Author: Andrei Fortuna
Date: 03:02:04 07/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 11, 2003 at 13:22:35, P. Massie wrote: >My apologies - I mis-quoted Mueller's book title slightly - it's actually >Fundamental Chess Endings. No problem, I understood what it was about (funny thing is his name appears as Muller on amazon and Mueller on chessco). >I was frustrated for a long time at that level, and I've had many friends the >same way. You read all the books on how to get better, and you try to apply it >in tournanment games, and yet your results never seem to change much. Finally, >after much time and suffering, I decided to try a different approach. > >A lot of GM's write books on how to improve, yet if you actually see how most of >them improved, they did it through extensive playing and studying of games, >rather than by following any general rules. Chess is such a complex game that >success cannot be boiled down to a few simple rules. If it could chess programs >would be simple to create. I agree. John Watson has a saying similar to this in "Secrets of ...", i.e. the GMs find out pragmatically what works in a position and then put into words a plausible explanation. >You need to develop a huge store of memory patterns such that you can recognize >the key elements of a given position and have a reasonable idea of how to >proceed. This is the key element that separates GM's from Masters and them from >amateurs. As you get stronger the store of patterns gets bigger and you can >recognize more patterns faster. That's why a GM can glance at a familiar >position and instantly pick out one or two reasonable moves. Then they just >have to calculate the tactics around those moves. Whereas in that same position >an amateur has no clue, and spends all of his/her time just trying to find a >move, with no time left for tactics. Also, since the GM is familiar with the >position, he/she already knows the common tactical themes to look for, so >they'll see most of the tactics almost instantly. I agree on this. >Different people use different methods to develop these memory patterns, but >clearly you have to pick a relatively small set of openings to minimize the >work, you have to study characteristic games in those openings, and you have to >play frequently in those openings. And ask questions about the moves - whether >looking at your game afterward or a GM game. Sometimes even GM's miss things, >or they pick one move just because they like it, not necessarily because it's >better. > >If you do this you will get better. How good you get and how fast are >determined by your natural talent and time invested, but this is the only method >I know that actually works. You have convinced me ! Actually somehow I knew those things, but I needed to hear them out-loud to aknowledge them ! Cheers, Andrei
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.