Well, with all this discussion about thinking, you'd think that we as chess players actually do think when playing. Suurre we do. But not about chess (smiles inwardly)
But anyway, I'm actually not interested in knowing how GM's think. Why? Because I will never be a GM. No matter what I do, I will never have the commitment or the talent to reach that level. So its no use trying to think that way.
But anyway, I'm actually not interested in knowing how GM's think. Why? Because I will never be a GM. No matter what I do, I will never have the commitment or the talent to reach that level. So its no use trying to think that way.
Trying to think like a GM is like trying to think like Tom Cruise. I can try talking to the Katie Holmes of the world, but without his money nor his looks such girls are way-out-of-my-league.
But to think like a 1900 player? Ah! now were talking. This range is not so far from my own rating. I've even defeated some 1900 players from time to time, so I feel its not that too large a jump.
So, what is the difference between us? Whats that 11th ingredient that made the Kentucky friend chicken so to speak? Beats me. If I knew Id be 1900 right now.
However, all is not lost my dear readers. What I can try to give you, is my analysis on the difference between Me and someone 100 points below me (U1700).
Now, before you go and ask me for data and such stuff, I will have to tell you I have none. This is just my own conception and you have to take my word for it. I will not mislead you. Trust me! Nyehehehe!
Anyway: There are a lot of things of course, One of them is simply better tactics. But there were some U1600 players who I feel is as good as me tactically. So that cannot be possibly the only answer. What I think is closer to the truth is this:
But before that: You must have the tactics otherwise the advice below will not serve you.
And so with that out of the way, I give you my analysis:
You could see this in any number of games. See my last post as example. For the longest time, my opponent was moving only his pieces. He was trying to beat me to a quivering mass of jelly using his knights, bishops, and queens. But you know, pawns are part of the army too. Playing only with pieces is literally playing with 50% of your army. Makes no sense not to use them. You know, if pawns were basketball players, they would've complained to the press. "I don't know my role, the coach doesn't explain it to me", or "I feel I can help this team win. I just need the chance to play". Sounds familiar? It should, the pawns are telling this to you every game. It whispers melancholy "Play us. We are so lonely, pleaseeee?".
To add - We all know that we should develop our pieces harmoniously right. Some take this to mean that pieces should be harmonious with other pieces. But actually, it is much more important to develop pieces harmoniously with pawns. Why!? Because pieces can always be connected with each other. But pieces and pawns cannot. Sometimes you only get one chance to develop them.
No army in the whole world sends only its officer in battles. Chess is not only the stage for the mighty knights, long robed bishops and pretty queens. The humble, poor, distraught, destitute, bojangled, outcast, sneered-at, sad, hapless, dejected, blue, lonely, oh so very lonely pawns have a right to exists to.
Sounds very theoretical heh! Now if only i can play better than I talk.
(Dawnson's creek was good. But you know why your watching)
But to think like a 1900 player? Ah! now were talking. This range is not so far from my own rating. I've even defeated some 1900 players from time to time, so I feel its not that too large a jump.
So, what is the difference between us? Whats that 11th ingredient that made the Kentucky friend chicken so to speak? Beats me. If I knew Id be 1900 right now.
However, all is not lost my dear readers. What I can try to give you, is my analysis on the difference between Me and someone 100 points below me (U1700).
Now, before you go and ask me for data and such stuff, I will have to tell you I have none. This is just my own conception and you have to take my word for it. I will not mislead you. Trust me! Nyehehehe!
Anyway: There are a lot of things of course, One of them is simply better tactics. But there were some U1600 players who I feel is as good as me tactically. So that cannot be possibly the only answer. What I think is closer to the truth is this:
But before that: You must have the tactics otherwise the advice below will not serve you.
And so with that out of the way, I give you my analysis:
A lot of players try to win with pure piece play.
You could see this in any number of games. See my last post as example. For the longest time, my opponent was moving only his pieces. He was trying to beat me to a quivering mass of jelly using his knights, bishops, and queens. But you know, pawns are part of the army too. Playing only with pieces is literally playing with 50% of your army. Makes no sense not to use them. You know, if pawns were basketball players, they would've complained to the press. "I don't know my role, the coach doesn't explain it to me", or "I feel I can help this team win. I just need the chance to play". Sounds familiar? It should, the pawns are telling this to you every game. It whispers melancholy "Play us. We are so lonely, pleaseeee?".
To add - We all know that we should develop our pieces harmoniously right. Some take this to mean that pieces should be harmonious with other pieces. But actually, it is much more important to develop pieces harmoniously with pawns. Why!? Because pieces can always be connected with each other. But pieces and pawns cannot. Sometimes you only get one chance to develop them.
No army in the whole world sends only its officer in battles. Chess is not only the stage for the mighty knights, long robed bishops and pretty queens. The humble, poor, distraught, destitute, bojangled, outcast, sneered-at, sad, hapless, dejected, blue, lonely, oh so very lonely pawns have a right to exists to.
Sounds very theoretical heh! Now if only i can play better than I talk.
(On a sidenote: Its too late for this but: Why Katie? Why? Did you know I hated watching soaps, but I watched Dawson's Creek just for you. I even went to that sucky "the gift" movie to see your, er.. face. And now, your in the arms of a crazy lunatic. Anybody but him, he's too old and decrepit. Why not go with somebody your own age - like Nezha perhaps? I feel like Michael Corleone saying "You broke my heart Fredo, You broke my heart!". And don't even try telling me you're happy. You look so sad. Is it because your "Far away from Holmes?". Hehe! But seriously, it scarred me for life. I'm serious. I haven't recovered yet. This is making me bitter. Lets just move on..)
//----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Something Interesting
//----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read a very interesting post by GM Ziatdinov yesterday. (See this sample)
Here are some of his more interesting comments:
1. On Thought Process
If you look too hard for the best way of thinking (especially during the game) you will always make frustrating blunders that are far behind your true chess level. Concentrate on concrete chess, not generalities, and follow your intuition. My experience shows that you cannot change the way you think. Any attempt to make your thinking reasonable and systematic will fail. Kotov's method of calculating, creating a list of every feasible move (candidates), and examining each variation of each candidate move only once in a mechanical order, is too scientific and has little practical use.
Chess is not a time for thinking, it is time for action; it is show time!
2. An Inadvertent GM Knight Errant?
To study tactics, I recommend my timed tactical software program, or similar software programs. A good book of combinations is beneficial too, but less efficient and not as fun. Basically, set up a cycle of ten positions, go through them until you get a perfect score, then set a cycle from 10-20, get a 100% score, then go through problems 1-20, repeating this cycle until you can go through 1000 problems "by hand" (not mind) without any mistakes. If you try this method with my tactics program and complete it, you will have the tactical ability of a Grandmaster. I have had more than a hundred students and nobody had enough will power to finish this tactical training method. Is it my students or is it me?
Hmm, Sounds like a quasi-DLM plan to me. What do you think? Have we found our long lost brother?
thanks for the visit to my blog.. fyi, i run two, one on blogger one on wordpress, both are mirrored, but blogger is easier to post pics and vids.. you remember yesterday i posted the madness part of the game? you may want to see todays post about the "russian chess killer".. guy wanted to kill 64 people, one for each square.. everyone seems to be running 'thought process" threads so i decided id do something different.. besides, my game is so terrible i havent even gotten to defining my thought process..