hello GM! I was wondering about imbalances.... do you have anything that you can share about them? also, what opening do you recommend?
Which brings up an interesting question. Does the word "imbalance" ever creep into your head when you're itting at the chess board?
Silman says all Professional chessplayers think this way. Is he telling us the truth?
hello GM! I was wondering about imbalances.... do you have anything that you can share about them? also, what opening do you recommend?
Which brings up an interesting question. Does the word "imbalance" ever creep into your head when you're itting at the chess board?
Silman says all Professional chessplayers think this way. Is he telling us the truth?
I would say for the most part "No" he is not. The only master I ever had the chance to go through a game with never once mentioned "Imbalances" in the two games that we analizied.
We talked about Threats - creating them, we talked about plans built around pawn struturess, we talked about advantages (could be deemed as an imbalance I guess ie materal advantage is a material imbalance) but we never once went through a game like siliman does and assess imbalances -
this might sound like a daft question, but how can you truly assess whether you have become stronger as a player.
I guess most people can use rating as an indication, but say if a player gets high score of 2000 (if their usual strength is like 1900), how would you know player X is stronger, rather than just a couple of flukey results.
i say this cuz sometimes players might take some breaks and return and drop about 200 ratings points of their usual level, whereas if they were really strong surely they'd be practically the same throughout.
it's very difficult because a lot of the time I am improving in rating, but not exactly sure what I did to do so...
he did do it for at least a few days and answered dozens and dozens of questions. do you expect him to be bound to this thread until the end of time?
yeah, maybe you're right, but i still think it was cool of him to make himself available and answer the questions he did.
Greeting GM Hansen,
I think I love chess very much. Havent develop much achievements before until recently this year, I participate in two (2) local chess tournaments in Malaysia and feel good about it. Besides training online in Chess.com and entering tournaments, what else should I do to increase my Elo Rating and how many hours daily should I dedicate myself to analyse chess endgames?
Thank you for your time. Already follow you on Facebook.
GM erichansen, do you have a check list before every move of your chess tournament's games?., if yes, can you share it? Thanks ..
any only now i realize the man behind this account....
to think ive been watching his stream for the past couple months and have made no connection whatsoever...
You stated you didn't read a chess book until you were a GM. (That's astonishing to me.)
What did you do to reach a high level, besides studying games of GMs?
This GM is just soothing his ego. He claims he hasn't read any theory until GM? First of all that's a tell tale sign you're sh*t at rook endgames. Second, are we expecting you to become WC now you've picked up the books?
Go and sooth your ego some where else you 3rd class excuse of a GM.
I also don't know that Nakamura studied a lot from books.
There's so many online resources nowadays that I could imagine someone (very talented) reaching very high levels without books.
Some people are nuts for chess.
I read a story of two young IMs wanting to improve in rook endgames. Do you think they got a book? No. They decided to map them all out themselves with their own analysis. The story goes they worked for a few months together before realizing good reference material had been published. Then they stopped. But the point is you don't necessarily need books. How many books on chess do you think there were in Capablana's time 
Some people are nuts for chess.
I read a story of two young IMs wanting to improve in rook endgames. Do you think they got a book? No. They decided to map them all out themselves with their own analysis. The story goes they worked for a few months together before realizing good reference material had been published. Then they stopped. But the point is you don't necessarily need books. How many books on chess do you think there were in Capablana's time
Rook endgames are the most complex of endgames. Some are so difficult that they've become a fetish to the theorist. In order to master them you do have to study them, period.
You'd be surprised how so many top players mess them up and the rook is one of the last pieces to come off the board! (Nine times out of ten). In my eyes, all these super GMs spend so much time on opening prep' with a computer to hold their hand they're having total disregard for prep' that is a necessity. ROOK ENDGAMES.
This GM is just soothing his ego. He claims he hasn't read any theory until GM? First of all that's a tell tale sign you're sh*t at rook endgames. Second, are we expecting you to become WC now you've picked up the books?
Go and sooth your ego some where else you 3rd class excuse of a GM.
IMO, He actually came off as extremely normal, HIGHLY intelligent, and very sincere. But, I think he didn't think his OP through very well. This thread turned into A LOT of unanswered questions. haha
Some people are nuts for chess.
How many books on chess do you think there were in Capablana's time
Not much it was pretty sparce pickings..........
Masters who had access to books back then studied the Handbuch des Schachspiels by P.R. Von Bilguer I have a copy of the 1890 edition right here in German, Staunton's Handbook was popular what was published in Chess periodicals from Steinitz's International Chess magazine.
What was published by Tarrasch Nimzovitch and Emmanuel Lasker.
Rook endgames are the most complex of endgames. Some are so difficult that they've become a fetish to the theorist. In order to master them you do have to study them, period.
You'd be surprised how so many top players mess them up and the rook is one of the last pieces to come off the board! (Nine times out of ten). In my eyes, all these super GMs spend so much time on opening prep' with a computer to hold their hand they're having total disregard for prep' that is a necessity. ROOK ENDGAMES.
A few disconnected thoughts:
The only endgame books I know of cover basic positions. To study rook endgames in depth you'd have to do analysis of difficult positions and games yourself.
Rook endgames aren't the most difficult endgame as far as I know. The most difficult practical endgame maybe.
No one "masters" anything in chess... and I think you have to agree that there were world class players before there were chess books beyond the basics.
I know pros mess up all kinds of positions. I think we have to cut them some slack though. I know at the end of my long games I will make odd errors that I can immediately spot in analysis the next day. Often in chess you can have the knowledge but perform poorly anyway.
hello GM! I was wondering about imbalances.... do you have anything that you can share about them?
I'm not a GM, but Silman's "Reassess Your Chess Workbook -- How to Master Chess Imbalances". He gives over 100 problems, and each one gives a summary of the imbalances.