If i study, i play better afterwards. I dont read chess books any more (I have read hundreds) but i analyze using chess engines and databases.
Yeah i realised that too .
every time i learn a new tactic / idea, ofc i will try to put it into practice. But i will always fail the first few time because i didn not understood the strenght / concept of the said tactics.
But soon after finally fully understanding what i am doing, it get way better and i get the reward of learning.
every time i learn a new tactic / idea, ofc i will try to put it into practice. But i will always fail the first few time because i didn not understood the strenght / concept of the said tactics.
But soon after finally fully understanding what i am doing, it get way better and i get the reward of learning.
@CerebralAssassin19
"Hi all,
I don't know if this is just me or if this is a legitimate phenomenon,but whenever I seem to study new positional concepts/endgame,heck even tactics trainer,my chess performance gets worse...like I can't see sh*t,do the most elementary blunders.How to rectify this situation?Anyone else have this problem?
It sucks because these things are supposed to help your chess,not hurt it...and it's fun learning to play in new ways...but it seems to be hard to "internalize" these new concepts."
-
Despite being rated the same as you, I think I can help you out.
I know that when I first studied Silman's book, over 10 years ago, I would get extreme tunnel vision. I knew that the ideas that I was absorbing were factual, of value, and accurate; however, in the middle of my games, I would not know where to focus my mind, or how to apply them.
I would persistently draw blanks.
Add to this the use of engines, GM bantor/lessons, and you are now, effectively, tied to THREE separate horses, going in opposing directions.
1. You are trying to observe and apply what you heard some GMs discussing.
2. You are trying to observe and apply what you know the tactically flawless engines said was best.
3. You are trying to reconcile the position on the board, and your own understanding of it, with points 1 and points 2, in order to formulate your next move.
-
OK.
-
Think about it. Is there not an acute and necessary PARALYSIS that takes effect upon trying to implement what someone else says is a good idea, or what the computer says is a good idea, when neither of them are available to you?
What's going on here, I think, is that we too often ask ourselves, "what would Jeremy Silman find here, in this position," or, "what would a chess engine say is my best move," but the whole meanwhile we can never know the answers to these questions, and we find ourselves in a state of paralysis.
The question has to be "What do *I* want to play here?"
This is something that you can use.
This is a question that you can answer.
And it's only now, in this vein, in your OWN mind, that you are in a position to appropriately apply what you've learned in the past.
You might consider that you want to open/close a diagonal based on the state of the bishops. You might want to push a pawn. You might want to impose tactics that will prevent your opponent from safely pushing a pawn.
I mean, the amount of considerations are almost endless; but, the thing of it is, YOU'RE IN YOUR OWN MIND!
So as YOU sit and evaluate the position, hopefully some progress is made and YOU can play YOUR game, for better or for worse.
At least when you play YOUR game, if it's for worse, you can look back and learn from YOUR mistakes, and adjust YOUR understanding.
This is something that can, ironically, be read up on, corrected with engine study, or otherwise improved.
-
NOTICE! This is a case where we have a *SPECIFIC QUESTION* in mind and we want to know the exact answer to that question...so we go out and find the answer, fit it in with our OWN understanding, and as such, from that point on, we'll be improved in that area.
I know that in rook pawn vs. rook endings, in certain variations, the pawn on the 6th rank means stalemate unless certain things are observed while it's still on the 5th. I learned that over a decade ago. I'll know that forever.
You see? There is a WORLD of difference between experiencing something, knowing that it's not quite right, looking up the correct answer and then inculcating the lesson into your understanding...and just wandering aimlessly...to and fro...learning a little about everything, and everything about nothing.
In a Q+A format, instead of an A+A format, improvement is literally forced, part in parcel, with your studies.
-
So rule number 1?
WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE A QUESTION BEFORE YOU START LOOKING FOR ANSWERS!
-
With that said, it's important to be careful about which questions that you're asking. Everything needs to fit in with YOUR understanding, and where YOU are in YOUR chess life.
Ask SPECIFIC questions that will have specific answers.
