It started just over six months ago as "100 Days To Chess Improvement" and since I didn't want my 100th post to be about Teamleague 38 round 3 (for reasons that will become apparent when I write it) I thought I'd take this opportunity to review my journey into the blogosphere and think about where it's going.
I've picked up a few regular visitors to my "Public Chess Diary", and I'd especially like to thank those of you who've taken the trouble to leave the comments that have started appearing lately. Feedback is always welcome from any visitor, please consider signing off with your FICS handle, or your own blog or (non-commercial) website address - talking with Mr Anonymous is still nice, but well, you know...
I suppose the big question is "did it work?", "it" being the systematised tactics training excercise I undertook at the beginning of this blog.
When I first came to FICS about 6 years ago I was able to maintain a 1900ish rating, this came off the back of being bored on the train and casually working through the first half of "The Encyclopaedia of Chess Middlegames". My blitz (5 12) rating peaked about 18 months later at 1618 which I largely put down to a side effect of manually relaying GM games. Something must have gone in, I guess. The following couple of years of playing haphazardly and doing no study at all saw these drop to the mid-1700's and 1300's respectively.
I can say I've completed Reinfeld's "1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations" in that I've worked through them all, many of them numerous times, but I haven't quite continued on as intended and reached the point where I can go through the entire book in an hour or so visualising the key lines of the solutions. Much of my tactical vision is back, combos do leap out of the board at me again now.
It's a qualified success. My blitz rating was recently (briefly) active at 1613 and my standard is finally the right side of 1800 again. It's not a 'J' curve yet, but we've just about got a 'U' and proceeding in the right direction.
I did make a start on the next phase of improvement, "How To Analyse", which has stalled somewhat. Analysis is the chore of playing Chess. It has however improved naturally even from the bit of tactics work I've done. Having good recognition of tactical patterns seems to act as memory pegs which hold the position in place down the tree of the key variations at least. It still needs a lot of work and I will return to it eventually, but there's something else I want to do first, which may also aid analysis in the way tactics have.
I want a proper opening repertoire. This is a surprisingly big step for me, because I always heeded the advice that opening theory is useless to amateur players. I've come to the conclusion that what this really means is that the rote memorisation of opening lines is pointless at this level, which I still think holds true. Many players it seems have a couple of pet lines and model games and spend their life trying to re-enact them. They get 'out of book' and then the blunders - tactical and positional - abound.
What I intend to do is look at systems. What type of middle and endgame position arises from certain types of openings, and what positional ideas and tactical motifs are common to them? Until now, my notion of playing the opening has been to get the pieces out then hope I can make something of it. I have absolutely no idea what happens in Queen's pawn games, and only that King's pawn games "tend to be more tactical". I can push the King-pawn, but I've never really studied any specific opening. I've simply survived as long as I have by dint of trial and error experience.
There'll be no opening lines, no fixed order of moves. Just ideas of the nature "if I've played this move, I'm working towards this freeing move. I'm creating this kind of pawn structure which will be good in a Bishop ending but bad with Rooks". I want to know what all this Slav / semi-Slav / Meran / anti-Meran business is about. I want to be able to start a game, and after the other fellow pushes his first pawn be thinking "my first plan is to achieve..." not "ok, so I know a couple of the next moves, let's see where he takes the game".
I want a proper opening repertoire. After any first couple of moves I want to be able to know where the game is heading, and take a part in steering the course. The next phase of improvement is to be able to say "I know what the basic specific ideas and plans in this opening are. I know what sort of moves and manoevers I need to make to achieve my objectives and undermine his. I know what sort of middlegame might arise, and I know how to prepare for the likely endgames.".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, I guess you could classify me as "Mr Anonymous", though I'd hardly describe it as "talking" if I leave a comment to a post of yours that contains a question and you don't answer it :) ! Was that the Tal link you were after or is it another one ? If so, I'd be interested to find out what you saw/found originally. Same for the bizarre 'double-mate' post....what was the answer ?
I came back to chess about 3 years ago, and I took up correspondence chess, which was not a success, I have to say, and I floundered.
I found FICS a year later and it was a great boost to me, especially playing in Team League matches, and over a few seasons reached a fine level although now am now over-rated in my opinion, having won a few games in the STC tournaments against much higher opponents, often blitz players who play little standard chess ( and it shows ) !
I've wandered through many "systems of learning" in this time, and like you, I think I will improve through analysis and not rote opening learning.
Despite that I have adopted a few openings that I seem to enjoy and profit from ( Pirc, Dutch, Bird, for example ) and in these I do set out to learn about the opening theory.
This ends up with finding repeated or set positions at the transition to middle-game that arise from the opening, and that it is useful to think or theorise about : its surprising how often this happens. [I tend to add these into CPT and write notes about for future use. ]
It is here that your "positional ideas and tactical motifs are common" are seen and derived.
In prosaic terms this is the "I've seen this idea before and this move worked well" thought. It's a nice feeling :-)
I have shied away from d4 openings as white since I think I am not ready to play them ( although bizarrely, I play 1.f4 with regularity and success ! ) and actually prefer playing Black, so my main aim is to find a White opening that I like. I suspect that I am more a defensive or waiting player, which is why Black is better for me, I want to see what the opposition does and react. Same reason that I am not a killer attacker : too wary.
I have also gone back to correspondence chess as well now, playing on a chess server rather than by email : much better in a practical sense. This also provides a great opportunity for lengthy analysis in the course of a game, and allows me to indulge in researching the openings chosen in a proper "geeky" fashion.
Is 1.e4 a6 really referred to as the "Birmingham Defence" ? I always thought it was the "St George" as it was English-inspired ( Basman ) and that Tony Miles birthday was 23rd April ? Although all of these could well be false. Don't tell me there is Wednesbury System or Dudley Defence ? although I could accept a Tipton Attack in honour of the "Tipton Slasher" !!
Keep the blog going, as it is one of the more interesting around, concentrating on the more personal side of chess.
Cheers,
ZwaartePaard
Hi ZwaartePaard,
Thanks again for your comments, I guess I ought to directly answer your quesions! :)
I had found the link in the Tal post you gave, the table I had in mind was a much simpler one giving a straight percentage without all that confusing statistical mumbo-jumbo.
Your solution to the 'double-mate' in holiday puzzle #6 was quite correct, ...d5 both blocks White's check and delivers discovered mate. As you pointed out, capturing en passant does not fulfill White's basic requirement to deal with the check.
1.e4 a6 is the St George Defense, but is also referred to as the Birmingham Defense as that is where Miles defeated Karpov with it. The notes in the linked chessgames.com game do make some distinction about when it is technically a Birmingham, but why split hairs when you can mention your old home town? :)
I'm intending to make a concerted effort at the 1.d4 systems after the current teamleague season. Because I was always warned off them "until you're good enough" (whatever that means...) it's always felt cack-handed to me when I have tried them in the past.
Good luck with your correspondence and teamleague careers!
Regards,
Simian.
Post a Comment