Toggle sidebar

OT: Chess

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Harbour Dog said:
It's a process! As long you enjoy the grind that comes with improvement, you'll start to see those steps happening.

Starting out, do lots of puzzles and play other people when you can! Computer errors are so random that it can be difficult to learn from.

As @Grey Sky said, chess.com is an excellent tool and forum to learn from.
Click to expand...
Also...

Play on line, RESIST the urge to cheat when playing on line, and try to calculate without moving pieces on the electronic board - you won't get that chance in an "over the board" game.

When I was young, the ONLY chance you had to play a strong player was at a club or at a tournament. It is a golden age of chess where games are available 24/7/365.
 
Last edited:
Joliet Jake said:
Team A January 1996: Kasparov, Kramnik, Karpov, Ivanchuk, Kamsky, Anand, Gelfand, Topalov, Shirov

Team B January 1996:
1Carlsen29
2Caruana28
3Ding Liren28
4Nepomniachtchi30
5Vachier-Lagrave30
6Aronian38
7Grischuk37
8Mamedyarov35
9So
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Harbour Dog, if all of these players were born the same month as Kasparov and they played a team tourney in January 1996 where every player on Team A played one game against every player on Team B, what would happen? Who would win, why, and out of a total possible 81 points what would the final score be? I'll post my reply after yours. Happy Thanksgiving! :popcorn:
Click to expand...

Practically, Team B would be the favourite; just because they have two decades of computer programs to learn from.

But if we removed that, and assume an even playing field, then I take Team A. Aside from Carlsen, the big boys on Team A don't have comparables on B. Though Team B looks a little deeper, having all of Kasparov, Karpov, Anand, and Kramnik would probably be too much to overcome.

46-35 Team A.
 
Harbour Dog said:
Lmao, oops.

It's a wonder that she hadn't been caught earlier. One of her opponents actually tried playing moves the engine wouldn't expect, and a grandmaster opponent had a sleepless night, the night before their game.

With the rise in popularity of online chess, it seems that cheating controversies are popping up more and more frequently.
Click to expand...

* Check bathroom stalls for cell phones before matches.

* Remove shoes and pat down players before matches.

* Stop a player from going to the bathroom too often - realistically no one should need to go more than twice a match. Altho, I had a Thai meal before a 5 hour match one time and... well... never mind. :oops:

* Watch for signaling.

* Do NOT allow players to leave the table on their move.

Sadly, it's like Whac-A-Mole. As soon as you stop one method of cheating , they will come up with something else.

What happens when a player puts a device under their skin?
Wait for it!
 
Last edited:
91717.jpeg

Harbour Dog said:
Practically, Team B would be the favourite; just because they have two decades of computer programs to learn from.

But if we removed that, and assume an even playing field, then I take Team A. Aside from Carlsen, the big boys on Team A don't have comparables on B. Though Team B looks a little deeper, having all of Kasparov, Karpov, Anand, and Kramnik would probably be too much to overcome.

46-35 Team A.
Click to expand...
Agreed so much I don't have much to add. As you say Team A has 4 of the top 5 players.
 
Last edited:
ORRFForever said:
I play the Grunfeld, too. Provides a dynamic game with lots of drawing opportunities for black.

In many of the openings above, Black's white B is a pain in the a$$ to develop.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m not a patient player, like to get the party started early, although I’ve been playing mor StarCraft than chess lately
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Joliet Jake
ORRFForever said:
I would add...

* Study endgames. Big time !!!! It's boring as sin but it will help you win many games.

* Study tactics.

* Do NOT over-study openings - it's FUN but it's a rabbit's hole and can be a waste of studying time.
Click to expand...
Yes, all those are very good advices.

edit: Especially the part about learning how to play the endgame. In the Soviet school of chess, the chess students started to play chess in endgames. No openings, no no, first they learned how to play the endgame. Then they were allowed to start playing chess from the start. That's how crucial the endgame is in chess.
 
Last edited:
Chimpradamus said:
Especially the part about learning how to play the endgame. In the Soviet school of chess, the chess students started to play chess in endgames. No openings, no no, first they learned how to play the endgame. Then they were allowed to start playing chess from the start. That's how crucial the endgame is in chess.
Click to expand...
Yup.

Studying endgames are a bore - at least next to openings which most players find fascinating (myself included). Endgames, with the endless open squares that start to swim on you, are frustrating - there are just so many options and most of them are bad. However, if you have a strong endgame, you can often turn a middlegame loss into a win.

Thankfully computer end game tutorials make endgames much easier (and much more fun) to study.
 
Last edited:
Chess teachers are increasingly telling their students to play a generic simplified opening - after playing e4 (for example - followed up with d3 at some point), Nf3, fianchetto the white bishop, castle kingside, and then develop the queen side pieces. In other words, nothing complicated. Just something safe/secure.

First, it saves a lot of opening study time.

Second, it takes your opponent out of his/her opening.

IIRC, Kasparov played a simultaneous a few years back where he just played a simple generic opening on every board.
 
Last edited:
ORRFForever said:
Chess teachers are increasingly telling their students to play a generic simplified opening - after playing e4 (for example - followed up with d3 at some point), Nf3, fianchetto the white bishop, castle kingside, and then develop the queen side pieces. In other words, nothing complicated. Just something safe/secure.

First, it saves a lot of opening study time.

Second, it takes your opponent out of his/her opening.

IIRC, Kasparov played a simultaneous a few years back where he just played a simple generic opening on every board.
Click to expand...
That's why the London System is very popular these days.

