Chess theory

Maybe you're special. My last tactics problem was 10 April and mine has not reset.

Ziryab, at least we have resolved that you have no idea what you are talking about.

According to your history graphs, it only appears that your rating reset one time. Unless the same days it reset on its own, you immediately get it up near to where your rating was before:

Martin, this is at least the second time it happened.  I got a longwinded speil as to why it happened the first time (which I did not really read) but it was fixed.  Then it happened again.  Anyway, does it matter?  As you can see, my rating got stuck and even went backwards at times.  Then I worked on a system which made my rating improve dramatically.  That is my point but you don't have to accept it.  I am not really concerned about IT issues as such which seem to be your focus.  But you can see that the system does in fact reset, despite what has been said here.

Just mainly pointing out that while for some reason you had glitches that reset your rating, in general TT ratings don't reset unless you manually do it. Also, that your graph doesn't show multiple resets.

It is also interesting to note,  if you reset your TT stats manually, your All Time graph only goes back to the reset date. So, since your graph goes back to the start of your account,  the rating drop seen absolutely appears to be a glitch.

Thank you Martin.  Actually, I did not even know that I could reset my TT rating manually.  I just used TT without caring much about how it all worked.  Just as a side note and not that I care that much but I did not realise you could access my rating history.

Yeah, premium members can see all the stats for anyone

GM Lenderman tells me that there is at least one other person who got over 3600.  Does that mean you can find him?

The infamous chess coach Igor Smirnov is renowned for his bizarre ideas, many of which aren't very good but very marketable. He sells his information at premium, but it seems he has a very interesting has a very strange and interesting view of "what chess is". He talks about universal theories subconsciously espoused by every world champion here. I always found them very complicated, distracting and confusing. For a while, I tried coming up with my own, but realized it wasn't at all worth it. For you see, everyone, whether they like it or not, has a thinking system already in place. To assume a new one by rote is very complicated, especially since there is a good chance the theory is faulty anyway. In fact, I found smirnov's thinking systems a little off to begin with. A lot of his ideas that he associates with one world champ I often associated with another, etc. In any case, do with this link what you will.

Do remember that in chess there are no right answers.

Aquarius, I will disagree with you on one point.  In chess where the position is concrete, there are right answers.  I don't know if you have read the posts but I was once a talented player etc with a coach who was amazed at my tactical ability which did not translate into winning as many tournaments as I should have, so he thought.  I then gave up chess for a career.  Many years later I took up solving tactical puzzles just for a bit of fun.  I got frustrated with not being able to solve certain puzzles as we all do.  I then thought if the position is concrete, why should there not be a concrete method for solving it.  I developed one and I was then solving many puzzles easily by comparison to what used to happen.  The system takes hard work to learn and I have made changes to it from time to time.  But I say that chess has a language and it needs to be learnt.  That is not just a metaphor.  The idea came from a strong player I knew.  Historically, the one skill that most of the great chess players have had is the ability to speak several languages (not math as many think).  I say that is because there are a lot of similarities between chess and languages.  There are differences, of course, but you can learn from the similarities.  As to Smirnov, from the little I have seen of him, most of his ideas are positional and they make sense to me.  They seem to be a rehash of ideas that have been expressed in different ways such as "To take is a mistake".  That is not a new idea.  Taking gives up space and that can be critical to controlling vital squares.

That's a very interesting idea, that chess is a language. I like that idea a lot.

Is it possible for you to give a general overview of your system?

By the way, there is another member here who claims to have developed some sort of "scientific" method to analyze chess positions. Presumably, his method is applicable in game (at least online games), but I'm not sure about tactics puzzles. I believe his username is "Earth64".

Personally, I'm not systematic on my tactical approach on games (I'm assuming that by "over the board" you don't mean strictly over the board chess but online as well?) but I'm very interested in finding out if there is indeed an efficient method to "decode" the game.

