Can intelligent person suck at chess, forever?

batgirl

I posted his conclusion or summation from the quotes [which was followed by, "There are a lot of definitions about tactics that are completely useless (and do more to cloud the issue than clarify it).] Anyone who want can go read the article.

 

BobbyTalparov
batgirl wrote:

I posted his conclusion or summation from the quotes [which was followed by, "There are a lot of definitions about tactics that are completely useless (and do more to cloud the issue than clarify it).] Anyone who want can go read the article.

 

And then you went on to draw a conclusion of your own that is not at all supported by the article, nor any other literature on the subject:  "A tactic isn't a series of forcing moves.  That's a combination"

Perhaps Silman's 7-year-old article is mudding things too much.

darkunorthodox88
BobbyTalparov wrote:
batgirl wrote:

I posted his conclusion or summation from the quotes [which was followed by, "There are a lot of definitions about tactics that are completely useless (and do more to cloud the issue than clarify it).] Anyone who want can go read the article.

 

And then you went on to draw a conclusion of your own that is not at all supported by the article, nor any other literature on the subject:  "A tactic isn't a series of forcing moves.  That's a combination"

Perhaps Silman's 7-year-old article is mudding things too much.

well, it just so happens that most of the lower rated puzzles are tactics AND combinations. its the strong ones with many sidelines and silent moves that seem to break the pattern.

DumbCheesPlayer

If you think too much You can simply play classical time format chess.

Colin20G

There is not such thing as "sacrifices", only delayed gains (at best and when the thing works).

Ultimate_Fighter
BrightHour wrote:

 

 

I just started chess 5 mos ago at 39 yrs old. Outside of chess, supposedly i am "above average Intelligence", but no wizard. I am, however, a monomaniac who latches on to something new and spends every moment (even in dreams) of ...most common criticism of those closest to me is that I Think Too Much. Left and Right Brain both work.

 

I thought these seemed like good indicators that chess might be good fit.

 

.... In five months ive played or studied 50+ hours a week: neither me nor my rating suggest I'm not mentally slow and/or simply Can't Get Chess! Is this possible? Common? Surmountable...or my cue to quit the fun fascination enjoyment in chess? I know it's not all about ratings, etc., and I am recogizing some mild improvement/familiarity w fundamental tactics and some openings and some endgames....but....

 

 

I OFTEN FEEL THAT I JUST DON'T (maybe never can)

 

 

"GET IT!?!"

 

 

Opponent Rook moves two squares on back rank for reasons I CANNOT IMAGINE?!?

 

 

Have others experienced anything like this? Did they quit? Any responses, honest, discouraging, sticking w it, "history shows" I'm not locked in to 800 range????

 

 

Side: majority of live games are bullet and blitz of which I've read mixed opinions on value for game improvement.

 

 

 

I Really appreciate ANY responses to this topic

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

I hope this helps

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-99-3-echelon-of-chess

 

 

dk-Ltd
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Brixed wrote:

There are always exceptions, but for the most part, those who continue to struggle at chess do so because they either:

 

— Aren't studying

— Aren't studying enough

or

— Aren't studying in an efficient manner

 

To the common argument ("But some people have been playing for years and haven't improved much") I always feel inclined to ask, "Yes, but in that time, how much have they been studying?"

Playing is not studying.

I would add, "aren't studying the right material" (which may be what you had in mind with "efficient manner").

I know several class E players who insist on reading middle game planning books when they consistently lose games to simple tactics.

Firstly, thanks for the detailed reply on my previous post! I really liked what you wrote about the various levels of threats.

 

Now, about your post above about class E players, have heard it a thousand times, but still don’t get it. My problem is that when I analyze the games after, rarely I find any tactics and very rarely tactics missed.  How being good at tactics will help me to raze hundreds of points above my rank and become a better player? The analysis only reveals that I might have won 1 out of 10 of the games I lost, by being better at tactics. How can that 1 every 10 lost games be that significant? Maybe, it doesn’t apply to all. I lose mostly because of time, over pressing, over reacting and not giving the attention required to my opponent’s moves.  Many times I lose, because my opponent played really well (talking for 1000 blitz, hahaha, but they still play really well and even the analysis agrees).

 

I have a controversial explanation about that too, about why 1 or 2 games every 10 can make a huge difference in rating, at least here in chess.com and in rate levels between 700 – 1800. Because:

  • It is very crowed at those ratings and the skill gap is really small, even though the rating gap can be huge
  • chess is like poker (on lower ratings) and most games are decided by “luck” or factors that you can’t entirely control. Consistently, winning the games which are under your power to win can lead to huge rating improvements, even if those games are relatively few.

If what I say above is true, which you will most probably disagree, then I understand that improvement in tactics can lead to improvement in skill and rating and tactics practice is of the most significance. If not, then I don’t get how can tactics improve my blitz game (I still do tactics anyway). I have about 1800 in chess tempo and about 1100 blitz rating. Tactics don’t seem to help me, maybe others, but not me.

