Rapid Chess Improvement

Main

Date: 04 May 2005 00:57:51
From: John J.
Subject: Rapid Chess Improvement

How many here have read the book or articles and used a similar
training/study method? Did you see improvement?

john

Date: 13 May 2005 04:38:48
From:
Subject: Re: Rapid Chess Improvement

[email protected] wrote:

<snip >

> Speaking from a personal perspective, I probably would have been a
> significantly stronger player back when I was active OTB if I had not
> had a habit of missing tactical shots, both for my opponents and
> myself. On the other hand, I don't know if I would have been much
> stronger had I memorized ECO as Vivek Rao was said to have done (my
> knowledge of opening theory was pitifully weak by today's standards).
> Few if any of my OTB games were decided in the opening, and a +=
> evaluation just didn't mean much at my level.

Since I am Vivek Rao, let me comment. I did not memorize the entire ECO
when I was playing seriously, but I did study the sections that were
part of my opening repertoire.

If, for example, as White you play the Petrosian variation of the
Queen's Indian, 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4.a3, you can obviously skip
the sections on the Catalan (3.g3) or Nimzo-Indian (3.Nc3 Bb4) or QID
with 4.g3 . I think an aspiring chess player should record his opening
repertoire, at least the top-level decisions such as what variation to
play against the King's Indian, Grunfeld, Benko (if you play 1.d4) in a
database such as ChessBase or Bookup. Openings played in tournament
games and maybe even blitz games on ICC should be looked up, to avoid
making the same opening mistake more than once.

You should try to understand the ideas of an opening well enough that
certain variations are not just memorized but understood so well that
they are second nature. If you understand the Classical variation of
the King's Indian, for example, the sequence of moves

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5
Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.Nd3 f5 11.Bd2 Nf6 12.f3 f4 13.c5

should not be difficult to remember, because every move has a clear
purpose.

Most people enjoy playing chess more than studying opening theory, but
I think they should invest enough time in their Black openings to get a
playable middlegame. Many of my opponents in casual games and
simultaneous exhibitions have played terrible openings such as

1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6?! 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.Nf3 Nc6?! 5.e4

or

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bf5?! 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 b6?

and quickly lost.

A chess player should at least know the basic moves of a solid opening
such as the Slav variation of the Queen's Gambit:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 4.a4 Bf5 5.e3 e6 6.Bxc4 Bb4 7.0-0
0-0

Some people as White play openings such as the London system (1.d4,
2.Nf3, 3.Bf4) or King's Indian (1.Nf3, 2.g3, 3.Bg2, 4.0-0) against
anything Black does. People have differing approaches to the opening,
but I think an aspiring player should play aggressive openings as White
(if you play 1.d4, then 2.c4 after 1...Nf6) and try to maintain the
advantage of the first move. That was my approach, and I scored pretty
well with White. As White, you may not remember all the theory in the
line you play against (say) the King's Indian, but your opponent may
also be rusty in the line you play. Even if you mishandle a main line
opening, you will gain some experience and motivation to play the
opening better the next time.

IM Vivek Rao

(rec.games.chess.misc added to follow-ups)

Date: 13 May 2005 16:40:11
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Rapid Chess Improvement

<[email protected] > wrote:
> Some people as White play openings such as the London system (1.d4,
> 2.Nf3, 3.Bf4) or King's Indian (1.Nf3, 2.g3, 3.Bg2, 4.0-0) against
> anything Black does. People have differing approaches to the opening,
> but I think an aspiring player should play aggressive openings as White
> (if you play 1.d4, then 2.c4 after 1...Nf6) and try to maintain the
> advantage of the first move. That was my approach, and I scored pretty
> well with White. As White, you may not remember all the theory in the
> line you play against (say) the King's Indian, but your opponent may
> also be rusty in the line you play.