My first thought is that such system would be impractical to apply on the fly by human players owing to time constraints. The search tree of chess is simply too deep and I don't think that a purely tactical approach cuts it... In a specific a chess position, there can be a concrete problem and a concrete answer to that problem. But I doubt that it's possible to come up with a humanly accessible system capable of solving "indeterminate" chess positions. Positions where there's no clearly defined problem and no right answer; there's only a broad path to be followed and which can be played in hundreds or thousands of different ways and give rise to millions of distinct outcomes. These occur in most, if not all, chess games. I'm thinking this is why your system hasn't been working on games as well as in puzzles.

kk my system is for concrete positions, in other words a position which has a combination in it, if you like.  It is not designed for a position that is purely "positional" although you might think about adapting it.  I am not an IT person but from what I have read programmers have tried to program engines so that they recognise positional elements.  For example, given a choice between a central pawn and wing pawn, you would normally capture the central pawn.  There are exceptions to that rule but you understand what I mean.  I remember when Leko came to play in a local tournament he said exactly that which taught me that grandmasters think along those terms, whether consciously or not.  You are right that time is an issue.  However, I will say the following.  1.  Any system is likely to result in being a time saver when you become efficient at using the system.  2.  The use of the system is likely to improve "tactical vision" or whatever expression you would like to use.  3.  As you get better at your system, you will save time by taking shortcuts.  4.  Whether you have a good system can only be proven by its results.  I don't play chess anymore but from what I can see is that my tactical eye has got sharper and I take shortcuts all the time.  Where you will lose time in a real game is looking for something concrete when it is not there.  The ideal system will tell you that you should not be wasting more time looking for something that is not there.  Does my system do that?  I don't really know.  As I get to understand it better, I am becoming more confident in it so that I believe that I am not missing anything, even though I have decided to take a shortcut.  Most of the time I am right but not always.  The other thing I say is that most positional ideas are really long term tactical ideas when you think about it.  Any good tactical system will help you develop your positional awareness.  That is not an original idea.  Petrosian is reputed to have been a great positional player.  However, he once said to a student that most positions are about tactics and in particular not losing material.  That was his approach.  Look at Nakamura.  His approach is very "tactical" or concrete.  And yet he plays "positional" positions very well.  So does Vachier Legrave who says that his approach is very much based on calculation.  Tal was supposed to be a tactician but he also showed that he can play positional masterpieces.  As for Carlsen, I suspect in fact that he has some system (positional?) which he keeps to himself.  At least that is my theory about his self-confidence.  He knows that he will wear down most players because he has his system sorted out in his head and in the long run it will win out, barring any stupid mistake.  Of course, he is very good at calculating concrete positions which is a must.  Please note that I am using the word system in a broad sense.  I know some people will react to this but in reality it is not a revolutionary idea.  It is just another way of describing positional sense.

I should have been clearer. By "positions" I didn't actually mean the positional aspect of chess as in the false dichotomy positional vs tactical (I agree that both of these things are highly intertwined). I simply meant the raw layout of the pieces on the board. Well kinda...

I partly wanted to point out the importance of heuristics which I see now that is not neglected in your system like I previously assumed.

It works for the raw layout of the pieces as you put it as it relies on the raw position of pieces as such.  I said that it is a bit of work to learn and I am learning things all the time about it (that is the nature of a game after all).  For example, I looked at a problem from a real game today.  It looked like that the solution would work using either rook.  But, of course, there was a subtle difference which made all the difference.  Then I asked whether this fitted into the system.  It did but it required recognition of something subtle as I said but which nonetheless is part of the system.  Perhaps this is where talent comes in.  I am trying to get away from a pure "takes, takes.." approach which is what engines do but much faster than we will ever be able to.

Yes, Earth64 has a "Repertoire" system by which he managed to beat Rybka - see my last online game.

Repertoire is not a system, it is just a bit based book.

I've seen a lot of words here, but perhaps one sentence concerning this "system". 

Your footnotes are interesting, albeit superficial. We have established that there's a lot of smoke, but the flame went out. 

I would agree with ziryab, you have a lot of poetic musings but very little concrete things to say. It's like that guy who used to post here about his incredible talent at 1 0. He used this obnoxious bragging to troll.