studying games by players 1400-1500

Main

Date: 18 Oct 2005 05:02:29
From: tdiedwards
Subject: studying games by players 1400-1500

I'm probably rated not much more than 1300. I've tried to stud
grandmasters' games to improve. It doesn't seem to work. The strateg
goes over my head, I can't see deeply enough into the tactics, an
finally I get bored and tired.

Do you think it makes sense to study blunderless games by players jus
one strategic rung over my head and progress step by step rather tha
study games played by vastly superior players?

Or... is choosing to study games which aren't prime examples of ches
at its best a crazy idea?

(If anyone rated 1400-1500 has blunderless games for me to look at
would be very grateful to recieve them!

--
tdiedwards

Date: 21 Oct 2005 15:40:42
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

Vasileios Zografos wrote:
> "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:4Uv*[email protected]...
> >
> > Yes, though you don't want to play exclusively against players who are
> > much stronger than you because it's demoralizing and because you won't
> > necessarily be able to work out what you're doing wrong. It's important
> > to also play against some players of your own strength and a little weaker
> > so that you can get some practice at winning `won' positions. Playing
> > only strong players will leave you being extremely defensive and unable to
> > exploit any advantages that do come your way.
> >
> >
> > Dave.
> >
>
> Perhaps that's true. Who knows?
> I guess I am talking from my personal experience. Before you learn how to
> win you have to learn how to lose right?
> Whatever works best for you I guess.

I think it's best to play against people who are slightly better than
you, or at your own level, but not too much better than you.

When I was playing in tournaments regularly, rated just over 1400 USCF,
I would play up one section in the U1800 section instead of U1600. I
was usually able to get at least one win, so it wasn't completely
demoralizing, and my losses were the types of games that I could at
least learn from. The few times I've played tournament games against
players rated over 1900, I've been clobbered so badly that I didn't
always understand what happened.

I think the reason is that the players rated only 200-400 points above
me are good enough to punish me for my mistakes. They force me play my
best to avoid those mistakes, and I learn from the mistakes that I do
make. But they're not good enough to completely outplay me to the point
where I don't know what hit me.

Of course, next month I'm going to play in a tournament for the first
time in about a year and a half, and I'm sticking to the U1600 this
time. I'm out of practice now, so I don't think I'm as good as I was,
and this will be a warmup to help me get re-started playing regularly
again.

--Richard

Date: 18 Oct 2005 10:57:43
From: Toni Lassila
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 05:02:29 +0100, tdiedwards
<[email protected] > wrote:

>I'm probably rated not much more than 1300. I've tried to study
>grandmasters' games to improve. It doesn't seem to work. The strategy
>goes over my head, I can't see deeply enough into the tactics, and
>finally I get bored and tired.

If the games go over your head, you need to find books with (simple)
annotations of master games. Look for books that give the ideas and
not just a regurgitation of jumbled lines. Once you're closer to, say,
1600 you can start going through unannotated master games, but
probably only by players who had relatively simple and straightforward
styles.

But, like others will point out, the best way to improve from 1300 is
to study tactics and learn how to avoid clear blunders.

Date: 18 Oct 2005 18:35:57
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

Hello,

Some examples TO STUDY.

I suggest you to try to find what were mistakes and blunders from both
players in that games and to post your comments here.

game 1

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 a6 4. d4 b5 5. Bb3 f6 6. dxe5 fxe5
7. Qd5 Ra7 8. Qf7# 1-0

game 2

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qf6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nd5 Qd6 5. c3 Bc5 6. d4 exd4
7. Bf4 Qc6 8.Bb5 Qxb5 9. Nxc7+ Kd8 10. Nxb5 1-0

game 3

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Bd6 3. Bc4 Nh6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nxd4 O-O 6. Bxh6 gxh6
7.Nf5 Bc5 8. Qg4+ Kh8 9. Qg7# 1-0

game 4

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 d5 4. Bb5+ c6 5. Ba4 dxe4 6. dxe4 Qxd1+
7. Kxd1 Nxe4 8. Be3 Na6 9. Nf3 Bc5 10. Bxc5 Naxc5 11. Bb3 Nxf2+
12. Ke2 Nxh1 0-1

AT

Date: 20 Oct 2005 02:16:19
From: tdiedwards
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

Antonio Torrecillas Wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Some examples TO STUDY.
>
> I suggest you to try to find what were mistakes and blunders from both
> players in that games and to post your comments here.
>
> game 1
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 a6 4. d4 b5 5. Bb3 f6 6. dxe5 fxe5
> 7. Qd5 Ra7 8. Qf7# 1-0
>
> game 2
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qf6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nd5 Qd6 5. c3 Bc5 6. d4 exd4
> 7. Bf4 Qc6 8.Bb5 Qxb5 9. Nxc7+ Kd8 10. Nxb5 1-0
>
> game 3
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Bd6 3. Bc4 Nh6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nxd4 O-O 6. Bxh6 gxh6
> 7.Nf5 Bc5 8. Qg4+ Kh8 9. Qg7# 1-0
>
> game 4
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 d5 4. Bb5+ c6 5. Ba4 dxe4 6. dxe4 Qxd1+
> 7. Kxd1 Nxe4 8. Be3 Na6 9. Nf3 Bc5 10. Bxc5 Naxc5 11. Bb3 Nxf2+
> 12. Ke2 Nxh1 0-1
>
> AT