Yes. Somebody played the Gruenfeld against me in a tournament recently
(in the under 125BCF section, which is under 1600ish Elo) and reked
after the game that most people he plays against follow 1.d4 Nf3 with
2.Nf3 so his defence to 2.c4 was rather rusty. That, of course, was fine
by me -- the game went 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 O-O 6.cxd5
Nxd5 7.Nxd5 Qxd5 8.Bxc7 which he called ``losing a pawn'' rather than
``playing the Gruenfeld gambit''. Had he known he was playing a gambit,
I'm sure he'd have been much happier with his position and played much
better than he did. The game ended with a draw but I always felt he could
have killed me in the middle game if he'd played more aggressively.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Strange Mentholated Sushi (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a raw fish but it's invigorating
and totally weird!

Date: 06 May 2005 14:22:23
From:
Subject: Re: Rapid Chess Improvement

Ray Gordon wrote:

[snip]

> When I see 2400-rated players hanging rooks, I do wonder if getting
to 2600
> isn't as difficult as they make it out to be.

I once hung two rooks in a single game, to the same tactical device and
within a few moves of each other. This was in a classical time control
game against Nick deFirmian in a small weekend tournament at Labate's
Chess Club. I was probably rated somewhere around 2300-2350 USCF at
the time. The game ultimately ended in a draw by perpetual check, but
only because I was a whole queen up before I started dropping the
rooks.

Speaking from a personal perspective, I probably would have been a
significantly stronger player back when I was active OTB if I had not
had a habit of missing tactical shots, both for my opponents and
myself. On the other hand, I don't know if I would have been much
stronger had I memorized ECO as Vivek Rao was said to have done (my
knowledge of opening theory was pitifully weak by today's standards).
Few if any of my OTB games were decided in the opening, and a +=
evaluation just didn't mean much at my level.

In fact, I think that many of the positions that GMs or IMs label += or
=+ are more accurately evaluated as simply unclear from the perspective
of we non-professionals. Those evaluations often encompass a chess
understanding and level of technique that we simply don't have. At the
amateur level, I think our comfort level with the positions we are
playing is probably at least as important as whether we have a slight
theoretical advantage or disadvantage.

Mr. Gordon's idea of becoming stronger through opening study is
interesting. I seem to recall an interview with deFirmian some time
back in which he attributed a significant part of his chess development
to his intensive study of the Najdorf with some friends during his
formative years as a chess player, so Mr. Gordon's approach seems to
have some anecdotal support. But I suspect for most of us, who have
average or worse memories and limited time to devote to the study of
chess, studying tactics, endgames, and positional themes is a more
productive approach to improving our practical results.

- Geof Strayer

Date: 07 May 2005 11:28:08
From: Toni Lassila
Subject: Re: Rapid Chess Improvement

On 6 May 2005 14:22:23 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>In fact, I think that many of the positions that GMs or IMs label += or
>=+ are more accurately evaluated as simply unclear from the perspective
>of we non-professionals. Those evaluations often encompass a chess
>understanding and level of technique that we simply don't have.

I think when a GM evaluates some opening line as +=, it just means
he's about to publish a book from the white side of the opening.

>Mr. Gordon's idea of becoming stronger through opening study is
>interesting. I seem to recall an interview with deFirmian some time
>back in which he attributed a significant part of his chess development
>to his intensive study of the Najdorf with some friends during his
>formative years as a chess player, so Mr. Gordon's approach seems to
>have some anecdotal support.

He's not the only one. John Fedorowicz also mentioned once that he
stresses the importance of studying openings to his students
(presumably the more advanced ones). Of course the key word here is
"studying", not "rote memorizing". I think the same could be said for
studying tactics as well as endings.

--
King's Gambit - http://kingsgambit.blogspot.com
Chess problems, tactics, analysis and more.

Date: 04 May 2005 08:28:35
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Rapid Chess Improvement

I have read the book. I don't have the time to adopt de la Maza's
regime as he described it, so my approach has been piecemeal, at best.
That said, I understand that after he achieved his goal, MdlM was so
sick of chess that he stopped playing. I have no idea whether or not
that's true, but I think I would give up on such a programme before
sickening myself with chess!

