That's witty it might be useful i'll try it.
Classifiers of Errors
Sort:
Agreed! It is some additional work but I think it will be useful!
I think that you do need a "phase of the game" classifier. That way you can spend a session a week going over each area - opening, midgame & endgame - when training.
Without this classifier then you will end up filing away errors in random ways - then when you need to study a certain part of your game you will end up wasting time looking through your files...
(PS, thanks for the link to the Chess Position Trainer! Incredibly useful!)
Agreed! I have seen a few attempts to classify errors but they have had "too much resolution".
I am glad you found the CPT link to be useful. Great!
Are there any Chess Assistant users out there who has done something similar?
Apr 6, 2009
0
#7
I have found that my calculation errors, which are legion, often stem from psychological errors -- for example, (1) not finding my opponant's best defensive move because I wasn't working as hard to find his best moves as my own. (2) not finding the best defense in a dense tactical forest because the complications seem overwhelming, (fear? laziness?) with the result that I settle for a second best line that leaves me saddled with some positional weakness.
Am I the only one?
Where does boozing and hanging pieces categorize?
I have it all in my head, I remember all my games and never repeat my mistakes.
what's my name again??
Apr 6, 2009
0
#11
farbror wrote:
Dan Heisman (“Mr Novis Nook”) has suggested that improving players should create a “Hall of Shame” of their canonical errors. The idea is to review your standard errors to reduce the risk of reusing them. It sounds as a great approach. In order to readily pinpoint the most common error types a classification system comes in handy. The trick is to come up with a useful classification system. It might be tempting to have a high resolution in the classification system but then the system will be of very little use for identifying “trends” in your error producing process.
I would very much like to have some input on the design of such a system (I intend to use the system as classifiers in Chess Assistant). How many error classes is appropriate? Should the errors be stratified by “phase of the game”? Any thoughts?
Here is a draft outline for a two-level system:
Classifiers for Errors
· Tactical Errors
o Calculation Error
o Lack of Theory
· Strategically Errors
o Positional Evaluation Error
· Psychological Errors
o Lack of Attention
o Lack of Imagination or Originality
o Logical Errors
· General Errors
o Time Management Error
I think this is a strong concept. I hope you don't mind me building a system for our students over at chess-coach with this idea in mind.
u can add physical error:
1. tiredness
2. forgetfulness
3. illness
Good points!
Physical factors are important. You need to eat/drink properly to keep focused during long games.
seems like alot of needless overkill,just record your games and analyze what went on at the board...................just my opinion
Well, "needless overkill" is perhaps a bit too strong. Still, It is of course a clear case of "diminishing returns": the change from "NOT analyzing your own games" to "analyzing your own games" will lead to greater improvement than adding the suggested approach. However, the suggested approach is likely to speed up the process of identifying your bad chess habbits.
Apr 6, 2009
0
#16
I think it's a great idea, all the more because in the process we not only find the mistakes, but the PATTERNS of mistakes -- and hopefully some of the bad chess habits that keep causing them. We all have our own bad chess habits, but each one we can identify and eliminate, or at least minimize, should lead to real improvement in our games. I appreciate the suggestion.
Under "Strategical Errors," you made a very important omission: lack of a plan. Playing aimlessly often doesn't work in the long haul.
Yes, "Lack of Plan" is a good one! "No Plan" or "Not Ajusting the Plan" etc...
Also, I have been thinking along the lines of a catch phrase that might cover aspects of "passive play" and "loosing the initiative"
Dan Heisman (“Mr Novis Nook”) has suggested that improving players should create a “Hall of Shame” of their canonical errors. The idea is to review your standard errors to reduce the risk of reusing them. It sounds as a great approach. In order to readily pinpoint the most common error types a classification system comes in handy. The trick is to come up with a useful classification system. It might be tempting to have a high resolution in the classification system but then the system will be of very little use for identifying “trends” in your error producing process.
I would very much like to have some input on the design of such a system (I intend to use the system as classifiers in Chess Assistant). How many error classes is appropriate? Should the errors be stratified by “phase of the game”? Any thoughts?
Here is a draft outline for a two-level system:
Classifiers for Errors
· Tactical Errors
o Calculation Error
o Lack of Theory
· Strategically Errors
o Positional Evaluation Error
· Psychological Errors
o Lack of Attention
o Lack of Imagination or Originality
o Logical Errors
· General Errors
o Time Management Error