|
|
| From | Message |
|---|
deniswilson_old
19-Jun-11, 10:16
|
 How to imporve chess rating to 1500!
1. Solve at least 1-2 puzzles or Tactical problem everyday. It's the great method to improve your understanding of chess.
2. Learn 1 opening for white and 2 opening for black (after 1.e4 and after 1.d4). Choose popular opening. I recommend to play 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 for both sides. It's very sharp opening and you can use your tactical skills in this opening. Do not play positional openings.
3. Think before each move in your games. Do not play a lot of games simultaneously.
|
ubermensch43
19-Jun-11, 11:05
|
excellent suggestions
This is exactly and precisely what I did to reach the 1600-1700's. Except for suggestion #3, about not playing a lot of games simultaneously. I am totally devoted to my team and I think I have to play more than a few games at a time in order to help my team on the ladder, though not on the Table. I find that on GK there is always a delicate balance between the team ladder and the team table. Not willing to sacrifice neither the one nor the other, I made a conscious choice to limit my number of team games to 20. Some fellow team members who make the opposite choice think that if I want to join the 1800 cub, I would have to play less team games. And I must admit that they themselves have successfully reached the 2000 and above mark in rating.
This is a pickle: if one thinks that the ladder is more important, then there is a need to play and win more team games, and if one thinks that his own personal rating is more important than the achievements of his team on the ladder, then there is a need to play less games as indicated in your suggestions #3. I tried to reach a compromise by limiting my number of team games to 20. And, surprise! surprise! I find it very hard to maintain my rating in the 1700's, set aside to reach the 1800's and even perhaps above... I would be happy to hear your thoughts or anyone else in the club on this matter as I realize it is a delicate pickle!! And, Happy father's day to all fathers!!
|
|
@deniswilson
Although my rating is still south of 1500, I agree with you, for the most part, except for step #1, but especially #3, which I had to learn the hard way, believe it or not. But, there's more to this then meets the eye. In order to become really good, as I recently learned in the, "Deeper Theory Chess Club", which btw isn't meant for coaching. Instead, it's more involved to help players become better. Well, in that club, I learned that one also really needs to learn about theory and concepts, to become really good, more like a Class A player, let alone 1500. And, with too many simultaneous games, well, interesting story is that back in the day, before my rating reached 1100, I would play about 30 simultaneous chess, with ridiculously fast time controls, the fastest being 16.2 minutes. So, for me three is essential, the only thing I disagree with In fact, 1800+ rated players also agree about not playing too many games at one time. Plus, don't rush and move too quickly, either. Usually, it's caused by the, "Fight or Flight" mechanism, which when this happens, it's best to give yourself a break, and then resume playing once you recover from that stress. One particular mentor actually emphasized this by accurately pointing out that you need time to concentrate. Now, playing too much and too quickly, prevents you from absorbing the information. So, you don't learn from your mistakes. For a long while, I disagreed with it, but once I started working, I had to cut down, as my job was even more stress, actually, way too much for me to handle, and still keep playing. Once I made a cut, which now I'll only play a max of 6 games at one time, and time controls have to be, at least 7 days, unless it involves incremental. Well, once I did that, I actually started improving, and that's partly why my rating is what it is today. This is where I realize just how right my mentor was. Note: my OTB coach, Jack Stockel also says that you should take your time and not rush. So, the third step, which you actually gave, believe it or not, is actually a known chess fact.
|
|
Edit: I agree, but at the same time, disagree with the first step. Yes, chess puzzles and tactics are a good way to improve, in the short run. But, only to a certain point as you need much more then that to really improve. Having said, that, in the long run, those two things are not really going to help. What you really need is to understand the tactics, theories, positions, concepts, strategies, and tactics to improve, plus DVD's and books.
|
|
I have come close to reaching the 1500 level here at GK
but never reached it.
My worst enemy is me. I am extremely impetuous and
get exasperated when playing OTB.
If I play someone who takes too much time for each move
even though I can see the move they are going to make
within 30 seconds after I have moved, I lose interest in the
game, and my mind begins to wander.
My advice then, if you want to improve to be a much better
player, don't be like me.
