|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Chess related: Blindfold Chess. How strong to do you need to be? Discuss.
« Back to forum
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
lordhumungus 13-Mar-11, 13:43 |
 Blindfold Chess. How strong to do you need to be? Discuss.Recently I read a few articles and discussions on blindfold chess, with various opinions on how high a rating people need to play blindfold. I think this could be an interesting discussion for people on the forums. Question: Can you play a FULL game blindfolded or not, and what is your rating (Gameknot and OTB). From what I have read some people suggested that all 'B' class players can play a game blindfold. (about 1700-1800 ELO I believe, I'm from the UK so not too sure on this terminology). Other people claimed that they themselves were rated over 2000ELO and have tried to play blindfolded, but can't do it and lose 'sight' of the board. As an intermediate player I thought I would try this. I'm neither a strong player nor a weak player, but somewhere in between (1800ELO on both gameknot and OTB) I gave it a try over the weekend. I set Fritz to 'sparring' mode, where it purposely makes mistake to be punished by the player as a training exercise. Its very weak (maybe 1200Elo or less), but I was just trying to see if I could play at all, not to see I could play a good game against a strong opponent. I allowed myself as much time as I needed. I have played two games. First game yesterday. I played white, I got an advantage, reached an endgame and blundered a rook on the 22nd move. I played again today, and won in 45 moves or so, making no gross errors. Here are some point I would like to make, to see if people agree and have had similar experiences: 1. I was AMAZED that I could play blindfolded like this at all. 2. I did not expect to be able to do this. 3. I shut my eyes to think about the moves and the position. 4. I played the moves on the screen on an empty board, but strangely I found it easier to NOT look at the empty board and think with my eyes shut and choose my move. Then open my eyes, play the move on the blank board, then close eyes again. 5. I had to play very slowly. The second game took me 70 minutes to play (45 moves). 6. Some moves took ages to think about as I seemed to lose the position in my mind. 7. Some moves conversely were very easy to make 8. The games were weak in the sense that going over the game it is obvious that the 'players' are not very strong, BUT it is still a real game of chess (i.e not beginner level, moving pieces en pris etc). 9. Time seemed to act strangely. Sometimes when I could 'see' the position well and thought about my moves time seemed to 'stand still'. Although it felt like I analysed for a long time sometimes it was under one minute. Other times, when I lost sight of the board, it took me up to 8 minutes to play a single move. 10. Overall I did not find this an easy exercise; it was difficult. Have other people had similar experiences to this? I would be very interested to know. I can post the score of the two games if people are interested in seeing them. That might aid any discussion. As a bit of background to me: 1. As I have already said, I am not a strong player but of intermediate strength 2. I did not learn chess as a child (I was 17 yo when I started). 3. I have never tried to read chess book 'blind' (i.e. without a board) 4. I don't study openings 5. I personally feel stronger tactically and weaker strategically. If people reply to the thread I think it would also be really helpful if they please also answer the following question first (assuming you know the answer of course) Question: Can you play a FULL game blindfolded or not, and what is your rating (Gameknot and OTB). |
||||||
|
black_cat_hamlet 13-Mar-11, 15:12 |
concentration and mind-power, and I don't think I have enough of either |
||||||
|
lordhumungus 13-Mar-11, 16:50 |
1st game, which I lost: [Event "Blitz 10m"] [Site "?"] [Date "2011.03.12"] [Round "?"] [White "lordhumungus"] [Black "Fritz 12"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B41"] [PlyCount "46"] [EventDate "2011.??.??"] 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. Nf3 e6 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Be2 Nf6 6. Bg5 Nc6 7. Nxc6 bxc6 8. O-O Qb6 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nc3 Qxb2 11. Qd3 Bb4 12. Na4 Qa3 13. Qxa3 Bxa3 14. Rab1 a5 15. Rb3 Be7 16. Rfb1 Rg8 17. Nb6 Rb8 18. Nxc8 Rxc8 19. Rb8 Kd8 20. Ba6 Kc7 21. Rxc8+ Rxc8 22. Bxc8 Kxc8 23. Rb5 cxb5 0-1 2nd game, which I managed to win [Event "Blitz 10m"] [Site "?"] [Date "2011.03.13"] [Round "?"] [White "lordhumungus"] [Black "Fritz 12"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B44"] [PlyCount "83"] [EventDate "2011.??.??"] 1. e4 c5 2. d4 e6 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Be3 Nf6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. f3 Rb8 8. b3 Qa5+ 9. Qd2 Bb4 10. c3 Bc5 11. b4 Bxe3 12. Qxe3 Qe5 13. Bc4 Rxb4 14. f4 Ng4 15. fxe5 Nxe3 16. cxb4 Nxc4 17. O-O Nxe5 18. Nd2 Ba6 19. Rfe1 Ke7 20. Nf3 Kd6 21. Rad1+ Nd3 22. Re3 h6 23. Ne1 Ke5 24. Nxd3+ Bxd3 25. Rexd3 d5 26. exd5 cxd5 27. b5 Rb8 28. a4 Rc8 29. Rb3 Rc2 30. a5 Kd6 31. b6 axb6 32. axb6 Ra2 33. b7 Ke7 34. b8=Q f5 35. Rb7+ Kf6 36. Qf8+ Kg5 37. Qxg7+ Kh5 38. Rb3 Ra4 39. Rh3+ Rh4 40. Rxh4+ Kxh4 41. Rd3 e5 42. Rh3# 1-0 |