His "drills" idea seems a good one, and I bought CT-ART 3.0 as a result
of his having recommended it in RCI. CT-ART is great, I think, although
my approach to it (owing to limited time) is somewhat idiosyncratic.
Basically, every time I use it, I start from the first problem and work
through as many positions as I can in the hour that I allot to it. This
means that I'm getting further and further through the 1200-odd
positions *and* I'm learning the patterns in the positions which I've
seen before, which can't be bad. Indeed, I think my overall
understanding is improving.

k

Date: 04 May 2005 07:24:19
From: materialkiller
Subject: Re: Rapid Chess Improvement

Yes, I have read the book Rapid Chess Improvement. Though I use a
similar training method wish I felt suited me better due to amount of
time I have free to study. I have notice a enormous improvement in my
game. I went from around (1700 to 1900 in a couple of months in
Germany while my USA Rating has remain unchange due to work location)
tough work has prevented me from attending tournaments on a regular
basis, I'm unable at this time gain more rating points.

I do think if your under the 2000 k it is important to focus on
tactics since 90% all calculation is about hidden tactics within the
position. But, to neglect other aspects of the game will lead to
disaster.

Date: 05 May 2005 05:35:23
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Rapid Chess Improvement

> Yes, I have read the book Rapid Chess Improvement. Though I use a
> similar training method wish I felt suited me better due to amount of
> time I have free to study. I have notice a enormous improvement in my
> game. I went from around (1700 to 1900 in a couple of months in
> Germany while my USA Rating has remain unchange due to work location)
> tough work has prevented me from attending tournaments on a regular
> basis, I'm unable at this time gain more rating points.
>
> I do think if your under the 2000 k it is important to focus on
> tactics since 90% all calculation is about hidden tactics within the
> position. But, to neglect other aspects of the game will lead to
> disaster.

Neglecting the opening ensures disaster; neglecting the middle and endgame
only creates the possibility of disaster.

--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.

Date: 05 May 2005 09:58:30
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Rapid Chess Improvement

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>> I do think if your under the 2000 k it is important to focus on
>> tactics since 90% all calculation is about hidden tactics within the
>> position. But, to neglect other aspects of the game will lead to
>> disaster.
>
> Neglecting the opening ensures disaster; neglecting the middle and
> endgame only creates the possibility of disaster.

Neglecting the opening only ensures disaster in blitz and faster games.
It's entirely possible to get quite a long way without any real opening
knowledge.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Indelible Unholy Drink (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a refreshing juice beverage but it's
also a crime against nature and it
can't be erased!

Date: 05 May 2005 21:43:31
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Rapid Chess Improvement

>> Neglecting the opening ensures disaster; neglecting the middle and
>> endgame only creates the possibility of disaster.
>
> Neglecting the opening only ensures disaster in blitz and faster games.
> It's entirely possible to get quite a long way without any real opening
> knowledge.

It's possible to get a long way with an inferior position that doesn't
appear "lost," but which is.

There is a correct and an incorrect way to play chess. Deliberately
avoiding the correct way to play it because it's too much work doesn't
suspend chess theory until a simplified game is reached that even a monkey
could play.

--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.

Date: 06 May 2005 00:04:01
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Rapid Chess Improvement

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

> It's possible to get a long way with an inferior position that doesn't
> appear "lost," but which is.

Sure. But you can get pretty damn strong before your opponents are
capable of recognizing that the position is lost and punishing you for
it.

Date: 06 May 2005 15:15:03
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Rapid Chess Improvement

>> It's possible to get a long way with an inferior position that doesn't
>> appear "lost," but which is.
>
> Sure. But you can get pretty damn strong before your opponents are
> capable of recognizing that the position is lost and punishing you for
> it.

When I see 2400-rated players hanging rooks, I do wonder if getting to 2600
isn't as difficult as they make it out to be.

--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Four FREE books on how to get laid by beautiful women

http://www.cybersheet.com/chess.html
Free Chess E-book: Train Like A Chess Champion

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.