it took me 3 months to move from extremely bad to moderately bad
How long did it take you to get "good"
Sort:
Oh I was naturally good at chess. I was the best. It has taken me a long while to get poor at it however.
uri65 wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
Concerning the 3 changes in perspective. The first one is that chess is Siege Warfare in the form of a game. In the times of King Arthur, Knights would surround a castle and not permit food or water into thee castle. Eventually the people inside the castle would come out seeking food and water.
In chess you use restrain,blockade and execute the enemy position in order to extract the enemy King in order to deliver checkmate.
I will clarify further only if you have questions. And, believe me there is alot to explain, detail and clarify.
Chess king has no need for food or water - your analogy is meaningless. And you don't have to extract the king in order to checkmate him.
___________________
Chess King does have need for safe squares. Restrain, blockade and execute enemy deprives chess king of safe squares. It is not a literal extraction of the King. It is more like a boa constrictor squeezing the enemy position. Depriving the enemy position of space and time.
fieldsofforce wrote:
uri65 wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
Concerning the 3 changes in perspective. The first one is that chess is Siege Warfare in the form of a game. In the times of King Arthur, Knights would surround a castle and not permit food or water into thee castle. Eventually the people inside the castle would come out seeking food and water.
In chess you use restrain,blockade and execute the enemy position in order to extract the enemy King in order to deliver checkmate.
I will clarify further only if you have questions. And, believe me there is alot to explain, detail and clarify.
Chess king has no need for food or water - your analogy is meaningless. And you don't have to extract the king in order to checkmate him.
___________________
Chess King does have need for safe squares. Restrain, blockade and execute enemy deprives chess king of safe squares. It is not a literal extraction of the King. It is more like a boa constrictor squeezing the enemy position. Depriving the enemy position of space and time.
Nimzowitsch’s "First restrain, next blockade, lastly destroy" relates to enemy pawns, not to a king. You've got it all wrong again.
uri65 wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
uri65 wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
Concerning the 3 changes in perspective. The first one is that chess is Siege Warfare in the form of a game. In the times of King Arthur, Knights would surround a castle and not permit food or water into thee castle. Eventually the people inside the castle would come out seeking food and water.
In chess you use restrain,blockade and execute the enemy position in order to extract the enemy King in order to deliver checkmate.
I will clarify further only if you have questions. And, believe me there is alot to explain, detail and clarify.
Chess king has no need for food or water - your analogy is meaningless. And you don't have to extract the king in order to checkmate him.
___________________
Chess King does have need for safe squares. Restrain, blockade and execute enemy deprives chess king of safe squares. It is not a literal extraction of the King. It is more like a boa constrictor squeezing the enemy position. Depriving the enemy position of space and time.
Nimzowitsch’s "First restrain, next blockade, lastly destroy" relates to enemy pawns, not to a king. You've got it all wrong again.
__________________________
Your interpretation is much too narrow. Nimzowitsch also writes about Bishops hemming in enemy pawns and Knights. Also Rooks using levers along files to penetrate enemy positions especially the 7th rank. There are many other examples.
fieldsofforce wrote:
uri65 wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
uri65 wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
Concerning the 3 changes in perspective. The first one is that chess is Siege Warfare in the form of a game. In the times of King Arthur, Knights would surround a castle and not permit food or water into thee castle. Eventually the people inside the castle would come out seeking food and water.
In chess you use restrain,blockade and execute the enemy position in order to extract the enemy King in order to deliver checkmate.
I will clarify further only if you have questions. And, believe me there is alot to explain, detail and clarify.
Chess king has no need for food or water - your analogy is meaningless. And you don't have to extract the king in order to checkmate him.
___________________
Chess King does have need for safe squares. Restrain, blockade and execute enemy deprives chess king of safe squares. It is not a literal extraction of the King. It is more like a boa constrictor squeezing the enemy position. Depriving the enemy position of space and time.
Nimzowitsch’s "First restrain, next blockade, lastly destroy" relates to enemy pawns, not to a king. You've got it all wrong again.
