Do you like chess?

[Emil Miller]

(to the eyes of the modern day player) it looks silly, nowadays sacrificing material (the knight) like that makes no sense at all, and that ridiculous defense is nowhere to be found, maybe not even at 1300 Elo level.

I agree but it is easy to say with hindsight.

[LitNetIsGreat]

This week I have been getting more and more into chess again and trying to learn, and re-learn, some of the openings positions and theory, bit by bit. I find the opening theories really interesting, though there's a hugh amount of it out there and you hardly know where to start.

On a different issue and the point of my post really, here is a test I found which estimates your ELO rating which some might be interested in. There are ten situations where you have to input your next move and then it calculates your rating based upon them.

http://www.chessmaniac.com/ELORating...s_Rating.shtml

I scored 1500 which is about an average club player standard I think. This seems about right to me at present as I am rusty and have been away from it for too long. I don't think I've got much brain power left to get much higher either, but as long as I still keep beating my brother (75%+ success rate) that's all that really matters!

Edit: sorry the link should now work.

[Taliesin]

I guess that it might be a tad annoying that I write in this thread mainly from the viewpoint of a Go-enthusiast who wonders about whether similar things hold for chess(e.g I recently learned that there was some kind of hypermodernism opening school happening in chess relatively around the same time as shinfuseki happened in Go) - but - is it common in chess clubs and players who take a more active interest in chess to review their played games?
I have played quite a number of chess games in my life (although at a rather low level) and I don't think I have ever seen anyone doing a review. However, both when I happened to frequent a Go club and also in other happenstances, it seemed that reviewing a played game is relatively commonplace. Might be though that I have played chess with the wrong sort of people who don't have the reviewing habit, but maybe there really is no reviewing custom in chess culture. Can anyone with more experience shed light on this question?

PS:A propos reviewing, someone noted that playing blitz games is not bad if you review the games, which, I guess, is true.

[Sancho]

I've always thought chess a lovely game.

And I've always stunk at it. But then chess is a medieval game of war (isn't it?) and I'm a modern man, so I figure my style of play would work just fine if I could call in some Close Air Support from time to time, when I get myself in a tight spot.

Whoa! I just a picture of George Clooney in Oh Brother Where Art Thou, "We're in a tight spot, boys."

[LitNetIsGreat]

I guess that it might be a tad annoying that I write in this thread mainly from the viewpoint of a Go-enthusiast who wonders about whether similar things hold for chess(e.g I recently learned that there was some kind of hypermodernism opening school happening in chess relatively around the same time as shinfuseki happened in Go) - but - is it common in chess clubs and players who take a more active interest in chess to review their played games?
I have played quite a number of chess games in my life (although at a rather low level) and I don't think I have ever seen anyone doing a review. However, both when I happened to frequent a Go club and also in other happenstances, it seemed that reviewing a played game is relatively commonplace. Might be though that I have played chess with the wrong sort of people who don't have the reviewing habit, but maybe there really is no reviewing custom in chess culture. Can anyone with more experience shed light on this question?

PS:A propos reviewing, someone noted that playing blitz games is not bad if you review the games, which, I guess, is true.

I've never played Go, I'm not even sure what it is, but yes there is a hypermodern school in terms of chess opening strategy kicked in arond the 1930s. Yes it's a very common thing for players to review their games certainly, though it depends upon how seriously you take it, the occasional player is not likely to review their own games, but the club player or tournament player certainly will.

I've found that Blitz chess can be good to work through different openings as well, you know to get a feel for them.

[NikolaiI]

I guess that it might be a tad annoying that I write in this thread mainly from the viewpoint of a Go-enthusiast who wonders about whether similar things hold for chess(e.g I recently learned that there was some kind of hypermodernism opening school happening in chess relatively around the same time as shinfuseki happened in Go) - but - is it common in chess clubs and players who take a more active interest in chess to review their played games?
I have played quite a number of chess games in my life (although at a rather low level) and I don't think I have ever seen anyone doing a review. However, both when I happened to frequent a Go club and also in other happenstances, it seemed that reviewing a played game is relatively commonplace. Might be though that I have played chess with the wrong sort of people who don't have the reviewing habit, but maybe there really is no reviewing custom in chess culture. Can anyone with more experience shed light on this question?

PS:A propos reviewing, someone noted that playing blitz games is not bad if you review the games, which, I guess, is true.

No, it isn't annoying at all! It's most fascinating. I like Go very much but I've only played it a couple of times.

Yep, it is simply that your friends in chess didn't review, or more commonly put, go over their games. Club and tournament players often do. However, even among tournament players perhaps a majority do not go over their games very much. What's much more common, and you'll see much of this, is for players to go over grandmaster games, or notable games from an event. And if someone has a "brilliant" victory, or a big upset (a win over a higher rated player) then they will likely show off their game to anyone willing to look at it. In tournaments, it's very common practice for players to go over their just finished games in a post mortem analysis.

It can be very good in improving your game; I'm sure that once you get past A player to expert level and beyond, it becomes more and more important. Akiba Rubinstein, a grandmaster from the early 20th century, would spend two weeks on one of his games alone.

This week I have been getting more and more into chess again and trying to learn, and re-learn, some of the openings positions and theory, bit by bit. I find the opening theories really interesting, though there's a hugh amount of it out there and you hardly know where to start.

On a different issue and the point of my post really, here is a test I found which estimates your ELO rating which some might be interested in. There are ten situations where you have to input your next move and then it calculates your rating based upon them.

http://www.chessmaniac.com/ELORating...s_Rating.shtml

I scored 1500 which is about an average club player standard I think. This seems about right to me at present as I am rusty and have been away from it for too long. I don't think I've got much brain power left to get much higher either, but as long as I still keep beating my brother (75%+ success rate) that's all that really matters!

I've also been getting back into it..

Yes, opening theory is really vast. I think the best advice I heard in regards to the opening is to pick a player you like, anyone, Kortchnoi, Karpov, Botvinnik, whomever, and then try to learn their most common openings. Also, if you're serious about getting better, there's a way of improving that's vastly superior to the rest; that is to memorize grandmaster games. It's a lot of work at first but in my experience, there's absolutely no parallel for improving your strength.

[LitNetIsGreat]

No, it isn't annoying at all! It's most fascinating. I like Go very much but I've only played it a couple of times.

Yep, it is simply that your friends in chess didn't review, or more commonly put, go over their games. Club and tournament players often do. However, even among tournament players perhaps a majority do not go over their games very much. What's much more common, and you'll see much of this, is for players to go over grandmaster games, or notable games from an event. And if someone has a "brilliant" victory, or a big upset (a win over a higher rated player) then they will likely show off their game to anyone willing to look at it. In tournaments, it's very common practice for players to go over their just finished games in a post mortem analysis.

It can be very good in improving your game; I'm sure that once you get past A player to expert level and beyond, it becomes more and more important. Akiba Rubinstein, a grandmaster from the early 20th century, would spend two weeks on one of his games alone.



I've also been getting back into it..

Yes, opening theory is really vast. I think the best advice I heard in regards to the opening is to pick a player you like, anyone, Kortchnoi, Karpov, Botvinnik, whomever, and then try to learn their most common openings. Also, if you're serious about getting better, there's a way of improving that's vastly superior to the rest; that is to memorize grandmaster games. It's a lot of work at first but in my experience, there's absolutely no parallel for improving your strength.

Yes thanks I will add that to my list of things. I have been spending 2-3 hours a day working on my chess, more at the weekends 5+ as I'm now completely addicted. I am determined to get better at it. I want to aim for a standard around 1800 which should be achievable with work and effort I think. At my level now it is mainly about avoiding big errors and having a good practical knowledge of openings and end game theory as well as general tactical know how and strategy.

I have joined chess.com as there are loads of great things on that site such as the videos, the mentor program, computer analysis etc, etc so that is a good source as well, you have to pay to access the full stuff, which I think I'll end up doing, but for just now I can access the free stuff for a while.

I'm also sampling several chess books at the moment, there's a huge body of books on chess it is somewhat difficult to know where to start but I'm particularly looking at the endgame ideas just now, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual and Pandolfini's Endgame Workshop both sound promising. I like the idea of going through entire games though, especially looking at one particular player or opening. This is advice that I have seen repeated quite a lot.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

.Yes thanks I will add that to my list of things. I have been spending 2-3 hours a day working on my chess, more at the weekends 5+ as I'm now completely addicted...

...I'm also sampling several chess books at the moment, there's a huge body of books on chess it is somewhat difficult to know where to start...

Neely,
I suggest you start here; a must read that I rediscovered last night when taking a dose of antacid in the form of Goldsmith. (Faulkner has been giving me heartburn)

Upon opening the book, it naturally parted at Vida’s Game of Chess and I thought of you. If you aren’t familiar with it, I believe you would enjoy it, perhaps at your next bathing.

Here’s the link to the Online Literature text:

http://www.online-literature.com/oliver-goldsmith/2112/

I copied a few excerpts:

“ARMIES of box that sportively engage
And mimic real battles in their rage,
Pleased I recount; how, smit with glory's charms,
Two mighty Monarchs met in adverse arms,
Sable and white; assist me to explore, 5
Ye Serian Nymphs, what ne'er was sung before.
No path appears: yet resolute I stray
Where youth undaunted bids me force my way.
O'er rocks and cliffs while I the task pursue,
Guide me, ye Nymphs, with your unerring clue. 10
For you the rise of this diversion know,
You first were pleased in Italy to show
This studious sport; from Scacchis was its name,
The pleasing record of your Sister's fame…”


“…Sixty-four spaces fill the chequer'd square;
Eight in each rank eight equal limits share.
Alike their form, but different are their dyes, 25
They fade alternate, and alternate rise,
White after black; such various stains as those
The shelving backs of tortoises disclose.
Then to the gods that mute and wondering sate,
You see (says he) the field prepared for fate. 30
Here will the little armies please your sight,
With adverse colours hurrying to the fight…”


“…But the fierce Queen, whom dangers ne'er dismay,
The strength and terror of the bloody day,
In a straight line spreads her destruction wide,
To left or right, before, behind, aside. 135
Yet may she never with a circling course
Sweep to the battle like the fretful Horse;
But unconfin'd may at her pleasure stray,
If neither friend nor foe block up the way…”

[LitNetIsGreat]

Chess poetry! Now there's an interesting mix.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Neely,
Forgive me for belaboring this poem, but I have had too nuch wine tonight.
Nevertheless, as I comtinued through the piec I found this stanza that reminded me of the Illiad.
It may not offer much help in terms of "nuts and bolts" strategy against your next opponent, but if you were to recite this, it may have offer some psychological advantages:

"...Who first, great Queen, and who at last did bleed?
How many Whites lay gasping on the mead?
Half dead, and floating in a bloody tide,
Foot, Knights, and Archer lie on every side. 380
Who can recount the slaughter of the day?
How many leaders threw their lives away?
The chequer'd plain is fill'd with dying box,
Havoc ensues, and with tumultuous shocks
The different colour'd ranks in blood engage, 390
And Foot and Horse promiscuously rage.
With nobler courage and superior might
The dreadful Amazons sustain the fight,
Resolved alike to mix in glorious strife,
Till to imperious fate they yield their life."

.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Neely,
Forgive me for belaboring this poem, but I have had too nuch wine tonight.
Nevertheless, as I comtinued through the piec I found this stanza that reminded me of the Illiad.
It may not offer much help in terms of "nuts and bolts" strategy against your next opponent, but if you were to recite this, it may have offer some psychological advantages:

"...Who first, great Queen, and who at last did bleed?
How many Whites lay gasping on the mead?
Half dead, and floating in a bloody tide,
Foot, Knights, and Archer lie on every side. 380
Who can recount the slaughter of the day?
How many leaders threw their lives away?
The chequer'd plain is fill'd with dying box,
Havoc ensues, and with tumultuous shocks
The different colour'd ranks in blood engage, 390
And Foot and Horse promiscuously rage.
With nobler courage and superior might
The dreadful Amazons sustain the fight,
Resolved alike to mix in glorious strife,
Till to imperious fate they yield their life."

.

Love the poem. It sounds like the result of a few blitz games I had earlier today of players rated above 2000!! Yes I was destroyed of course but it was useful slaughter.

I think I am about up to the standard I was a few years ago again, minus bits of opening theory that is. I am completely addicted and even dreaming of knights, pawns and the chequered board! I must and have reduced my beer intake though as beer and chess do not mix. In the Christmas holidays I am determined to put in around 7/8 hours chess study and games a day at least.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Well, all I can say is you must be going full bore with chess, if you are willing to cut back on drink. Good luck and keep us posted on your victories and annhilations.

[cacian]

I have to say I cannot work it out.
It is too difficult for my 'concept ability'.
I have tried a couple to times but I gave up.
If I compare to it DOMINO, which I find quite tedious as a game, chess has more to it.

[NikolaiI]

Yes thanks I will add that to my list of things. I have been spending 2-3 hours a day working on my chess, more at the weekends 5+ as I'm now completely addicted. I am determined to get better at it. I want to aim for a standard around 1800 which should be achievable with work and effort I think. At my level now it is mainly about avoiding big errors and having a good practical knowledge of openings and end game theory as well as general tactical know how and strategy.

I have joined chess.com as there are loads of great things on that site such as the videos, the mentor program, computer analysis etc, etc so that is a good source as well, you have to pay to access the full stuff, which I think I'll end up doing, but for just now I can access the free stuff for a while.

I'm also sampling several chess books at the moment, there's a huge body of books on chess it is somewhat difficult to know where to start but I'm particularly looking at the endgame ideas just now, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual and Pandolfini's Endgame Workshop both sound promising. I like the idea of going through entire games though, especially looking at one particular player or opening. This is advice that I have seen repeated quite a lot.

Wow, that's wonderful Neely. It's great to hear someone else who shares a deep passion for chess! I really know the enjoyment you're experiencing. Getting to 1800, studying with such a passion in my formative early teen years, was one of the absolutely most important experiences of my life - for so many reasons, far more than I would list here. Now I'm working 12 hour days or I would write more; and even study more, but I just wanted to write a quick note, I've been meaning to for a couple days.

Oh also - Alekhine's games are some of the best for studying. There's a book Alekhine's Best games of Chess, I think it's like... 1909-1937 maybe.. that has two volumes in one, a green tome. I highly recommend studying his games, for their tactical brilliancy. The openings aren't always modern, but you can employ a few of the lines to sound effect, like Qe2 in the Spanish game, instead of Re1, seems to throw people off somewhat.

Well I've got to go..

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well, all I can say is you must be going full bore with chess, if you are willing to cut back on drink. Good luck and keep us posted on your victories and annhilations.

Thanks. I am tending to just have the one beer and to save it while about 11.00, usually a Belgian, a Sierra Nevada or a Golden Hen at the moment. No chess after 11.00 as I start to dream dancing chessboards and things chess related. I read a bit instead.

Wow, that's wonderful Neely. It's great to hear someone else who shares a deep passion for chess! I really know the enjoyment you're experiencing. Getting to 1800, studying with such a passion in my formative early teen years, was one of the absolutely most important experiences of my life - for so many reasons, far more than I would list here. Now I'm working 12 hour days or I would write more; and even study more, but I just wanted to write a quick note, I've been meaning to for a couple days.

Oh also - Alekhine's games are some of the best for studying. There's a book Alekhine's Best games of Chess, I think it's like... 1909-1937 maybe.. that has two volumes in one, a green tome. I highly recommend studying his games, for their tactical brilliancy. The openings aren't always modern, but you can employ a few of the lines to sound effect, like Qe2 in the Spanish game, instead of Re1, seems to throw people off somewhat.

Well I've got to go..

Wow that's a great story. I want to get to around the 1800 (good club player) standard by about this time next year. I think this is quite workable with the effort I'm willing to put in.

Thanks a lot for your time and suggestions. I am going through 2/3 master games a day in the week - different players, different openings etc as part of my study. I will give Alekhine a shout, either in that book or I'll check out an online database. I also have a bumper book of top master games. I'm sure several of his are in there as well.

Thanks again.