The Nimzo and Queen's Indian are my go-tos as black against d4. I started with the KID, but went more to NID and QID lines later. If you like the NID, you should also learn the QID in case white plays 3. Nf3 instead of 3. Nc3.

Just my opinion about the top 10 of all time: I can't argue much with Lasker but I don't think Alekhine should be there. Those are my only disagreements. Lasker would have lost earlier to Capablanca if not for WWI. The only argument for Alekhine over Petrosian is that Alekhine is more fun.

I'm much more of an e4 guy but I get a lot of satisfaction when I squeeze my opponents to death rather than destroy them with tactics.

Been studying a lot of Karpov and Petrosian these days. Trying to be more solid than tactical now. I've gotten to the point where it's hard to make tactics appear without gaining a positional advantage. People always tell you to study tactics but what they don't tell you is that they don't appear without a solid positional advantage or your opponent blundering.
 
Last edited:
Boqvy wan Kenobi said:
People always tell you to study tactics but what they don't tell you is that they don't appear without a solid positional advantage or your opponent blundering.
Click to expand...
That's true.

I find tactic studying helps when you're looking to sacrifice. If you can find something that looks like it might work even if it is not perfect, especially "over the board" with time control, play it and let your opponent TRY and find a way out - with his clock ticking.

If you're playing on line where your opponent has 3 days to decide his next move, that kind of sac may be a bad idea. (smile)
 
Boqvy wan Kenobi said:
I started with the KID,
Click to expand...
I use to play the KID (against d4) but...

1) There was so much theory;
2) I was tired of playing a cramped position;
3) My results were not very good,

...so I switched to the Grunfeld.

I find there is less theory with the Grunfeld, lots of opportunities to draw as black, and a far more open position.
 
ORRFForever said:
That's true.

I find tactic studying helps when you're looking to sacrifice. If you can find something that looks like it might work even if it is not perfect, especially "over the board" with time control, play it and let your opponent TRY and find a way out - with his clock ticking.

If you're playing on line where your opponent has 3 days to decide his next move, that kind of sac may be a bad idea. (smile)
Click to expand...

I'm a really volatile player. I can play at a class B level on my best days, and a beginner on my worst, with everywhere in between. I watch titled streamers and how tactics and positional ideas just pop out to them immediately, where they don't for me. I know them, I have the knowledge......but I don't process the board that quickly, when they point it out it's completely obvious, but nope. The biggest thing for me is that I've spent the majority of my games playing every game as if my clock is 20 minutes or less.

The one time I played in a slow tournament and actually took my time I nearly won the whole thing.
There was a game in the tournament I had to win where I had a winning position (a piece for 2 pawns plus the bishop pair) and had a tactic to simplify but blundered my extra piece by panicking. I had it all planned out but but miscalculated that a pin I was going to allow wasn't ok when it was.

I had never played a USCF tournament before and I was so disappointed that I wanted to do the Pandolfini move. (if you've ever seen Searching for Bobby Fischer you should know what that is)
 
Last edited:
ORRFForever said:
I use to play the KID (against d4) but...

1) There was so much theory;
2) I was tired of playing a cramped position;
3) My results were not very good,

...so I switched to the Grunfeld.

I find there is less theory with the Grunfeld, lots of opportunities to draw as black, and a far more open position.
Click to expand...
You can call it what you want, but I call it messin' with the KID.
(pun intended, kudos if you get the reference)
 
Boqvy wan Kenobi said:
The one time I played in a slow tournament... I had to win where I had a winning position (a piece for 2 pawns plus the bishop pair) and had a tactic to simplify but blundered my extra piece by panicking. I had it all planned out but but miscalculated that a pin I was going to allow wasn't ok when it was.
Click to expand...
Playing against the clock is a whole different animal. You are not only playing against an opponent, you are also being haunted by the tick, tick, tick and mistakes will happen. It happens to all of us. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harbour Dog
I've always been surprised by the lack of respect for Nigel Short's game from TOP players...

Bobby Fischer’s Mad King Opening On Nigel Short Game 6/8 - YouTube

... and they're so open about it.

I know Short always thought he was one of Kasparov's peers. Kasparov found that openly laughable.

To his credit, Short has always remained youthful looking - "living well is the greatest revenge" and all that. :)
 
Last edited:
ORRFForever said:
I've always been surprised by the lack of respect for Nigel Short's game from TOP players... Bobby Fischer’s Mad King Opening On Nigel Short Game 6/8 - YouTube ... and they're so open about it. I know Short always thought he was one of Kasparov's peers. Kasparov found that openly laughable. To his credit, Short has always remained youthful looking - "living well is the greatest revenge" and all that. :)
Click to expand...

Some non-Champs I think would have beaten Short in his prime are:

Fabiano Caruana
1. Levon Aronian
2. Wesley So
3. Shakhriyar Mamedyarov
4. Maxime Vachier-Lagrave
5. Veselin Topalov
6. Ding Liren
7. Hikaru Nakamura
8. Alexander Grischuk
Anish Giri
Teimour Radjabov
Alexander Morozevich
Sergey Karjakin
Vassily Ivanchuk - Classical games: Vassily Ivanchuk beat Nigel Short 11 to 1, with 17 draws.
Including rapid/exhibition games: Vassily Ivanchuk beat Nigel Short 16 to 2, with 20 draws.
Only rapid/exhibition games: Vassily Ivanchuk beat Nigel Short 5 to 1, with 3 draws.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom