25 years old & learning chess - my practice blog

I don't know my rating as I told you but I do know that,or at least I'm pretty sure that studying tactics is exactly what I should be doing at my current rating/level.  A little bit of research goes a long way I always say,and if you researched what players under around 1900 elo should focus the majority of their study on,or what is the single most beneficial thing one can do for their Chess,it's tactics.  Also, I don't understand why you feel that the basis of my study and overall knowledge of Chess is all directed here on Chess.com,did it ever occur to you that I may be studying and even playing else where?   

Also I'll ask you again,what is this help that you're offering me?  I'll be willing to go over a game with you if that's what you want?   

jambyvedar you spoke about my blitz games earlier,I was at another site just now trying to play "long" Chess games and most online players are not interested in such games as I had 3 of them leave the game midway,the reason most likely is because I took too long in moving,so they got impatient and left,or perhaps assumed I wasn't there,meanwhile there was plenty of time on my clock!.   I like to think about my moves before I make them.  I actually did research on what was the number one thing that most Chess players do wrong,it was something I came across,that topic,do you know what it was? It was that most players don't take enough time to think about the position and instead they just move for the sake of moving,almost in a wanton fashion.  Giving little to no thought to your moves is one of the worse sins you could commit over the board and will in many cases lead to many blunders,leave you with weaknesses in your position and alot of the time it cost you the game.  So IF you must judge me by what's here,have a look at my "online" games,those games I gave alot more thought to,as such is their purpose.  

I say all of this to say this is why I don't take the games here seriously because most people don't want to play long games,standard tournament time controls are 90 minutes each for the first 40 moves and an additional 30 minutes after those 40 moves!  I have a hard time getting someone to sit for 40 minutes,I'd hate to see how hard it would be to get someone to play a game under standard time controls. Sadly,I don't get out much so playing online is pretty much my main source of competition,I just wish people weren't so damn impatient.  Oh well it is what it is. 

i did not say the basis of your chess knowledge is only herevat chess.com. but you told bullshit things like you have more knowledge than us. so i asked you what is your source of knowledge and you told you are studying tactics. doing tactics puzzle only is not great knowledge. tactical improvement is important but dont neglect other aspects of chess. you have played over 3k rapid games, and you are not improving. set aside your ego and accept the fact that you are not improving and still bad at chess. a

Cursing? Wow you must be mad,I never said I knew more about Chess then you did,I said it was possible,so before you come cursing at me and then claim you're not being rude and disrespectful,check your facts.  I don't have an ego,do you? You must right,since you think you know so much more then me? Why? because you have a higher rating then me on a Chess website but yet don't know a damn thing about what I know about Chess right? 

You're not offering me any help at all,yet you claim you wanted to help me,who's really full of shit here? hmm?  I'm going to now be done with you sir!  K bye! 

Playing like an engine

These past couple days have been a bit rough when it comes to playing chess. Out of the 24 games I have played in 3 days (mostly rapid, and couple blitz) I have won only 11. It's not really the under 50% winning rate that made it rough (even though, of course you'd want to win more than lose), but the manner of some of those losses. In one game I blundered a winning pawn endgame, because I couldn't calculate the forced moves far enough (not being sure who queens first). I was under time pressure, but still it should've been an easy job. In couple games I just got completely destroyed straight out of the gate and in one I even got mated by queen+bishop battery. Something that should never happen, as long as you have pawns in front of your king. I did, but I just completely overlooked the bishop in the corner. That was shameful to say the least. I was feeling that I had some sort of chess blindness that happens sometimes. The type, where you are unable to see patterns clearly, miss obvious threats from your opponent, miss your own tactics and so on. So I decided to take a break for a while, and when I came back I played couple 20 minute games (to add 5 more minutes on the clock, for extra thinking time). And I played two games against the same opponent (one with white and one with black) and won both. Best of all? The second game I played with black, I played on my absolute top level. A cool back story to this, is that it was even against a d4 player. I generally seem to be completely out of my comfort zone as soon as someone plays d4 (being e4 player myself), and I have much harder time trying to defend as black. Well, not this time. Here is the game:

In an artistic viewpoint, is not all that beautiful of a game. It's basically one side fighting toe to toe about equality, finally getting an advantage and then nourishing that advantage slowly to a certain win. But to me, that game was fricking beautiful. First of all, my accuracy with my moves was perfectly on point. I checked every move with Stockfish 9 (depth 20), and out of my 37 moves 18 were Stockfish top recommendations, 8 were 2nd recommendations, 4 were third recommendations and only 7 moves didn't make it to the top 3 suggested lines. And none of my moves were blunders. Most of the moves that weren't consider the best by engine, were at the winning endgame, where I made practical decisions (making a luft just in case for my king, defending my basepoint with rook and so on), instead of perhaps playing the moves that win the fastest. I figured that I have a completely winning position, and I can just make sure that my opponent doesn't get any chance for counterplay, while I slowly improve my position and eventually push my pawn to promotion. My opponent eventually cracked under pressure, allowed the trade of one rook and eventually put his king and rook on the same line before resigning (anticipating devastating skewer).

I'm not trying to pat my back too much. I'm happy that out of the 23 or so games I played, I played at least one game where everything seemed to click together. I was accurate, prophylactic and didn't tremble. It gives me confidence, that I have what it takes to play really good chess. If now it takes 25 games to play one really good game, perhaps if I practice and play enough, eventually it takes only 15 games. Then 10, and eventually I'll play really good games every other game. Then again, that's not even my biggest concern. Even better, if I can get rid of those really bad games, that happen just as often as those really good games. That would make me just as satisfied.

Sorry, if you feel insulted by this. It was simply a proverb with the meaning, that my (online) chess games have been a bit rough recently, not to be confused that I would've had rough time otherwise in my life.

All well, I edited my previous post taking account the wording "over the chessboard" to simply "playing chess".

Also, it's interesting that you recommend me to study tactics, when previously Cornfed was not thinking very highly of tactics training. I'm studying endgames, middlegames and tactics through Chessable books. I'm planning on buying a license for next year in order to play in OTB tournaments. Unfortunately the OTB tournament schedule here in Finland is not optimal for playing a lot of tournament chess. The tournaments are quite few and inbetween, not to mention the long travelling distances (big country, few people). Most of the tournaments that are held closer to where I live are held in the spring. I also have work, studies and family matters to take into account. So for the time being, online chess is the type of chess that is easiest to fit in my schedules.

I appreciate your comments though!

Well I just found your blog and I wish you luck. I myself have always had a love for chess but I quit playing many years ago. Mostly because the people I played with have either moved away or quit playing as well. As I've gotten older I've always wanted to get back into chess and take it more seriously. Good luck with your games and thanks for sharing!

Nice study diary!

Yes, being a member of a chess club and having a license is requirement for joining rated tournaments. So I'm planning to buy a yearly license next year and join my local club, so I can use it for the whole year. Besides, this year I'm pretty busy with all sorts of stuff, so I can't really devote weekends completely to chess yet.

Thank you for your kind words! You can always get back to chess at any age. I can't say that I got back to chess, because I never really played, but it has been fun regardless. I know I'm perhaps too old to ever become a serious chess player, but I can still appreciate the beauty of the game, enjoy playing and learning. And even if I can never become a master, perhaps I could become a class A-player or an expert! There is so much to learn, and as long as you enjoy learning, that's the main thing. :-)

Thank you, I'm happy that you enjoyed reading!

Yes it is a beautiful game. The more you learn about it the more it mesmerizes you with it's lines and variations. I love learning about chess and hopefully one day I can attain a title. If not I'll enjoy the road along the way, lol.

A lesson in never giving up

I played two games today trying the Sicilian defense. I don't have much experience in it, but having seen a lot of strong players playing it, I felt like giving it a shot. Needless to say, in both of those games I got totally destroyed in the opening. First time I just completely neglected my opponents beginning moves and sort of played on autopilot, making moves that seemed natural in the Sicilian defense. But of course, move order matters! You can't just place your pieces and pawns like you normally would, if your opponent does something different than what the most common plans in the Sicilian are. Lesson learned, look twice and make every move count. You can only move one piece at a time, make sure it's the right one!

In the second game I felt a bit more comfortable, getting a bit better setup than in the first one. But needless to say, my lack of experience (and opponents very good opening play) put me to dangerous waters quickly. I was just sort of setting up my pieces and BANG, next thing you know, your opponent is crashing through and has two ponies in my house. I was dropping pawns left and right, but somehow miraculously managed to get from a horrible position to a fairly consolidated endgame just 2 pawns down. That of course is almost resignable, but I figured I might as well play a little longer. I have experience in being on the better side of these endgames, and trying to push pawns when enemy has two rooks and a bishop isn't always an easy task. So I figured that I will try to put as many obstacles on my opponents way, perhaps I can win a pawn or maybe two and hold a draw. As soon as the endgame started, I felt like my opponent wasn't really as comfortable playing a winning endgame, than he was playing in the opening. I think all he had to do was to put his rooks behind his passed pawns and just get the pawns rolling. Or like Yasser would say "push them, baby!" Instead he tried to do a bit of everything, putting pressure on my pawns (and even threatening mates) and sort of neglected his pawn advantage.

So eventually my opponent made a mistake and I won a pawn. Soon he made another mistake and I won another pawn. Less than 15 moves in the endgame, I had already equalized and grabbed enough pawns. I was getting lower on time, so I was just trying to hold status quo for time being, and try to poke my opponents pieces, hoping that he would do some mistakes. Let's be honest, 3 pawns for each side, two rooks and a bishop, is a draw if neither side really does anything to get a pawn promotion. So I was happy to just juggle my pieces around and wait for my opponents mistakes. Eventually, he made one mistake too many, and I got to a winning position, threatening checkmate and he resigned. I won a game that I should've never won after the horrible opening catastrophy. While I'm patting myself in the back for being resilient, I do have to admit, that most of my success was a result of my opponents mistakes. But then again, that is one part of chess. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. If you end up in a bad position, you can either resign or try to make the best of it. Sometimes you come back, most often you don't. But if there is any chance of counterplay left in the position, might as well play it out. You will never make a comeback, if you resign. If you play, sometimes you just might.

Here is the game:

"previously Cornfed was not thinking very highly of tactics training" - Umm....I mentioned that if you had studied/gone thru 4000+ tactical exercises and you tactics were still as weak as they are, maybe you should rethink things.

Studying/PRACTICING 'calculation' (which is sometimes like a tactical exercise, sometimes not...most of the time not really - mostly it is mentally moving the pieces around in your head, trying to accomplish something reasonable without making too many poor moves.... that is, 'using good judgment') is vitally important. 

But playing objectively weak chess from start to finish just puts you behind the 8-ball from the git-go. In the yznm game, you were all but 'busted' by move 8. Judgment would tell you that playing both e6 and g6 in an open Sicilian is asking for trouble. A decent opponent would have make short work of you. Ne4 with your King in the center...ooh, that's ugly. It's REALLY bad judgement.

Anyway, you are not stringing together good moves/ideas without making a lot of weak moves or outright blunders, are you?

Maybe good for you would be those 'solitaire' chess things...where you actually step thru a game of a great player/great game, putting yourself in his shoes, playing from his side with moves covered up would be of good practical help for you. A good thing is to find say a well annotated games collection...say Tal's Life and Games, then find the RAW game score....do the Solitaire chess thing with it, then afterwards go thru the notes. If that is too frustrating, you can even go thru the notes the first time (hiding the actual moves though!) if that is possible.

Like I've said elsewhere, a GAME of chess, is not a puzzle...studying puzzles is of limited use to relative beginners. Really. Stringing together reasonable/good moves for a coherent game, with as few poor/pointless moves as possible is what you are trying to do in a game...right? So, why not actually practice that? Doing that rather a lot with some training in specific parts of the game thrown in here and there would seem to be of great benefit to you.

I do agree with this but most Chess teachers recommend that beginners (not raw beginners) and even intermediate players study Chess tactics and most Chess tactics are presented in the form of a puzzle.  I think studying puzzles is about learning tactical patterns that one can use during the game.  I don't mean to bring up our other disagreement but you was more right then I was willing to give you credit for.  I notice that when I stopped playing,I got a bit "rusty" and so one probably should play more then they study.    Also,which you mentioned it keeps you from getting burned out as well,too much of either is no good,too much play and too much study is no good.   

@Cornfed Thank you for feedback. I guess you are referring to something like "Guess the move" lessons we have here and on ChessTempo? I have done some of those and enjoyed them.

I feel like I'm being pulled to multiple directions here. A lot of grandmasters in their video courses emphasize the importance of tactics training for beginners. I think it was Nigel Short who said something along the lines "beginner must first master tactics, before he can master strategy". So you're telling me to practice less tactics, and a lot of people are telling me to study more tactics?

Well, one thing you all have in common is that you tell me to play more and study less. That's what I've been doing. I've gone through every game afterwards (like I always do) trying to pick up issues in my game. You bet there are a lot of issues. But I'd be amazed to see a beginner whose didn't.

take a look at the short and sweet taimanov on chessable its easier than the najdorf taskinen

I might at some point. Right now openings are hardly my biggest issue. I know that my Sicilian was absolutely atrocious, but I never play Sicilian. I just wanted to try it - you can expect me to mess up stuff at first. However, I do have a decent opening repertoire for my level as white on playing e4 (Ruy Lopez main choice everytime opponent allows) and I can respond to both e4 (either Ruy Lopez/Italian/Guoco Pianissimo/Four Knights or just Scandinavian if I feel like it) and d4 (QGD positions and if opponent goes London System, just basically copycat the setup for first few moves) fairly comfortably, getting usually to at least equal position starting middle game. I could practice openings more to get that small advantage out of the opening, but I'm not sure if that would really improve me as a chess player all that much. So right now my focus is on playing, tactics, endgames, middlegames and lessons and lectures.

There are some benefits to knowing these little move order tricks in the opening by heart:

As you can see, sometimes you can get easy wins out of the opening. That is very common reply from black, thinking they can win the pawn back, but it only works if white hasn't castled prior. If I had traded bishop one move earlier, it would've been a good tactic for black. I was sort of figuring he might be going for this once he played 4 ...a6 (the correct is to play it on 3rd move, the Morphy defense, before white castles), so I happily played along and wondered if he'll not only drop a pawn, but a queen as well. He got stuck like a fly in my trap. Then again that is something that shouldn't work against 1400s...

Halfway through