Or 'if you see a move that gives you an easy win, play it'.
What were your "Aha!" Moments in your chess development?
Sort:
Dec 18, 2013
0
#43
Blitz games seem to be played out of instinct, not thought out processes that occour in standard time games. Standard time games give me the chance to think and come across these 'Aha!' moments.
I am fumbling with my openings, and fast games gives me more feedback, more succes and i get trashed a lot.
I was adviced to try 5 minutes, but it doesnt work for me, i am to slow, and need ten minutes to play some kind of steady.
The point with blitz is that I get volumetesting and I can experience and try houndreds of different openinggames. I have played 390 games this month since i joined here. With 15/10 i could have played 150 or something. I do explore mostly sicilian, spanish and d5 on d4. I am getting punished a lot less frequent now, compared to 250-300 games ago, and also feel that I am able to put some pressure early.
I am planning to move to the next level soon, the 15/10 or the 30 minute, and also the 3 days. I just need a lot more practice first.
Wasabi, 10/15 is quite fast too, so it might work better for you. When I am in openings in ten minute games the pieces move fast for 3,4, or maybe as much as 11 moves, and then suddendly some crisis comes up, forcing me to give one single move time. Maybe one, two or three minutes. That decisive move really gives an answer.
In my first 50 games I guess 10 losses came because of timeshortage, but that doesnt matter, what matters is that i got a lot of practice. I started out with 5 minutes, was to slow and choose to play 10 minutes from day two or three and all the other days.
tigbench, 10 minutes blitz allowes us to do some thinking, but there is not time for qualitycontrol, so there are more errors on both sides. These errors are ofcourse bad for learning, because the game will go on on a limited qualitylevel, but for openings it is not very bad, especially when I meet openingskilled players. They can easily play the first 12 moves in two minutes with good performance.
Another one for me was the concept of NOT trading active pieces for inactive pieces. Like when I have a Knight on a good outpost, grabbing a Bishop that's locked in and not going anywhere, simply because I can get the Bishop pair. Instead, I keep positioning my other pieces to increase the pressure and only take that Bishop (or other piece) when it leads to an advantage.
Dec 18, 2013
0
#48
DunnoItAll wrote:
One of my biggest was when I realized that the only thing that really mattered in most positions was whether I had been exposed to the most important concept in the position before.
I was watching a lecture by Irina Krush not too long ago. She showed some position in a room full of reasonably strong players. She lectured about it, and I struggled along with her. The room of reasonably strong players was doing about the same as I was. Then, she put up a second position. I instantly understood everything about it. It was not easier or harder than the previous position, but it was a concept I had seen before. I remembered the concept very well (even where I came across it--Best Lessons of a Chess Coach by Weeramantry). I watched as the room full of players that was about my level struggled along with the position exactly as they did in the first position. Exactly as I did in the first position. I, literally instantly, nailed the exact move sequence that Krush went through as 100% correct, with the correct reasoning.
I realized then that the only reason I knew it was because I had seen it before. I wasn't as good as Krush or better than the players in that room. I just was looking at a position that lined up with my experiences.
It showed me in a very crystal clear way that chess players are largely just a collection of their experiences. They handle familiar positions really well and not so familiar positions pretty poorly (most of the time).
Since then, I've used this knowledge a lot. I've worked to experience and understand as many of these concept chunks as I can while trying to steer my games towards them (standardizing an opening repertoire to help do that, also).
great story, told well. Thanks.
Dec 18, 2013
0
#49
poet666 wrote:
Running lots of engine tournaments on my PC's and watching the worlds strongest engines play.
Made me realise that one of the reasons they are so strong is they don't get hung up on rules and chess wifes-tales and never fall in love with their own positiion.
They will happily stick a knight on the rim if that's the right thing to do without a seconds thought, or instantly move a piece back to where it was only a move ago if that's the correct move.
Purely pragmatic (cold-blooded?) chess that is impressive to watch when they are at their best.
fantastic. chess wife tales. great expression. A thread I'm on has been calling these 'gobbledygook maxims'. I like chesswife tales better!
Dec 18, 2013
0
#50
FirebrandX wrote:
Concerning openings, I've found CC helped me just as much as blitz has, only in a different way of expanding my repertoire. On any given CC game, I will devote several hours in opening research alone, and over time, that has allowed me to include openings in my live repertoire. Blitz lets me find weaknesses in my repertoire, as well as getting a feel for typical plans my opponents will likely adopt.
Would you care to spend a bit of time telling me how you do 'several hours of opening research?' What does this mean, and how does one do this? Thanks. I'm a beginner, and I know I'm not supposed to do such things as openings research, but if you could give me a clue what that involves, with as much detail as you care to share, I'd be much obliged. Thanks. I realize this is OT, so feel free to message me. You only accept messages from friends, so my attempt to send this to you via message failed. thanks.
Dec 18, 2013
0
#51
"...I'm not supposed to do such things as opening research."
Anyone who preached that to you,is not to be taken seriously.Everyone needs to have openings for both white and black:learning openings entails a certain amount of research.Anyone who says otherwise is simply being foolish.
badger_song wrote:
"...I'm not supposed to do such things as opening research."
Anyone who preached that to you,is not to be taken seriously.Everyone needs to have openings for both white and black:learning openings entails a certain amount of research.Anyone who says otherwise is simply being foolish.
Stop calling them foolish.
Maybe they are from the future where they can insert chips into their brains on any subject and instantly know it. Which would explain why chess.com has a cheat problem and it take them so long to give them the exit. Wow Chess.com cheaters from the future that cannot win from their time to come to our time just to win games!
I figure in another 10 years we will all be connected to the internet by some brain interface and see the board in our head in 3-D HD 5.0 Dolby Stereo. Being able to sleep and still play around the clock. In which case one can become an instant GM at the right price. Imagine sitting .... no more of that, just playing against some 8yr old talking smack how he is going to tear your head off as he just bought the The Champions Chess Chip 2.0 which has knowledge of the World Champions games. To add to it your her yes her first opponent ever. She sees you pull a beta version of Champion Chess Chip 1.0 and calls you a fool as you think you have a chance to beat her.
DunnoItAll wrote:
HectorPerez wrote:
@DunnoItAll BLCC is one of my favorite books. Just exactly what was the concept you recognized?
It was the Bg5 and then Bxf6 leaving the knight unassailable on d5 in the Smyslov game.
And the Krush lecture was this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsqhaNHqvY0
The position that is the same as the Smyslov game starts at about 17:00.
Fischer - Gadia 1960 @ move 15 (almost):
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044117
This was in _Simple Chess_ by Stean, that was how I remembered it.
Dec 18, 2013
0
#54
When your opponent controls an open file with his rooks the situation isn't disastrous if you control your first and second ranks. Once an opponent had both rooks and queen on an open file, but as I controlled the first two ranks I survived.
FirebrandX, your cc- way to explore openings is a very good advice, and maybe it is something for me when I have progressed a bit further. In these days I struggle with the basics, so just now the hugescaletesting that fast games gives me probably is most efficient (backed up with our computeranalyzes).
I wonder what an IRL chessclub can add, so this evening I will visit Nordstrand Sjakklubb, my first visit to a chessclub in 36 years. 
Nordstrand is one of the strong Osloclubs with more? than 91 players rated from ELO 553 to 2450 (GM Rune Djurhuus)
A fallacy I had early on was along the lines of "he played a move different from the book line, I must be better now and should win". What I did not understand is that advantages are very small, not instant winning, and that I had to continue to nurture & develop that advantage into something tangible like winning a pawn, winning the exchanging, tactical hits, etc. in other words, a +.15 advantage will grow to a +.23, +.35, +.60, etc.
A few I remember.
I decided to "like" a move I had to be prepared for at least 4 types of responses. 1). Direct tactical refutation of the move itself 2). Directly defending what I was doing (whether a maneuver or attack) 3). Counter attack/threat somewhere else. 4). They completely ignore my move and make a quiet move somewhere else on the board unrelated to my last move.
If my opponent has nothing active they can do, I have the option to shuffle my pieces around. i.e. fighting "the need to do something" by realizing how much my opponent can do with their position.
Development is important in the opening before starting action... but this concept lasts the entire game. In the middle and endgames, if your pieces aren't all active or "developed" then any actions you undertake, even if it wins material in the short term, can backfire.
The relative values are entirely based on mobility. Fundamentally chess is a game about achieving superior mobility in an area. Ultimately around the enemy king giving checkmate, but also during a game on one side of the board, in a quadrant, on a color complex, or even on a file.
Dec 19, 2013
0
#58
My biggest aha moment was when I learned to play with myself, chess I mean, not the other thing.
DrFrank124c wrote:
My biggest aha moment was when I learned to play with myself, chess I mean, not the other thing.
Do you find that you win often?
Seriously, how do you do that?
The best advice I have recived:
"When you see a good move, look for a better"
I was very surprised how often is was there.