I seem stuck at 1400. Here are my study methods: - Chess Forums - Page 2

Chesserroo2

Jan 1, 2018

0

#21

The written overview of what I should be thinking provides a different dimension that the analysis by the computer. The computer shows me blunders and correct moves, but does not say why in that way, even with the lengthier examples.

The computer did however show me much more blunders than were caught here.

OK, so

I should not open the center while my king is still in it, especially when it is lined up with an enemy rook.

I also should not start fights when I don't have a decisive development advantage, at least not unless I see a clear win.

If I'm being stormed, I likely should not open that area up further.

If my bishop is on a good post, I should not block it.

Instead of moving a well guarded pawn to a square only guarded by my king to chase a knight and guard mine, it is better to bring my remaining pieces into the fight.

Finally, watch the blunders.

I won that game on time, after surviving an attack to get a drawish position.

kindaspongey

Jan 1, 2018

0

#22

"..., you have to make a decision: have tons of fun playing blitz (without learning much), or be serious and play with longer time controls so you can actually think.
One isn’t better than another. Having fun playing bullet is great stuff, while 3-0 and 5-0 are also ways to get your pulse pounding and blood pressure leaping off the charts. But will you become a good player? Most likely not.
Of course, you can do both (long and fast games), ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (June 9, 2016)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/longer-time-controls-are-more-instructive

Chesserroo2

Jan 1, 2018

0

#23

So instead of only looking through my games for blunders and fights over squares, I should look at overall principles and see if there are trends in ones I violate.

jambyvedar

Jan 1, 2018

0

#24

Chesserroo2 wrote:

So instead of only looking through my games for blunders and fights over squares, I should look at overall principles and see if there are trends in ones I violate.

Personally i think you should focus at committing less elementary blunders. Ask yourself these. Why did you blunder a piece from a simple threat? Why did you miss a simple fork and pin? And so on and so on. The problem here is the thinking process. You are forgetting to do what i posted here.

Try to play games some 15 minutes games. Your Pandolfini's book is good for beginners. But it lacks depth with examples. It is time to increase your knowledge. Probably try books like Logical Chess Move by Move, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess, Winning Chess Strategy by Seirawan or Winning Chess Strategy for Kids by Coackley. You can choose one book from these list.

Chesserroo2

Jan 1, 2018

0

#25

The main reason I've played blitz instead of long all these years is with long, if I start to win, my opponent just lets their clock tick down, and then comes back to play for the last 30 seconds if I have not resigned yet. It was such a waste of time that I refused to play anything over 5 minutes. I've regained some trust in people, and now am up to 10 minutes. The daily game was against a friend.

For long games, I could just play against a computer, resetting the board up for it each time it is its turn, and setting it to not tell me any of its thoughts. I could see if I can beat the computer, or at least have fun analyzing many moves and thinking more outside the box.

sammy_boi

Jan 1, 2018

0

#26

Chesserroo2 wrote:

The written overview of what I should be thinking provides a different dimension that the analysis by the computer. The computer shows me blunders and correct moves, but does not say why in that way, even with the lengthier examples.

The computer did however show me much more blunders than were caught here.

OK, so

I should not open the center while my king is still in it, especially when it is lined up with an enemy rook. Absolutely correct.

I also should not start fights when I don't have a decisive development advantage, at least not unless I see a clear win. Yes, in the opening this is true. In the middlegame try to start fights in the area (queenside, center, or kingside) where you have more advanced pawns and/or more active pieces. One rule of thumb people say is "attack in the area where you pawns point" meaning your main central pawn chain.

If I'm being stormed, I likely should not open that area up further.

Definitely. Your opponent will be the one whose goal is to open that area. Your goal is to #1 find counter play in a separate area and if that fails then #2 direct defense. For example one tip often given is "meet a flank attack by counter attacking in the center"

If my bishop is on a good post, I should not block it.

Sometimes you won't be able to help it, but yes, if everything else is equal, but one move blocks a bishop or rook, and another move doesn't, then choose not to block.

Instead of moving a well guarded pawn to a square only guarded by my king to chase a knight and guard mine, it is better to bring my remaining pieces into the fight.

This is a little too situational to be a good rule, and that specific position was difficult to defend for white, but I wanted to stress the importance of using all your pieces. There's an old saying "beginners play by moving their best pieces, masters play by moving their worst pieces." For example a rook that's sitting in the corner doing nothing for you should be a nagging concern.

Finally, watch the blunders.

I won that game on time, after surviving an attack to get a drawish position.

Yeah, I looked with an engine too, to see if I missed anything big... but I wanted to limit the comments to what I thought would be most useful, and things that could be explained using concepts.

The summary you make is good. I add some comments in red.

Chesserroo2 wrote:

So instead of only looking through my games for blunders and fights over squares, I should look at overall principles and see if there are trends in ones I violate.

Yeah, well said.

Although it's hard to know what concepts you're violating unless you've learned them from books / videos / coaches.

kindaspongey

Jan 1, 2018

0

#27

Chesserroo2 wrote:

The main reason I've played blitz instead of long all these years is ...

Will the reasons for your choice change the probable consequences of your choice?

"... Having fun playing bullet is great stuff, while 3-0 and 5-0 are also ways to get your pulse pounding and blood pressure leaping off the charts. But will you become a good player? Most likely not. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (June 9, 2016)

SeniorPatzer

Jan 1, 2018

0

#28

sammy_boi wrote:

tl;dr play long games where you consider more than one candidate move and practice falsification by doing Stokyo exercises with difficult tactic puzzles.

Sounds like you have enough knowledge to be rated higher but your performance is holding you back.

So I'd say it's not so much about solving puzzles or playing games as it is forming proper habits.

First of all, during a game, analysis doesn't exist unless you're considering more than 1 candidate move. Analysis means you've calculated two different candidate moves, rendered evaluations for them, and finally you compare those evaluations to decide which candidate move is better.

If you're blundering basic stuff, then I'd guess you're not considering multiple moves, you're just working hard to make sure your 1 candidate move has something you like about it, and as soon as you find something you like, you play it.

To practice this I suggest long games. To force yourself, maybe keep a piece of paper and pencil nearby. For every move write down at least two candidates. At the end of the game, if you'd played 40 moves, then you should have 40 lines of moves written.

The second habit is falsification. It's NOT good calculate and evaluate in terms of what you like about a move. You should be knowledgeable and experienced enough to find candidate moves with something to like about them easily. For players at that level, most of your energy during a game should be spent trying to find out why a move is bad, not why it's good. Both for your intended move and your opponent's last move.

To practice this I suggest getting a collection of tactic puzzles, ideally ones that are a little too hard (but not massively too hard) to solve. Then spend as long as 20-30 minutes on a problem. Mostly you'll be calculating everything you can to try to stumble upon the solution. When you think you have a solution, write it down. You should write down more than 1 line per problem. For example if you think the solution begins with Ne4, you must show at least two different defensive ideas in your written solution. Only write down moves once you're fully done calculating a line. Don't use the notes to aid you in solving it. If you can't solve it, then after 20-30 minutes, give up and write down what you'd play if it were a real game, then work through the solution.

The idea is because they're a little to hard for you to normally solve, a lot of energy will be spent on finding why your candidate moves don't work.

Really quite excellent advice!!

As an important off-topic aside to Mr. Boi, have you ever considered using the methodoloy of falsification to falsify atheism?

Just curious.

sammy_boi

Jan 1, 2018

0

#29

SeniorPatzer wrote: