I lack accuracy
Sort:
Oct 9, 2018
0
#3
Johnny_Gumshoe wrote:
Some days the only thing I feel I’m not lacking is stupidity.
Your rating don't suggest that
you should try to plaly games defensive....until you becomes accurate to see the opponent threat.....then combines the opponent threat to your attack with proper calculation ....i it will take time initially but ultimately you become master to this.....
Don't move too fast and every move your opponent makes ask yourself, "Why did he make that move?". Train tactics, strategy, and defense. Have patience and play in atleast 15 - 30 min games to have enough time to find some tactics, threats, and maybe find a hidden win or material gain.
What the heck? This internet. I do not intend to spam.
Im sorry for that.
Oct 9, 2018
0
#8
DaRealMLGTL wrote:
Im sorry for that.
That happened to me before too, I feel you bruh 
I think it's fairly common, and moreso in people who learn chess as adults. I think younger players tend to make less mistakes.
Oct 9, 2018
0
#10
cynthuja wrote:
I think it's fairly common, and moreso in people who learn chess as adults. I think younger players tend to make less mistakes.
Yes, you are right. I leant chess at the age of 20
well I'm 33 and struggling 
Oct 9, 2018
0
#12
cynthuja wrote:
well I'm 33 and struggling
Don't say like that. You can too do it.
My opinion is that it is far more associated with level of play (i.e. rating) than it is age of the player. I learned quite young, and inaccuracies are readily found in every game I play. What has helped me the most in terms of inaccuracies is simply working on my tactics.
Simon Williams (GM) harps over and over again in his videos about how one of the most common problems with lower ranked players is they don't consider their opponents threats. He says that after every move by your opponent, you should ask why they made that move.
That problem of prematurely attacking is also addressed by Simon Williams. In fact he even has a rule that essentially states that you usually need at least 3 pieces to successfully prosecute an attack. Sure it is possible to find degenerate cases where that isn't the case. But it is true far more often than not.
I've also watched the John Bartholomew video you referenced, and agree that it is a very worthwhile watch for lower rated players (and perhaps some not so low rated).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao9iOeK_jvU
madratter7 wrote:
One can be sacrificed, the other to mate, and the last to protect the one giving mate.
That problem of prematurely attacking is also addressed by Simon Williams. In fact he even has a rule that essentially states that you usually need at least 3 pieces to successfully prosecute an attack. Sure it is possible to find degenerate cases where that isn't the case. But it is true far more often than not.
I've also watched the John Bartholomew video you referenced, and agree that it is a very worthwhile watch for lower rated players (and perhaps some not so low rated).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao9iOeK_jvU
Oct 9, 2018
0
#16
Players class A and B (perhaps some experts) have an ego greater than they should (regardless of age).
We know enough of chess to create true works of art when we are on a good day.
We are like teens, we feel powerful and have the truth.
The solution is simpler: you just stop thinking your opponents are idiots.
An example of this being true is that we play better when the opponent is much stronger, 100+ or 200+, we already know that they are not silly so we get smarter.
Right? Does anyone disagree with this?
I can't concentrate opponent threats. I just go out with all my attacks. I forget lines too quickly. Any idea how to sort out these issues.