|
|
| From | Message |
|
Maybe Jack Stockel was just being nice. When my daughter was about 5, I started to teach her the game. I taught her to memorize an opening from a chess master, and after she memorized it, she asked if this was all that was needed to win. My stupid answer was "No, there are thousands of openings besides this one". At that moment, she decided she did not like chess, it overwhelmed her little mind, to know that she would have to learn so much. Jack may be using the psychological approach that I should have used. Sometimes it is not wise as a coach to win all the games. This type of instruction is futile, and discouraging to the student.
|
|
@stealth-invader
I agree, and think that you're, in fact, correct. He probably was, and at that stage, I was still at a point, where he was giving me second chances and letting me win, but this is the last time it was ever going to happen. The idea was that my main weakness was premature resignation so he was giving me more chances, with the idea of what if you're in a lost position but the opponent goes wrong, somewhere, allowing to draw or even win. But, now that I've defeated him, even in lost positions, that's no longer happening. From now on, I have to be able to win on my own merits, and if it means that he can't finish the game before Tom comes in, so be it because the game then continues with Ted, the other student in that game. The idea is that I have to be able to win on my own, without being given more chances. An example happened when I defeated him, in an opening that I wasn't use to. Note: He did play north of his rating. But, I didn't make any mistakes, and had an advantage. So, I kept playing and was able to keep that advantage which proved to be overwhelming for Jack. The only inaccuracy that I made then was giving my strong N for his weak N. But, by planning ahead and strategizing, I figured out a way around this N, and was able to make me weak N even stronger and more dangerous then that strong N. What that game shows is that I have improved my overall play, and that it does take HW to become good. It also shows that, unfortunately, I did not do quite enough HW this week.
|
|
In fact, Jack, after showing me a game between two GM's before said, "let's see if you can think like a GM". And, that's what I did. While it wasn't 20 moves, which you'd typically see, it was way ahead, occasionally, 10 moves. Plus, except for that inaccuracy, it was flawless. The first time, in history, that I didn't make a single mistake against a Class A Player. It has been done once before, but only with someone about my rating, and that was a long time ago.
|
|
|