This is a game which puzzled me. Just before this, I lost to RomaLavrn in only
12 moves. I was miniturized, and he is rated 1860. So when I posted a seek for another match, and a 1902 player answered, I went "Great, just my luck! another higher rated player." But hey, a game is a game so I went for it.
But when we were playing, I couldnt believe what was happening. I must have said "what the!?" a dozen times. I though some of the moves he made was so bad I nearly fell me off my chair. Sometimes, chess is really weird. How can I be crushed by an 1860 player, then turn around and beat a "stronger" 1902 player? Bizzare!
Please move a little faster
In relation to this - because of my recent loses, I made a concious effort to think as much as I can every move. You know, trying to generate candidate moves, and selecting a PV and stuff. Just like Mr. Heisman said. But the side-effect to this is that I move much2x slower now. Apparently, some of my opponents didnt like this. I've seen the comment "Please move a little faster" a few times already. One even went so far as to disconnect in the middle of the game. I was very ticked off. I mean, what I do with my time is my concern right? Its part of the game right? If I wanted to consume all my time within the first 10 moves, its perfectly alright, right? What are they complaining about then? Dang blitz players.
Chess Coach
I had a preliminary contact with a chess coach. He is from Argentina (I think), and he's webpage is here coach But CamC indicated that if you are not in the >2000ELO range, getting a coach is a waste of time and money. Better to just do group analysis he says. Does anybody have an opinion about this?
I know, I know I can't afford it. My wife tells that to me all the time. But my chess geekiness is really reaching gigantic proportions =<
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Puzzling Game
posted by Nezha at 10:47 PM
| Permalink |
| Permalink |
5 Comments:
-
At 2:27 PM,
CelticDeath -
I'm thinking that getting coach earlier is better than later. Here's why: Even though we all follow plans for improvement, a qualifed teacher will see you weak points and direct you there first. Teachers are usually at least a master, so why not get the advice of someone who's already traveled the path and save yourself the aggravation. Plus, everyone I know who went on to be GM's started with some kind of teacher from their first year. What does that tell us?
-
At 6:44 AM,
-
At 6:44 AM,
I agree with CamC. My opinion is that until you are an expert, there are serious deficiencies in one or more areas of your game. For me, I know I have serious deficiencies in just about everything except for tactics. I'm working on my endgame knowledge, and slowly building my middlegame strategic technique. I can do okay with the openings, unless I'm Black vs. 1. d4 when I still haven't settled on an appropriate response that suits me. I still have a lot of room for development, though. My calculative ability is pretty decent, but my analysis skills suck. My use of pawns and the king leaves a lot to be desired. I'm getting better at planning, but as soon as I reach the transition of middlegame to endgame I fall apart whether or not I have the advantage. My lack of knowledge of proper defense is outright scary.
Anyway, my point is that at our levels, we already have a pretty decent idea of where our weaknesses lie. We can improve in these areas through self-study or group study. Eventually, we may improve to the point (perhaps Class A in ability) to where we start to wonder about where we are still weak in our gameplay. That is the point where a good evaluation by a strong teacher would come in handy. The results of that evaluation would probably give us enough direction to reach the expert level. After that, though, some serious mentoring would be necessary to get us to the point of mastery.