| |
Main
Date: 28 Feb 2007 04:58:08
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: TRAINING UPDATE: Rebuilding my game: an incredibly painful process
|
Yes, I'm still training, which means I have met my peak-rating milestones
set forth in 2004, where if I don't meet one I quit. According to my rating
progression over the last three years, I'm on pace to become a grandmaster
at the age of forty-five. Given my age, however, it is quite possible that
this improvement could grind to a halt at any time, either due to age or if
I simply stop playing. So far, however, so good.
About six months ago, I decided that if I was going to become a grandmaster,
let alone a champion, that I should be equally strong in the middlegame as I
am in the opening. This is not easy for me because for the first six years
of my training (1987-1991 and 2004-2006), I did little or nothing other than
studying the opening. This enabled me to become strong enough that even
players like Kamsky and Nakamura were unable to outplay me in the opening,
reaching equal or inferior early middlegame positions against me, which they
then won with the swiftness. The lesson from these four games was the same:
openings can only carry a player so far. What is also true, however, is
that a world-class player who played the opening as well as I did against
those two players would be in very good shape to defeat them, so I
definitely wasn't doing anything wrong in the opening.
Against Kamsky, I played a two-game blitz match in the opening round of the
1989 World Open blitz. The first game was a Pelikan Sicilian, just as the
book on that had come out. I took Kamsky out of his preparation around move
15, and for three moves he had to find his way while I had my moves
memorized. After that, however, the middlegame fell apart. In the next
game, he played the black side of a king's gambit, solidified his position,
anid crushed me in the middlegame. The two games against Nakamura had me
outplaying him in the opening, in both cases a pirc/modern setup for him and
a Be3/Be6 formation for me, which lead to good openings that I then lost in
the middlegame. In all four games, I was like a "cheap speed" racehorse who
dueled to the turn and then packed it in.
In defense of my frontloading my chess study, I believe in first things
first, and the opening comes first. It wasn't like I would come from behind
against a GM after playing an inferior opening, so I decided to study
openings until I exhausted all of the major theory, at which point I would
turn my attention to the endgame and work backwards. I have since revised
that to working on the middlegame and transition out of the opening on the
same principle that led me to study openings, in that this is now my "area
of first confusion."
So how does one shift their training? I chose to do it by simply not
studying the opening any longer, and no longer relying on the opening to win
the game. That doesn't mean I changed my repertoire, but rather that I play
every move I have memorized, and the second I leave my book I treat the
position as a middlegame, which it usually is, and I let middlegame
considerations, rather than opening considerations, dominate my analysis and
play.
At first, the training was not kicking in, in part because I still had a lot
of my openings memorized and they were fresh, but also because I didn't
really know where to begin. However, as time progressed, I got used to
thinking like a "middlegame player" and since I haven't been studying
openings, my knoweldge there is no longer as fresh. If I run into a problem
OTB, I no longer check the books to solve it. The net result of this was
watching my one-minute rating drop from a consistent 1800-1900 range all the
way down to 1500-1600 again, albeit temporarily. I was moving much slower,
and often getting very confused.
While it was tempting to revert back to opening study to boost my rating in
the short run, I don't believe in shortcuts and figured that my low rating
was a sign that I was beginning to confront my weaker areas of play. As I
forgot more and more of my repertoire, and refused to rely on it, I began
examining my middlegame play much more carefully, noticing more and more
patterns in my mistakes. Recently, I have begun to develop middlegame
theory that suits my play, and have put those principles into practice. I
am, however, extremely inconsistent with this, but there have been very
encouraging patches.
Recently, I had a day where I kept my one-minute rating at or above 1900 for
a long period of time, and where it rarely sank below 1800. It has since
returned to near that level more and more often, and when I am playing at my
peak I am beating 2000+ rated players more easily than ever before. Most
important, however, I am beating these players in ways I never have before:
in the middlegame and endgame, coming from behind, and building advantages
out of equal openings against superior players.
Since it took four years to build my opening game, I figure it's going to
take another four to build a middlegame, and hopefully when the four years
are done, as I'll be 44.5 years old, I'll have solved enough of the game to
be able to run with guys like Nakamura and Kzmsky to move 30 and beyond
instead of move 15 and beyond.
I can see why older players almost never improve. It's not that they lack
the ability, but rather the patience. A young player who knows he has a
future won't mind long-term training designed to make him a stronger player
as an adult, but adult players are often set in their ways and refuse to
reconstruct their game even when their current play is built on a flawed
foundation.
Having to watch my rating drop 300 points because I changed my style of play
was very painful, but watching those points come back in an area of the game
I had never won many games in is very encouraging. Hopefully once I regain
my peak rating with this new style there will be more improvement left in
the tank and I'll continue on stronger footing. At least that's the plan.
Will update again in a few months probably, or when I hit a new peak (the
current peak is slightly over 2000 and I've come close twice).
--
Ray Gordon, Author
Price And Probability
http://www.cybersheet.com/horsepix.html
Learn to make an accurate odds line for horses with just a DRF!
The Hoops And Horses Blog:
http://raygordon.blogs.com/
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 07:06:41
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: TRAINING UPDATE: Rebuilding my game: an incredibly painful process
|
On Feb 28, 1:36 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> > What a bloviating bag of wind you are....1-minute is mousetrap chess,
> > and if you play 1600 chess OTB Tournament chess I'd be shocked...but
> > that's just me.
>
> Put your money where your mouth is.
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, Author
> Price And Probabilityhttp://www.cybersheet.com/horsepix.html
>
> Learn to make an accurate odds line for horses with just a DRF!
>
> The Hoops And Horses Blog:http://raygordon.blogs.com/
Sure Ray.
I'll be at the Eastern Class Championships. Enter.
|
| |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 06:57:28
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: TRAINING UPDATE: Rebuilding my game: an incredibly painful process
|
On Feb 28, 4:58 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Yes, I'm still training,
Good, we were worried...
> which means I have met my peak-rating milestones
> set forth in 2004, where if I don't meet one I quit. According to my rating
> progression over the last three years, I'm on pace to become a grandmaster
> at the age of forty-five.
[cough cough]
> Given my age, however, it is quite possible that
> this improvement could grind to a halt at any time, either due to age or if
> I simply stop playing. So far, however, so good.
Read: I'll quit and use it as an excuse.
> About six months ago, I decided that if I was going to become a grandmaster,
> let alone a champion, that I should be equally strong in the middlegame as I
> am in the opening. This is not easy for me because for the first six years
> of my training (1987-1991 and 2004-2006), I did little or nothing other than
> studying the opening. This enabled me to become strong enough that even
> players like Kamsky and Nakamura were unable to outplay me in the opening,
Please show us those games, Ray.
> reaching equal or inferior early middlegame positions against me, which they
> then won with the swiftness.
Not to mention superior chess skills, but don't let facts get in the
way...please continue.
> The lesson from these four games was the same:
> openings can only carry a player so far. What is also true, however, is
> that a world-class player who played the opening as well as I did against
> those two players would be in very good shape to defeat them, so I
> definitely wasn't doing anything wrong in the opening.
>
> Against Kamsky, I played a two-game blitz match in the opening round of the
> 1989 World Open blitz. The first game was a Pelikan Sicilian, just as the
> book on that had come out. I took Kamsky out of his preparation around move
> 15, and for three moves he had to find his way while I had my moves
> memorized. After that, however, the middlegame fell apart.
Wea re SHOCKED AND AMAZED.
> In the next
> game, he played the black side of a king's gambit, solidified his position,
> anid crushed me in the middlegame. The two games against Nakamura had me
> outplaying him in the opening, in both cases a pirc/modern setup for him and
> a Be3/Be6 formation for me, which lead to good openings that I then lost in
> the middlegame. In all four games, I was like a "cheap speed" racehorse who
> dueled to the turn and then packed it in.
Which is why your training methods are wanting.
> In defense of my frontloading my chess study, I believe in first things
> first, and the opening comes first. It wasn't like I would come from behind
> against a GM after playing an inferior opening, so I decided to study
> openings until I exhausted all of the major theory, at which point I would
> turn my attention to the endgame and work backwards. I have since revised
> that to working on the middlegame and transition out of the opening on the
> same principle that led me to study openings, in that this is now my "area
> of first confusion."
Sounds like you are ready to take on a real chess game other than 1-
minute mousetrap chess.
> So how does one shift their training? I chose to do it by simply not
> studying the opening any longer, and no longer relying on the opening to win
> the game. That doesn't mean I changed my repertoire, but rather that I play
> every move I have memorized, and the second I leave my book I treat the
> position as a middlegame, which it usually is, and I let middlegame
> considerations, rather than opening considerations, dominate my analysis and
> play.
Flawed thinking, but continue, please.
> At first, the training was not kicking in, in part because I still had a lot
> of my openings memorized and they were fresh, but also because I didn't
> really know where to begin.
Or, perhaps, becauase you memorized the moves but did not understand
the concepts...
> However, as time progressed, I got used to
> thinking like a "middlegame player" and since I haven't been studying
> openings, my knoweldge there is no longer as fresh. If I run into a problem
> OTB, I no longer check the books to solve it. The net result of this was
> watching my one-minute rating drop from a consistent 1800-1900 range all the
> way down to 1500-1600 again, albeit temporarily. I was moving much slower,
> and often getting very confused.
Tragic consequences, i'm sure.
> While it was tempting to revert back to opening study to boost my rating in
> the short run, I don't believe in shortcuts
So, Ray admits to 6 years of wasted training....priceless!
> and figured that my low rating
> was a sign that I was beginning to confront my weaker areas of play. As I
> forgot more and more of my repertoire, and refused to rely on it, I began
> examining my middlegame play much more carefully, noticing more and more
> patterns in my mistakes. Recently, I have begun to develop middlegame
> theory that suits my play, and have put those principles into practice. I
> am, however, extremely inconsistent with this, but there have been very
> encouraging patches.
>
> Recently, I had a day where I kept my one-minute rating at or above 1900 for
> a long period of time, and where it rarely sank below 1800. It has since
> returned to near that level more and more often, and when I am playing at my
> peak I am beating 2000+ rated players more easily than ever before. Most
> important, however, I am beating these players in ways I never have before:
> in the middlegame and endgame, coming from behind, and building advantages
> out of equal openings against superior players.
Halleluljah!
> Since it took four years to build my opening game, I figure it's going to
> take another four to build a middlegame, and hopefully when the four years
> are done, as I'll be 44.5 years old, I'll have solved enough of the game to
> be able to run with guys like Nakamura and Kzmsky to move 30 and beyond
> instead of move 15 and beyond.
There are more chess positions than atoms in the universe, Ray.
> I can see why older players almost never improve. It's not that they lack
> the ability, but rather the patience. A young player who knows he has a
> future won't mind long-term training designed to make him a stronger player
> as an adult, but adult players are often set in their ways and refuse to
> reconstruct their game even when their current play is built on a flawed
> foundation.
Kinda like yours, eh?
> Having to watch my rating drop 300 points because I changed my style of play
> was very painful, but watching those points come back in an area of the game
> I had never won many games in is very encouraging. Hopefully once I regain
> my peak rating with this new style there will be more improvement left in
> the tank and I'll continue on stronger footing. At least that's the plan.
>
> Will update again in a few months probably, or when I hit a new peak (the
> current peak is slightly over 2000 and I've come close twice).
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, Author
> Price And Probabilityhttp://www.cybersheet.com/horsepix.html
>
> Learn to make an accurate odds line for horses with just a DRF!
>
> The Hoops And Horses Blog:http://raygordon.blogs.com/
What a bloviating bag of wind you are....1-minute is mousetrap chess,
and if you play 1600 chess OTB Tournament chess I'd be shocked...but
that's just me.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 13:36:47
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: TRAINING UPDATE: Rebuilding my game: an incredibly painful process
|
> What a bloviating bag of wind you are....1-minute is mousetrap chess,
> and if you play 1600 chess OTB Tournament chess I'd be shocked...but
> that's just me.
Put your money where your mouth is.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
Price And Probability
http://www.cybersheet.com/horsepix.html
Learn to make an accurate odds line for horses with just a DRF!
The Hoops And Horses Blog:
http://raygordon.blogs.com/
|
|
