and hope it may help me improve over time.
Nov 22, 2013
0
#44
Jaglavak wrote:
Free advice such as "stop dropping pawns" isn't simple at all if you do not know WHY you are dropping pawns. I suggest that the reason you left all that material hanging is because you have been bamboozled, like I was, into thinking that you evalute a chess postion using concepts that are not not unique (concrete) to chess, in order to come up with the right move.
this is still the most concise and accurate diagnosis of my disease, my chess disease, which exactly explains why I dropped those pawns. I didn't drop them on purpose. Trust me, I was looking for way to protect them; but I had made some earlier moves on the basis of principles I had been bamboozled into believing, that had nothing to do with calculation, and nothing to do with material, had to do with abstract principles, which led me astray on the material board of 64 squares.
I will do my best to forget those principles, and to replace them with materialist calculations.
thank you everyone.
Nov 22, 2013
0
#45
hopeless6 wrote:
I want to thank all of you who contributed to this thread. I am a less than mediocre player who reads threads like this which might offer some useful advice.
I would easily rank this as the most interesting and stimulating one I have ever seen. I will ponder it frequently and hope it may help me improve over time.
oh wow, I'm glad my little question generated such good discussion to help me, and that it helped others too. @hopeless6, thank you very much for posting this. and thanks again to Jaglavak, Yaroslavl, (I find it much easier to remember slavic sounding names than any other, so forgive me if I didn't mention you 
) and the others who contributed to our education.
Jaglavak wrote:
Free advice such as "stop dropping pawns" isn't simple at all if you do not know WHY you are dropping pawns.
I don't intend to oversimplify. The point is that when something isn't going the way you want it to, find out what is preventing you from getting the result you want and then work at correcting the issue . So when your A/C gives out the first step is to figure out what's wrong and the second step is to fix whatever it is. By far the most damaging factor in this game was your loss of several pawns.
..economy of effort suggests that you should play openings that result in similiar pawn stuctres at first).
Golden advice
Let experience and curiosity determine and extend your knowledge with time.
Golden advice
Why in the hell is Yaroslavl spamming the thread quoting every post. Also why is he recommending one of the most theory-heavy openings in existence (Sicilian) to a beginner. Somebodysson, listen to Jaglavak he's made more sense than anyone here.
"consider the possibility that your opponent's opening had some ideas, rather than being a series of pointless moves."
Nope flank openings are bad. Not so bad that Carlsen couldn't annihilate me with them but still pretty bad.
Here's a game I just played. I had a blast being in full control the whole game.
This is a great thread! I´ve tried to illustrate what´s been advised here by so many good players and have constructed what could have turned into a successful attack for you. I´ve not checked everything thoroughly, but you yhould get the gist of what´s happening and the reasons for the moves. It starts at move 13, just click through the (long!) variation!
Nov 22, 2013
0
#48
what do others think of Jaroslavl's suggestions below: I have done a bit of research, and it turns out these suggestions are Horowitz-Reinfeld's suggestion in How to Think Ahead in Chess".
As White I suggest: 1.The London System 2.The Colle System
As Black I suggest: 1. in response to 1.e4 the Sicilian Dragon, 2. In response to 1.d4 Lasker's Defense
Jaglavak, what do you think of these. I'm willing to go with the London and The Colle and related, and really commit to learning those.
What about for Black's side, responding to e4 and d4. Lasker's Defense, which is the first I've heard of it, is a particular line to the QGD, I believe. And the sicilian dragon is something I've never played, but will if people think its a good learning tool. what about a Black response to 1. d4?
Or should I learn the Colle London Torre and use it for both white and black, learn both sides of it?
ok, tha'ts it for tonight. thanks folks.
Nov 22, 2013
0
#49
FromMuToYou wrote:
Yes! I enjoyed your game Mu! Yes, you certainly seemed to know what you were doing, and in control. Nice!
Nov 22, 2013
0
#50
Jaglavak wrote:
All of Jaroslav's suggestions are good, but you the pawns tructes are radically differnt in yur white and black repertore. I would narrow this list down even more. The London, Colle, and Torre Systems generally end up in a Caro Slave formation. So does the Slav, Semi-Slav, and Caro Kann. If I chose the London, I would also choose the Slav (1...d5 2.c4 c6 against 1.d4/c4/Nf3 and the Caro-Kann against 1.e4, because these opening have similiar strategies.
The Dragon against 1.e4 commits you to an attacking style of play, and the closesest similiri stategy (attacking material on the Q-side) I can think of against 1.d4.c4/Nf3 is the Benoni and/or its cousin the Benko Gambit. As an alternative, you could play the KIng's Indian Defense against evey non 1.d4 opening, since it too is an attacking opening.
Before Fischer made master, he played the King's Indiian formatioon for White and Black!
Lasker's Defense cannot be achieved by force, and most players as White won't allow it So that opening, while perfect for simplifing you study, is probably is impractical.
I Play "anti chess". After 1,e4 white wants an open game so I play the French which almosts always ends up in a closed position. In correpsondence I will also play 1..e5 since only one opening even equalizes against this move, the Spanish or Ruy.
Afer 1.d4, white wants a closed game, so I play the Queen's Gambit accepted, or Grunfeld defense to get a sound open position.
Another system in tomplay ...d5 and ...e6 against everything (Queen's Gambit Declined and French). Saves alot of time.
Hope this helps. I would really need to Know your opening ambitions are before I could suggest something that yoiu could play for three years without getting bored.
P.S., your friened you played is right. It is a GOOD idea to play one opening sytem for white and one for black at, least until you have masterd two-move combinations. If the Think Ahead book you mentioned is the one that teaches you to see three moves ahead, it is your NEXT step after mastering the two movers, since most tactical oversights are only two move sequences.
another generous, helpful and excellent post in a generous, helpful and excellent thread. Thank you.
Nov 22, 2013
0
#51
McHeath wrote:
This is a great thread! I´ve tried to illustrate what´s been advised here by so many good players and have constructed what could have turned into a successful attack for you. I´ve not checked everything thoroughly, but you yhould get the gist of what´s happening and the reasons for the moves. It starts at move 13, just click through the (long!) variation!
McHeath, I have to look at this tomorrow. I will. Thank you.
Hi. I missed all the analysis from the players, probably going to read it now, so there might be some repeats or inaccuracies on my part, but I annotated the game for fun. Hope it's helpful!
Additional notes maybe worth playing around with:
14. Rf2 Bxe4 (probably the only move) 15. Ncxe4
So what does black actually do here?
Seems to me like Nc6 or Nd7 are logical continuations, but they seem to be rather lackluster.
Nc6 actually looks like bad news.
16. Qf3! and now, unless ... Qd5 (and maybe Qd7, but then there might be something nice with the fork she's walking into), then there's Knight Check. If taken, white wins the c6 Knight and the a8 Rook for free.
Say, Ke7 to threaten the Knight. Be3 will protect the Knight and attack the black Queen at the same time. And, if the Knight on g8 doesn't take f6, then, Nxg8 is devastatingly bad for black. In any case, probably Bxd4 for the queen and Black has Knight takes bishop on d4 to threaten white's queen in return. It probably has to be the Knight because otherwise the incoming 20. Qa3+ is horrid without the c pawn to push up. ... Bd6 might be aggressive enough and the white queen has enough squares to just not care, but c5 is quite solid looking. Nxc4 grabs the double pawn that's hanging and troubling the bishop.
Castling queenside is bad for black, same charges apply with a free mating net included.
That said, Qd5 looks really really even after staring at it for a long long time.
JonathanLUNG wrote:
Hi. I missed all the analysis from the players, probably going to read it now, so there might be some repeats or inaccuracies on my part, but I annotated the game for fun. Hope it's helpful!
Your analysis is correct like 2/3 of the time.
