working puzzles from some books are definitely beneficial....provided you are working on them on an actual board with actual pieces.
I've already see this claim before but I just don't get it. What's the advantage of solving puzzles on real chess board over solving them using software or website? The obvious advantage of software/web is that you don't waste time on setting positions manually.
I'd love to play you when I have some free time. I can't do anything longer then 15+10 and can't play soon but would love a game.
working puzzles from some books are definitely beneficial....provided you are working on them on an actual board with actual pieces.
I've already see this claim before but I just don't get it. What's the advantage of solving puzzles on real chess board over solving them using software or website? The obvious advantage of software/web is that you don't waste time on setting positions manually.
The way your brain processes information is different between the 2 views.........Bird's Eye View vs Orthogonal View.
Secondly, it is good practice for calculation and visualization. It's all about calculation. You push the boundaries on your calculation and visualization skills. Plus, the goal is to improve OTB......practicing what you will eventually play is of huge importance. If you only study online, then when it comes time to play OTB, your timing will be off, your visualization will be off. Your calculation will suffer. I am an OTB tournament player. I want to improve my OTB play, so I study positions, theory, analysis etc over the board.
However, I still do problems using software as well because I like to add all of the variations in given problems and games. But, as you mentioned, it is time consuming to set up the board multiple times to look at different variations. This is much easier with analysis tools on chess.com or lichess, but the best trainers in the game, say its good to use a real board, with real pieces.
Bird's Eye View vs Orthogonal View - it's just a view, an entry point. The information beyond this point is same. I don't see why calculation, visualisation and timing (?) should be different.
Blindfold play by strong players makes this 2D vs 3D thing irrelevant. For amateur players this might be an issue at some point - when I first came to a chess club after few years of internet chess I indeed had some problem to see positions well in 3D. However it took me may be 3 OTB games to fully adapt and to stop feeling any difference. My chess limitations and weaknesses are certainly not a question of 2D vs 3D.
I just did this bit of analysis. I picked up Lamprecht and Muller and found this position.
White to move is draw and black to move is win for black. My analysis is as follows:
Black must try to invade with the king on first e3 and then push g2 check and then f2 check followed by Ke2 followed by promoting the f pawn.
So White to play is 1.Nb6 Not Black plays Ke3. Now White plays Nc4+ and forever prevents invasion of king on e3 by checking all around the board.
Black to play is 1...Ke3 and now 2.Nb6 is insufficient as g2+ comes in time. Kg1 and now Ke2 is in time for the win.
DeirdreSkye, thanks for your arguments, you've convinced me. The reconstruction of the position is indeed an improtant phase that gives additional physical input. When studying master games in ChessBase I try not to click right arrow to move through the game, instead I read the notation and make the moves manually on 2D board. It's also additional physical input and one small step towards more active learning - I feel it really makes a difference.
This is the position of the day for me from Aagaard's Positional Play. It's white to move. I've come up with two variations based around the key move 1.e6.
1.e6 Qxe6
2.Re1 Qc7
3.Ba3 now the knight needs protection so ...c5
4. dxc5 bxc5
5.Bxb4 cxb4
6.Nxd5 +-
Second variation
1.e6 fxe6
2.Ne5 Qc7
3.Qh5+ g6
4.Nxg6+-
Is this correct?
After 1.,.Qxe6 2. Rxb4 seems to do the trick.
yeah i didn't see that.
however, after Re1 then Bxc3 then after the second rook goes black has two rooks for the queen and can play on.
Let me post the second position of the day
Here Na4 intending Nb6 is strong I think because Nd7 cannot be played without the loss of the h7 pawn. So
here we go
1.Na4 b5
2.Nb6 Ra7
3.a4 now white threatens to take twice on b5
If black captures on a4 he is in minus anyhow because of the tripled heavy pieces on the a file. if he plays Qa8 then white plays Qb2 exchanges the rook brings the other rook and seizes the open file.
Yes @BobbyTalparov, I'm not going to go with that said positions a day. I'll find out how many I can do and adjust accordingly.
That wasn't really what I meant. The idea of studying specific things every day will get boring and monotonous, and you'll likely deviate quickly. A better approach is to have several things you could do and try to do 1 or 2 of them every day.
For example, I've been working my way through Bronstein's Zurich 1953 lately, as well as studying de la Villa's "100 Endgames You Must Know", and 3 different tactics books. Any any given day, I might do 1 or 2 of those study activities. It is simply a matter of time and focus. Some days I really feel like focusing on tactics and will spend all of my study time just practicing tactics. Other days, I may want to work through 2-3 games from Bronstein's book and then practice endgame positions against engines. And still other days, I may spend my entire study time simply analyzing my OTB games. If I was doing all of these activities every day, it would be very draining.
Cross training. Also popular in sports training.