You're gripping your pieces tight - looks like you're keeping them. :(
Looks as though you are unwilling to defend your assessment of the OP's skill, nor to account for your significant blunders in your training game.
Ziryab - Looks like you could lighten up.
Zeriyon - the book I found most helpful (and I have a lot of books I wasted money on) is Chernov - Logical Chess Move by Move. Really good book and explains each move clearly.
Also if you had the book, you can download the games and play through them.
http://www.chess.com/downloads?keyword=logical+chess
Secondly, let's pretend like you have a brain in your head. If its a training game, does one try to slaughter the other player as fast as possible to "help" him?? Of course not. I think you're either trolling or a complete buffoon. Possibly both.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt because you said it was a training game. You choose instead to resort to personal attacks.
What I do not see in that training game is evidence of the skill that you attribute to the OP. Let's assume for the moment that I am as dense as you are well-mannered. Explain to me--very slowly--how skill above 1000 is evident in your training game.
The OP asked fo some advice to improve. You are interfering with an accurate assessment of his skill.
Zeriyon - the book I found most helpful (and I have a lot of books I wasted money on) is Chernov - Logical Chess Move by Move. Really good book and explains each move clearly.
Also if you had the book, you can download the games and play through them.
I concur that this book would be useful, but the OP also needs something presenting very simple tactics. After the first six or seven games in Logical Chess, the tactics will be well beyond his current skill set.
Secondly, let's pretend like you have a brain in your head. If its a training game, does one try to slaughter the other player as fast as possible to "help" him?? Of course not. I think you're either trolling or a complete buffoon. Possibly both.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt because you said it was a training game. You choose instead to resort to personal attacks.
What I do not see in that training game is evidence of the skill that you attribute to the OP. Let's assume for the moment that I am as dense as you are well-mannered. Explain to me--very slowly--how skill above 1000 is evident in your training game.
The OP asked fo some advice to improve. You are interfering with an accurate assessment of his skill.
Look, someone needs to tell you this, the guy played a game in a good natured way. All you can do is find criticisms, and then complain about other peoples manners.
Ruby-Fischer wrote:
Zeriyon - the book I found most helpful (and I have a lot of books I wasted money on) is Chernov - Logical Chess Move by Move. Really good book and explains each move clearly.
Also if you had the book, you can download the games and play through them.
http://www.chess.com/downloads?keyword=logical+chess
I also like the Book, its My all time favorite book.
Even GMs copy him, i cant even remember how often i saw a GM using one of the games as example.ok at the moment i can only remember one
Tetsuo- at last we agree on something...
Secondly, let's pretend like you have a brain in your head. If its a training game, does one try to slaughter the other player as fast as possible to "help" him?? Of course not. I think you're either trolling or a complete buffoon. Possibly both.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt because you said it was a training game. You choose instead to resort to personal attacks.
What I do not see in that training game is evidence of the skill that you attribute to the OP. Let's assume for the moment that I am as dense as you are well-mannered. Explain to me--very slowly--how skill above 1000 is evident in your training game.
The OP asked fo some advice to improve. You are interfering with an accurate assessment of his skill.
Look, someone needs to tell you this, the guy played a game in a good natured way. All you can do is find criticisms, and then complain about other peoples manners.
You haven't read the thread. The OP asked fo help. I offered it.
Someone claimed to have played a training game with the OP and asserts:
I played Zeyrion in an Online slow game. He's pretty decent - much better than 1100, believe me.
I annotated the game. Then Mr_T skirted the challenge to his inaccurate assessment with semantic play followed by personal attacks.
Your advice to read Logical Chess is good, but much of that book is a bit too advanced for the OP before he does some rudimentary work on tactics of the sort that he'll find in Bruce Pandolfini's Beginning Chess.
Why dont you try to look at the ideas you've put forward in light of the actual skill displayed by the OP instead of criticizing those who have taken the time to look at the OP's games.
Even GMs copy him, i cant even remember how often i saw a GM using one of the games as example.ok at the moment i can only remember one
If you read Chernev alongside the authors that he cites (Tarrasch, for instance), you'll quickly discover that GMs are far more likely to be "copying" the original analysis rather than that derived from the original by Chernev. Chernev is a synthesize and a popularizer, and his books are very good for everyone from about 1400 up to and possibly including expert.
Some of his books may be useful for players below 1400. I started with a Chernev book that lifted me from "more terrible than you can imagine" to "better than all my friends". However, I also absorbed some reckless habits that took many years to break (I'll let you know how many years when these habits finally disappear--at least 38).
My first Chernev book: http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2012/03/my-first-chess-book.html
I played Zeyrion in an Online slow game. He's pretty decent - much better than 1100, believe me.
With all due respect sir, nobody is better than their rating .......
and btw 1100 is his live rating, turn-based ratings are about 200 pts higher than live ratings ....
Not true. I was recently rated 1056 (USCF), then last month I played a tournament in Neenah and won my division as well as beat two 1400s, and a 1600, and drew a 1600, and lost to a 1600 and a 1500. Im pretty sure I am better than my rating was. People are often under rated. Think about it. lol
Ziryab: Just cuz you have a high correspondance rating doesn't mean you have the right to talk big.
Ziryab: Just cuz you have a high correspondance rating doesn't mean you have the right to talk big.
You're correct. It is better that those with low ratings share their wisdom concerning the path to improvement. They should be able to offer their advice unchallenged, especially from someone who has coached state champions.
BTW, if the "teacher" in the training game had seen and mentioned the tactics pointed out in the annotated version earlier in this thread, the OP would not be displaying the same un-exploited weakness in his more recent games. Yet, they are there game after game.
2100 for correspondance is a low rating. You can spend a whole day on your moves if you want to. You may be a good coach, you may not. But just cuz you have a ~2100 rating in correspondance doesn't mean you have the right or position to break down other players. We are all trying to help here.
Your other ratings are clearly lower which shows more. JS
2100 for correspondance is a low rating. You can spend a whole day on your moves if you want to. You may be a good coach, you may not. But just cuz you have a ~2100 rating in correspondance doesn't mean you have the right or position to break down other players. We are all trying to help here.
Yes it is low. It only puts me in the top 1500 players on this site. My USCF rating is even lower; I'm only in the top 3000 there.
I'm a patzer. I do not deny that.
Nonetheless, when someone asks for advice on improving his or her skill, and there are prior games that can be examined, I look at these before I offer advice. My advice was based on examining about a dozen games played by the OP.
The attacks began when someone said, He's pretty decent - much better than 1100, believe me.
I looked at the game referenced in that comment and posted it.
Silman is a very popular author right now in chess instruction. His large print and simple english make him very readable.
yes a sentance a page so we feel acompished! i know though that silman is popular, sorry i just couldn't residsit
If a man thinks another is better than such and such a rating, you shouldn't argue with him over it. Stating your oppinion is one thing. Carrying out an arguement in a topic that was meant to help is another.
Zeyrion, I looked at your profile. Why are you playing blitz games? First off, you're a beginner. Beginners should NOT be playing blitz. Second, your blitz rating does not actually represent your true skill. For example, I'm an 1175 blitz but my standard rating is 1450. Standard chess (30 mins per side) is what you should be playing. You won't learn anything if you continue to play blitz. You need time to think to make your moves.
Secondly, let's pretend like you have a brain in your head. If its a training game, does one try to slaughter the other player as fast as possible to "help" him?? Of course not. I think you're either trolling or a complete buffoon. Possibly both.