Maybe another point I just thought of is that you're afraid of tension in the position eg. pawns squaring off, and prefer playing games where there aren't many things to have to keep track of. It's easy to see how this could turn into "simpler" and even "more positional".
This is true. Absolutely true.
I don't see something wrong with your play, apart from improper positional understanding- which is common at your level, and nothing to worry about... you can fix it by more study, and playing more games/ gathering experience.
I was more puzzled by this game:
http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=72071474
You resigned in a position where black has an easy draw, and he doesn't have to find "only moves"- he can draw in many ways.
More than that, Black is actually winning after 24...a5, but here good calculation is required- nobody would blame you for missing it.
In that game, I was thinking quite vaguely. I had like 5 other games going and thought "Oh no, the king can infiltrate on g4 ." So.. I resigned, the worst possible move in the position :)
Study gambits! It will give you alot of fun in your games.
Before I studied the Smith-Morra Gambit:
Now I studied it:
And a few days later, I started playing 1.. e5! against e4, and in the first blitz game I found a way to sacrifice my knight for an unclear position. It was a real blunderfest, but in the end, I won.
Study gambits! It will give you alot of fun in your games.
Before I studied the Smith-Morra Gambit:
Now I studied it:
And a few days later, I started playing 1.. e5! against e4, and in the first blitz game I found a way to sacrifice my knight for an unclear position. It was a real blunderfest, but in the end, I won.
This thread is getting more popular than I thought. Thanks everyone for your contributions! :)
Coach Heisman commented on one of his shows that gambits were the quickest ways to get an attack going since at anything under 1600 a pawns difference means little even if you get to an endgame. I'm too chicken myself but you might want to give it a try. You may not win, but your games won't be boring!
Perhaps that's an idea. Any recommendations?
Just a warning: pushing pawns is safer than giving away pawns for a compensation you can't exploit.
And I can't exploit it because...?
Gambits are of course the quickest way to sharpen your game, but there is a critical distinction between playing openings such as the Vienna or King's Gambit and playing trash such as the Latvian.
Choose your gambits carefully, don't choose lines that can be refuted with a day of study. You want to choose openings that you can use more than once against the same opponent.
Yes, I realize that there are real gambits and "joke" gambits. I'll be sure to be careful should I pursue some.
Gambits are fun but don't try memorising all the lines. That defeats the purpose of playing them in the first place...
Well, here's a game with me trying to play sharper chess :) I will post "boring" games later.
Don't worry about forming your style.
Seriously you will do a lot better playing moves that feel natural rather than playing super sharp positions where you feel uncomfortable.
I don't see something wrong with your play, apart from improper positional understanding- which is common at your level, and nothing to worry about... you can fix it by more study, and playing more games/ gathering experience.
I was more puzzled by this game:
http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=72071474
You resigned in a position where black has an easy draw, and he doesn't have to find "only moves"- he can draw in many ways.
More than that, Black is actually winning after 24...a5, but here good calculation is required- nobody would blame you for missing it.
Agree. Don't change your style. The things you have to change is to sharpen your skill, to play a good end game (though the result maybe not good), etc.
If you can play with your boring style, you can play with any styles you want.
But first you have to be very good at your boring style. Bored your opponent not yourself.
Hehe, I was "trying" to follow theory with the Caro-Kann. It was from an Anand game I saw. I should have eventually pushed c5 though. And with the other game, I was trying a King's Indian attack type of formation, since I saw it in a Fischer game. :) But, I understand that attitude is everything, especially with "sharpening" my style. Examples of "boring" games will come soon enough.
thats a part of the problem. you can't copy just the moves from great players, without the deep positional understanding they have. If you copy a move order you know that you have - for the moment - a good position, but then the trouble begins. you lack a good plan, which is important for dynamic play. so try to avoid any moves you don't fully understand.
i dun like the way u only play with pawns
.. change that
The boring game is just my favorite. In one of my game, there was only one pawn exchange after some 20 moves. Then it exploded with some fireworks of exchanging 3 pieces each. It changed the gme ther after, sharp and strong attacks.
The boring is a game waiting for fireworks. It likes you blow a baloon to explode.
But waiting for your boring game and some fireworks.
Explosion
Wikipedia: An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. →
One idea I attempt to get people who ask me for help in improving their overall play and going for sharper play in the opening and or middle game is: don't try it yet (emphasis on that last word), unless they have a decent grasp of tactics.. Now, this does not mean that you have to be well versed on skewer and deflection tactics but rather the three main ones I call the chess players bread an d butter at the start: pins, forks, and double attacks. Nearly every tactical motif builds off these and if you have a weak foundation, the whole house will be bad.
Sharp play tends to lead to unbalanced positions many times and can get into interesting endings. There fore, study on imbalances and endings of say minor piece imbalances but also how to play say Rook and pawns versus Knight and pawns, something one might see in the endings from .perhaps some sac lines in the French advance on f3 and some Najdorf lines involving Rxc3.
Once these ate in place, begin learning some openings that lead to these type of situations. You might try in say the Grunfeld, 4. Bg5 or following 5. 0-0 in the Spanish, Bg4 and on the h3 kick, play h5, the Alapin gambit.
Finally, playing cheapo lines ala blitz play is not always sharp play, especially in a long game when i get three days to find replies to kill them. play solid chess.
Finally, expect a slump in ratings at first, in all games played since you were taking a new concept and putting it to use. Within a few months, you will likely exceed your rating.
Great posting by the way
chessman, if you want to play sharp then avoid positional openings like caro-kann or sicilian and instead play stuff like the french. as white i hope you play e4
The OP is probably LAZY. If his games come from Open Seeks, his win / loss ratio should (arguably) be reversed, since most of your opponents come from below you.
So get with the program -- "Study Bring Wisdom, Practice Brings Perfection," a la GM Hellsten's recent books.
VERY SIMPLE. Improving is NOT rocket science.
chessman, if you want to play sharp then avoid positional openings like caro-kann or sicilian and instead play stuff like the french. as white i hope you play e4
I (almost) always play 1.e4 :) "Best by test" -Fischer.
Hehe, I was "trying" to follow theory with the Caro-Kann. It was from an Anand game I saw. I should have eventually pushed c5 though. And with the other game, I was trying a King's Indian attack type of formation, since I saw it in a Fischer game. :) But, I understand that attitude is everything, especially with "sharpening" my style. Examples of "boring" games will come soon enough.
thats a part of the problem. you can't copy just the moves from great players, without the deep positional understanding they have. If you copy a move order you know that you have - for the moment - a good position, but then the trouble begins. you lack a good plan, which is important for dynamic play. so try to avoid any moves you don't fully understand.
Yes, I understand that now.
Maybe another point I just thought of is that you're afraid of tension in the position eg. pawns squaring off, and prefer playing games where there aren't many things to have to keep track of. It's easy to see how this could turn into "simpler" and even "more positional".