Consulting an engine for your opening repertoire is absolute and complete insanity.
Study can become so paralyzing, to where if d4 players see that the computer says that e4 is 0.01 better, they will be torn between everything that they understand, and the fact that they know that the computer says e4 is better.
They may very well sit there, paralyzed, on move 1, being caught in a dichotomy between, "understood inferior" and "not understood perfection".
Since it's the players that have to make the moves, and it's the players that have to play the games, CLEARLY, "understood inferior" is far far better than a computer that is suggesting a certain move ONLY because of a 17 move combination that may be played if they don't. A 17 move combination that a human would never know about, hasn't studied, and couldn't possibly play against you, not even by accident.
Because although it's very nice that a computer likes a certain move better, that ONLY assumes that the next 17 moves are also computer. If you don't *understand* what's going on, then there is no way to think that you'll accidentally play that variation out.
So it's at this point, then, where you need to know that your own understanding is far greater than what an absent engine might say about your position, in the game that you're halfway through playing.
A decade ago, I remember reading up on a confessed cheater. He said that initially he had just started running engines out of curiosity. (That's total BS because then you'd simply wait until the end.) Then he said that he started being tempted to play the computer lines instead. Then he said that he became addicted to the engine. Then he said that he started playing computer lines thinking that he'd be able to absorb what the engines were doing, and become a human-engine. Finally, he said that he never improved a single thing about his game, that he had spoiled everything that he once like about it, and that he now had better things to do with his time.
All of that "STUDY"...and he didn't improve not one single bit.
So it's not study, in and of itself that is of benefit, it's only applicable study, study that deals with questions in your own understanding, specific questions that are asked, studied, and answered, that will be of use for you; and again, there is no such thing as this Q+A process not benefiting you. It absolutely has to.
-
I know that from my own understanding, I started playing the Marshall. I had seen playing around with the QID, but to *MY* understanding and *MY* comfort, I wanted something else that took a bigger and more immediate stake in the center.
So I moved to playing Marshall.
Unluckily I won my first few games with the Marshall, and became convinced that it was the better d4 response for me. A month later, after realizing that 9 out of 10 games were ending up with me struggling to defend an inferior position before move 10, I consulted an openings database.
It was there, then, in that study, that I realized VERY quickly, that the QGD Marshall is just about the most noxious response to 1. d4 that a chessplayer could play. There are little tactics, that make black's opening-fundamental-benefits, null and void.
So I ditched that for something else and have had much better success for reasons that I fully understand. I studied my gameplay, found out that it was absolutely crappy for reasons that can't be avoided, and evolved my understanding.
Notice how this is completely different than asking yourself the question of, "what does an almost flawless engine say is best in this, that, or the other position?"
So it's OK to sometimes consult an engine in your study, yes, but only so that what it reports back to you will appropriately fit into YOUR understanding.
It's the difference between accepting an improvement into your house, where it will be in harmony with you, add to your residence, and generally improve the situation, and between leaving your house to go downtown, where x, y, z, all with authority, claim that this is "what's good" and that the other is "what's good" and the next is "what's good". "Here buy this", "and this", "and this", "and this", "and this too", "and hey you can't live without this", "and don't forget this", "and also this".
You're being pulled in the direction of (albeit proficient) understandings, often competing or dichotomous, and you're trying to buy one of everything, most of which you can't even make use of!
Know what's completely vital and necessary? A PACEMAKER...to someone that's in a position to need one. Ask them, and they'll say that it's the best thing ever. Doesn't mean it's right for you. Doesn't mean that you need it. Doesn't mean that you could make any use of it.
Know what's completely vital and necessary? VIAGRA...to someone that's in a position to need it. Ask them, and they'll say that it's the best thing ever. Doesn't mean it's right for you. Doesn't mean that you need it. Doesn't mean that you could make any use of it.
Understand what I'm saying? Sometimes after we study, we sit in a game, surrounded by all kinds of pacemakers and viagras and wheelchairs, and 12-step AA programs, and everything else that greatly enhance peoples' lives...
...and we're sitting there trying to see how we can use these things that we never even needed...in order to find the best move on the chess board.
Yes. We've taken a step backward.
-
So rule number 2?
BE CAREFUL WHICH QUESTION YOU ASK!
-
Because just like with engines, certain little snipets that we hear GMs talk about, we patzers deeply take to heart as gospel truth. One thing I can say, is I OFTEN wish I had never heard certain GMs make certain comments about certain things, because from then on, anytime that position comes up, I hear THEIR testimony, and I feel I have to play THEIR move, and the next damned thing I know, I don't have a CLUE what I'm doing, because my entire position is made of things I read, things I heard, and engine analysis that I've seen.
NOTICE THE MISSING INGREDIENT HERE?
The LAST thing my position ends up consisting of...is anything that I had anything to do with or understand...or worse still...anything that I could ever possibly IMPROVE upon.
Well it's no damned wonder that it's move 4/14/24 and I don't have a clue what I need to be doing, what I'm looking at, what is happening, or anything else.
SO YES! Study can absolutely leave you completely clueless.
If it's not information that's being inculcated in with YOUR OWN understanding, then it's not something that you need or could use at this point in YOUR understanding.
In 20 years? SURE! You might completely agree, understand, and make use of all of these other tandems and snipets.
But those lessons and studies aren't things that can help you HERE and NOW. They are lessons and studies that will hinder, hurt, overwhelm, and paralyze you here and now.
So even if you're taking in information...just understand and make a pact with yourself...I will always, only, ever, 100% of the time, play MY OWN moves, for MY OWN reasons, as far as MY OWN understanding is developed.
So what's Rule #3?
When I'm studying over there, I'm trying to look at what external sources know about and understand and apply it to myself if possible...BUT...when I'm playing MY game HERE, *all* that I know, *all* that I'm concerned with, *all* that I'm doing, is justifying why, to the best of *MY OWN* understanding, in MY position, that I made...that this is the most efficient square for that piece to go on...that this is the most objectively effective move that I should be making.
In this way, when you satiate your own reasons for putting pieces on squares...
...what you'll find...
...is that your deep-mind will greatly aid and assist you in later stages of the game.
Simply acknowledging that "I will put this piece here because by putting this piece here, it does this that and the other, 4th, 5th, and 6th," for each and every move, your deep-mind will be able to tie in cooperative tactics between your pieces, with absolutely deadly effect. Moves you would have otherwise thought your opponent could safely make, and think nothing of, you begin to wish they would because the tactics would be crushing. So on and so forth. The amount of traps and pins that you begin to see become fascinating. Your awareness is borne when you play your own game.
So again, in ALL variations, it's important to really turn off *all* "advice" when you're playing your game, and just work to improve your position, with each and every move, for reasons that you yourself know and understand. Your training will naturally tie itself into spaces where it's applicable. The information that you've studied will come to you.
-
If you're on move 4, on one of your most main variations, and you studied an engine yesterday that told you that what you normally play is 0.2 but some other move is 0.3, PLAY WHAT YOU NORMALLY PLAY. Damn that "0.3" line. Slap your hand away if you even think about playing that computer line. Same thing, for the same reason, if you heard some GM prefer it.
The ONLY exception here...is if YOU *thoroughly understand* ...and have completely inculcated precisely why it is that the 0.3 line is better, and I mean THOROUGHLY...to where you can now, because of YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the position (not because the computer or a GM said so) conclude that, yes, we found an improvement yesterday, that we'll play from now, until it too needs an improvement, or until it too needs an answer for a question that is asked.
-
I could have just told you:
1. Just play your own game and enjoy yourself.
2. Study if you have a good question.
But that wouldn't remind you of all the things you love and the reasons you play, nor would it set a fire under your ass to go hit the chess board with a fun, revived, healthy, and hopefully somewhat expanded outlook.
-
The last thing to remember, also, is that SuperGMs are savant. Literally. There is something abnormal and wrong with their brains, to where when we look at a position and name all of the details involved, (could take up to 4 minutes of straight diagnosis), they can look at a position, and take it all in, within the span of 1 second. What we see as a 4 minute narrative of information, they see as a color. It's the reason they can whip our butt while blindfolded.
If that's not bad enough, GMs don't look for tactics. Tactics come to them.
Where you and me have to think: "If I move my pawn there, then they'll move this, but then that diagonal is open, so then if they're sacking that piece, their Bishop could move here, but then my king still has h1, but then there is a back rank issue...wait a minute...I lost track...start over."
They are like: There is 1 intense tactical variation, there is another. Which one is best? Mmmmm...I'll go with the second.
Where we see 4 minutes of narrated fundamentals...
Where we see 4 minutes of move-by-move quasi-relevant calculations...
They see "color".
They see "sound".
And if that's not bad enough?
Their fundamentals and tactics are always in perfect harmony. Their fundamentals always set up their tactics, and their tactics always provide more opportunities for fundamental improvements.
So what I'm saying is...don't assume that you can be a GM if only you beat your self up enough and REALLY try REALLY SUPER DUPER hard to get there.
Next time King Sisyphus is back at the bottom of the hill, you can ask him all about that.
Make sure you have fun, and ask a question if you're curious about something.
Aside from that? TAKE IT EASY!
"Hi all,
I don't know if this is just me or if this is a legitimate phenomenon,but whenever I seem to study new positional concepts/endgame,heck even tactics trainer,my chess performance gets worse...like I can't see sh*t,do the most elementary blunders.How to rectify this situation?Anyone else have this problem?
It sucks because these things are supposed to help your chess,not hurt it...and it's fun learning to play in new ways...but it seems to be hard to "internalize" these new concepts."
-
Despite being rated the same as you, I think I can help you out.
I know that when I first studied Silman's book, over 10 years ago, I would get extreme tunnel vision. I knew that the ideas that I was absorbing were factual, of value, and accurate; however, in the middle of my games, I would not know where to focus my mind, or how to apply them.
I would persistently draw blanks.
Add to this the use of engines, GM bantor/lessons, and you are now, effectively, tied to THREE separate horses, going in opposing directions.
1. You are trying to observe and apply what you heard some GMs discussing.
2. You are trying to observe and apply what you know the tactically flawless engines said was best.
3. You are trying to reconcile the position on the board, and your own understanding of it, with points 1 and points 2, in order to formulate your next move.
-
OK.
-
Think about it. Is there not an acute and necessary PARALYSIS that takes effect upon trying to implement what someone else says is a good idea, or what the computer says is a good idea, when neither of them are available to you?
What's going on here, I think, is that we too often ask ourselves, "what would Jeremy Silman find here, in this position," or, "what would a chess engine say is my best move," but the whole meanwhile we can never know the answers to these questions, and we find ourselves in a state of paralysis.
The question has to be "What do *I* want to play here?"
This is something that you can use.
This is a question that you can answer.
And it's only now, in this vein, in your OWN mind, that you are in a position to appropriately apply what you've learned in the past.
You might consider that you want to open/close a diagonal based on the state of the bishops. You might want to push a pawn. You might want to impose tactics that will prevent your opponent from safely pushing a pawn.
I mean, the amount of considerations are almost endless; but, the thing of it is, YOU'RE IN YOUR OWN MIND!
So as YOU sit and evaluate the position, hopefully some progress is made and YOU can play YOUR game, for better or for worse.
At least when you play YOUR game, if it's for worse, you can look back and learn from YOUR mistakes, and adjust YOUR understanding.
This is something that can, ironically, be read up on, corrected with engine study, or otherwise improved.
-
NOTICE! This is a case where we have a *SPECIFIC QUESTION* in mind and we want to know the exact answer to that question...so we go out and find the answer, fit it in with our OWN understanding, and as such, from that point on, we'll be improved in that area.
I know that in rook pawn vs. rook endings, in certain variations, the pawn on the 6th rank means stalemate unless certain things are observed while it's still on the 5th. I learned that over a decade ago. I'll know that forever.
You see? There is a WORLD of difference between experiencing something, knowing that it's not quite right, looking up the correct answer and then inculcating the lesson into your understanding...and just wandering aimlessly...to and fro...learning a little about everything, and everything about nothing.
In a Q+A format, instead of an A+A format, improvement is literally forced, part in parcel, with your studies.
-
So rule number 1?
WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE A QUESTION BEFORE YOU START LOOKING FOR ANSWERS!
-
With that said, it's important to be careful about which questions that you're asking. Everything needs to fit in with YOUR understanding, and where YOU are in YOUR chess life.
Ask SPECIFIC questions that will have specific answers.
Consulting an engine for your opening repertoire is absolute and complete insanity.
Study can become so paralyzing, to where if d4 players see that the computer says that e4 is 0.01 better, they will be torn between everything that they understand, and the fact that they know that the computer says e4 is better.
They may very well sit there, paralyzed, on move 1, being caught in a dichotomy between, "understood inferior" and "not understood perfection".
Since it's the players that have to make the moves, and it's the players that have to play the games, CLEARLY, "understood inferior" is far far better than a computer that is suggesting a certain move ONLY because of a 17 move combination that may be played if they don't. A 17 move combination that a human would never know about, hasn't studied, and couldn't possibly play against you, not even by accident.
Because although it's very nice that a computer likes a certain move better, that ONLY assumes that the next 17 moves are also computer. If you don't *understand* what's going on, then there is no way to think that you'll accidentally play that variation out.
So it's at this point, then, where you need to know that your own understanding is far greater than what an absent engine might say about your position, in the game that you're halfway through playing.
A decade ago, I remember reading up on a confessed cheater. He said that initially he had just started running engines out of curiosity. (That's total BS because then you'd simply wait until the end.) Then he said that he started being tempted to play the computer lines instead. Then he said that he became addicted to the engine. Then he said that he started playing computer lines thinking that he'd be able to absorb what the engines were doing, and become a human-engine. Finally, he said that he never improved a single thing about his game, that he had spoiled everything that he once like about it, and that he now had better things to do with his time.
All of that "STUDY"...and he didn't improve not one single bit.
So it's not study, in and of itself that is of benefit, it's only applicable study, study that deals with questions in your own understanding, specific questions that are asked, studied, and answered, that will be of use for you; and again, there is no such thing as this Q+A process not benefiting you. It absolutely has to.
-
I know that from my own understanding, I started playing the Marshall. I had seen playing around with the QID, but to *MY* understanding and *MY* comfort, I wanted something else that took a bigger and more immediate stake in the center.
So I moved to playing Marshall.
Unluckily I won my first few games with the Marshall, and became convinced that it was the better d4 response for me. A month later, after realizing that 9 out of 10 games were ending up with me struggling to defend an inferior position before move 10, I consulted an openings database.
It was there, then, in that study, that I realized VERY quickly, that the QGD Marshall is just about the most noxious response to 1. d4 that a chessplayer could play. There are little tactics, that make black's opening-fundamental-benefits, null and void.
So I ditched that for something else and have had much better success for reasons that I fully understand. I studied my gameplay, found out that it was absolutely crappy for reasons that can't be avoided, and evolved my understanding.
Notice how this is completely different than asking yourself the question of, "what does an almost flawless engine say is best in this, that, or the other position?"
So it's OK to sometimes consult an engine in your study, yes, but only so that what it reports back to you will appropriately fit into YOUR understanding.
It's the difference between accepting an improvement into your house, where it will be in harmony with you, add to your residence, and generally improve the situation, and between leaving your house to go downtown, where x, y, z, all with authority, claim that this is "what's good" and that the other is "what's good" and the next is "what's good". "Here buy this", "and this", "and this", "and this", "and this too", "and hey you can't live without this", "and don't forget this", "and also this".
You're being pulled in the direction of (albeit proficient) understandings, often competing or dichotomous, and you're trying to buy one of everything, most of which you can't even make use of!
Know what's completely vital and necessary? A PACEMAKER...to someone that's in a position to need one. Ask them, and they'll say that it's the best thing ever. Doesn't mean it's right for you. Doesn't mean that you need it. Doesn't mean that you could make any use of it.
Know what's completely vital and necessary? VIAGRA...to someone that's in a position to need it. Ask them, and they'll say that it's the best thing ever. Doesn't mean it's right for you. Doesn't mean that you need it. Doesn't mean that you could make any use of it.
Understand what I'm saying? Sometimes after we study, we sit in a game, surrounded by all kinds of pacemakers and viagras and wheelchairs, and 12-step AA programs, and everything else that greatly enhance peoples' lives...
...and we're sitting there trying to see how we can use these things that we never even needed...in order to find the best move on the chess board.
Yes. We've taken a step backward.
-
So rule number 2?
BE CAREFUL WHICH QUESTION YOU ASK!
-
Because just like with engines, certain little snipets that we hear GMs talk about, we patzers deeply take to heart as gospel truth. One thing I can say, is I OFTEN wish I had never heard certain GMs make certain comments about certain things, because from then on, anytime that position comes up, I hear THEIR testimony, and I feel I have to play THEIR move, and the next damned thing I know, I don't have a CLUE what I'm doing, because my entire position is made of things I read, things I heard, and engine analysis that I've seen.
NOTICE THE MISSING INGREDIENT HERE?
The LAST thing my position ends up consisting of...is anything that I had anything to do with or understand...or worse still...anything that I could ever possibly IMPROVE upon.
Well it's no damned wonder that it's move 4/14/24 and I don't have a clue what I need to be doing, what I'm looking at, what is happening, or anything else.
SO YES! Study can absolutely leave you completely clueless.
If it's not information that's being inculcated in with YOUR OWN understanding, then it's not something that you need or could use at this point in YOUR understanding.
In 20 years? SURE! You might completely agree, understand, and make use of all of these other tandems and snipets.
But those lessons and studies aren't things that can help you HERE and NOW. They are lessons and studies that will hinder, hurt, overwhelm, and paralyze you here and now.
So even if you're taking in information...just understand and make a pact with yourself...I will always, only, ever, 100% of the time, play MY OWN moves, for MY OWN reasons, as far as MY OWN understanding is developed.
So what's Rule #3?
When I'm studying over there, I'm trying to look at what external sources know about and understand and apply it to myself if possible...BUT...when I'm playing MY game HERE, *all* that I know, *all* that I'm concerned with, *all* that I'm doing, is justifying why, to the best of *MY OWN* understanding, in MY position, that I made...that this is the most efficient square for that piece to go on...that this is the most objectively effective move that I should be making.
In this way, when you satiate your own reasons for putting pieces on squares...
...what you'll find...
...is that your deep-mind will greatly aid and assist you in later stages of the game.
Simply acknowledging that "I will put this piece here because by putting this piece here, it does this that and the other, 4th, 5th, and 6th," for each and every move, your deep-mind will be able to tie in cooperative tactics between your pieces, with absolutely deadly effect. Moves you would have otherwise thought your opponent could safely make, and think nothing of, you begin to wish they would because the tactics would be crushing. So on and so forth. The amount of traps and pins that you begin to see become fascinating. Your awareness is borne when you play your own game.
So again, in ALL variations, it's important to really turn off *all* "advice" when you're playing your game, and just work to improve your position, with each and every move, for reasons that you yourself know and understand. Your training will naturally tie itself into spaces where it's applicable. The information that you've studied will come to you.
-
If you're on move 4, on one of your most main variations, and you studied an engine yesterday that told you that what you normally play is 0.2 but some other move is 0.3, PLAY WHAT YOU NORMALLY PLAY. Damn that "0.3" line. Slap your hand away if you even think about playing that computer line. Same thing, for the same reason, if you heard some GM prefer it.
The ONLY exception here...is if YOU *thoroughly understand* ...and have completely inculcated precisely why it is that the 0.3 line is better, and I mean THOROUGHLY...to where you can now, because of YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the position (not because the computer or a GM said so) conclude that, yes, we found an improvement yesterday, that we'll play from now, until it too needs an improvement, or until it too needs an answer for a question that is asked.
