How Do You Play Safe Chess?

Hi Ajedrecito: "And the most ridiculous thing I hear is <1800 players claiming they are going to 'avoid their opponent's preparation' by playing inferior moves 'because I know the position better.' Knowing a position that is worse for you is obviously not a better choice than not knowing a position that is better for you. The moves have to speak for themselves, so playing a bad move because you might have studied it more and therefore are somehow 'more familiar with the resulting positions' isn't worth a whole lot"

**************************

Come now, lets not beat up on the "A" player too much here. I would agree with him and say that, Actually it IS better to be in an inferior position that you know better than your opponent, than to be in a superior position you do not know how to handle. Examples:

1.LASKER thrived on playing inferior but calculated lines, to induce the opponent to decide to fight but overreach and allow him to win the battle.

2.IM Keith Hayward made IM by playing the BIRD'S Opening & knowing it better than his opposition, even though he himself described it as a second-rate opening.

3.My own experience in correspondence Chess. I don't offer draws from lost positions, but will from an inferior but holdable position. Opponents who understand it accept the Draw offer. EG other Masters or Experts. In postal play, no one who understands wastes time trying to maximize fruitlessly against another master, despite advantage.

On the otherhand, some players do not accept the Draw offer. This always means they do not understand the position as well, even tho they hold advantage. How to know that? Because in 15 years of correspondence play, every game I offered a Draw in, that was declined ... was then Lost by the opponent. EVERY Game. Some where I held a very ugly but salvagable position. Knowing the position better is worth a WHOLE LOT. ... Every Game ... 15 years.

******

I just want to make that point. But agree with you if you are suggesting that it is better to Learn to play the superior position. I just don't think it should be done in a tournament game. Rather in study & practice.

In order to make Master, it was necessary to be willing to play any position of any type, that held an objective advantage; even if it was not necessarily one that felt comfortable to personal style. Which is part of the difference between Master and less than. The other part; one becomes considered a Solid player of all phases at Expert level. (EG a Master Never grants an "A" player a Draw, even from an inferior position, without testing them thru ALL phases of the game, because of the idea that being an "A" means there is Some part of their game that is suspect. Some exploitable area of weakness, tho they understand all the "Rules" to good play & probably have excellent attacking skills. There is some reason they are not Expert tho.) A Master will know and recognize when Exceptions to the Rules are on the board, and be correct. As far as analytical skills there is little difference between an A player & a Master. Except the latter knows better when and where to apply full analysis & will do it more efficiently. Even a GM does not analyze combinatively much deeper than an A can, but will be able to analyze a much broader tree accurately, imo. And holds knowledge making less analysis needed. Position & pattern recognition, etc.

In my own case, starting at 12 years old and a 777 rating, it took awhile to get there. 15 years to otb Expert & correspondence Master with 5000 hours of study + play. And about $1 per rating point up to 1800, then they started cost about $3 each up to 2076.

I like your suggested study routine very much. Although about openings study, I would do a lot more of it, myself ... but that is because of being an openings specialist. (Which results in an avg game length under 30 moves corr play & under 40 in otb tournaments) But if one has to Ask how much opening time to study, as he did, then obviously the love and joy of that phase is not there, which makes one decide to become expert in openings.

As far as study Endings first, study openings first, etc. It doesnt matter since either way works. I didnt study endings until reaching Expert. Purposely. To show it can be done that way. My FM friend did the opposite and really knew endgames first (and it IS nice to know where one is going, or should be going!) & didnt do much with openings until near master level. But had the analytical skills & knowlege to play sensibly thru that phase. Yet did get Stuck a few times by an opening specialist or book trap. EG we had a 14 move game where he followed his play from 2 weeks earlier against an IM who he said missed the more aggressive line of our game. I tell players to study most where their passion lies.

For endgames I'd suggest study of King & P, then Rook & P's most intensely, being the most often to occur. Then to choose a minor piece ending to become proficient in. My best was learning Knight & pawn endings. Strangely, because they are inherently drawish to the knowledgeable. Yet in practice make more wins than any other ending I have which is entered with even material. Especially effective for winning vs players who play quickly. And also great to know for Draw seeking vs stronger players.

