@Cookiemonster
STOP! Your name makes me wanna eat cookies!
How do you improve your understanding of chess without playing much?
Sort:
CookieMonster wrote:
This is an overall stat leiph. Chess.com is hardly the only chess site worthy of anything. The best cheaters are not caught. They do it and they keep their ratings low. It's not rocket science.;-) And no, it doesn't indicate chess.com is good at detecting. That is impossible.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to detect cheating.
It's very possible to catch some cheating.
But yes, it's impossible to catch all cheating.
As for low rated cheaters I guess you mean those who cheat only when aggravated. Like after a loss, they'll rematch and cheat then (or maybe cheat the next game regardless of who it is). I've seen that on other sites, but not here. Admittedly I haven't played much live chess here recently though.
leiph18 wrote:
CookieMonster wrote:
This is an overall stat leiph. Chess.com is hardly the only chess site worthy of anything. The best cheaters are not caught. They do it and they keep their ratings low. It's not rocket science.;-) And no, it doesn't indicate chess.com is good at detecting. That is impossible.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to detect cheating.
It's very possible to catch some cheating.
But yes, it's impossible to catch all cheating.
As for low rated cheaters I guess you mean those who cheat only when aggravated. Like after a loss, they'll rematch and cheat then (or maybe cheat the next game regardless of who it is). I've seen that on other sites, but not here. Admittedly I haven't played much live chess here recently though.
I just send a a mail to a person who made a video for this site. He's an active correspondance player (dont want to embarrass anyone so not going into details...but it demonstrates the point). He has the heumas enabled during a video. The heumas is a chessbase thing that shows threats, captures, etc.
Hes a legitimate player, but even he is cheating. Like hardcore cheating actually.
Its sad cookiemonster thinks the cheating is that high. I'd like to think your wrong cookiemonster! I quit chess in like 2k8 because of the cheating. I was doing some googling about diablo today (not chess related of course). Diablo is a video game by blizzard (same folks who brought us world of warcraft). The long and short of it is in an article, they say talk about cheating pretty much kills the game. The 30% cheaters go on cheating. They other 70% go elsewhere.
My brain is kinda addicted to chess. If I find something better, I'd go for it. Closest I found is MTG.
CookieMonster wrote:
Me either.. And I am losing faith in online chess. I have been doing a lot more OTB chess and been doing very well. I don't know if it's because I play better over the board, or if it's an indication of the stat that has been quoted to me which I quoted to you is incorrect. I don't care really. I have been falling back in love with OTB chess and I think that is wonderful.
I just realized something about playing OTB or studying position with an actual chessboard versus studying on the computer. I realized that I can set up the positions on the board after a few days of studying it. This gives me some confidence that I understood something in the position.
Doctors, lawyers, and other professions do lots of research and study before doing field work. Tarrasch recommended that no beginner should play tournament games until they are sure they have a sufficient understanding.
In today's day and age where ratings are a factor the advice is truer than ever since a bad K-factor could mean you'll be in novice hell for quite some time, even if your skills surpass it.
Certainly play games to see where you're at and what you need to work on, but practice (i.e., unrated) games. Also find a coach if you can. I'm thinking of taking an online lesson from Tiger Lilov sometime, I even have some games handy though I want the losses I send to be high quality (i.e, very few mistakes but got outplayed and transitioned into an inferior endgame instead of flukes where it's game over before then since I know he'd say work on king safety with those) but have some wins and a draw selected.
CookieMonster wrote:
I have absolutely no respect for De La Maza. With that being said. I think choosing certain master games is beneficial only if you learn how to analyse. Most people don't know how. So if you don't know how to analyse how are you going to deconstruct a position to learn from it? And most people are either too lazy or don't know how to do this for real.
My suggestion for you would be to get a book that is strategy based and quotes a lot of basic principles. I hear Chernov's books do that. Focus on a real strategy book and just that book. And analyse that.
You MUST PLAY to improve. You don't have to play a lot, just play about 5 games a week. When you have those 5 games completed make sure you do a detailed analysis of YOUR games.
If you want to learn how to analyse, I would probably start with learning what the scientific method is and how it works. Cause believe it or not the process to play chess and analyse chess games are very similar to this. Basics are:
1. Look at the information presented.
2. List problems/goals/improvements/accomplishments
3. obtain new information
4. Plan how to utilize the old information with the new information
5. Reinforce combined information until it's automated.
Wash rinse repeat. Re-evaluate for understanding and determining flaws.
Would you recommend to them Lasker's Manual of Chess, Masters of the Chessboard, and My System perhaps in that order? Seems like reasonable choices given their reputations, especially My System. Overprotection, blockade, and prophylaxis belong in the toolbox of all chess players and part 1 covers imbalances such as weak pawns and files, very critical stuff.
LOL, you study chess, yet your ratings isn't even breaking 1300. LOL hahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahaahahhahah!!!!!!!!!!!
Playing much OTb-tournament of course are playing much, but I think Otb-longchesstournaments is a very efficient way to gain both chess understanding, and understanding of your own mental power, concentration, nerves. Chess is more than just chess , it is also martial arts, fighting man to man (or woman). To become good at chess, otb-longchesstournaments is my hottest advice.
I lost in otb longchess to vegma (Vegard Martinsen ) yesterday, and think I learned a lot, both about chess and about myself.
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
Doctors, lawyers, and other professions do lots of research and study before doing field work. Tarrasch recommended that no beginner should play tournament games until they are sure they have a sufficient understanding.