||||||
|
baronderkilt 14-Mar-11, 02:26 |
To Convert an Elo Rating to BCA . . . 1800 -600 = 1200, 1200 / 8 = 150 **** Converting From BCA is the flip side of the coin. 200 x 8 = 1600, 1600 + 600 = 2200. **** I was probably 1700's & won a blindfold King's Gambit vs a 1100 ish player who had sight of the board when I first tried it. The game was a miniature tho. In later tries I would always remember my moves, but finding that I tended to 'misplace' some opponent moves that I was not impressed with, particularly near the edges of the board, such as a3 or h6. *** Learning the Quadrant Method helps alleviate that difficulty. You train yourself to be able to break the game apart by drawing a + thru it and "look at" each one mentally, by itself, when a move is made there (or as needed for review) and then be able to combine to a full board. There are many other techniques in practice as well, however. But in most, getting good picture of the entire bare board & knowing instantly what Color any square is, if someone called it out (f5~?) should help any of them. *** Knowing openings inside and out is also very helpful; as you mention, being able to "see" them from a Game Scoresheet, and having a good visualization of Key Positions within them also. Ruy Lopez, most common Mainline of Morphy Variation, after WT Move 9 ... etc. ................... And if Endgame problems, restricting your OPENING CHOICES can help until you become completely familiar with which Endings most commonly result after the middle games. And with which pieces, usually? EG, How many dozen dozens of Rook & P endings have we seen Fischer end up in? **** Those are just my thoughts on it. I never set a goal to become a wonderful blindfold player (& 'surprisingly' I never DID become wonderful~! LOL, funny how that works out ... ) But enjoyed it as a diversion at times. And most players tell me that enough of it really helps with speed and accuracy of tournament play at a board & pieces. And there are some of my Home Town players on GK that I know Are able to be very good at it. Right off hand, that'd be an FM, 2 NM's & a former NM-& 2100+ Exp, and at least 2 "A" Players. From belief & experience; it must be a rare exception of Master level player that could not play thru a strong Blindfold game, since All of them I know, I think they Can. Probably the Experts too. And "A"s I know may be strong to commendable at it. [ IMO Pure Analytical Ability does not increase greatly after reaching A level. Perhaps some may come to see a-Move deeper. But more often I think that it then begins to become much more a matter of Who Knows More Chess, and Who Executes Most Effectively at the board, as to who rises to Expert & Master. And a good "A" can look pretty much as deep as a Master; but the latter is usually better at noticing When (and perhaps Where) to Try to look a move Deeper, or needful to look a move Broader. And can probably do it Faster then. IMO (Also I can tell you from experience, when I moved from A to Expert, a big factor to me was to know when I was LOSING faster than before, leaving time to Do Something about it before my Opponent noticed it Too ... Lol }8-D Regards, Craig |
||||||
|
blake78613 14-Mar-11, 09:10 |
|
||||||
|
what you see and what you do and when |
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 20-Mar-11, 14:16 |
lordhumungus... Of course,by USCF rating standards,a class "B"player is between 1600-1799.If you can play up to 42 moves blindfolded,then that amazes me.I have had ratings as high as 2600+ a few years ago.On GK,my rating has been close to 2500 not long ago....and still is.....and I could not play blindfolded chess,not now,and not ever.Perhaps if I take mind altering medication(like in that new movie out called "limitless")and combine it with biofeedback?Yes,I can spot a mate in 12,no problem,but playing 30-40 moves without even one time seeing the board or pieces?Well,if most or all class "B"players can do this,then that is something you all have over me for sure!I doubt that I can play more than a small handful of blind moves at best! My hat is off to all class A and B players.You would beat me every time in blindfolded chess! And atleast I admit it! TA |
