actually Expertise87 if he does knight takes e5 it does not work greatly because white plays 5.Bxf7!!!!!!
How unfortunate that Expertise87 didn't consider that continuation in his notes.
I love it when people play that move! It's really bad.
And yet it got 6 exclams!
Doesn't that just lose a piece?
Oh, WAIT A MINUTE -- he gets it back, guys!
4...Ne4 is, i believe called the Knight's Move. It was used on me once, and i was curious enough to look it up. If i recall correctly, the source mentioned Bxf7+ not being a good choice.
In Thomas' game linked above, there was a tactic missed at move 15. The opponent's king is exposed. 15...Qg3+ wins a pawn and exchange. 16. Kh1 Qxh3+ takes the pawn for free. 17. Kg1 Qg3+ 18. Kh1 Nf2+ forks the king and queen, but wins the rook/exchange. 19. Rxf2 Qxf2.
Actually, move 14...Bxf2+ leads to mate.
If you spend 2 hours a day studying chess, I would spend at least an hour on tactics with a focus on quickly solving easy puzzles(I used to spend ten minutes a day drilling mate in one just to get in chess shape, or use Shredder Chess on my Android phone for its tactics trainer. It costs $7 but there are free ones available as well. I like Shredder because none of the problems are very difficult and it grades you based on the amount of time you take. If you get under 95% on a 500-problem section you are doing it wrong.)
The rest of the time would be well-spent reviewing basic endgames - make sure you know Lucena, Philidor, and Kling&Horwitz rook endgames, some principles (How to Play Chess Endgames by Muller and Pajeken was an excellent resource I used when I was around 1800-2000) etc.
But the best way to improve is to play and analyze your games, not study. Tactics study can get you a long way, but you also have to be able to play, analyze, and create tactical opportunities.
Yeah I'm doing similar to that, thanks. Would like to play more over the board games though. Might look into that book. =)
You're telling me there are less than 200,000 FIDE rated players in the world?
I'm not sure why your startled by this, many people play chess but not nearly as many play or are part of chess organizations. I think the USCF has less than 90k members, for example.
Still having trouble finding the number of FIDE rated players.
I found this: "But the raw numbers themselves are astonishing: over 6m, 35m, 16m, 50m and 85m people in the U.K., U.S., Germany, Russia, and India (ABC1), respectively, are playing chess regularly and more than half are 18-34."
Those included unrated players. I still find it a bit surprising that out of 192m people, only 200k are FIDE rated. I would've expected at least 1% to be rated.
He gave you the link. Click on advanced search, then specify a rating range (doesn't seem to work below 1000, is that the lowest?)
Thats exactly what I was going to post!
Leaving the 0 in was the problem. It doesn't search below 1000.
Most players never obtain a FIDE rating but do have a national rating e.g. ECF, USCF etc.
At my club there are players whose national ratings convert to 2200/2300 FIDE etc. but have never played a FIDE event. They are still very strong players, regardless of where their rating is obtained from. For every FIDE rated player in the UK, there are twenty more without a FIDE rating but holding an ECF rating. The numbers represented by FIDE ratings are the tip of the iceberg.
If skill at chess correlates so well with intelligence, wouldn't you expect the highest rated chess players to be high achievers in other (dare I say, more important) realms?
Not really, since to be really good in chess requires so much time investment.
1000-1999 = 86012
2000-2099 = 25419
2100-3000 = 40995
Well, the halfway mark is below 2000. Breaking it down to 200 pt spans won't change that.
1957 seems to be the median.