In today's day and age where ratings are a factor the advice is truer than ever since a bad K-factor could mean you'll be in novice hell for quite some time, even if your skills surpass it.
Certainly play games to see where you're at and what you need to work on, but practice (i.e., unrated) games. Also find a coach if you can. I'm thinking of taking an online lesson from Tiger Lilov sometime, I even have some games handy though I want the losses I send to be high quality (i.e, very few mistakes but got outplayed and transitioned into an inferior endgame instead of flukes where it's game over before then since I know he'd say work on king safety with those) but have some wins and a draw selected.
I strongly disagree with Tarrasch, and have experienced that otb tournamentplay is the strongest help to boost my chessunderstanding.
In Otb longchess you also have the notationsheet. Very good , allows aftergameanalyses.
As a middling 12-1300 player (which quite a few people are on this forum), I find that I gain zero ability by playing blitz online.
In contrast, if I study tactics (and like my recent post, study tactics I got WRONG, and study those repeatedly), my rating goes up, even if I don't play a chess game for weeks on end.
I only play games to get a sense of how my rating progression is coming along now, but I know from years of experience now that I gain zero real rating poinst from playing blitz at my level.
I think it does vary with ability though - if you're <1000, I think playing games will help. (Although prob still not as much as studying tactics).
CookieMonster wrote:
I agree with Tarrasch actually. Because beginners back then were anyone who had pproblems with remembering piece movement and basic tactical patterns. Today we have that plus a more set standard. Like u1000, notation problems, dropping pieces. All of which can easily be trained outside tournament chess. I agree that when a beginner stops dropping pieces, learns how to accurately notate, and has competency to learn true strategy he can play tournament chess. And that is what I believe tarrasch meant. Remember Tarrasch didn't live in today's standards so he wouldn't know what abeginner is to us. So you need to adjust words sometimes.
Beginner is a difficult word, and where you draw those lines makes a difference.
But I can not see why a beginner shouldnt compete. I remember my first tournament in another village. To fight against unknown players were interesting,
I still feel like a beginner, doing comeback 37 years after, and tournaments are where to meet the harder challenge.
Notation sheets from my firsttournamentgames after my comeback where very valuable when I took GM-lessons.
Tournamentgames, notated is more memorable than what i play on chess.com.
I have some notation problems now and then. Thursday I forgot one move, but was able to correct the sheet 6 moves later.
Of course training can be done outside tournaments, and tournaments represents only a small percentage of the games I play. In the 15 months of my new chess era, I have played 2086 blitz-chess.com, 649 online 3-days and ca 25 longchesstournamentgames and ca 20 rapid. I´ve done 8878 tactics, taken 6 GM hours and am in my second chessclubclass. The ca 25 longhesstournamentgames is not the largest part of my training, but it is the most memorable.The peak.The core.It is what I rehearse for. Where the training comes to use.
I think Tata Steelgames, commented, is interesting.
I like youtubechessvideos.
hhnngg1 wrote:
As a middling 12-1300 player (which quite a few people are on this forum), I find that I gain zero ability by playing blitz online.
In contrast, if I study tactics (and like my recent post, study tactics I got WRONG, and study those repeatedly), my rating goes up, even if I don't play a chess game for weeks on end.
I only play games to get a sense of how my rating progression is coming along now, but I know from years of experience now that I gain zero real rating poinst from playing blitz at my level.
I think it does vary with ability though - if you're <1000, I think playing games will help. (Although prob still not as much as studying tactics).
The problem with blitz is that you dont have time for tactics. The upside is that you can test a lot of openingvariations.
I only play ten minutes blitz, but will in the future try some faster too, to obtain a faster topspeed.
So I'm the only one who plays chess because I don't want to develop Alzheimer?
Dear Riv4l,
I am a certified, full-time chess coach, so I hope I can help you. 
Everybody is different, so that's why there isn't only one general way to learn. First of all, you have to discover your biggest weaknesses in the game and start working on them. The most effective way for that is analysing your own games. Of course, if you are a beginner, you can't do it efficiently because you don't know too much about the game yet. There is a built-in engine on chess.com which can show you if a move is good or bad but the only problem that it can't explain you the plans, ideas behind the moves, so you won't know why is it so good or bad.
You can learn from books or Youtube channels as well, and maybe you can find a lot of useful information there but these sources are mostly general things and not personalized at all. That's why you need a good coach sooner or later if you really want to be better at chess. A good coach can help you with identifying your biggest weaknesses and explain everything, so you can leave your mistakes behind you. Of course, you won't apply everything immediately, this is a learning process (like learning languages), but if you are persistent and enthusiastic, you will achieve your goals.
In my opinion, chess has 4 main territories (openings, strategies, tactics/combinations and endgames). If you want to improve efficiently, you should improve all of these skills almost at the same time. That's what my training program is based on. My students really like it because the lessons are not boring (because we talk about more than one areas within one lesson) and they feel the improvement on the longer run. Of course, there are always ups and downs but this is completely normal in everyone's career.
I hope this is helpful for you. Good luck for your chess games!
Reading annotated master games is particularly good for learning how to play in closed positions. Try looking for some Rubinstein and Lasker games...
My first official USCF tournament, I happened to matched up with the #1 seed (2155 rated) in the very first round. I must have done ok, because he spent the entire evening after the round ended showing me Rubinstein games. That was his advice: read My System, review old annotated master games, and avoid playing blitz until my rating peaked out.