||||||
|
Pillsbury ... I have read that the Soviet Union Chess Federation forbade its members to play blindfold on account of the supposed risks to mental stability. But in even OTB play, there is a certain amount of 'blindfold' play going on as you calculate ahead. Persionally, I find the presence of board and pieces a big help in 'anchoring' one's vision of likely future events. The other guide is, of course, the playing experience which identifies what is indeed likely to happen. Others disagree. Weaver Adams, apparently, used to look at the ceiling whilst contemplating his move, not to be misled by the present placing of the pieces. It is true that the physical presence of a piece on a given square can leave a 'ghost' in one's mind's eye in imagining a position in which this piece has moved. That has and does lead to mistakes. It is also true that experiance can mislead - leaving one open to the shock of unexpected moves. I have tried blindfold play - many, many years ago whilst travelling to a tournament with friends. Can't say I was much chop at it (never having tried to play a whole game before), and I found it a strain, all right. Right from the start, the position was hazy in my mind, and I found myself 'playing simple' merely to keep the game within reach of my imagination. I think I lost a couple of not very exciting games in the ending (this was nearly 40 years ago) against a player slightly stronger and more experienced than I (though I did beat him in the actual tournament!). I have never tried blindfold since. I think it within reach of a 'A' player - or even a 'B' - and might even help one such to attain a higher level; but it would require, for most of us lacking the sort of memory H. N. Pillsbury used to boast, quite a bit of patient mental training. Interestingly, Bill Steinitz also landed up in a mental institution... |
||||||
|
lordhumungus 20-Mar-11, 15:51 |
Its a pity I can't remember where I read that discussion about the subject of blindfold chess. Its out there somewhere in internet cyber space I'm sure I recall one guy's opinion that all 'B' players are 'capable' of playing one game blindfold. Perhaps he meant by 'capable' that it is possible after a bit of training and practise. Anyway, it was just some random person's comment. I don't really share his opinion! I think it is really interesting that some weaker players seem to be able to do this, but some MUCH stronger players claim not to. Baronderkilt mentioned that he knows several people personally (as well as himself!) of quite various strength that can play this way. If it really is the case that some weaker players can play blindfold, and some stronger players cannot, then I guess it is logical to conclude it is no indication of chess strength/ability. But this only replaces one problem with another tricky problem to explain! i.e. WHY can some weaker players do this and some much stronger players cannot? Perhaps people think about chess completely differently to each other, with more 'visual' people perhaps better suited to this form of the game and 'verbal reasoning' types of people less suited, but are better at planning, strategy etc? Or perhaps all players rely on conscious memory to different extents? What do people think? Please reply guys with any theories, explanations etc you may have (even if you only just think them up whilst your sitting there in 20 seconds, it would still be good to get some discussion going). Would anyone else like to post if they know they either 1. can/have or 2. can't/never tried to play blindfolded. Or maybe you know some friends who've played against you blindfolded etc. Regards, lordhumungus |
||||||
|
what we see --- and what we know “Often in high-class chess, the moves that really matter are not the moves that are actually played. “They remain in potential being as factors that determine the play. That is why chess reporters are usually wrong in their selection of diagrams. They choose the position in which the spectacular move was made. “The spectacular move usually possesses only an aesthetic merit which is irrelevant to chess because it is for the spectator only. . . “But the real merit and the real beauty lie in the moves that depend for their validity on the eventual spectacular move. These are the moves that matter. “Conversely, moves can be beautiful which depend on clever variations that are never actualized. “If search be made in the scores of master chess, it will be found that many of the best melodies are unheard.” 2nd, about Weaver Adams looking "at the ceiling whilst contemplating his move, not to be misled by the present placing of the pieces," -- I always look up and into my mental picture before making a move -- but not for that reason. It's more to shrug off emotions and slip on a tranquil mask while plunging in the knife. 3rd, in high school I was best at blindfold chess, but that was more a function of the low abilities of my competition; here I would never take on a GameKnotter in blindfold. Then, I played by caclulation, 6 to 7 moves out in my mind; now it is more by what positional principles guide me in long range play for the future position: not so much playing for what I see, but playing for what I know must be. |
