Wouldn't amateur be better suited in what you are describing than beginner? An amateur usually knows all of the fundamentals and is attempting to put what knowledge he knows into acquiring a higher understanding of the game, where as a beginner is still struggling with learning the rudiments of the game.
Wouldn't amateur be better suited in what you are describing than beginner? An amateur usually knows all of the fundamentals and is attempting to put what knowledge he knows into acquiring a higher understanding of the game, where as a beginner is still struggling with learning the rudiments of the game.
No it doesn't. An amateur is someone who does something as hobby instead for a living. So that includes many grandmasters who just aren't good enough to actually make money with chess.
Wouldn't amateur be better suited in what you are describing than beginner? An amateur usually knows all of the fundamentals and is attempting to put what knowledge he knows into acquiring a higher understanding of the game, where as a beginner is still struggling with learning the rudiments of the game.
No it doesn't. An amateur is someone who does something as hobby instead for a living. So that includes many grandmasters who just aren't good enough to actually make money with chess.
Okay, here we go with a definition, but only to be sure we are usihg the same definition of amateur:
am a teur |ˈamətər; -ˌtər; -ˌ ch oŏr; - ch ər|nouna person who engages in a pursuit, esp. a sport, on an unpaid basis.• a person considered contemptibly inept at a particular activity : that bunch of stumbling amateurs.
This is the definition I was thinking of. Another dictionary simply gives: a person who is not an expert.
I am not attempting to disagree with you, only clear the air so we are using the same definition. Perhaps you can find another definition that fits what you think it should be. I never thought a person that was an amateur to be doing something only as a hobby. Not paid for what he does, which includes most chess players, yet certainly in a pursuit to be better at the game.
Wouldn't amateur be better suited in what you are describing than beginner? An amateur usually knows all of the fundamentals and is attempting to put what knowledge he knows into acquiring a higher understanding of the game, where as a beginner is still struggling with learning the rudiments of the game.
No it doesn't. An amateur is someone who does something as hobby instead for a living. So that includes many grandmasters who just aren't good enough to actually make money with chess.
Okay, here we go with a definition, but only to be sure we are usihg the same definition of amateur:
am a teur |ˈamətər; -ˌtər; -ˌ ch oŏr; - ch ər|nouna person who engages in a pursuit, esp. a sport, on an unpaid basis.• a person considered contemptibly inept at a particular activity : that bunch of stumbling amateurs.
This is the definition I was thinking of. Another dictionary simply gives: a person who is not an expert.
I am not attempting to disagree with you, only clear the air so we are using the same definition. Perhaps you can find another definition that fits what you think it should be. I never thought a person that was an amateur to be doing something only as a hobby. Not paid for what he does, which includes most chess players, yet certainly in a pursuit to be better at the game.
The first definition of your post states what I said it meant.
Here is another bunch of definitions all close to what I said what an amateur is.
(note btw that definition 3 also describes people who are good, but just not good enough. Not only beginners.)
Wouldn't amateur be better suited in what you are describing than beginner? An amateur usually knows all of the fundamentals and is attempting to put what knowledge he knows into acquiring a higher understanding of the game, where as a beginner is still struggling with learning the rudiments of the game.
No it doesn't. An amateur is someone who does something as hobby instead for a living. So that includes many grandmasters who just aren't good enough to actually make money with chess.
Okay, here we go with a definition, but only to be sure we are usihg the same definition of amateur:
am a teur |ˈamətər; -ˌtər; -ˌ ch oŏr; - ch ər|nouna person who engages in a pursuit, esp. a sport, on an unpaid basis.• a person considered contemptibly inept at a particular activity : that bunch of stumbling amateurs.
This is the definition I was thinking of. Another dictionary simply gives: a person who is not an expert.
I am not attempting to disagree with you, only clear the air so we are using the same definition. Perhaps you can find another definition that fits what you think it should be. I never thought a person that was an amateur to be doing something only as a hobby. Not paid for what he does, which includes most chess players, yet certainly in a pursuit to be better at the game.
The first definition of your post states what I said it meant.
Here is another bunch of definitions all close to what I said what an amateur is.
(note btw that definition 3 also describes people who are good, but just not good enough. Not only beginners.)
As it turns out, after I checked the definition of hobby, I learned that my definition of hobby was limited. Live and learn, at least I attempt to do that.
In our Sunday paper is Shelby Lyman on Chess in which there is always a problem for the beginner. My opinion of a beginner must not be the same as his, because some of those problems seem difficult for what I consider to be a beginner. In your opinion, when does a beginner graduate from being a beginner?
Give us one of the problems.
In our Sunday paper is Shelby Lyman on Chess in which there is always a problem for the beginner. My opinion of a beginner must not be the same as his, because some of those problems seem difficult for what I consider to be a beginner. In your opinion, when does a beginner graduate from being a beginner?
Give us one of the problems.
I'll look for one that I can give for an example of what I think is too difficult for my opponent of what a beginner could solve.
In our Sunday paper is Shelby Lyman on Chess in which there is always a problem for the beginner. My opinion of a beginner must not be the same as his, because some of those problems seem difficult for what I consider to be a beginner. In your opinion, when does a beginner graduate from being a beginner?
Give us one of the problems.
I'll look for one that I can give for an example of what I think is too difficult for my opponent of what a beginner could solve.
Okay.
In our Sunday paper is Shelby Lyman on Chess in which there is always a problem for the beginner. My opinion of a beginner must not be the same as his, because some of those problems seem difficult for what I consider to be a beginner. In your opinion, when does a beginner graduate from being a beginner?
Give us one of the problems.
I'll look for one that I can give for an example of what I think is too difficult for my opponent of what a beginner could solve.
Here it is. I want to add that since first posting my question I have learned that many definitions of a chess beginner differ greatly. Another forum Beginner? ‘ was posted after mine with even more comments, which in all, answers my question to some extent as to why the puzzles in the paper are stated for beginners. And that being, the author’s definition of a chess beginner is more advanced than mine. This being the case, he thinks that these puzzles should be solvable for a beginner.
Anyway, here is a sample puzzle, which to me, under my definition of a beginner is someone that has just learned all of the rudiments of chess, is difficult for most beginners. I will give the solution later, because I am curious as to what replies there will be about it all. All of this interests me, and I am not looking for the correct definition of a chess beginner. I have my answer to my original question, as I stated earlier. ‘ was posted after mine with even more comments, which in all, answers my question to some extent as to why the puzzles in the paper are stated for beginners. And that being, the author’s definition of a chess beginner is more advanced than mine. This being the case, he thinks that these puzzles should be solvable for a beginner.
All of this interests me, and I am not looking for the correct definition of a chess beginner. I have my answer to my original question, as I stated earlier.
I wouldn't expect most beginners to solve the puzzle, but it's not so advanced that a beginner couldn't learn from it. I think was appropriate for beginners.
uhohspaghettio, Qxc3, Kxc3, Nd5+, K moves, Nf6 traps the queen. Very good...
It's easier if you know there's something wild going to happen. If you have to sacrifice a queen or rook in all the tactics it shouldn't be THAT hard. The queen is unusually boxed in there.
But I would never consider that a beginner tactic, beginner would be more... back-rank mate lol.
You solved the problem, which did not surprise me. I agree, a beginner would go for a back-rank mate. Most beginners I've known, including my early chess days, would not sacrifice a queen.
I wouldn't expect most beginners to solve the puzzle, but it's not so advanced that a beginner couldn't learn from it. I think was appropriate for beginners.
I agree. Most beginners go for the king and check,check, check! Also you are correct that it is appropriate for beginnerss to learn from. Even if beginners cannot solve it they will learn about sacrificing a queen. I learned a lot this way since I had to teach myself to play chess.
Advanced beginner perhaps? Post some more, and I'll try to do better.
Advanced beginner perhaps? Post some more, and I'll try to do better.
I think advanced beginner is much better. I am not going to post more, because I received what I was seeking. Thanks anyway.
hey guys ive just joint the community n id like ta know how can i play against anyone in this site?
hey guys ive just joint the community n id like ta know how can i play against anyone in this site?
I recently joined myself. You can leave an open invitation for someone to play you or you can challenge a single person on their profile.
hey guys ive just joint the community n id like ta know how can i play against anyone in this site?
I recently joined myself. You can leave an open invitation for someone to play you or you can challenge a single person on their profile.
Welcome, both of you! I hope you enjoy this site as much as I do. I'm learning a lot about chess and my ability to play chess.
Advanced beginner perhaps? Post some more, and I'll try to do better.
I think advanced beginner is much better. I am not going to post more, because I received what I was seeking. Thanks anyway.
I did post another problem, Woodshover, but for another reason. Go to this thread, post #94.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/algebraic-notation
Advanced beginner perhaps? Post some more, and I'll try to do better.
I think advanced beginner is much better. I am not going to post more, because I received what I was seeking. Thanks anyway.
I did post another problem, Woodshover, but for another reason. Go to this thread, post #94.
I can see the obvious one where you can get a queen for your rook, but I don't see the mate. Could you give a small hint? I suck at these.
It's weird, but somehow it seems right to me to still call someone who is merely at a low level at chess, regardless of experience, a "beginner", as if they still haven't got past the beginning of chess learning. I'm assuming it's most likely because that's how most people throw around the word beginner when it comes to chess, so I get used to it.
So really this whole thing is pointless, because we all have different precise opinions about when to use the term "beginner", yet I still don't mind discussing it
But as for an actual answer to the original question, I end up agreeing with heinzie. C players at least avoid hanging pieces the vast majority of the time and are starting to learn more advanced concepts; not executing them well, but they're in the process. B players start to execute these ideas reasonably but are still inconsistent, while A players continue to improve in these areas and perhaps get a deeper appreciation for how each part of the game works in harmony with each other, and I say that because at this point they need some motivation for balancing their play: working on the part they're not so good at (like very often the endgame, as in my case) because just one weak link can singlehandedly drag down your game.
Experts I think have a lot of the qualities of masters, like having the ability to intuitively find the move that "the board is screaming for", having strong calculation, always having a plan, lack of unforced errors, etc, just executed in a less consistent way. I think they would still have many more "what was I thinking?" moments, as their decision making process continues to mature, and have more blunders and visible holes in their play, but nevertheless they're getting close to a very respectable level of play, a level that used to seem invincible to me.