dpruess wrote:
...now, i also hinted (or promised) to various people that i'd have another suggestion about studying. here it is, i hope you're thrilled:
Great workouts. The middle game exercises are fun. Thanks!
Chess Advice most chess players don't like to hear
Sort:
Chess advice most chess players don't like to hear.
Keep the chess pieces clean 
Real pieces are so 1990.
orangehonda wrote:
Elubas wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Ironically, I'm trying to master imbalanced and instructive openings to better my game. I feel if I get a really good understanding of the french, ruy lopez, sicilian, queen's gambit, and king's indian (among many others in fact, such as the dutch and benoni, but these would be my big 5) and learn from the masters playing these openings I will significantly improve from where I am now. That takes a ton of hard work though, but in any case at least it's fun to look at those strategically and tactically complex openings, AS LONG as you aren't reading theory like a zombie, you need to try to find your own moves and try to understand it.
After trying to navigate some very sharp openings through memorization (I know that's a bad way to do it) I'm taking something of a similar approach. Even though I'm not a 1.d4 player I'm trying to understand the basic ideas behind many different types of opening structures. Going back to opening's I can wrap my head around and leaving my memorized knowledge earlier to substitute a clear plan is satisfying and improved my results (in club games). I went into some IQP/panov positions on purpose for about the first time ever lol.
Not only does memorization help you less, for me it's often just plain boring to just stare at, but when I actively try to figure out what's going on and maybe even analyze some moves before seeing what theory suggests, it's a lot more fun and helpful. And in fact I'm loosely involved in the sicilian (play a couple rarer variations, don't play e4 anymore) and I don't even play the ruy lopez from either side but it's still very instructive looking at those games.
You mention the ruy and how you study but don't play it. It's interesting isn't it? Even if you don't actually play the specific opening moves seeing different ideas is useful and can even come up from some completely different opening. I just started experimenting doing this to broaden what I know, but surprisingly it turned out to be useful quickly. Might by a bit silly that I get excited over something like this... but I really like chess
This is why I think the openings are so underrated these days (as a way of studying). Another fantastic training tool is to analyse interesting looking opening lines all by yourself for a long time and check how you did. It combines every skill you need in chess to find the right plan, and calculate them accurately. I think the reason for this "opening prejudice" is because once people saw memorization didn't help they just forgot about openings helping your game.
I just love to look at the philosophy of an opening like the french or ruy lopez, and see how it is carried out. These opening struggles can continue throughout the whole game and often sides keep giving up some advantages for another.
The ruy lopez, with its central pressure, forces black to either take on e4 or cope with d4 and try to hold his own in a closed structure, which branches off into so many other different plans. I just find that remarkable. How can studying the middlegame that arises from a closed ruy not be really helpful for closed games?
eddiewsox wrote:
I have too many games going, I don't like anaalyze past games either and don't like to study in general.
i can really relate to this i have games going on other sites.
It all depends on your level. Not dropping pieces is fantastic, anthony (such a simple thing makes a player so much harder to beat), but now that I'm finally starting to face 2000+ opposition it becomes increasingly important that I get positions with strategically positive chances and to not be completely on the defensive, because they don't screw these positions up. Maybe with super strong defense I can draw, but no better than that and I would lose most of the time in those passive positions.
dpruess wrote:
you got it! :-)
15 min on tactics trainer, watch the day's video, and spend an hour on chess mentor. if you want to get more than 2 hours per day out of your diamond membership, just send me a message, and i'll give you some more work.
:(
dpruess wrote:
you got it! :-)
15 min on tactics trainer, watch the day's video, and spend an hour on chess mentor. if you want to get more than 2 hours per day out of your diamond membership, just send me a message, and i'll give you some more work.
I guess it didn't work for him since he's not a premium member anymore.
zankfrappa wrote:
IM Pruess,
Okay, I am going to spend only 15 minutes per day on Tactics Trainer. I guess I
feel like since I paid for a Premium Membership I should get my money's worth.
I will spend more time on Chess Mentor and analyzing instead. T
DIdn't work, I guess.
15 minutes on Tactics Trainer, watch the day's video, and an hour on Chess Mentor. That will be my formula. My goal is reach 1800+ :-)
Is it really detrimental to do tactics more than 15 minutes a day?
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
Shivsky wrote:
NM Dan Heisman has a lot to say about roadblocks that we seem to be in denial about.
Shivsky, thanks for this link. I wasn't aware of Heisman's monthly columns at chesscafe.com (or all the other resources), and I've already found a couple gems scanning through his column titles. For others, here's a more general link to a list of his archived columns for the past 9 years (scan up and down the page from there for other columnists' archives):
http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Novice Nook
EDIT: The link refuses to let me include the last portion because they used a space in their anchor name. The URL should end in Novice{space}Nook.
Love this thread and love Novice Nook. Thanks Shivsky and Cystem_Phailure for sharing this gem (and thanks, chess.com, for not getting uptight about links to competitors. ).
One thing I've been wondering is what's the difference between Tactics Trainer vs Chess Mentor vs Computer Workout? In one post IM Pruess said something about 15 minutes of TT, 1 hour of CM. Why does CM warrent an hour? (I actually started going through CM sequentially (by average course rating) until I got to the point where I was just guessing and not understanding the problems. After reading this thread and Novice Nook, I switched to doing Tactics Trainer.