-
I could have just told you:
1. Just play your own game and enjoy yourself.
2. Study if you have a good question.
But that wouldn't remind you of all the things you love and the reasons you play, nor would it set a fire under your ass to go hit the chess board with a fun, revived, healthy, and hopefully somewhat expanded outlook.
-
The last thing to remember, also, is that SuperGMs are savant. Literally. There is something abnormal and wrong with their brains, to where when we look at a position and name all of the details involved, (could take up to 4 minutes of straight diagnosis), they can look at a position, and take it all in, within the span of 1 second. What we see as a 4 minute narrative of information, they see as a color. It's the reason they can whip our butt while blindfolded.
If that's not bad enough, GMs don't look for tactics. Tactics come to them.
Where you and me have to think: "If I move my pawn there, then they'll move this, but then that diagonal is open, so then if they're sacking that piece, their Bishop could move here, but then my king still has h1, but then there is a back rank issue...wait a minute...I lost track...start over."
They are like: There is 1 intense tactical variation, there is another. Which one is best? Mmmmm...I'll go with the second.
Where we see 4 minutes of narrated fundamentals...
Where we see 4 minutes of move-by-move quasi-relevant calculations...
They see "color".
They see "sound".
And if that's not bad enough?
Their fundamentals and tactics are always in perfect harmony. Their fundamentals always set up their tactics, and their tactics always provide more opportunities for fundamental improvements.
So what I'm saying is...don't assume that you can be a GM if only you beat your self up enough and REALLY try REALLY SUPER DUPER hard to get there.
Next time King Sisyphus is back at the bottom of the hill, you can ask him all about that.
Make sure you have fun, and ask a question if you're curious about something.
Aside from that? TAKE IT EASY!
Here is an endorsement to your work @DeeVeeOss.
"DeeVeeOss is an outstanding forum author. His works are unparalleled in the chess community in terms of length and breadth of penmanship. His proliferous posts concede nothing to the imagination. He covers every angle, again and again. Magnificent." - DrHack
Cheers friend.
"DeeVeeOss is an outstanding forum author. His works are unparalleled in the chess community in terms of length and breadth of penmanship. His proliferous posts concede nothing to the imagination. He covers every angle, again and again. Magnificent." - DrHack
Cheers friend.
Personally I am not a big fan of bullshit, even if its disguised to look like legit advice. Especially when it takes an entire page. To those considering reading it. Don't.
Getting feisty in here.. one guy was trying to help, and I was attempting to cash in on some humor because of the length of the novel. Not sure anyone deserved a lashing?
@DrHack I greatly appreciate your endorsement, and also the amount of empathy you'd have to have exercised to write it. I get the sense that you might be a professional writer as well?
I actually feel that that endorsement was worthy of "The Onion." Some of my best work yet.
A lot has been shared already, but I think blunders reinforce the need to watch for the basics. Let your studying open wide your attention, because we miss things when we are deep into stuff. Our main task is to avoid being arrogant to the game. Chess is very different from, say, playing an instrument, but still there are psychosomatic conditions other than knowledge that will deeply affect your decision-making. To read music books and play the piano is important to play it, but as I pianist I'd say that some people who do that still carry with them a lot of neurosis. Especially if their relationship with the instrument is stressed.
I, for example, play a lot worse when I don't respect the game enough... or the music I play.
I'll make poor decisions when I'm emotional about my opponent or my position, or my plans.
How do you pick a move to make? Some people don't spend enough time on the move they choose. They waste time applying knowledge to some ideas, but later realize they don't apply or aren't enough, and eventually pick another move that they didn't look at for long enough.
I, for example, play a lot worse when I don't respect the game enough... or the music I play.
I'll make poor decisions when I'm emotional about my opponent or my position, or my plans.
How do you pick a move to make? Some people don't spend enough time on the move they choose. They waste time applying knowledge to some ideas, but later realize they don't apply or aren't enough, and eventually pick another move that they didn't look at for long enough.
well the more u know the complex the games is.... so it will take some practice 2 calibrate that what u have learn into your games corectlly
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.