Author: Albert Silver
Date: 07:22:14 04/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 2001 at 05:34:40, Graham Laight wrote:
>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).
Here is the complete list of books I have read from cover to cover (in the order
I read them):
Les Grands Maitres de l'Echiquier by Richard Reti (Masters of the Board in Eng.)
My first chess book.
Lecons de Tactique by Yaacov Neishtadt (Not sure about the English title because
the title I once saw in English was a bit different: Lessons in Tactics)
By now I was rated 1580.
La Strategie Moderne (Vol. 1) by Ludek Pachman (The Compleat Strategy Vol.1 -
out of print in English (Batsford) as far as I know - This volume deals with
piece play - I never read the other two)
Test Your Chess IQ (Vol. 1) by Livshitz (a wonderful series if followed as
designed - go beyond the time limits, but find the solutions on your own. No
peeking. Can't find it now? Do the other problems and come back later)
Rating 1810
No books
Rating 1880
Test Your Chess IQ (Vol. 2) by Livshitz (by now I was probably becoming fairly
decent in tactics as after 2/3 I was completing the tests said to be in 60-70
minutes in 15-20)
And about 1/3 of Vol. 3 prior to the jump. The third volume is the oddest of the
lot. Some of the times allotted (not by suite but by position) are reasonable,
but better defenses and downright refutations have made some "10 minute"
problems balloon to 20-25 minutes or more. Afterall, when finding a refutation,
you believe you _must_ have overlooked the refutation to the refutation. That's
happened too. :-)
Rating 2230
That's it.
I have other books of course, but most I leafed through and just look nice on
the shelves. Others I read a couple of chapters in but never much more. So you
tell me if my claim is unreasonable.
>
>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.
It certainly happens. But you'd be surprised at what one can do by actually
respecting general concepts. Even positional players can get 'too' positional,
and start embarking on bizarre maneuvers and sequences to support an idea
disregarding precepts such as space and development. And more importantly,
disregarding my superficial ideas. I.e. Not paying attention to the opponent's
resources - a big no-no.
>
>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!
Yes, we are. It isn't so much that they blunder, but not giving sufficiently due
attention to the opponent's resources. This can mean not seeing a trap that is
set, or a sequence designed to introduce more tactics into the position. There
are lots of good reasons to be wary of this philosophy, but it is also natural
to steer the game to positions you believe offers the best chances. This blows
up in my face often enough so I appreciate the risks. If I sound like I put
myself apart from this group, I am just as guilty, but I tend to do it less
(tactically) as I have evidenced in my games.
>
>Where does the truth lie?
Ok, I'll moderate it a little: 2200s know very little. IMHO. They know more than
1700s, sure, but that's relative, not absolute. BTW, just to be clear: this
isn't some bout of false modesty, I truly believe this.
BTW, just so you can see, here is a position I reached _last night_ as black
against a FIDE Master rated 2345:
[D]r1bq1rk1/p1n2pbp/2pp2p1/2p5/2P1N3/3P1N2/PP3PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 12
Here he played 12.Bg5 and looked quite happy after 12...f6 13.Bf4. After 13...f5
though he began to grimace. Nothing magic, just miscalculation: If 14.Nxd6 Ne6
is winning. To be honest though, I screwed up a few moves later and after 14.Bg5
Qd7 15.Nc3 Ne6 16.Bd2 Nd4 17.Nxd4
[D]r1b2rk1/p2q2bp/2pp2p1/2p2p2/2PN4/2NP4/PP1B1PPP/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 17
I made a positional blunder (this game was a big lesson to me) 17...Bxd4??
18.Bf4 and my bishop on c8 ended up costing me the game after 32 more moves and
a tough fight. I had to take with the pawn as after cxd4 and a subsequent c5 the
bishop could have played on the a8-h1 diagonal. As it was, I had a wonderful
black-squared bishop that was fighting alone against two pieces, and my
experienced opponent taught me how serious my mistake had been. So now you've
seen both sides of the coin.
Albert
>
>-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.