Maybe some day I will follow my own advice, but for now
what I want to do, is just have fun playing, and not be
tied down with the worry of having to improve.
|
|
been over 1500+ my goal is to get back up there again.
I was there for a brief time, and then went into a slump! I was using the tactic puzzles. I also would play otb chess. My goal is to play less games and use my time smarter in making my moves. Jkarp states it best,"What you really need is to understand the tactics, theories, positions, concepts, strategies, and tactics to improve, plus DVD's and books".
Stay focused Stealth!
Best regards,
RF17
|
darknite13
27-Apr-14, 12:16
|
Limit your Blitz play and avoid the "Blitz mindset"
In the words of Vladimir Kramnik, "Playing rapid chess, one can lose the habit of concentrating for several hours in serious chess. That is why, if a player has big aims, he should limit his rapid play in favour of serious chess."
If you are serious about improving your game, get out of the "blitz mindset" and play a serious, long, drawn out game. Blitz is a fun way to test out your tactical abilities, but unfortunately can be detrimental to a player with a low rating due to several factors.
To succeed in chess you need 2 mindsets: your "Blitz" mind and your "Regular Time-Control" mindset. For a more practical example, when I visit Webster University in San Antonio, TX, these players LOVE the blitz-minded folk. Why? Because these students are pleased you basically give up the time that was allotted to you for your game.
Why am I coming down on blitz play? The ability to concentrate on a single game diminishes as playing habits are built around blitz games. For many of the same reasons that blitz is so fun – playing out many games in a short period, quick positional and tactical assessments, and unsound sacrificial attacks – blitz can be very harmful to your serious, slow chess game.
I'm not recommending that people stop playing blitz, I'm simply saying that if you want to progress as a serious chess player – maybe you should reconsider the time you dedicate to playing meaningless blitz games and the time that you spend legitimately studying and deeply learning the game.
This is what helped me push my OTB rating up past 1900 by the way
|
|
I agree with darknite13. The reason being is that blitz uses fast time controls, and when once you use it, you get into a bad habit of playing fast games in long correspondence games, since you're used to moving quickly. So, I say avoid it, until you have a lot of experience with correspondence, and then maybe experiment.
|
darknite13
27-Apr-14, 12:47
|
@jkarp
I am not saying avoid blitz altogether. I still do believe it is a great way to assess a player's tactical abilities. I'm just saying people should limit how much they engage in it first.
To quote what I said before: "To succeed in chess you need 2 mindsets: your "Blitz" mind and your "Regular Time-Control" mindset." Regular time control allows you to learn more about the game, take the time to think and formulate plans, and respond (not react) to your opponent.
Blitz is entertaining to play, and fun to watch. It allows players the opportunity to try out new ideas in a short period of time in an inconsequential game. Also, blitz can increase your tactical awareness and obviously facilitate faster play (both a pro and a con). Personally, I enjoy blitz because I can sacrifice pieces and my opponent has little time to clarify the mess and refute objectively unsound attacks. These are all great features of blitz!
But remember, real learning takes place when you sit down and play a regular game.
|
tipsyjourneyman
28-Apr-14, 06:15
|
my advice
drink less before making moves. In this fashion it's a case of do as tipsy says and not as he does!
Seriously I've said it again and I'll say it before....hmmm....*hiccup* anyway, come admit, who gives a s**t for Elo rating? I could "easily" move my rating up to 1500 which incidentally is lower than my "tactical" rating according to GK's chess training. All I'd need to do is:
1. Stop playing (and consequently getting beaten by) high ratings like rmannstaedt in rated games.
2. Concentrate only in engaging 1250-1450 players in Let's Play Chess games, me playing as White, and limit myself to a few games, even less than I play now to maximise concentration.
3. Eschew kamikaze lines, speculative sacrifices and bloodthirsty play for stoic, well-tested, defensive-minded lines that allow an opponent to maximise their opportunity for errors. Favour hypermodernism: why bother winning a game, when you could simply set your spears, dig in and watch as your opponent loses it instead?
3. Don't drink as much ere moving.
But......where's the fun in that?
I play to increase my chess play and my appreciation of the game. Not to increase my rating. More than that. I play for fun!
TJ Out.
(I should point out not all hypermodernist openings are defensive but, well, very few are attacking!)
|
|
@tipsjourneyman
I don't play just for fun, although they say it's one of those things one should do, right after learning basic strategies. I absolutely agree about playing against really high Class A Rated or even higher rated players. Such is currently the case with Jack Stockel, my OTB coach. And, it was also the case in my first loss against easy19 with a lesson to, "Be a spectator of your game." Meaning: Look at the entire board and not just one or two individual pieces.
|
|
@jkarp
I believe I have read your reference to Jack Stockel several
times in the past, and my curiosity compels me to ask some
questions, which you can just ignore if you wish to do so.
What is Jack Stockel's rating?
Do you pay him for lessons?
Does he guide you during a game here at GK?
How have you progressed, since he has been teaching you?
Is he a friend or a relative to you?
How many books has he suggested that you read?
If he has, have you finished reading any books?
Does he compose puzzles for you to figure out?
How much time does he spend teaching you?
How old were you when he started his lessons?
What rating do you expect to reach after he is done?
Do you play him so he can point out your errors?
Sorry, my intention is not to criticize, but merely
to satisfy my curiosity, and as I mentioned, you
can just ignore all this questions.
|
|
@stealth-invader
Jack Stockel isn't just any coach, in my books, although most people might view him as so. He is actually someone special. Back in my days, before reaching 1000, when no one on this site thought that I could improve, I always believed in myself. And, when I hit my lowest rating of only 851, I still didn't get much encouragement, or any coaching sessions, with the exception of Jack Stockel. But, overall, I figured out what my main weakness and it wasn't opening or even mid or endgames. The main weakness was premature resignation where I'd panic, hyperventilate, and henceforth, resign just because I was a pawn down. But, then Jack Stockel said, "Don't give up right away." Then, I told him that I get nervous, actually implying the Fight or Flight syndrome, and that's when he said, "Don't get nervous. Start thinking." So, I started following all of his advice, and agreeing with just about all of it. Like take your time to think ahead. And, I find helpful not just in chess but in life. I started doing this in the real work world, and I feel that it's helped me to become a valuable employee. So, I recently honred him at the chess club by accurately pointing out that he's an international celebrity since everyone here and other places now know about him. As far as his rating, he's a Class A Player with an 1800 rating. For one year, he was an expert with a 2000 USCF rating. He does guide me on GK or composed puzzles since he does not have a GK account. And, he hasn't suggested books, but he's not just a coach, I consider him a friend and most of my progressions and progress, has by far, come from him because he coaches me once a week at a local OTB chess club, in the same place where I used to volunteer. I started lessons in my first year of college, so I've going to him for at least 4 years. I expect that my rating will be at least 1400 when he is done. Finally, yes in general, whenever I go to him, I play him in order to learn from my mistakes. That's why even though he's not an expert, I consider my games against OTB WTW challenges since you basically follow the supplemental versions of Talking the Talk or the original WTW when it comes to resignations. And, he gives me lessons, so in the past I've even annotated games against him. Overall, though, I follow his advice on GK. And, this the main reason why I've become good enough to coach and mentor players. I like being able to give them encouragement that I wish I once had.
|
|
Forgot to add, the reason why I consider my games against him WTW challenges, is that by learning from your mistakes, you're walking through the process see where you went wrong, and what you could've done differently to prevent the same mistakes from reoccurring.
|
|
In addition, Mr. Stockel shows everyone past GM games, and will occasionally quiz you on what's the best move. This is why, at one point, I was so obsessed with annotating games. And, it is a reason that I enjoy participating in quizzes based on certain positions from GM Judit Polgar.
|
|
Another good way to improve is not by resigning. So, in general, unless it's official that there's no chance of counterplay, I follow the supplemental Talking the Talk rules which is no resigning until mate is inevitable. Why? Believe it or not, before I hit 1000, as some of you might recall, my main weakness was premature resignation, as I would occasionally resign just because I was pawn down. Nowadays, I don't do that, and in fact, discourage my students from doing that. As my coach has repeadetly told me, "Don't give up right away". The reason being is because, as they say, "it's not over til it's over". You never know if or when your opponent blunder. By doing that, he or she might allow you to pull a swindle, win or draw a hopelessly lost position. A very good example is shown in the link below. gameknot.com
|
baddeeds
13-May-14, 17:46
|
Deleted by baddeeds on 13-May-14, 18:14.
|
tipsyjourneyman
13-May-14, 21:39
|
Another reason for not resigning
Is to actually see how the opponent goes about closing out the game. Here  game I tried out the Dutch for the first time with disastrous consequences, don't think it suits my play, but I'm continuing simply to see how my opponent goes about dismantling the pawn structure with its officers. By asking myself, "What should he do?" I can analyse the merits of what he is doing.
Perhaps I've been playing against Ruben too much but I believe White should have sac the Knight at 32 instead of 32Kf1? . The exchange allows White to bust open the pawn chain without further ado and leads to the rooks being able to link up and romp round the board harassing the king and gobbling up pieces at will. If Black refuses and moves say 32...c4 the White knight can return whence it came and has given the rook the d file or hop over to b2.
32Kf1 indicates perhaps that White wants to keep its material and is instead preparing for a much longer endgame, the intent of which I confess I can't see at the moment so it'll be interesting to find out.
Either way, when the tables are turned and I'm in a similar position of having lots of material but facing a protracted endgame I'll remember this (and others) and commit to the loss of material for a shorter endgame.
Perchance playing games till mate is inevitable, jkarp, has improved your chess partially because actually playing endgames, for good or ill, has increased your understanding of them? (Though I imagine not resigning when a mere pawn down would help!)
TJ
|
tipsyjourneyman
15-May-14, 07:13
|
oops
that was the Latvian. Not the Dutch. I guess can't win always with the LCG! I am playing, or rather I have played with the Dutch, terrible for me.
|
|
Want to know something crazy, and it's actually common among GM's, but it's unheard of against a stronger opponent. However, that is not always, and this might shock, especially to those that are coaches, and I talked about this in both the WTWLR and Deeper Chess Theory (DET) clubs. In a game against Jack Stockel, I was in trouble. While material level was even, my K was exposed because of a mistake that I made just one move prior. Now, my coach tried to exploit my weakness with a dangerous check. Of course, however, I could've and missed my opportunity to mate right then and there. So, what used to happen is that I would feel stressed, and would actually hyperventilate causing me to make worse. Consequently, the game would be lost, or I'd just resign right then and there, but not this time, as I remembered him repeadetely saying, "Don't give up right away. Start thinking." Therefore, I was still thinking of what my opponent wants and how to get out of trouble that I was in. And, I found it. Knowing that he was about to win my R, I decided to give something much more, my Q. The idea being that if he took it, I would mate him, and that is exactly what happened. Of course, he could have forced a N exchange, and then things would be just about equal. However, the idea was instead of panicking, I'd play it calm and become more confident. In fact, appeasing him in order to give a Class A Player a very easy way to go wrong.
|
|
More proof of why we don't resign, or let the, "Fight or Flight" syndrome take over. Instead, when you're in trouble, get really aggressive as now you have nothing to lose. Yes, you know that you're plan might fail, but so what. If it works, and your opponent takes the bate, it means a swindle for you.
|
|
Another very interesting position today, against Jack Stockel. Now, by no means is this completely accurate, but the moral is still the same. In this particular game, I was white, and the coach was black. As you see, I was already in trouble because I was down 2 points. Two exploit the weakness, black's last move was ...Ra2 and my R was on a1. Idea, to exchange since when you're ahead that's generally what you want to do, so I wasn't going allow that, so I checked with Nh7+ Once he took, I mated.
|
|
Edit:
Earlier, I was in a big rush, and had to go. So, the diagram is not nearly as accurate as this new one. In fact, I hope I didn't confuse anyone earlier. While not completely accurate, especially given that in the actual game, black castled much earlier, in the beginning. But, this diagram, otherwise, is similar. Note: my R was already on b1, from a little earlier. So, in this position, black's last move was 1...Rb2 with the idea being to force a R exchange because if I didn't do so, he'd have a lethal combination with ...Rxb1ch. Exchanging wouldn't have been much better, either because afterwards he has a mating combo. Therefore, this is a lost position. Now, normally I would panick, hyperventilate, and this is what I essentially mean by the, "Fight or Flight". You either have to run away or fight back. Well, I used to run away since one of my main weaknesses, before becoming what I am today, was letting my nerves take over. By doing so, mistakes were worse, and took away any possible chances of counterplay. So, what I have done, in the past, was exchange in these kind of positions, thinking that it was only way out. But, not anymore. And, instead of exchanging, with nothing else to lose, I decided to play 2.Nxh6+. Believe it or not, I figured that the N was just lost, but it was worth it to avoid losing something worth more since I'm in rough shape. But, what I very nearly overlooked and saw at the last second is if after I check with the immediate 2.NxP+, he recaptured with 2...gxh3, I would have an inevitable mating combination after 3.Qxh6, so he resigned. The reason this instantly leads to mate is that now the K is pinned, and in order to avoid mate in one, the K would have to move. So, instead of giving up, I became more confident, and by doing so, I pulled a swindle and turned the entire game around.
|
|
Edit: In fact, this position is more accurate because the R was not left en-prise and while the other diagram appeared so, the R could not have taken my N. Come to think of it, in the game, itself, the bishop was right next to the R, so it prevented him from taking it immediately.
|
geniusacamel
12-Jul-14, 23:57
|
|
geniusacamel
13-Jul-14, 00:20
|
jkarp, there is no forced mate after 1. Nxh6+ gxh6 2. Qxh6??.
In fact after 2. Qxh6??, Black wins with 2...Qc3+ 3. Kf1 Bb5+ 4. Kg1 Qg3#.
In fact I am surprised that he resigned since he had a force mate. So either he missed it or you gave the wrong position.
A possible line:
1. Nxh6+ gxh6 2. Qg4+ Kf8 3. Qc8+ Be8 4. Rxb2 Qxb2 5. Qc5+ Rxc5 6. dxc5 Bb5 7. Rh2 Qxh2 8. Kd1 Bd3 9. c6 Qc2+ 10. Ke1 Qe2#.
White's best move was 1. Nxh6+ and you found it so good job. You also made him resign when he had a forced mate! So well done!!
Proof that 1. Nxh6+ is the best move:
1. Ne7+ Kh7 2. Qxh6+ gxh6 3. Rxh6+ Kxh6 4. Nf5+ Rxf5 5. Rxb2 Qe3+ 6. Kd1 Ba4+ 7. Rc2 Rf1#.
1. Qd8+ Kh7 2. Rxh6+ gxh6 3. Qg8+ Kxg8 4. Nxh6+ Kh8 5. Nxf7+ Kg7 6. d5 Qe3+ 7. Kf1 Bb5#.
1. Rxb2 Qc3+ 2. Kf1 Rxf5+ 3. Qf2 Qc1+ 4. Ke2 Qxb2+ 5. Ke3 Rxf2 6. d5 Bxd5 7. Rg1 Rf3#.
1. Qe4 Qc3+ 2. Kf1 Rxf5+ 3. Qxf5 Qc4+ 4. Qd3 Qxd3+ 5. Kg1 Rg2#.
1. Rh3 Qb4+ 2. Rc3 Qxc3+ 3. Kf1 Rxb1+ 4. Qe1 Qxe1#.
1. Qg4/Qh5 Qc3+ 2. Kf1 Rxb1+ 3. Qd1 Rxd1+ 4. Kf2 Ra2#.
1. Qh3 Rxb1+ 2. Kf2 Rb2+ 3. Kg1 Qa1+ 4. Qf1 Rg2#.
1. Qg3 Rxb1+ 2. Ke2 Rb2+ 3. Kf1 Rxf5+ 4. Qf2 Qa1#.
1. d5 Qc3+ 2. Kf1 Qf3+ 3. Qf2 Rxb1#.
1. Rh2 Rxb1+ 2. Ke2 Qf3+ 3. Kd2 Ra2#.
1. Rc1 Qc3+ 2. Rxc3 Ra1+ 3. Rc1 Rxc1#.
1. Rd1 Qc3+ 2. Rd2 Rb1+ 3. Ke2 Qf3#.
1. Qf4/Qxh6 Qc3+ 2. Qd2 Qxd2+ 3. Kf1 Rxb1#.
1. Qh2/Qf2/Qg5 Qc3+ 2. Qd2 Rxb1+ 3. Ke2 Qf3#.
1. Qf6 Qc3+ 2. Kf1 Rxb1+ 3. Kf2 Ra2#.
1. Qe7 Qc3+ 2. Kf1 Rxb1+ 3. Qe1 Qxe1#.
1. Nd6 Qe3+ 2. Kf1 Bg2#.
1. Ne3 Qxe3+ 2. Kf1 Bg2#.
1. Nxg7 Qe3+ 2. Kf1 Bg2#.
1. Ng3 Qe3+ 2. Ne2 Rxb1#.
1. Rg1 Qc3+ 2. Kf1 Bb5#.
1. Rf1 Qc3+ 2. Kd1 Ba4#.
1. Kf1 Qd3+ 2. Kg1 Rg2#.
1. Kd1 Qd3+ 2. Ke1 Qxb1#.
1. Ra1 Qxa1#.
|
geniusacamel
13-Jul-14, 00:48
|
jkarp, if it is this position, Jack also resigned when he had a forced mate. Indeed your best move is still 1. Nxh6+. Even after 1. Nxh6+ gxh6? (It is is a blunder since he missed the forced mate), White has no forced mate and Black still wins.
Proof:
1. Nxh6+ Kf8 2. Qd8+ Be8 3. Rxb2 Qc3+ 4. Kf1 Ra1+ 5. Kf2 Qxb2+ 6. Kf3 Ra3+ 7. Kf4 Qf2+ 8. Kg4 Rg3+ 9. Kh5 g6+ 10. Kh4 Rg2+ 11. Kh3 Qg3#.
1. Rxb2 Qc3+ 2. Kf2 Qxb2+ 3. Kf3 Bc6+ 4. d5 Bxd5+ 5. Qe4 Bxe4+ 6. Kxe4 Qe5+ 7. Kd3 Ra3+ 8. Kc2 Qxf5+ 9. Kb2 Qd3 10. Rg1 Qc3+ 11. Kb1 Ra1#.
1. Ne7+ Kh8 2. Qxh6+ gxh6 3. Rxh6+ Kg7 4. Nf5+ Kg8 5. Rxb2 Qxb2 6. Ne7+ Kf8 7. Ng6+ fxg6 8. Rh8+ Kg7 9. Rg8+ Kxg8 10. Rg1 Qc3+ 11. Kb1 Ra1#.
1. Qd8+ Kh7 2. Rxh6+ gxh6 3. Qg8+ Kxg8 4. Ne7+ Qxe7+ 5. Kd1 Qe2+ 6. Kc1 Rc2#.
1. Rh3 Qb4+ 2. Rc3 Qxc3+ 3. Kd1 Be2#.
1. Qh3/Qg3 Qb4+ 2. Qc3 Qxc3+ 3. Kd1 Be2#.
1. d5/Nd6/Ne3/Nxg7/Rg1/Rf1/Qf6 Qc3+ 2. Kd1 Be2#.
1. Ng3/Qg4/Qh5/Qe7 Qc3+ 2. Kd1 Ba4#.
1. Rh2 Qc3+ 2. Rd2 Qxd2#.
1. Rc1 Qb4+ 2. Rc3 Ra1#.
1. Rd1 Qc3+ 2. Rd2 Qxd2#.
1. Qf4/Qxh6/Qh2/Qf2/Qg5 Qc3+ 2. Qd2 Qxd2#.
1. Qe4 Qc3+ 2. Kd1 Qd2#.
1. Kd1 Rxb1+ 2. Kd2 Qd3#.
1. Ra1 Qxa1#.
|
|
Yes, your second diagram was the position. However, I remember what it was, in which case, I believe that I had the winning advantage but could be wrong. After 1.Nxf6+, Kf8 I immediately played 2.Qxh6 and that is when Jack resigned. I knew that 2.Qd8+ would've been of no use because black could just get out of it and have a winning advantage.
|
geniusacamel
13-Jul-14, 10:04
|
He shouldn't have resigned. I already showed that he had a forced mate. Anyway, please let him know when you see him on Friday so that he can learn as well.
|
|
He did. The only reason he missed it was to play Tom, and Tom also overlooked this mating sequence, somehow.
|
|
|