Well, I can defend/explain things if you'd just point them out :P
Jaglavak wrote:
Thank you for your kind words. I have found that rather than being useful, position terms just give us a way to exaplain away games without any real understanding. How do you get better at converting a space advantage? How do you get better at converting a time advantage? How do you get better at converting a better pawn structure? How do you get better at lnowing what piece to exchange. How can you tell when one is more important than the other? I do not know, but I know what a target is, and how to attack it. When I attack correctly I find that I could exome up with a story that explains it in terms of space, time, pawn structure, and proper exchanges, but it would be just that. A story. During the game, none of that positional stuff is in my head. There are only targets and the squares me and my opponent need to get to them. I win and lose just like your friend did and you do. Win enough material so that all equal trades help you and then chase the opponets remainining pieces off the board with attacks. If you can attack the King, so much the better. Non-master chess is really that simple. Play this way and you will learn by experience what targets are more important than others, and when you need to defend rather than attack. One more thing. Study two move mating and materal winning combination every day, until you can find them instantly.This will gve you another attacking skill: tactical vision. Take care my friend.
Wow, this really is profound. You have a very interesting point that perhaps all of these positional terms overcomplicate something that doesn't need to be! It does seem like anytime I can't find something to do it's because there is no target suitable to attack. Also interesting is your comment that positional concepts explain something after the fact, but don't reflect how chess is actually played! Just targets and squares (maybe open lines too)
I have years of experience and have heard endless pieces of advice, but I've never heard anything quite like this. Obviously everyone will say that having squares and targets is a good thing, but I never considered that not only are these things good, they are perhaps the sole essence of winning chess games! Thanks for the comments: I feel like you've given me a chess epiphany. Maybe if I apply it I will finally cross expert level :P
Nov 23, 2013
0
#56
FishGY wrote:
Whether somebody's already pointed it out or not, 29. Ba1 and 29. Bb2 are fine, if 29... cxb4 then you would play 30. Bxd4 winning the knight for the b pawn.
nobody pointed it out yet, you're the first. thank you.
Nov 23, 2013
0
#57
@Jaglavak: please click on this link. I posted it just now, before I saw the above post from you.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/jaglavak-an-appreciation
Nov 23, 2013
0
#58
Jaglavak wrote:
It may be a coincidence, but this understanding is exacly what allowed me to cross over from calss A to Expert. Even more astounding was what happen to the person who drew me to this conclusion. His name is Stephen Muhammad, and we went to college together in 1987. Stepehen was 2100 at the time and I had been stuck around 1800. He loved everything chess and by speaking with him, debating chess ontology, (and studying tactics - he carried Chess Informant's Combination book around with him at all times) , I made it to 2000 from 1800 in one school year, as a long practicing adult. What is amazing is that this 25 year old 2100 player improved to gain not only the IM title in 2007 he also advanced to the US Closed Championship in 2003. He did this with no formal coaching.
Here is a game of his from that tournament:
thank you for posting Stephen Muhammad's exciting game!
Nov 23, 2013
0
#59
UltraLaser wrote:
As for black the suggestions seem sensible enough, however they completely clash with the opening repertoire for white. If you choose a repertoire that fits together well, then learning an idea in one could mean the same idea could apply to another, so you learn more quickly and more easily.
This is exactly what I'm looking for. I've looked at the Exeter Chess Club stuff before, and what people are saying, which makes some sense to me, is that abstract principles only go so far, at some point a person has to learn some details. Jaglavak is defnitely correct in his appraisal that I make mistakes when I fail to look at concrete material conditions, and instead think about some vague principles I've read somewhere.
So I'm wondering about some openings I could commit to, that will "fit together well" and have ideas that translate one to the other" as you put it, Ultralaser. Do you want to recommend openings that won't clash with each other, and that will allow me to learn and not have to learn too much 'opening theory'? thanks.
Nov 23, 2013
0
#60
tubebender wrote:
I really don`t mean to be cruel but I call a spade a spade. You obviously are not a very good player. Now that we have established this, let`s move on. I don`t know if you play in USCF tournaments, but even if you do, play a little less. Get involved in analysing others games (providing they write down moves). Still play offhand games that are not rated but write down the moves so you can analyse them. In addition to this, join the USCF and play in their correspondence email events. You will learn openings whether you like it or not. This should get you on the path, grasshopper.
oh, I know I'm not very good! That's easy! And, yes, I'm now a member of a (live, in person )chess club, and of a national chess organization, and I play rated 90/+45 games every Monday evening since about twleve weeks now. And I have a rating equivalent to USCF. Its about 700. Maybe less now
. But I am definitely learning. I imagine there will be a ratings jump at some point. I am mainly using these forums to learn more, and to have some fun. I have no ego attached to my chess skill, which is handy, because if my ego was attached I would be devastated. But I am seeing improvement.
Somebodysson wrote:
FromMuToYou wrote:
Yaroslavl wrote:
As I write all in caps this is where you lose a lot of people because of the hard work involved.
To clarify the Opening visualization pattern memory bank includes understanding why the moves are made.
Listen hotshot, fancy terms like "opening visualization pattern memory bank" don't impress me. Does understanding openings require memorizing patterns? Yes, it does. But you are making something which should be relatively simple into something complicated. In fact just in skimming your posts you seem to constantly make simple things sound daunting and terrifyingly hard. I've done well against high ranked tournament players and FIDE masters OTB and generally play a pretty decent game of chess and I'm not even sure if I could checkmate with a knight and bishop if I needed to for the win. I'm not a fan of your rigid outline of techniques shrouded in buzzwords that "[one] must acquire". You reek of pseudo-intellectualism.
different people express themselves differently. I'm less interested in the way they express themselves, and more interested in the content, as long as people are respectful. I'm interested in Yaroslavl's content, and frommutyou's content. they are quite different. Yaroslavl is outlining with borad strokes a training plan over a period of years. Frommutoyou is talking about learning openings ideas.
I anm interested in the multi-year plan Yaroslavl references, because I am currently working at putting together just such a thing. I stayed up till five AM a week ago, putting together a chess curriculum for myself, without much understanding what that involved.
I included in the curriculum endings, middlegames, tactics, checkmate patterns, and beginner positional/strategic ideas.
However, I did not put into the curriculum anything about openings, because I had no idea how to include openings in a beginner curriculum. I 'know' in theory the basic principles of openings, i.e. knights before bishops, centre control, castle, knight on the rim, rooks facing rooks. but I have no idea about any particular openings, nor any idea about how to choose a limited repertoire for my first few years.
Also, more generally, (and this is for Yaroslvl and for Frommutoyou) I still don't understand what it means to choose a repertoire. Does it mean, say I choose, for 1. e4 I choose a giuco piano. What do I do if Balck answers 1. e4 with 1...c5. Do I need a repertoire opening to answer Balcks' sicilian? That's a serious question that I don't know how to answer.
for e.g.
Let's say If I start choosing my 3 white repertoire openings
a) 1. e4 (if 1...e5) 2.Nf3 (if 2...Nc6) 3. Bc4 .
b) 1. e4 (if 1...c5) 2. Nf3 (if 2...d6) 3. c3 now I"m stumped. Do I need to have memorized, or planned, or understood, in advance, a diferent reply to 3...Nf6, 3...Nc6, 3...g6, 3...e6, 3...e5? Does having a repertoire of three openings involve having just three openings that I will follow for any black move orders.
I think what I'm getting it is the following. What is the difference between an "openings repertoire", and an "opening system"?
I think when people write develop an openings repertoire, I understand 'choose an opening system'. I'm quite sure I'm mistaken, but I don't understand how to chosse a repertoire.
You seem, my opponent in the posted game in the first post...I think he was employing an opening system. He told me so after the game. And he told me he employed that exact same opening as white and as black.
In other words, as someone wrote earlier, he was making misndless pawn moves. He had adopted a 'system', and he midnlessly followed that system.
I don't want to do that. And I plan on kicking his butt next time I play him.
I want to beconme a real chess player.
I plan to study tactics, endgames for beginners, checkmate patterns, and I plan to drill those until I can do them in my sleep. No fooling. Also, basics of beginner strategy. Those are non negotiable.
I still want some guidance about openings, how to choose a beginner's openings repertoire, and what that even means.
See my post #46