Practice makes perfect. You have to take your time though, otherwise practice is useless. If you play with the mindset that you aren't going to make a move until you can find one you like, and have some idea of what you are trying to do you will see much more than if you just move pieces around hoping to spot a tactic at some point.
Doom to Mediocritry?
Sort:
Oct 4, 2008
0
#3
What sst said is true. Just keep playing, have some fun. Play a different opening or two. You'll start to find a groove. Dont worry too much about your rating. As you play, it WILL start to rise.
In his book "Modern Ideas in Chess," Richard Reti wrote that when asked how many moves he'd look ahead, he'd reply "Not a single one." (He only calculates when he thinks that a tactical solution is possible, otherwise he makes his moves based upon his "feel" for the position).
Us mere mortals have a lot to learn from that.
I'm 53 and I wonder if it's possible to get much better once you're past a certain age. As far as I know virtually all grandmaters were prodigies (not that I'm shooting for grandmaster) and it seems that most good players display a distinct talent level in their late teens. It seems that most players peak around 28.
I have to say that I dont watch ahead at all ..maibe one move ore so.and so what ..play and that skill comes along.atleast thats what I think..develope your own individual style..thats it..i mean.go by the feeling.if at that moment you feel that that move can get you there you want at that moment its a right move ..thats what I think
Practice, practice and more practice, eventually you will get there!
Aubergine wrote:
In his book "Modern Ideas in Chess," Richard Reti wrote that when asked how many moves he'd look ahead, he'd reply "Not a single one." (He only calculates when he thinks that a tactical solution is possible, otherwise he makes his moves based upon his "feel" for the position).
Us mere mortals have a lot to learn from that.
That remark has harmed a lot of chess players IMHO. You've got to calculate, and quite a lot, to get anywhere... with lots of experience and training there's a lot that a GM sees and "feels" instantly -- but i think us mere mortals tend to use Reti's remark as an excuse not to calculate and instead rely on "principles" and "concepts" and "strategies" and this is a losing mindset -- there are times when you've got to look at specific variations and calculate them to the limits of your ability.
As for mediocrity... I enjoy playing basketball... I've never had the slightest hope of making any basketball team, not High School, never mind college or the pros...but i enjoy playground basketball -- I'm never the best player at the playground, either (nor, usually the worst) ... i don't let it worry me that i will always be a "mediocre" basketball player and that at 46, I don't expect any great improvements in my game, either.
If you enjoy chess enough to work and study at it you should see enough improvement to justify the effort, that is, you'll play better chess and get more out of the game... but if you hope to transcend mediocrity -- well I don't know how you define mediocrity... but for those of us with average chess "gifts" it requires lots of hard work and dedication to reach the A-player level, never mind Expert or Master. I think a lot of people peak around the B-player level.
But I didn't answer your question:
The answer is Yes, your tactical vision will improve, greatly with practice. I have personally experienced a raw increase in my ability to "see" the board in my minds eye from doing chess puzzles daily for more than a year. Experience with certain themes and positions will greatly speed your tactical vision as well. You should expect improvement, with work.
At the same time I've played some very talented kids... and I've got to admit it depressed me a bit... talented kids visualize with a rapidity and accuracy that makes a non-talent like myself wonder why I bother. I have to remind myself that I enjoy chess even though there are lots of players better than me, including some 10-12 year olds!
It's almost impossible to analyze too many moves. You just need to see moves that related to your plans. Unless in correspondence chess, of course. But... predicting moves only useful if it goes exactly like that prediction, if not, then the time used is too much. Like 3 different moves lead to another different moves and so on. Then 3x3x3x3 =81moves.
JG27Pyth wrote:
That remark has harmed a lot of chess players IMHO. You've got to calculate, and quite a lot, to get anywhere...
Send over an invite old chap. Your 'calculation' against my 'feel.' ;o)
Oct 4, 2008
0
#11
I use to have something called " The player might make this move" thinking and then I realise the player " might not do anything." So now when I play I play with a plan in mind. The player and I have the same goal to checkmate the king, I do all I can to prevent from being checkmated, I do all I can to checkmate the other side.
Jeremy Silman's book 'reassess your chess' mentions a technique from Alexander Kotov's book "Think like a Grandmaster".
Basically, he suggests looking at a game by one of the great attackers (Alekhine, Tal, Kasparov, etc) and playing the moves on the board until it reaches a critical position. Cover up the move list and make a list of the possible moves and continuations from this position without moving the pieces. Check your answer against the next move, and repeat for the rest of the game.
Over a few months this should greatly increase your calculation ability.
Dsachs: Yeah, that's pretty much the first thing Kotov talks about, which is related to his analysis trees. Under time controls, he says, important skills are:
a) identifying good candidate moves to analyse, so as to use your time wisely, and b) having the confidence in your calculative abilities not to go over the same line twice, checking and re-checking.
These things come from practice (obviously), but what dsachs says above seems to be one of Kotov's main ideas (I only had time to read the first chapter of Think Like a Grandmaster).
My rating is probably around 1100 - 1200. I accept the saying that chess is 80% (or is it 90%?) tactics. I understand the basic tactical maneuvers, but my problem is seeing the board in my mind's eye two or three moves ahead. It seems to me that visualizing the board after several moves is a talent and not something that can be taught or developed through practice. What do you think?