Wednesday, December 06, 2006
The Genesis
> Also Fierabras left this interesting comment
>> But if you want to play like Nezhmetdinov ... ... too passive

You know, before I proceed with discovering my chess "style", I think it best to discover what I am doing now. To answer this, I'll start by answering this question "why don't I try to play like Nezhmetdinov?".

To begin with, lets start with title of the first three chess books I've read:

> 1. Judgement and planning in chess - Euwe
> 2. Chess Fundamentals - Capablanca
> 3. Simple Chess - Stean

Do you see a pattern here? Do you know what this means? It means that for the first year or so of my chess life, I've been studying positional play. (I stopped only when i noticed that no matter how good I am positionally, i wont come very far without being good also tactically, hence the circles)

Our very first teachers influence us in ways we don't notice ourself. It is only later through self-inspection, when we seek to analyze why we do the things we do that we understand. We understand that what we had been doing was precisely what was thought us by those very same teachers.

For example, I dislike sacrificing pawns for initiative. I try to keep the positions simple, I constantly try to prevent counter play.

When I asked myself, why am I like that? I imagined myself an "attacking" player. But when I analyzed, my games does not "feel" like an attacking game. Its a slow grind2x.. get small advantage here, build outpost there-type of game (See previous post Cheap Tactics)

When I first played chess and i had no knowledge of things, I'm sure i didn't feel this way. And you know how my site is named after an aggressive player, and to someone who had been reading my posts regularly, it would appear that I at least try to emulate him with all my talk about tactics and stuff...

But alas, what we want to do, and what we do are two separate things. Alas, Nezhmetdinov came too late to influence my play. It was Capablanca who came first, and Euwe and Stean. This chess trinity has influenced my play to such a degree that it would take significant amount of time to reverse it. I'm not even sure if it can be reversed.

If I could have gone back in time, I would give me a copy of Nezh's games along with a tactics book and say "Here, go through this tactics book 7 times, and then study these games." Then perhaps, i would had been the fearless slasher I thought I was. But its too late now (And too late that I noticed or my site would had been named "In Honor Of Stecapeuwe").

Perhaps later, ill evolve into that. But right now I have to be true to myself and accept the fact that the road I'm walking is different. Trying to put fire on board when my inner voice tells me to keep calm, keep calm, prepare and keep calm is a conflict I wish to avoid. If only for the sake of winning. Valor is no substitute for victory. I like the aesthetic side of chess too of course, but 80% of the reason I'm playing is for competitive reasons. That sense of blood pounding in my ears, my heart beating like a trapped butterfly, during a tense moment in a game. That is why I play chess.

I just want to win. And if it wins subverting my desires to do so. Then so be it.
posted by Nezha at 7:02 PM | Permalink |


  • At 7:08 AM, Blogger Fierabras

    Nezha, you are on the right track.

    In an earlier post you said "but when I play, I try really really hard to generate tactical melees. I try, but it does not happen. The positions does not come. Or it does not come too often for my taste."

    I predict you will find the way to actually achieve such positions later. For now, keep it simple and just try to win (by any means).