||||||
|
baronderkilt 20-Mar-11, 23:17 |
I'll discuss this ... Personally I think that the persons Experience in actually Seeing board positions repeatedly is much more significant than pure visualization. The latter is GREAT of course, but what I am saying is that I think a lot of us will use more Experience; if the Move 9 of Lopez position has been seen 3000 times, there comes to be a Long Term Memory snapshot made, rather than Short Term ... so it is much more reliable for most (imo) who are not Pillsbury or Najdorf. It is not only ingrained photogrphically in the memory, but also all the Potentials and Dangers of the position ... so many players do not even have to "start remembering" except to recall "ah move 9 lopez" in this game. And so then if the opponent does something odd, it is simply to remember "lopez move 9" with funky 10 ...Ra7 move. Only 2 things. [Short term memory ingrams tend to be grouped by people in 3's most often. Some can hold Four as one item. But generally if things get longer than 3 or 4, short term wants to make them into a split of two groups. Thus no need for anyone to be whispering to self trying attain an Intermediate Memory of that situation.] To see what I mean about an innate understanding of common positions, try playing a blindfold game of FischerRandom960 Chess. When I play THAT, even Seeing the board, I lose a lot of experience and take "shots" from unexpected places. I think it will be Much harder to play thru a game of that. And would place a much greater emphasis on the Visual + Short Term ("verbal/logical") Memory areas ... actually seperate and so can be used to reinforce each other (as will Saying each move aloud as it is played, and you "see it". ) Getting as many senses, strings, recall tags, whatever we want to call them , onto a position strengthens the recall. But I think if someone plays from RANDOM Chess Starts and do a whole game ... well any volunteers? Should be Very hard, and place much more pressure onto the internal visual, lets call it "sub-visual" to mean seen only in our mind. Thats all from me for now, since there is just SO MUCH that can be said. Can someone prove out the Random Point perhaps? |
||||||
|
baronderkilt 20-Mar-11, 23:48 |
btw .. re Pillsbury My numbers are probably off, but you get the idea. Najdorf set a record with 29(i believe) or 40 Chess games at once. Someone did 40. I think Koltanowski used to play a bunch too (as well as his famous Blindfold Knights Tour of the board exhibition where he would make the N go to each square only once until it had travelled all of them; but could start from any square.) sorry I cant give accurate numbers on all this ... My memory is not what it used to be! |
||||||
|
maca 22-Mar-11, 07:30 |
That said, I don't think blindfolded play is necessarily as "hard-core" as chess players are in the habit of seeing it. If you think you can't play blindfolded, then have you ever tried? I haven't, but I think that if I really put my mind into it, then I'm sure I could learn to play at some level, although no doubt it would be difficult. Let's keep in mind, you don't need to do even nearly as well as you do in normal chess; you merely need to do better than your opponent. I reckon it must more be a question of training, rather than one of you personal talents or overall level in chess. As far as I can imagine, it probably requires ability to concentrate among other things, far beyond the requirements of standard chess, however chess players should know that concentration is one skill that can definitely be trained. Baron, I recall reading somewhere that the record in simultaneous blindfolded exhibition was not set by a leading tournament player, but rather by someone far less known for the world of chess. During the days when simultaneous chess exhibitions were popular leisure activities, blindfolded simultaneous chess was a special practice, also played by dedicated experts who might not have been that accomplished in standard tournament chess. It is my understanding that these people could handle more simultaneous blindfolded games than the leading tournament players at the time. Regards, MaCa. |
||||||
|
fmgaijin 22-Mar-11, 16:27 |
Personal History As I grew older and my rating likewise grew to Master and beyond, I tried more games and would regularly play three or four at a time when I gave a lecture/exhibition at a school or club. The most I ever tried simultaneously was 10--beyond there, the problem became the same as the problem of playing a regular simul with more than 50 players: the TIME involved. I believe that logistics poses the biggest problem in breaking the exisiting "records" for simuls and blindfold simuls. And I further believe that many top players (Anand, for example) could equal or better those records but they do not NEED to do so to earn a living, so marginal GM's are more likely to be the recordsetters. Side note: IM Leonid Bass and I used to travel together to college events and would play 4-board "double simuls" blindfold to entertain ourselves as we drove. He too had played up to 10 but never tried more. |
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 24-Mar-11, 06:27 |
Mid way through the game one of the opponents tilted their head back and quickly moved one of their pieces to a much more advantageous position!The other opponent "bumped"that Bishop and made a statement like..."I thought that Bishop was on b2,not c3!? The other player said..."nope!".Hmmmmm and Ha ha!So,for fun,yes,but never in any kind of serious or rated chess! |
||||||
|
blake78613 25-Mar-11, 05:35 |
|
||||||
|
Fortunately... |
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 25-Mar-11, 16:37 |
My friend wanted to become an electrical engineer.But he failed many of the tests because of course,red and green are the most major colors in wiring current systems.Hook up the wrong wires in many applications and ZAP!He also had been working at Philadelphia Electric co.,but had to quit for various reasons connected to his red/green blindness. Oddly now,he is the owner of a large parking garage next to a major hospital.What a change in careers!But I think he is actually making more $$ taking parking money,than if he would have been an engineer,from what he told me!And he is a chess master as well! I'll have to stop by some evening amongst the exaust fumes and challenge him to a game! Knowing him,he probably will hook a tiny pipe from someones exaust and run it below my chair,so i'll become sleepy and miss his zugzwang..... |
||||||
|
baronderkilt 26-Mar-11, 09:14 |
The Wiki info is quite interesting ... *** en.wikipedia.org *** It seems there is some contention as to who holds the record, with Koltanowski having 34 in a well controlled environment, lacking scoresheets as a player. Whereas Najdorf did claim 40 and more, but had access to his scoresheets it says. *** Early in the change to Blitz V2 here, I did win a couple games one day that my board and opponent pieces were showing up, but not my own pieces. But it was petty tough going, even with that help, and the games short. Otherwise my own recent trys have been less than sterling I find, getting deep into the game ... so perhaps it favors the younger players(my excuse ) , tho of course neither Kolti nor Najdorf were any spring chickens! I would have been very interested to see how many Fischer might have played, and Kasparov too. As fmgaijin mentions, Time surely becomes a factor as in most simuls. When considering just how many positions a 'run-of-the-mill' GM or any World Class GM must be familiar with, it does seem like it must be a bit of "more-of-the-same" for them to learn and recall the ones in a blindfold simul, perhaps just a bit faster. I don't think anyone would dispute that players like Pillsbury aor Anand really are Geniuses of the first order however. This must make it just a BIT easier for them ... lol. |
||||||
|
baronderkilt 26-Mar-11, 09:19 |
Oh yeah, T/A ... |
||||||
|
Colour blindness... |
||||||
|
What I am about to say... I was playing an engine - the standard Microsoft Chess Titans thing - at something like blitz speed - something I like to do from time to time to keep the 'feel' of the board. In this particular game, I had the Black pieces and played a Budapest Gambit. After 25 moves, this position arose: w At this point White moved his attacked rook to d2, attacking the defenceless pawn on d6. Now, the experienced players among you will have immediately been struck, as I was, by the possibility of a double rook sacrifice at h1. In fact I was so taken with this, that I didn't notice the d-pawn was attacked! The question then was, will the White King get away, after the Queen check at h2 and then h1? Note, by the