__________________________
Your interpretation is much too narrow. Nimzowitsch also writes about Bishops hemming in enemy pawns and Knights. Also Rooks using levers along files to penetrate enemy positions especially the 7th rank. There are many other examples.
Your interpretation is so wide that nobody understands you. Nimzowitsch used Restraint and Blockade terms in a quite precise way and modern authors follow that tradition. Rooks penetrating enemy positions have nothing to do with Restraint and Blockade. If you disagree just find a quote from some chess book to support your use of terminology. I know there are none.
Your mantra of "Siege Warfare" and "Restrain/Blockade/Execute" just sounds as some esoteric nonsense.
uri65 wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
uri65 wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
uri65 wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
Concerning the 3 changes in perspective. The first one is that chess is Siege Warfare in the form of a game. In the times of King Arthur, Knights would surround a castle and not permit food or water into thee castle. Eventually the people inside the castle would come out seeking food and water.
In chess you use restrain,blockade and execute the enemy position in order to extract the enemy King in order to deliver checkmate.
I will clarify further only if you have questions. And, believe me there is alot to explain, detail and clarify.
Chess king has no need for food or water - your analogy is meaningless. And you don't have to extract the king in order to checkmate him.
___________________
Chess King does have need for safe squares. Restrain, blockade and execute enemy deprives chess king of safe squares. It is not a literal extraction of the King. It is more like a boa constrictor squeezing the enemy position. Depriving the enemy position of space and time.
Nimzowitsch’s "First restrain, next blockade, lastly destroy" relates to enemy pawns, not to a king. You've got it all wrong again.
__________________________
Your interpretation is much too narrow. Nimzowitsch also writes about Bishops hemming in enemy pawns and Knights. Also Rooks using levers along files to penetrate enemy positions especially the 7th rank. There are many other examples.
Your interpretation is so wide that nobody understands you. Nimzowitsch used Restraint and Blockade terms in a quite precize way and modern authors follow that tradition. Rooks penetrating enemy positions have nothing to do with Restraint and Blockade. If you disagree just find a quote from some chess book to support your use of terminology. I know there are none.
Your mantra of "Siege Warfare" and "Restraint/Blockade/Execute" just sounds as some esoteric nonsense.
__________________________
The evidence is staring you in the face. But you don't want to accept it. It is ok it is not my job to help you wrap your brain around what is going on. Eventually you will see it. But of course it will have to be your idea. That is the way some people are.
fieldsofforce wrote:
uri65 wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
uri65 wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
uri65 wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
Concerning the 3 changes in perspective. The first one is that chess is Siege Warfare in the form of a game. In the times of King Arthur, Knights would surround a castle and not permit food or water into thee castle. Eventually the people inside the castle would come out seeking food and water.
In chess you use restrain,blockade and execute the enemy position in order to extract the enemy King in order to deliver checkmate.
I will clarify further only if you have questions. And, believe me there is alot to explain, detail and clarify.
Chess king has no need for food or water - your analogy is meaningless. And you don't have to extract the king in order to checkmate him.
___________________
Chess King does have need for safe squares. Restrain, blockade and execute enemy deprives chess king of safe squares. It is not a literal extraction of the King. It is more like a boa constrictor squeezing the enemy position. Depriving the enemy position of space and time.
Nimzowitsch’s "First restrain, next blockade, lastly destroy" relates to enemy pawns, not to a king. You've got it all wrong again.
__________________________
Your interpretation is much too narrow. Nimzowitsch also writes about Bishops hemming in enemy pawns and Knights. Also Rooks using levers along files to penetrate enemy positions especially the 7th rank. There are many other examples.
Your interpretation is so wide that nobody understands you. Nimzowitsch used Restraint and Blockade terms in a quite precize way and modern authors follow that tradition. Rooks penetrating enemy positions have nothing to do with Restraint and Blockade. If you disagree just find a quote from some chess book to support your use of terminology. I know there are none.
Your mantra of "Siege Warfare" and "Restraint/Blockade/Execute" just sounds as some esoteric nonsense.
