< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 163 OF 163 ·
|Aug-16-16|| ||Patriot: Sorry <morf>...one more comment on <Any other lines simply lose due to material loss. You are right, all other "tries" don't attempt to "win" or "refute" 24...Rxc3, but simply extend the amount of moves it takes to lose.>. I started to write in the forum, that at some point in Chess one must believe in material superiority! You nailed it with "but simply extend the amount of moves it takes to lose."|
|Aug-17-16|| ||morfishine: <Patriot> Maybe some poeple don't really want to put in the time and effort and money to improve. They just aren't committed. Working the POTD as the only daily chess exercise will not net much improvement. I remember when I was working 15 problems a day, I experienced solid improvement; but when I stopped, the dropoff was precipitate|
The game I posted was a tense affair. I kept slipping into time trouble, but kept holding on. Finally, something "clicked" as the position became familiar (pattern awareness) and I began pounding out my moves quickly til Black was lost. I had just played 26.Qxc7 when Black moved his Knight from <d6> to <e4>; then after 27.Rb8 Nf6 <28.Bd4> Black loses a rook: 28...g6 29.Bxf6 Bxf6 30.Rxe8+
So pattern awareness was critical for me to grasp the potential of the position
|Aug-17-16|| ||Patriot: <morf> <Maybe some poeple don't really want to put in the time and effort and money to improve. They just aren't committed.> True, but I was talking about serious analysts.|
If you really want to improve you need a balanced diet of study and play. Intense practice of tactics will help one improve dramatically, depending on their rating. But I am convinced that serious practice at analyzing is a major player. Playing a lot of games will never help anyone improve at analyzing...well, not much anyway. Playing involves applying what you already know. It's harder to analyze better during a game than adjusting down from what you already know; i.e. trimming the tree of analysis when time is less.
Good job on that game. Did you anticipate 27...Nf6 28.Bd4 or see the pattern and quickly try it? Certainly when I play G/15 or less sometimes, I see a pattern and quickly try to refute it and if I see no better candidate I play it and see how it goes (i.e. I just play Chess! :-) ).
|Aug-17-16|| ||morfishine: <Patriot> Well, I'm not sure what you mean by 'serious analysts'. I mean, anybody committed to improvement, is at least, for a time, a 'serious analyst'. But when they stop being committed, are they not now, not a 'serious analyst'|
I think what you mean is someone who has committed themself over time to all those things we've talked over. Developing ways of thinking and tree-trimming, best candidates, etc. I know what you mean when somebody asks "What about this or what about that?"
I want to respond "Did you check it out yourself? Or are you just looking for a response, or for someone to converse with?" These people are not 'serious analysts' since they didn't work on something to forward, but instead were asking for others opinions for some unknown reason.
As for that position, I "thought" though didn't calculate, that Black was lost since he lacked the tempi to solve his back-rank problem. The point of 27.Rb8 was to pin down Black once and for all, and with my Queen on <c7>, he's crippled.
What I did see was that after 28.Bd4 attacking the defender, this forces 28...g6 and now my capture 29.Bxf6 leaves his Queen en-prise, so Black was toast with his rook hanging, no matter how he re-captured. The same thing happens if he plays h5/h6, it's just plop-crunch.
I saw that
|Aug-17-16|| ||Patriot: <morf> <Well, I'm not sure what you mean by 'serious analysts'. I mean, anybody committed to improvement, is at least, for a time, a 'serious analyst'. But when they stop being committed, are they not now, not a 'serious analyst'> Posters who usually do lengthy analysis--to me they are serious because they do this consistently. There is one in particular I admire because he calculates so well and does a lot of calculation. But he is also perplexing--he goes in-depth but will miss a serious candidate at the beginning. Other times he makes me wonder why he kept calculating a certain line when it is clearly winning but will later end the same type of line early and say it is winning. I wonder if he is trying to calculate like a computer? That part is not good for a human player because you have to know when to start and stop calculating. Computers look for all possibilities and that's not proficient or realistic. I'm just a firm believer in that you 'play how you practice'.|
You certainly had the initiative on 27.Rb8. Thanks for sharing--it was a fun position to think about!
|Aug-18-16|| ||morfishine: <Patriot> Now I understand what you are saying. Who knows, people learn differently, and when its a matter of learning to analyze, the actual schooling and training is analysis itself. So, some people are self-trained (reading books etc.,), while others will hire teachers or coaches. |
One things for sure, that time I spent trying to improve my analytical skills was a real eye-opener. Only after speaking with you over time did I appreciate such processes or techniques as candidates, tree-trimming or pattern recognition.
Before I entertained such ideas, my whole approach to chess was "put more pieces faster at the point of attack" then see what happens. Needless to say, this didn't always work, especially when the other guy was faster! LOL
|Aug-18-16|| ||morfishine: <Patriot> And things aren't always easy sailing. While its nice to win a number of games vs 2000+ rated players, rough patches creep in. This one 1750 player just "had my number", it was probably a style thing, and I lost 3 in a row, and finally got a good position, but he escaped with a draw. Then, a 2100+ player, who I beat then drew with, got his revenge on me, waxing me twice. The rating point loss was minuscule, but the cubits were painful to lose. |
So, one must be continually vigilant, but not so much as to be frozen into inaction
|Aug-18-16|| ||Patriot: <morf> <One things for sure, that time I spent trying to improve my analytical skills was a real eye-opener. Only after speaking with you over time did I appreciate such processes or techniques as candidates, tree-trimming or pattern recognition.> Thanks morf!|
I know exactly what you mean by losing to certain people because of style...it happened to me many times!
I have to tell you something. I've been doing some re-thinking. Every so often I discover "problems" in the way I analyze.
As a thought experiment, let's say a specific candidate looks very strong as in today's Bh3. But let's pretend ...Be6 prevents mate. It doesn't threaten white, it's not a scary move, it just defends. In this case you may not want to just play Bh3 because it doesn't "hurt" but it "could" win. The problem is there may be something a lot better, like a simple development move which doesn't win right away but gives you a slight edge that any strong player would want and maintain. So even though a defensive move isn't "scary", it could minimize winning chances and the main candidate could prove a total waste of time. Finding a simple defense should be considered a possible refutation. It comes down to one of Steinitz's rules, where a position is no better or worse than its evaluation. For example, if you think white is 0.5 pawns better then any candidate you find should evaluate to at least 0.5 pawns. If an attack has a simple defense it could diminish any potential for a future attack and the eval could be reduced to 0 or worse!
This is an example of a "slow" thought process. Whereas in blitz, my only concern is moves that are scary! Sometimes I confuse the two and apply "blitz logic" where "slow logic" applies and therefore I complain when someone analyzes a purely defensive move. But purely defensive moves CAN BE refutations when they worsen the evaluation from the original bar set by Steinitz's rule.
|Aug-19-16|| ||morfishine: <Patriot...I have to tell you something. I've been doing some re-thinking. Every so often I discover "problems" in the way I analyze> One thing I always forgot to mention is different people think and analyze differently, so what you may think are problems may be something else. I was an Intelligence Specialist in the Navy and we were trained to analyze, filter, create and disseminate intelligence reports. The fun for me was the analysis and filtering. The better at analysis I got, the easier the filtering became because I knew what was relevant vs what could be discarded. While the information is different than what one finds at a chessboard, no doubt certain similar skills are honed that focus on 'scrutiny' and attention to detail|
<It comes down to one of Steinitz's rules, where a position is no better or worse than its evaluation> I'd never heard of this. Lets not fall into paralysis by analysis since how can we gauge the accuracy of the evaluation? I simply try to strive for good positions with maximum piece development and hardly calculate anything until all my forces are deployed and ready for action
|Aug-19-16|| ||Patriot: <morf> <One thing I always forgot to mention is different people think and analyze differently, so what you may think are problems may be something else.> I'm not sure. I was referring to which candidates are relevant, not exactly how one thinks about it.|
Regarding Steinitz, Dan taught me this concept. The idea is to set the bar (predict the evaluation based on material and dynamics) and then try to find a candidate that meets that bar. It's sort of a guide to help find the best move.
|Aug-19-16|| ||morfishine: <Patriot> Relevant candidates are critical no doubt; This interweaves with pattern recognition, intuition and a "feel" for the position: With advanced awareness we don't waste time on irrelevant candidates. Time is critical here. |
So "lower level" analysts just don't "get it" but thats Ok in the long run because when we are talking about analyzing anything, we are talking about focus, concentration, and a grouping of our mental forces to arrive at a reasonable conclusion
Its all about massing more force than the opponent can handle
|Aug-19-16|| ||Patriot: <morf> I completely agree with you about pattern recognition and intuition. I especially have to resort to those things in fast time controls.|
<So "lower level" analysts just don't "get it" but thats Ok in the long run because when we are talking about analyzing anything, we are talking about focus, concentration, and a grouping of our mental forces to arrive at a reasonable conclusion> I'm not sure what you mean. It's a question of "Should I think about Be6 or not?" in which the answer is 'no' if it is a completely defensive try and I'm playing blitz. Or if I'm playing a slow game, "Will Be6 worsen my evaluation?" assuming again it is a defensive move. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well and apologize if that's the case.
|Aug-19-16|| ||Patriot: Essentially if Be6 is a defense that doesn't threaten anything, I wouldn't worry about this in blitz if I think an attack seems good--I'm going to try it. That's simply to shave time. But in a slow game, Be6 could be very important to think about because it could change the evaluation which makes it a potential refutation. In a slow game you want to take your time and consider everything carefully because the time is there to do it.|
|Aug-20-16|| ||morfishine: <Patriot><I'm not sure what you mean> These "lower level" analysts who would rather ask questions, puzzle after puzzle, are really clueless, IMHO; but I mean no malice here. What I mean is these people have never committed the time to improve. Perhaps they haven't the faintest idea that they can improve and become better analysts. Thats possible. These are the type of people who have never worked toward something, like improving their golf game, for example. These type things take time and patience; these people have never experienced the process of slow improvement that may take months or years. Maybe they work a few problems per day for a few weeks, then lose interest. Who knows. |
I have a better idea about what you mean by the Steinitz rule and how it applies to your Be6 example, I think :)
|Aug-20-16|| ||Patriot: <morf> Ok, yes I see what you mean. There are many players and puzzlers like that out there!|
The concept is sort of theoretical since you can't truly know what the position's evaluation really is before starting to look at candidates. You can give a static evaluation which mostly goes by material differences.
Consider this. Let's say I gave you a position to analyze and as white you have a 1 pawn advantage--that's the "bar". You start to consider a move that looks good but in the end after best play you notice that white is dead even. That tells you the move that looks good, isn't! So, you must search to find a move that satisfies the evaluation where white is at minimum 1 pawn better with best play. If you cannot find a move that meets the criteria then you know that the initial evaluation I gave may be wrong.
|Aug-21-16|| ||morfishine: <Patriot> Well, we all "analyze" differently I suppose. I just try to mass the most force at the point of attack, thats all, with some calculations thrown in while I look for familiar positions|
|Aug-21-16|| ||Patriot: <morf> Yes that is true.|
|Aug-24-16|| ||morfishine: |
click for larger view
1. Nab3 c6 2. e4 Nc7 3. d4 d6 4. f4 b5 5. Be3 f6 6. O-O Bf7 7. e5 O-O 8. c3 f5 9. Bxf5 Bc4 10. Bd3 d5 11. Nc5 e6 12. b3 Bxd3 13. N1xd3 a5 14. Nb7 Rd7 15. Ndc5 Rdf7 16. Nxa5 Ne7 17. g4 Ba7 18. b4 Bxc5 19. bxc5 Qa8 20. Nb3 Qxa2 21. Nd2 Qc2 22. Nf3 h6 23. Qd2 Qg6 24. Qg2 Ra8 25. Nh4 Qh7 26. f5 Ra3 27. Bd2 Ra2 28. Ng6 Nxg6 29. fxg6 Rxf1+ 30. Rxf1 Qxg6 31. Rf2 Qc2 32. h4 Ra1+ 33. Kh2 Ra2 34. Qf3 Qg6 35. Qf8+ Kh7 36. Qf3 b4 37. cxb4 Nb5 38. g5 Ra3 39. Qf7 Qd3 40. g6+ Qxg6 41. Qxg6+ Kxg6 42. Rg2+ Kf7 43. Rf2+ Ke7 44. Rg2 Kf7 45. Rf2+ Ke7 46. Rg2 Kf7 47. Rf2+ Ke7 48. Rg2 Kf7 1/2-1/2
|Aug-24-16|| ||morfishine: <Patriot> This was a dizzying game, I'll post some positions later, for now, I need to rest.|
|Aug-24-16|| ||thegoodanarchist: < Patriot: <morf> <Maybe some poeple don't really want to put in the time and effort and money to improve. They just aren't committed.> True, but I was talking about serious analysts.|
If you really want to improve you need a balanced diet of study and play. Intense practice of tactics will help one improve dramatically, depending on their rating. But I am convinced that serious practice at analyzing is a major player. Playing a lot of games will never help anyone improve at analyzing...well, not much anyway. Playing involves applying what you already know. It's harder to analyze better during a game than adjusting down from what you already know; i.e. trimming the tree of analysis when time is less.>
This is one of the finest comments about improving one's chess game that I've ever read on this website.
Good job, sir.
|Aug-24-16|| ||Patriot: <thegoodanarchist> Thanks! I appreciate the kind words.|
|Aug-24-16|| ||Patriot: <morf> I can't wait to see some positions from that game!|
I've been playing Caesar's Casino on FB for several hours and it's been a blast. I went from having $70 million coins (wish it were real!) down to about $8 million and finally when I stopped it was at $116 million! So I'm happy for the night. :-)
|Aug-25-16|| ||morfishine: <thegoodanarchist> Thanks for dropping by! My friend <Patriot> has been instrumental in improving my analytical ability. There are all sorts of "angles" that serious students need to focus on, and with his help, I was able to raise my rating 200+ pts. The key, as I mentioned, is one must be committed to improving and must be able to accept that immediate results may not be forthcoming. |
However, in the long run, improvement will no doubt be experienced
|Aug-25-16|| ||thegoodanarchist: <morfishine: <thegoodanarchist> Thanks for dropping by! My friend <Patriot> has been instrumental in improving my analytical ability.>|
No surprise there. He condensed down to two paragraphs what took me about 2 years to learn on my own...
If he follows his own advice then I don't want to face him in a tournament. I haven't played OTB in quite a while...
|Aug-25-16|| ||Patriot: <morf>/<thegoodanarchist> Thanks guys. I try to offer good advice because I want to see people improve. It's nice to see that I have helped <morf> and hopefully others. Many times it is advice that I got from NM Dan Heisman, my teacher for about 6 years.|
Dan emailed me a few days ago and said he won the best chess instruction book of the year award with CJA (Chess Journalists Association, I think), and thanked me and another guy for proofreading the book and helping make that award possible. It was nice getting that kind of feedback, but of course I told him that the author is where the magic really happens!
<thegoodanarchist> I would bet you would be a really tough opponent OTB. I sometimes play OTB but usually it's just a 15 minute friendly game with my brother.
On improving, even though I never was in the military I suspect there is a similarity in training (at least in concept)- You train hard and when war begins you act on what you've been trained. Of course realistically, you would have to improvise where things go wrong but maybe a little of that is true in Chess as well.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 163 OF 163 ·
A free online guide presented by Chessgames.com