way that here you are already thinking about a position 6 moves ahead of where we are, and are having to extend our vision even further before we even so much as touch the rook now standing at h8. To be sure, this isn't difficult: those 6 moves are forcing, clear out a lot of material, but don't change the overall position very much. That makes it a lot easier. At any rate, after 26.Rd2 Rh1ch 27.Kxh1 Rh8ch 28.Kg1 Rh1ch 29.Kxh1 Qh8ch 30.Kg1 Qh2ch 31.Kf1 Qh1ch 32.Ke2 ... We are now determining, in our heads, whether we can round up the enemy King. Two possibilities exist at this point, 32...Qxg2ch and 33...Bg4ch. It was the latter line that I looked at first, and it seemed very promising: 32...Bg4ch 33.Ke3 Qh6ch This took a several seconds to find, but Black does have a 'bale-out' option ...Bxd1. here. But I was looking for a King hunt. 34.Kd4 c5ch 35.Kd5 ... So far I had calculated, with the position still at White's 26th move, but here my imagination faltered. I was thinking of 35...Be6ch, but it's not mate. I'll come back to this. I also spent a bit of time on 33...Qxg2ch, but after 34.Ke3 Black has no mate at e3 on account of the enemy queen's covering that square. At any rate, having satisfied myself that I had a forced mate, I went in for the double rook sacrifice. At somewhere around move 32 or 33 it started to dawn on me that there was no mate: Black's d-pawn lacked any kind of protection. It transpired that Black's best was simply to carry on until the Black King was imprisoned at d5 and then buy enough time for the Black Queen to slam the door and then administer the death sentence. The game concluded 36... Bxd1 37.Rxd1 ... To protect the pawn that Black is after, White might have tried 37.Rf2, but then comes 37...Qe3, threatening mate and picking up a big material advantage and a winning game. 37...Qxf6 There's no stopping the mate now 38.Na4 Qe6# OK, why do I mention this? The thing with calculating ahead like this is that one is in effect playing blindfold - at the same time playing against yourself. No doubt many of you were able to calculate to mate (or at least to the winning gain of material) - I know the master level players will have been capable of it. I reckon twenty years ago I would not have missed the hanging d-pawn either. But this was a forcing line, with few branches, and they short ones. To calcualte 9, 10 or 12 moves ahead is not difficult in such circumstances. Maybe it's not so hard playing blindfold? In my next posting, a have a little narrative that poses an interesting problem for the blind player... |
||||||
|
Counter-example... A certain Master, we'll call him A---, had been invited to a town, somewhere in the Balkans I believe, to meet the local club members and maybe play a simultaneous blindfold exhibition. Though the cash offer wasn't huge, the Master accepted, duly turned up on Club Night, surveyed the maybe dozen or 16 boards, and prepared for a relaxing evening of it. Master A--- had the White pieces, and, as was his wont, varied the openings in a strict pattern in order to keep individual games clearly distinctive in his mind: 1.e4; 1.d4; 1.Nf3; 1.b3; 1.b4; etc and so on. His opponents replied: half played 1...Nf3, the other half 1...Nc3. H'mmm. OK play the next move. The enemy responded by bringing the other knights out. After the third move, Master A--- was becoming olfactorily aware or a large and hairy rodent. Whatever he played, half his opponents retired a knight to g8; the other half to b8. In order to kep the games distinctive, Master A--- was having to undergo considerable risky contortions. But it was no good. He found himself becoming increasingly confused. He could see that this was heading straight for a very humiliating evening. So he tried a very tricky manouevre. Calling for a toilet break, he vanished into the bathroom, found a window he could open, nipped through and was half way to the railway station before his hosts even began to suspect that his absence was becoming unduly prolonged. Blindfold play does seem to exercise the imagination... Cheers, Ion |
||||||
|
Joe, thank you for your suggestions. Joe Gallagher (with only a veneer of theory it yet is surprisingly very useful), Peter Wells (nice coverage of the Advance Short), Byron Jacobs (concepts of the Advance Variation), Jovanka Houska (sharing what her Dad played that helped her), Suetin (small, comprehensive, old; lacks the depth of his books on middlegame theory), Beliavsky with Karpov (useful perspectives from both sides on the Classical), Keene with Taulbut (old, small, useful for defense), Kasparov & Shakarov (a generation old, yet useful for the Classical), Kotronias (good positional insights & the book that inspired or popularised Short's Advance), Gufeld & Stetsko (adore Gufeld on positional strategy, period), Aagaard (Panov-Botvinnik Attack, Aagaard's first book -- & his best on harmony of pieces, structure, & positional weaknesses), Neil McDonald (one of the rare CK books with in-depth middlegame annotations, this one of the Classical), and Karpov's 3 big manuals -- (the most useful for trying sharper systems -- but few conceptual constructs that stick in the memory). Will take your suggestion and peer at Shirov's DVDs. With Spring here, good luck at your upcoming tournaments. |
