If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Hello Chesstalk, I was just wondering what everyone thinks are some of the best ways to improve your chess. I've basically only studied using books and I've managed to get from 1300 to 2200 cfc but I feel like books can only take you so far and I want to get actually good at chess.
A few ideas of my own:
1) Classical Games (this is always thrown around but I have no idea where to start any particular matches that have influenced people's knowledge of the game greatly?)
2) A coach (Coaches are probably the easiest/fastest way to improve in chess but also the most costly)
3)Tournaments (Tournaments where every game you play a stronger opponent than you are probably the best for helping your chess development, especially if you analyze with your opponents after the game)
Hello Chesstalk, I was just wondering what everyone thinks are some of the best ways to improve your chess. I've basically only studied using books and I've managed to get from 1300 to 2200 cfc but I feel like books can only take you so far and I want to get actually good at chess.
A few ideas of my own:
1) Classical Games (this is always thrown around but I have no idea where to start any particular matches that have influenced people's knowledge of the game greatly?)
2) A coach (Coaches are probably the easiest/fastest way to improve in chess but also the most costly)
3)Tournaments (Tournaments where every game you play a stronger opponent than you are probably the best for helping your chess development, especially if you analyze with your opponents after the game)
The first question to ask yourself is why you want to get better at chess
The first question to ask yourself is why you want to get better at chess
Good point Andy.
My suggestion is see if you can do a university exchange overseas and then play in FIDE tournaments in Europe. In many cases, depending on your major, you can study in English. Of course if you do the exchange in England but even in France, Germany etc. If you are interested check your university exchange listings. If you can afford it, do a year and spend the two reading weeks, Christmas and summer holidays playing. Of course, you may want to enjoy travelling Europe as well, so this might test how hardcore a chessplayer you are. Then you might be able to answer Andy's question, if you can't now.
Hello Chesstalk, I was just wondering what everyone thinks are some of the best ways to improve your chess. I've basically only studied using books and I've managed to get from 1300 to 2200 cfc but I feel like books can only take you so far and I want to get actually good at chess.
A few ideas of my own:
1) Classical Games (this is always thrown around but I have no idea where to start any particular matches that have influenced people's knowledge of the game greatly?)
2) A coach (Coaches are probably the easiest/fastest way to improve in chess but also the most costly)
3)Tournaments (Tournaments where every game you play a stronger opponent than you are probably the best for helping your chess development, especially if you analyze with your opponents after the game)
Having a coach is definitely the best idea. However, as you pointed out, it is costly.
The problem is that you can reach a rating of 2200 without really caring about your weaknesses. You only need to get better at calculating variations, learning some opening/endgames and play a lot. Once you reach a certain level, though, it's really important to carefully analyze your games and find out what are your main weaknesses and try to work on that... It's much easier to do that with a coach, but many FIDE title players managed to do it by themselves. However, it requires a lot of time and motivation to do that without a coach.
Having a coach is definitely the best idea. However, as you pointed out, it is costly.
The problem is that you can reach a rating of 2200 without really caring about your weaknesses. You only need to get better at calculating variations, learning some opening/endgames and play a lot. Once you reach a certain level, though, it's really important to carefully analyze your games and find out what are your main weaknesses and try to work on that... It's much easier to do that with a coach, but many FIDE title players managed to do it by themselves. However, it requires a lot of time and motivation to do that without a coach.
This is a very good point, the elimination of weaknesses is the best way to improve, are there possible book sources that use this idea? Because I've greatly benefitted from reading silman's book however even if you properly know the imbalances the evaluation of the resulting imbalances is the most important, and not having other glaring weaknesses.
This is a very good point, the elimination of weaknesses is the best way to improve, are there possible book sources that use this idea? Because I've greatly benefitted from reading silman's book however even if you properly know the imbalances the evaluation of the resulting imbalances is the most important, and not having other glaring weaknesses.
Books by Alexander Kotov such as Think Like a GM and Play Like a GM describe him going through this process of analyzing his own weaknesses.
Go through your 50 most recent games. Try to discover your weaknesses as a player and as a person.
Then hire someone clearly stronger than you are to go through the same games. See if they reach the same conclusions. If they do, great. If not, discuss.
At that point they will probably suggest you to do X, Y and Z to improve.
Do what they tell you.
Many stumble at that last hurdle.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Go through your 50 most recent games. Try to discover your weaknesses as a player and as a person.
Then hire someone clearly stronger than you are to go through the same games. See if they reach the same conclusions. If they do, great. If not, discuss.
At that point they will probably suggest you to do X, Y and Z to improve.
Do what they tell you.
Many stumble at that last hurdle.
I consider having a coach to go through post game analysis of one game is an expensive use of time and money. I love this approach. Get the larger picture of systemic errors.
On one's one we have blind spots and develop bad assumptions which never get challenged, but may be clear to another strong player. Training may require playing openings one dislikes or boring repetition of endgame technique. Today's Grandmasters are generalist, have to be able to be flexible to win in a variety of ways and types of positions. Also skills like preparation and time management.
Like Felix related, getting to 2200 (or even 2300 - the typical mastery level of the rudiments of chess according to Kevin Spraggett) is not so unachievable for anyone, despite what many class players might think.
In fact, an old article in a CFC magazine that I recall featured an East European chess figure (whose name I don't recall) offering a scientific(?) study suggesting 2450+ was the minimum ceiling anyone might hope to achieve in their life, even with a total lack of talent, if they worked at chess all out (and were coached, perhaps[?]).
The advice given in this thread about analyzing one's own games to improve further, even at a higher level, long ago received emphasis from Botvinnik. Advice to eliminate one's weak points as a player goes back at least as far as Lasker/Alekhine I seem to recall.
One tip I got long ago from IM Raymond Stone did not originate with him, I seem to recall, but it still seemed plausible. Namely, to get from 2300+ level to 2400+ level, one should work through a lot of endgame studies.
I have a number of concrete ideas on how to significantly improve my own chess rating (2200+ currently), even at my age (somewhat past 50). I did a similar sort of chess self-analysis Tom suggested, without a stronger player's opinion afterwards. In my case I merely took a sample of certain of my recent games and counted up and categorized the type of major mistakes I made that cost me points, or half-points, and drew conclusions. I figured, worry about correcting less costly minor weaknesses sometime later.
I wanted to know how to improve my rating that is, all without leaving Ottawa to search for very tough opposition on an even more regular basis, which could improve my strength even more. However, for a long time, and at the moment, I am only willing to do the easiest of these things, and so for some time my rating has more or less stagnated.
More specifically, what study I currently do is (in a typical week) is very largely computer checking of my tournament games, preparing opening ideas or what to play vs. certain opponents if I can, and one night away from home watching a study partner friend (rated 2000+) play through a mutually selected dataset (approx. 30+ a week) of games from some specific opening line in his basement (while I sip on a cold one :) ). I [re-]learn some tactical patterns from this, at the very least.
What I refuse to do for the moment, at least, is play through tactical puzzles for half an hour each night (to restrengthen my tactical skills to at least what they used to be), or go out and buy an endgame studies book (after selling one already) to do the same routine each night for another half an hour, or try to improve physically any faster than what little I do.
I also haven't gone through games collections of any players I might try to emulate, for many years. I haven't brushed up on strategy by studying books on such (though I think once you reach master level, books on such commonly teach little that is truly new to you). At the moment, my games are usually not decided in the endgame, if one is reached, and the vast percentage of my lost [half-]points are not due to a weakness of my endgame play (at least if I have such, it is seldom exposed :) ).
Note that almost 25% of my lost [half-]points are due to serious reverses in the opening stage of the game, but I would speculate this is probably normal (or even good) at any level of play. Tactical/calculation errors are the cause of about 50% of lost [half-]points, based on my sample of my recent games, anyway.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Sunday, 21st April, 2013, 08:38 PM.
Reason: Spelling
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
At that point they will probably suggest you to o X, Y and Z to improve.
Do what they tell you.
Many stumble at that last hurdle.
Get a buddy who would be willing to improve with you (like a study group)
and whatever number books/magazines/articles you'll read, you still MUST play regularly and in -100+300 rating points tournaments (and with a time control you wish to excel :)
Just a few thoughts. Just my opinion, anyone is free to disagree.
First off, although we've only played once (a game I will treasure forever lol), I like following your progress as we've tended to develop at a similar pace.
Second, 2200 is very impressive and I strongly disagree that calculation alone is good enough to get a rating like that.
SO, let me reminisce about my own progress, and where I believe the next step is...
Like you, I started about three years ago. I don't think it's boasting to say I was a natural talent, as my first rating was well over 1800. What do I attribute the early success to? Tactics. I went 2/5 in my first tournament, and in both of my wins I was much worse but was able to sharpen the game and win tactically.
After this my next plateau was mid 2000's. How did I get there? I believe it was because I started studying openings intensively (much like you, again). The common advice to not study openings until you have a master rating may only be partially true. Any knowledge is good knowledge, and I can think of many losses where a little extra opening knowledge would have won me the game. I can't say the same about endgames, not as often anyway. The advice is partially true, though, as my progress slowed a little bit.
My climb from 2000 to 2100 felt very slow. I believe the climb was due to more tournament experience. Playing in the Canadian open and closed helped me develop a tenacity I didn't have before. I'm not sure if you've ever had this problem. It's different living in a city where I only get to play 1700's...I think my games at the Canadian open and Canadian closed were key to my eventual jump to 2200. Beating Lawrence Day helped me trust my concrete calculation, getting killed by Artem Samsonkin (in Hamilton) taught me that playing scared is like resigning without playing, and then declining a draw by repetition against Tomas Krnan (even though I went on to lose badly) gave me the will to win that is very likely why I've recently done so well (as have you).
So what happened recently that caused me to jump to 2200? Well, I got bored with openings, started playing all sorts of different stuff, and suddenly found I was getting good at playing positions I knew nothing about before! Combine this with the fact that my past tournament experience has increased my determination to play well, while simultaneously calming my bad habit of trying to over calculate a position and insist on forcing lines, and suddenly you have a player who is comfortable with almost any position. My most recent Hart House tournament rewarded this when I managed to go 4.5/5 in the U2200 section, all from roughly equal positions out of the opening. The key for me was just being more comfortable at the board!
This leads me to my point: where to go from here. I think the most beneficial thing for my chess to date has been practical tournament experience. Training tactics has been the second most useful key. Openings have also been very useful, but the reward hasn't always been worth the effort.
In the future, I think I'm going to stick to what I've been doing all along... I'm going to study something I'm passionate about. I feel you learn best when you are really interested. A focused study plan hasn't done it for me, but those days when Karsten Mueller's chessbase endgame videos captivate me for 8+ hours have been invaluable, as the information sticks with me forever.
(Very) Long story short, I wouldn't focus too hard on improving. Rather, focus on making learning new ideas fun, the same way you found the Najdorf fun back when you were working through Kasparov's dvd's. I know that stuff stuck with you...
And, all said, as every GM I've ever asked has said, if in doubt... Go study tactics.
Tweet
Comment