SensFan33 wrote:
Seriously, do you guys actually think it's rocket science to look at a maximum of 16 pieces and check if any of them are being attacked at all, and then if they are, making sure you defend them if possible?
It's probably about the same level of difficulty as looking at your opponent's pieces and taking one if you're attacking it and it's not defended. So maybe you'd like to explain why you played Kf3 instead of Rxg3 in the diagrammed position. Feel free to describe yourself with all the adjectives you've been using to describe anyone who's ever hung a piece in a chess game.
Well, the more skilled the player is the less often he drops pieces. When he gets stronger he drops a tempo or two, or he drops an important square. Or he drops a forced winning continuation in a position that appear as if it is a drawn position when it is not. Or he drops a stale mate combination or he drops a good defensive move in a difficult situation.
The point where a player never drops anything would be the point where he never lose a game even playing against the world champion or against the best computer software available...
You're right, all players make errors or inaccuracies, even if they're minor. But isn't the ability to stop dropping pieces within everyone's control? It's really just taking the time to do a spot check isn't it? Much like double checking your punctuation before turning in that important essay to your teacher, avoiding the most primative of errors is within everyone's control.
Some people are good at grammar. Some people are good at chess. Some are good at both. Some are good at neither. The trick is to learn how not to look down upon those that are not as good as you are at any given skill. As well to know what is important in life.
As I've said several times now, it has nothing to do with being good. I could teach someone the game of chess in an hour and a half, and if they care enough, they can trivially play one or more games immediately without leaving a single piece en prise.
Pure ignorance. You are projecting your own bias by saying "if they care enough"... That is like saying if one care's enough, they could be Einstein, or be an astronaut, or whatever. There are factors beyond any individual's control, and one of them is the sheer brainpower to compete with intellectuals such as yourself.
Clearly being an astronaut or being Einstein are on the same level in their relative fields as it is to play a game of chess without making a move that accidentally lets your opponent capture a piece on their next move without being recaptured.
Seriously, do you guys actually think it's rocket science to look at a maximum of 16 pieces and check if any of them are being attacked at all, and then if they are, making sure you defend them if possible?
Sens, you are correct. Clearly the OP was speaking specifically about hanging pieces. And you are sticking to that topic. However, if we assume that not hanging pieces is one of the most important early lessons in chess, and you claim all one has to do is "care", then it seem to me like the obvious extrapolation is that all one needs to do is "care" enough to continue to learn, and "care" enough to eventually become the best in their field (chess, physics, rocket science). If there is any intellectual reason that one could not achieve this despite their "caring", than it is logical to assume that simply "caring" cannot alone solve a person's habit of dropping pieces.