Author: Graham Laight
Date: 02:34:40 04/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2001 at 14:21:01, Albert Silver wrote:
{snip}
>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
First and foremost, I cannot agree that you can get to 2200 without knowledge.
You must have learned something from somewhere - if only by analysing your own
games.
At this level, you're not far away from an IM norm. The IM I used to know had a
whole wall of a room in his house full of chess books (as well as Chess
Assistant - a Chessbase competitor).
In some positions, out calculating your opponent will do the trick. However - to
live long enough to get to these positions, you're going to have to know quite a
lot about the game.
If your positional knowledge is poor, then someone who's a little weaker in
tactics but strong in positional knowledge will undoubtedly beat you. You'll
quite simply compromise your position too much.
Having said all that, you wouldn't have said what you did without something
lying behind it. Maybe your original 1880 rating was too low? Even so, this is
not enough.
The only other explanation is that 2000 - 2300 players are CONSTANTLY making
tactical errors!
Where does the truth lie?
-g
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.