Author: Albert Silver
Date: 11:21:01 04/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2001 at 01:20:15, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>How much stronger does a human who externally plays around 2350 play
>>>>against a computer as a 2500 rated human who btw i beat usually
>>>>in blitz easily too as my tactics are better as average.
>>>>
>>>>My problem is simple to define in chess. My own problem is that
>>>>my openings sucks compared to 2500 rated persons. Their openings
>>>>preparement is hell better.
>>>
>>>I do not buy this excuse.
>>
>>Excuse?
>>
>>So you think my endgame sucks for example?
>>hehehehe, let's ask my teammembers about this :)
>>
>>Coming years we play again in masterclass, so i can
>>definitely compare my endgame technique with IMs and GMs then again :)
These aren't objective comments. By your own words, you calculate more than
almost all GMs (you said this in a thread some time ago), your tactics are
superior, and your endgame technique is comparable to IMs and GMs. Yet you are
rated 2280. ALL because of opening preparation?? I think you might consider
studying with a GM (not someone who is as good as a GM, but a GM) and try to
properly analyze what is going on in your games. If not, you may see your
playing ambitions frustrated or come short because of an improper evaluation of
your current play and areas that need developing. You don't need to defend your
ability to us. No one here (not I in any case) doubts your ability, so it isn't
necessary to explain how good you are.
I have a friend who suffers from a similar affliction and studies the areas he
knows best, as he believes they are his weak points. He is an _excellent_
positional player who has often come up winning against IMs and GMs in
positional games. He constantly complains of his inferior opening preparation
and also says they are the reason for his lack of success. He wants to leave the
opening with a significant advantage if not winning. Even an equal position
after the opening is almost a disaster, showing the superior preparation of his
opponent. His true weaknesses are tactics (not even calculation) and
overconfidence. Talking with him about this is a true exercise in futility.
Believe me, I have tried. Though your strengths are different, you talk just
like him. Careful, my friend.
It must be a common problem because when I started to play chess in 1988 (I was
18) in Paris, all the 2200 (FIDE) players in my club (Chess XV) seemed to be
gods of chess. They knew everything. Or at least that was the impression they
gave. My goal therefore was to also 'know it all' and reach 2200 someday. Well,
it finally happened one day when I least expected it. I had been a meagre 1880
for about two years, and then suddenly after two tournaments I was 2230 FIDE. I
felt no different and certainly felt I knew nothing. I played several other
tournaments to disprove this embarrassing mistake and my rating went to 2240.
Openings? A joke. Very usual for me to be calculating after 8 moves (no joke).
Endgame? I did everything to avoid that phase. Middlegame? Very much like
yourself: Tactics, tactics, and tactics (BTW, contrary to you I suck bigtime in
blitz). My calculation is usually decent too as I capitalize OFTEN on errors in
calculation from my opponents. But positional play? Only general concepts. I was
completely disgusted with the game. I had been ripped off. Years and years to
get to 2200 (5 years exactly), and when I got there, the promised enlightenment
was nowhere to be found. I'll tell you: 2200+ is NOTHING. If you accept that,
and accept that you don't play like a GM, you'll make room for improvement. If
you think you know it all, then what is there to learn? As for me, I KNOW I know
nothing. I should probably get off my lazy butt to complete my education, but
that's a different story.
Albert
>
>I do not know.
>It can be your endgame and it can be the middlegame.
>It can be tactics on long time control(it is possible that you are better on
>tactics in blitz but GM's are better than you on tactics at long time control).
>
>I do not believe that it is only the opening.
>Bad opening knowledge can justify 2450 instead of 2500.
>It cannot justify getting 2280 instead of 2500.
>
>Uri
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.