__________________________
The evidence is staring you in the face. But you don't want to accept it. It is ok it is not my job to help you wrap your brain around what is going on. Eventually you will see it. But of course it will have to be your idea. That is the way some people are.
Ok, peace...
Jul 1, 2018
0
#111
fieldsofforce wrote:
B_Rook wrote:
mateologist wrote:
The honest answer too the question is i don't know ! What the heck i can draw against a (USCF) expert one round and get demolished by a (1400) rated in the next, I am ERRACTLY good sometimes !!
Just because a 1400 demolished you in one game doesn't mean he's better than you, just means he played well in that game or you played badly for whatever reason (unless he's sandbagging). Tbh, if your opponent is genuinely over 300 points below then you should be playing like someone who is over 300 points in level higher than them, there's not really much excuse for that.
_____________________
Change 3 perspectives about how you play chess and within one month you will be playing much stronger chess. Focus on accumulating visualization pattern memory banks in your brain. If you would like a clarifyinng explanation let me know.
You wrote in big bold letters it must be something I need. What address do I need to send the money too?
Many people might think that rating are linear, which mean , I studied for one year and get 1000 rating, next year I might get 1500, next year may be 2000, which is obviously false.
When rating become higher and higher, same level of opponents become stronger and stronger to beat. A lot of people already experienced, omg, I studied for 5 years to get 2000 rating, but I have to study another 5 years to get merely another 200 rating.
Learning from leela shows, initial rating increasement is extremely fast but rating become excessively slow in higher rating. (the graph has multiple zero reset to test different learning methods)
I will be good when I get 1000 at score , until then ..NEWBIE DETECTED xd
erikido23 wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
B_Rook wrote:
mateologist wrote:
The honest answer too the question is i don't know ! What the heck i can draw against a (USCF) expert one round and get demolished by a (1400) rated in the next, I am ERRACTLY good sometimes !!
Just because a 1400 demolished you in one game doesn't mean he's better than you, just means he played well in that game or you played badly for whatever reason (unless he's sandbagging). Tbh, if your opponent is genuinely over 300 points below then you should be playing like someone who is over 300 points in level higher than them, there's not really much excuse for that.
_____________________
Change 3 perspectives about how you play chess and within one month you will be playing much stronger chess. Focus on accumulating visualization pattern memory banks in your brain. If you would like a clarifyinng explanation let me know.
You wrote in big bold letters it must be something I need. What address do I need to send the money too?
No need to send any money. Just look for my posts on these forums.
Jul 3, 2018
0
#116
Once I buckled down (In high school) and started studying chess books and practicing, I got to 1200 in maybe a month. About 3 months later, 1300. Maybe 8 months later, 1400. A year later, 1500. 6 months later, skipped o we 1600's to 1700.
Then I graduated and went out in the real world right after that. Progress kinda stopped at that point.
THIS FORUM IS 8 YEARS OLD!
Jul 5, 2018
0
#118
PuzzledLolz wrote:
'Good' is pretty subjective. It depends on how you play too
That is true.
Even a 1200 player sitting in a crowded restaurant or doctors office, is likely the strongest player in the room.
Jul 5, 2018
0
#119
ive been playing seriously for about 3 years, learned to play and casually played for 3 years before that. I'd say around 2150 strength USCF is what I'm at after 3 years of serious studying and a few years of casual experience.
Jul 6, 2018
0
#120
DarreionChase wrote:
ive been playing seriously for about 3 years, learned to play and casually played for 3 years before that. I'd say around 2150 strength USCF is what I'm at after 3 years of serious studying and a few years of casual experience.
you think? people are way more gifted at overestimating their strength than underestimating it.
Concerning the 3 changes in perspective. The first one is that chess is Siege Warfare in the form of a game. In the times of King Arthur, Knights would surround a castle and not permit food or water into thee castle. Eventually the people inside the castle would come out seeking food and water.
In chess you use restrain,blockade and execute the enemy position in order to extract the enemy King in order to deliver checkmate.
I will clarify further only if you have questions. And, believe me there is alot to explain, detail and clarify.
Chess king has no need for food or water - your analogy is meaningless. And you don't have to extract the king in order to checkmate him.