*****************

Oh, I noticed everyone doing credentials. So here's mine:

I was professional Postal Chess player, a Master & won $50 a year. Its too bad the stamps cost $4oo a year. Oh well. But on the bright side, I got to lose to 2 US Champions. And make 3 draws and no losses with players who were in the World Championship of ICCF. Oh, and beat Eric Schiller 3 times in 3 games ... which I always like to point out since he didnt put any of them IN A BOOK! And it really P. O.'s me, since they were very nice theoretically groundbreaking openings & I have so many of his books and always say nice things about them. So Eric, just so you know, when I die I am going to haunt you endlessly until you publish one~! OK fine' rant.

But of course my proudest Chess moment was having one of my Chess Com postings lifted and published in Danish as a front page article in the national mag of "the largest Chess club in Denmark". lol.

Chess is great. And everything I say is with a smile, laugh, or chuckle ...

}8-)

Baron..., are those numbers "made up", or did you keep track? I'm curious about this, since I'm trying to reach master level within 10,000 hours. 

Oh, and I'm from Denmark, so I think it's wickedly cool if you were published in a danish magazine. 

why should you play it safe,when you play safe u still get eaten? Why not just be offensive to play defensive. In my terms if you play defensive you'll be eaten by fake moves so again why not just play offensive

"Safe" in this discussion means "not hanging pieces", rather than not taking risks in your play.

adej..., unlike Baron..., I think you are somewhat rigid in the way you think. It seems like you assume what has worked for you will work for everyone, and that it's the only approach.

You say studying endgames is important, and it also "happens" to be one of your strengths. Maybe it's simply your strength because you've spend a lot of time on it - and with success. However, that is not "proving" that another approach - maybe with a stronger focus on openings - cannot bring someone to the same level in the same period of time.

I think it's plausible to believe their strength will than be openings, and their weakness endgames. But that doesn't mean they will not be able to reach the same level. 

I mean no disrespect. I simple make an observation. 

your opponent has the same pieces and is out to get you checkmated in any possible way. There is nowhere for your pieces to go but to confront your opponent.
How is that possibly safe?

 If you study opening lines with the computer with openings like Evans' gambit, Max Lange Attack, Fried Liver, King's gambit etc... Doesn't it help tactics? Those openings are combinations rich isn't it?

adej..., please read what I wrote, and don't put words in my mouth. Nowhere did I suggest one could reach master level by focusing only openings. So, no, I'm not inflexible.

Maybe read/try this:

"Is it safe?"

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman65.pdf

Play slower games

Moving from 10min to 15min per game is sure to be better, but why not try even longer controls? Why not try a few days per move? I find this to be a great way to improve, as you have plenty of time to figure out what move and plan to follow. Good luck.

We beginners need to stick together. ZThat is a very clever tip! I am sure that strong players have done all sorts of things like that when they were learning, but don't need it anymore, and have probably forgotten those little beginner tips, unless they are teaching beginners. Thank you. 

Thanks to all who have contributed to this topic. I have read every post, and it is all very good. 

I have an ICC account. 

I own most, I think all, of Dan Heisman's books. I've also had a few e-mail conversations wih him and watch his videos on a regular basis at ICC.  I simply have no excuse for playing dumb chess. 

I need to put into practice what Dan and others here have been teaching me, playing slower and giving myself the time to play Real Chess, which is the checking of checks, captures and threats on EVERY move for both sides. Only then can I say that I played to the best of my abilities. This will require new habits to be formed in regards to time management and mental discipline. 

To that end, I stopped playing 10 0 Blitz some time ago and switched to 15 10 Standard here and 15 0 over at Chess Cube. I have disovered that 15 0 is too fast, as I had an completely winning endgame recently, but ran out of time. 15 10 is better, as the 10 seconds per moves adds about 5 minutes to the game in a 30 move game, so it's like a 20 0 game, but not psychologically, because my opponent's are always playing faster than me. It makes me nervous to be behind on time. 

I tried putting in a seek for a 20 10 game at chess.com a few days ago, but got no opponents. I'll try again, and if I still get no opponents, I may ask the strong players here if they would like to play unrated 20 20 games with me, while they are simultaneously playing their Live Chess games with their regular opponents. 

@ Adjedrecito - Let me guess. You would take 1 second on each move when playing against me, while you are smashing your other opponents to smithereens!  

I am itching to play 45 45 games over at ICC, but can't do it just yet, as my chiropractor is cracking my lower back into alignment, so it really hurts to sit for more than 20 minutes, tops!  Time to get up and stretch. 

adej..., I didn't start my journey only studying openings. I do that too. And yes, I was the OP on that thread. But I wasn't implying (I never imply) that one should study openings, I was merely posing a question, being curious to hear what people thought about it. 

I've now spend 561 hours on chess. 70½ of those on openings. That's 13 %. Of the 561 hours, 313 hours (56 %) have been playing. I've worked on tactics for 46½ hours (8 %), and lately I've increased the time spend on tactics, so for the last couple of weeks in been closer to 15 % of my time. Does that sound very wrong to you?

You're welcome Musik.... I'm glad you found it useful. 

Musikamole, GMs at 3 minute bullet times aside, not making blunders is about double checking before you move. This sound very simple, but in practice of course it's easier said than done.

I came up with some guidelines for myself that sort of apply to blundering. I was sort of on the other end, annoyed with myself for often missing opportunities to use a tactic on an opponent and I came up with this:

BEFORE EVERY MOVE, LOOK, LOOK, LOOK:

1) Can you put the opponent in check in any way? Maybe she/he's moved a guard piece you didn't see before and now you can fork something. Maybe a sac of a bad piece to blow open her/his defences is what you need. Perhaps you can brutalize her/him with the 'unpin' by saccing a B, putting the K in check and exposing your nasty rook attacking her/his queen. A check buys you a free move, she/he must get out of check.

2) Can you apply a pin? The pin is the most common opportunity and often is a game winner by snagging a piece. Even if it isn't a piece winner, a pin can still be very annoying and take up 2 or 3 moves to get out of it. If you have to force a Queen to protect a pawn, it certainly hampers the power of the queen. Pins can freeze the opponent's pieces.

3) Can you find a weak square to apply a fork? And thus, can you get a piece there, even to threaten the fork? Of course knights are forkerrific for this. Don't forget to look for the opponent having 2 pieces on their 4th rank 2 squares apart: move that pawn 2 squares up and it's fork-o-rama! I can't count the number of times I have gotten that opportunity, but we have to be looking for them.

So before EVERY MOVE, LOOK, LOOK, LOOK!!

DEFENCE: Now for the flipside, this is (much) more difficult:

BEFORE EVERY MOVE. LOOK, LOOK, LOOK!! Can the opponent put you in check? Can the opponent pin your pieces? Can the opponent get the opportunity to fork some of your pieces? Do you look for escape squares for your pieces? This is harder to look for the weaknesses in your defence, but these are simple and doable.

Yes, there are more tactics, but these are the big 3 and are by far the most common in the game. If only I'd follow my own advice, heh heh.....

All the best, Bill

 If you have those sharp openings in your repertoire it's an efficient way to train yourself in tactics because you'll use them on a regular basis, especially in the sidelines when the opponent screws up isn't it? 

 Hi Cigol ... Yes. The numbers are not exact, but are real, based on after the fact calculation. I didnt track them as I went. But found them later when I began analyzing my game and results statistically. Found out more interesting things, such as having a tendency to err most on move #18, regardless of opening. And then being in dangerof error to move 22. But often being "winning" (by my criteria) by #26. (I specialized in openings study a lot) Also moves close to the first time control, of course ... being a time-trouble addict, could make errors. Also being unhappy with my positions often between moves 8 to 11. But often feeling advantage start between 12 to 16. (So I circle move 18 on all my scoresheets, and look REAL HARD at the board.  Yes, just knowing the danger helped ... tho not Always. lol )

Yeah, I'm in a Club 69 piece I originally wrote here, about making static assessment of positions, use of "Tension", & forcible line opening. But identified there as "Craig says" haha. I thought it very funny. But honored too & pretty cool thing that they could use it. I got a lot of positive feedback online, about the piece.  

Imo those are absolutely important attacking skills, and one's from which any player will make the greatest gain in strength from learning, if they do not understand them fully now. Aside from absolutely precise analysis ability, that is. (Which is very difficult to approach, but always needs strived for. Obviously. It is not something I can do anymore, even in correspondence play. Which is why I retired from anything serious; except going to one tournament in London, just to say I did. Its a hard game to let go of completely. :)  )

I know a few sharp lines, and use them in my games. If I see the Two Knights, I always play 4.Ng5. I understand that with best play, White does not get an advantage, but it's fun and I get to practice my tactics and checkmates.

Ajedrecito wants me to play the Kiddie Countergambit as a response to the Patzer opening, which I see often at my level. I am working on it.

I found this miniature Sicilian in Chernev's Move by Move book.  It's a good one for teaching or learning the smothered mate.