 

Will appreciate your opinion, since what you said about tactics in lower levels is a super common theme, but it doesn’t seem to apply to me.

darkunorthodox88
dk-Ltd wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Brixed wrote:

There are always exceptions, but for the most part, those who continue to struggle at chess do so because they either:

 

— Aren't studying

— Aren't studying enough

or

— Aren't studying in an efficient manner

 

To the common argument ("But some people have been playing for years and haven't improved much") I always feel inclined to ask, "Yes, but in that time, how much have they been studying?"

Playing is not studying.

I would add, "aren't studying the right material" (which may be what you had in mind with "efficient manner").

I know several class E players who insist on reading middle game planning books when they consistently lose games to simple tactics.

Firstly, thanks for the detailed reply on my previous post! I really liked what you wrote about the various levels of threats.

 

Now, about your post above about class E players, have heard it a thousand times, but still don’t get it. My problem is that when I analyze the games after, rarely I find any tactics and very rarely tactics missed.  How being good at tactics will help me to raze hundreds of points above my rank and become a better player? The analysis only reveals that I might have won 1 out of 10 of the games I lost, by being better at tactics. How can that 1 every 10 lost games be that significant? Maybe, it doesn’t apply to all. I lose mostly because of time, over pressing, over reacting and not giving the attention required to my opponent’s moves.  Many times I lose, because my opponent played really well (talking for 1000 blitz, hahaha, but they still play really well and even the analysis agrees).

 

I have a controversial explanation about that too, about why 1 or 2 games every 10 can make a huge difference in rating, at least here in chess.com and in rate levels between 700 – 1800. Because:

  • It is very crowed at those ratings and the skill gap is really small, even though the rating gap can be huge
  • chess is like poker (on lower ratings) and most games are decided by “luck” or factors that you can’t entirely control. Consistently, winning the games which are under your power to win can lead to huge rating improvements, even if those games are relatively few.

If what I say above is true, which you will most probably disagree, then I understand that improvement in tactics can lead to improvement in skill and rating and tactics practice is of the most significance. If not, then I don’t get how can tactics improve my blitz game (I still do tactics anyway). I have about 1800 in chess tempo and about 1100 blitz rating. Tactics don’t seem to help me, maybe others, but not me.

 

Will appreciate your opinion, since what you said about tactics in lower levels is a super common theme, but it doesn’t seem to apply to me.

how much studying do you really need to reach 1500 though? if anyone needed to study to reach 1800, i would say they have no chess talent (this is a different claim from "anyone who studied to get to 1800 has no talent).

 

one of the boradest meanings of the term intelligence is the capacity to use information for a given aim or goal. a person with high intelligence should be more capable of gathering knowledge from merely playing than most. if you add analyzing your own games by yourself/with coach/with engine. even more so. this is probably why its a little hard to believe how ph.ds with less than 1500 strength while trying to get better are even POSSIBLE.

 

my father for example, never studied chess or did tactics, or even play that much other than with me and the rare other player, but i would put his peak at 1600- even 1700 in strength because he had a knack for tactical combinations and learned a lot about openings and strategic ideas while playing me with so many different openings. he learned a lot "through osmosis" and didnt need any studying. you would expect high iq individuals who play all day  for  years to be able to do that.

BobbyTalparov
dk-Ltd wrote:

Firstly, thanks for the detailed reply on my previous post! I really liked what you wrote about the various levels of threats. 

 

You're welcome.  Understanding the threat levels will go a long way to improving your tactical ability.

 

dk-Ltd wrote:

Now, about your post above about class E players, have heard it a thousand times, but still don’t get it. My problem is that when I analyze the games after, rarely I find any tactics and very rarely tactics missed.  How being good at tactics will help me to raze hundreds of points above my rank and become a better player?

There are 2 related things here, so I'll try to address them together.

 

First, if you are below class A level, I can guarantee you have 1 key weakness (and that weakness is what is holding you back):  tactics.  So, if you are class E and reading about middle game strategies, you are simply studying the wrong material to help you improve.  That does not mean you will not learn anything, nor that it will not be helpful later; however, what good is knowing what you should do in a good knight vs bad bishop situation, or an IQP situation, etc., if you are down a clear piece before you get to the middle game?  Now, some people will argue that you should study openings to address that problem; they would be wrong.  It does you no good to know the first 15 moves of a theoretical line if you drop a piece on move 16 because your tactical skills are lacking.

 

Second, learning to analyze your games properly is an important skill for improvement.  I analyze my games using the following method:

  1. Phase 1:  Enter the moves (just the moves, nothing else) into my ChessBase database.
  2. Phase 2:  Go through the game move by move making notes of what I remember thinking about for critical points of the game.  What strategies I was considering.  What tactics I was looking at.  What alternate lines I considered
  3. Phase 3:  Go through and look for tactics I missed (without an engine!)  You will miss some, but as you improve in your tactical ability, you will find more in this step.
  4. Phase 4:  Have an engine review to see if you still missed any tactics.  Make note of any computer lines that you do not understand.
  5. Phase 5:  Review the annotated game with a stronger player.  The stronger player will go over your notes, and be able to help you discern any strange engine lines.

The problem most players have is that they focus on just Phase 4 and ignore the rest.

 

Now, regarding not seeing tactics in your analysis.  Lets take a look at one of your own games to demonstrate this:

 

You missed a chance to win a piece (fork tactic) and then went pawn grabbing when your opponent was creating 3 connected passed pawns so your loan defender was way away from the key area of the board (pawn promotion tactics)

 

As you can see, both you and your opponent made several mistakes (both positional and tactical).  The tactical mistakes were what decided the game.

dk-Ltd wrote:

The analysis only reveals that I might have won 1 out of 10 of the games I lost, by being better at tactics. How can that 1 every 10 lost games be that significant? Maybe, it doesn’t apply to all. I lose mostly because of time, over pressing, over reacting and not giving the attention required to my opponent’s moves.  Many times I lose, because my opponent played really well (talking for 1000 blitz, hahaha, but they still play really well and even the analysis agrees).

I can almost guarantee I can randomly pick any 10 games and find that you made at least 3 tactical mistakes (on average) in each of them.  Improving your tactics does 2 things:  It allows you to identify when you can punish your opponent for a bad move, and it allows you to avoid moves that would lead you into bad situations.  A simple example you'll see a lot of class players make:  they do not like having their knight pinned to their queen or king, so they will play a3/a6 or h3/h6 to avoid letting it happen (there are other consequences to those moves, but this is meant to be a simple example - suffice it to say that there are usually better ways to handle such pins).  They do that because they played enough times to know when they get screwed in a line because they let the knight get pinned.

 

dk-Ltd wrote:

I have a controversial explanation about that too, about why 1 or 2 games every 10 can make a huge difference in rating, at least here in chess.com and in rate levels between 700 – 1800. Because:

  • It is very crowed at those ratings and the skill gap is really small, even though the rating gap can be huge
  • chess is like poker (on lower ratings) and most games are decided by “luck” or factors that you can’t entirely control. Consistently, winning the games which are under your power to win can lead to huge rating improvements, even if those games are relatively few.

If what I say above is true, which you will most probably disagree, then I understand that improvement in tactics can lead to improvement in skill and rating and tactics practice is of the most significance. If not, then I don’t get how can tactics improve my blitz game (I still do tactics anyway). I have about 1800 in chess tempo and about 1100 blitz rating. Tactics don’t seem to help me, maybe others, but not me.

To some extent, you are correct.  However, the difference between a 700 and 1800 is how often they make tactical blunders.  A 700 will blunder several times per game.  An 1800 will usually only make one clear blunder per game.  2000+ rated players typically blunder less than once per game.  2500+ rated players might blunder once in 20 or 30 games.  So, games between sub-1000 players tends to be "who will make the last mistake?"  As you get better at tactics, you become the one not making the last mistake more often, and so you win more.  At the 2200+ level, tactical skills of players are all very high, so they must improve other areas to make a difference (that is where middle game ideas come to play).  You will rarely see a game between 2 sub-2000 players that is not decided by a tactical blunder.

 

Also, realize that you are playing a lot of blitz games.  I would not recommend that as a good path for improvement at your current level (if you enjoy it, so be it, but you really need to play longer time controls to allow your brain to think and calculate the tactical patterns you are still learning).

 

Additionally, if you were winning 30% of your games against evenly rated opponents, your rating would be dropping.  If you improved your tactics and were winning 50% (so 2 more games in every 10), your rating would be staying the same.  If you improved your tactics still and were winning 70% of your games, your rating would be climbing rapidly.  So, the difference between 3/10, 5/10, and 7/10 is rather large (but improving your tactics at your level will have much more drastic changes there).

 

Regarding tactics not helping you:  Are you guessing at the tactics or are you actually calculating them?  Also bear in mind that 1800 on chesstempo is still a "beginner" level tactical rating.  That is, you are still getting very low level puzzles there.  1800 on chess.com will get you some low level puzzles (as low as 1400), but you will also start seeing some master level puzzles (2200).  You cannot really compare your tactical rating to your blitz rating - what you want to do is show improvement in your tactical rating (e.g. start at 400 and work your way up trying to maintain as close to 100% accuracy as possible - John Bartholomew has a YouTube video series demonstrating this, it is worth watching all the way up).

SeniorPatzer

 Bobby Talparov, das ist gut scheiss, man!

mgx9600

Unless a person practices for improvement, then he/she will never improve no matter what IQ.