Another thing: Some advice from Novice Nook says, "Buy a book or software with hundreds of basic tactical motif problems (pins, double attacks, removal of the guard, etc.) and study it until you can do each problem quickly." Does Tactics Trainer ever repeat problems? I'm not sure how literally I should take this to mean "repeat the same problem." Is it more useful to do the same problems over and over until you kmow it by heart or does doing hundreds of problems with the same general ideas, but not repeating each other, teach the same thing? I love the interactivity of TT and CM on here but it'd be easier to repeat problems in a book (or a off-the-shelf software program). Will patterns become recognizable even if the position of the problem are never (or rarely) repeated. Is it like math, where once you know how to solve a quadratic equation, it doesn't matter what the number values are?
Jul 30, 2011
0
#114
Don't get drunk before you play ... Don't drink too much coffee before you play
That you actually have to study tactics and endgames. When asking yourself what to study, first ask yourself what you would most hate to study, then study that. For me, it was endgames and those really sharp positions that you can't quite figure out (I like to know everything so it frustrates me :P).
When going over your games, pinpoint the most awful ideas you came up with and figure out what planet they came from.
Actually set up positions from a book on the board and try to solve everything before you look at the moves played.
Really, if those bits of advice were actually followed, everyone would become an expert quickly.
Chess_Enigma wrote:
Blindfold chess doesn't help your game... Is one I dislike hearing.
lalala i cant hear you.
Jul 31, 2011
0
#117
dpruess wrote:
atos, yes of course every pattern was discovered for the first time once... and probably by hundreds of people independently. but the first time can take a very long time. the fastest way to learn new patterns is to be shown them, e.g. by the solution key. you could spend an hour, exhaustively solving every problem and learn a couple new patterns, or you could spend 10-15 min.
there is also a place for stretching your calculations, visualization, and testing yourself on how well you can solve tougher problems. that becomes more and more important as someone reaches 16, 1800, and then beyond. earlier on, it makes sense to build up your store of basic patterns, because most advanced combinations involve combining several small patterns that you know. rather than calculating an 8 move combination move by move for both black and white (16 ply at each of which there could be branches), a player equipped with a healthy store of basic patterns will calculate the 8-move combination by looking at a couple 3-4 move chunks in 2 or 3 different orders, and with 1 or 2 individual moves thrown in between them. that's why i think the order of first focusing on patterns and later on calculation makes a lot of sense, though it's not a pure do A then do B. as you progress you start adding in more and more of B and decrease the time you spend on A (just as with practice and study).
Thank you very much GM dpruess. I think I need to re-think my study methods as well ;-)
knightdreamer wrote:
People lose because you are...
You are Lazy. You will not do the work at the board or to practice.
You are Stubborn in the face of what they know to be true.
You are Prideful and Arrogant. You will not look at your opponents response or willingly accept bad positions because they are to 'weak' to notice. You play cheap attacks instead of respecting your opponents play.
You are Blind and cant evaluate a position.
You are Short Sighted. You cant or will not look 2 moves ahead.
You are Wasteful about managing your clock. Either you spend to much time and checkmate yourself on the clock OR you spend to little and play inferior child's chess instead of best move within the time frame.
-A man that is guilty on all accounts
I appreciate the humor and humility by stating you are a man that is guilty of all you write:) However....
There are many of us that do not have the time for so much study. When it comes to chess, I'm as hooked on it as I am on golf-two endeavors that take incredible amounts of time to simply be a "decent" player. But, with the limited amount of free time that I have, I choose to play (read: have fun!). This does not make me lazy or stubborn, etc. I hope you understand. I'm sure many others are in similar situations.
I play many games with friends here, and, while we all want to win, we know it's a game, and we are not arrogant. We may be short sighted when it comes to certain games-we even make fun of our own dumb moves while smoke is coming out of our ears, but, again, it's a game.
I often wonder how much time it takes one to get to your level (2000+), and, unless I win the lottery, I, and many of us, will not have that much time. So, we will continue to play just because we love the game.
As to the OP's query, any constructive criticism should be taken as that-especially if there is any rapport between the players.
I feel like I'm in the minority of those on this site. Many here take the game very seriously. My friends and I will point out errors in each others games, perhaps laugh at each other and move on.
Some here have told me to resign after 10 or 12 moves-talk about arrogance. Those games are not fun-even when I win.
Different chess players have different goals in chess. Some are trying to get a title, or a certain rating , or maybe win their state championship, or just their school championship. I have also met class players in my life that were class players for decades and didnt work to try and improve. They just loved to play/compete and socialize with other chess players. They had fun and I believe they often had more fun than I have because their losses didnt bother them so much as mine bothered me. Sometimes I envy them and wish I had as much fun as they have and maybe as I am entering the endgame of my life some of the fun I used to have in chess will return. Time will tell....
Post your completed games in these-here forums and plenty of people will comment on them...especially if they're chock-full of interesting positions, sacs, etc.
Here's my first post:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/looking-for-feedback-on-my-games-from-strong-players