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 26-Mar-11, 16:59 |
Glad to be of help.I have many books and DVD's,but what helps one may not help another. Its all a matter of interpretation and how effectively you are tuned into the author of the book.These days,most of my friends at the club go for DVD tutorials.I'm from the old school however,and have always learned better from a "real"book with "real"pages.I can't concentrate as well looking at some monitor. I'm particular to Susan Polgars DVD collections,however....but as to CK,she would not be the best CK instructor in mid/endgame study as in other types of opening style. |
||||||
|
Moi aussi, books over videos All this reading. . and still, there remains a big disconnect for me between book-based correspondence chess and OTB chess. Still at a loss to grasp the Concepts of this opening. In constast, in playing as White using the Queen's Gambit: its moves and variations flow so naturally, intuitively, joyfully as if the squares are piano keys, and the game's moves form a melody. With the QGD, QGA, Slav or SemiSlav Systems, playing as White the moves just flow, fingers think intuitively and sense out the squares and the pieces, the knights seekiing strong points and the bishops and rooks their open lines, and the moves arrange themselves into melodic sequences. With the Caro Kann -- it is reliable but I do not "get it". The moves feel discontinous, they do not flow one into another, the defensive structure looks perilous if not ugly, and the plan of attack -- there is no plan of attack, except occasionally and only on the c-file or late in the endgames. The fun of chess, the excitement of discovery, the thrill of stumbling onto new systems (like the AntiMoscow of the SemiSlav, say) -- are lacking in the Caro. The adventure may be there, but the thrills are not there to be anticipated. Hope to find more mischief in the French, maybe even a closed Spanish. |
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 26-Mar-11, 17:31 |
That friend of mine that has the red/green blindness sometimes has a bad time at intersections with the traffic light.He see's only the middle yellow and the top and bottom of the light are just a white glow.So he just goes by the "position" of the light.But sometimes there is a sun glare on the traffic light or it switches too quickly and he cannot redially see the light very well,let alone people not seeing it well that are not color blind.In addition,some traffic lights are just ONE light....and blinking or sometimes NOT!Is that one light Red?Green? Hmmmm...so these people can have alot of problems that we take for granted! |
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 26-Mar-11, 17:47 |
I generally stay away from the CK because I feel it gives white more freedom of movement and makes it somewhat harder for black to free up his position.So basically I have a mistrust of that defense,atleast on the higher levels of competition that I am accustomed to. In my personal experiences with the CK and playing opponents 2200-2500,I have had a very large amount of draws playing the black side...more than I care to have,after breaking through with delayed initiative,so I find,as you say shamash,the CK lacking in the discovery,excitement and possibilities as other opening defenses.Yet,I acknowledge that its popularity is on the rise....but not with me! Give me a good bookless Trompowski on either side or an English Symmetrical on either side and those games can easily give you more of a potent sting and exciting play..... TA |
||||||
|
the Author and the Opening Have books by author Lars Schandorff on the Queen's Gambit -- and his new one on the Caro Kann. Same format. Schandorff on the QG is adventurous and fun like a guide when you go hunting -- at the same time, his coverage is theoretically deep, engaging -- and useful. Schandorff on the Caro feels plodding and superficial -- and mostly a waste. It's the damn opening. |
||||||
|
blake78613 28-Mar-11, 06:52 |
Ostap Bender is the fictional Russian conman, who escaped his simul by climbing out the bathroom window. |
||||||
| |||||||