Ok, this is my first ever attempt to annotate a game. Please forgiv
any breach of protocols! Also, thanks for posting these games. I'v
only looked at the first one so far, but I had fun commenting on it:)

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 d6

I guess 2. � d6 isn�t a mistake but I prefer Nc6 as an openin
development.

3. d4 a6

3. � a6 looks like a wasted move to me. It prevents the bishop fro
checking at b5, but black wuold have good answers to this check (If Bb
then c7 for example) 3. �a6 doesn�t strengthen black�s position at all
I would play 3. �Nf6 instead. It attacks white�s e pawn and looks afte
another central square at d5.

4. d4 b5

4. �b5 is another wasted move. Black forces the bishop to move, bu
after 5. Bb3 it isn�t distracted from the f7 square and black hasn�
achieved anything I can see. I would play 4. �dxe because I�d b
worried about 6. dxe from which as far as I can see white alway
benefits.

5. Bb3 f6

I guess 5. �f6 is played to solve the threat of d4xe5, but Nc6 seems t
be a more active way to do that. Black still hasn�t moved any pieces an
f6 blocks his knight from a useful square.

6. dxe5

White creates a threat of a queen fork at d5 � attacking the rook at a
and mate at f7.

6. �fxe5

Black doesn�t see the fork. 6. �Bb7 would be my move. It keeps th
queen off d5 and attacks white�s pawn at e4.

7. Qd5

White gets the fork and black can�t save his rook.

7. �Ra7

Ok. Black does save his rook but loses after 8. Qf7 check mate. Afte
7. Qd5 things look bleak for black, but to go own fighting I would pla
7. �Qd7. This prevents mate and at least allows the black knight to b
rescued after 8. QxR Nc6

Did my ideas look logical to you? I haven't run it through Chessmaste
yet, and I analyised it to the same depth at which I would probably hav
played it.

Tonight I'll check out game 2.

PS: ks out of 10 and gold stars are DEFINATELY appreciated!:

--
tdiedwards

Date: 20 Oct 2005 23:16:57
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

En/na tdiedwards ha escrit:
> Ok, this is my first ever attempt to annotate a game. Please forgive
> any breach of protocols! Also, thanks for posting these games. I've
> only looked at the first one so far, but I had fun commenting on it:)
>
> 1. e4 e5
> 2. Nf3 d6
>
> I guess 2. � d6 isn�t a mistake but I prefer Nc6 as an opening
> development.

(For me ...) a correct comment.

> 3. d4 a6
>
> 3. � a6 looks like a wasted move to me. It prevents the bishop from
> checking at b5, but black wuold have good answers to this check (If Bb5
> then c7 for example) 3. �a6 doesn�t strengthen black�s position at all.
> I would play 3. �Nf6 instead. It attacks white�s e pawn and looks after
> another central square at d5.

ok, correct too.
I suppose you mean ....c6

> 4. d4 b5
>
> 4. �b5 is another wasted move. Black forces the bishop to move, but
> after 5. Bb3 it isn�t distracted from the f7 square and black hasn�t
> achieved anything I can see. I would play 4. �dxe because I�d be
> worried about 6. dxe from which as far as I can see white always
> benefits.
>
> 5. Bb3 f6
>
> I guess 5. �f6 is played to solve the threat of d4xe5, but Nc6 seems to
> be a more active way to do that. Black still hasn�t moved any pieces and
> f6 blocks his knight from a useful square.
>
> 6. dxe5
>
> White creates a threat of a queen fork at d5 � attacking the rook at a8
> and mate at f7.
>
> 6. �fxe5
>
> Black doesn�t see the fork. 6. �Bb7 would be my move. It keeps the
> queen off d5 and attacks white�s pawn at e4.

All your previous notes seem correct to me.
In that moment there is a move maybe you did not consider 6...dxe5
defending the d5 square with the black queen.

In my opinion black played some "bad moves" (like 3...a6) but this one
is not only bad, it's a "losing move" because it loses a rook at least.
I think it's needed to distinguish/identify that kind of moves in own
games in order to avoid repeating losing moves.

The fact black not played it mean that 5...f6 was a bad conception (ok,
... but not a bad move).

> 7. Qd5
>
> White gets the fork and black can�t save his rook.
>
> 7. �Ra7
>
> Ok. Black does save his rook but loses after 8. Qf7 check mate. After
> 7. Qd5 things look bleak for black, but to go own fighting I would play
> 7. �Qd7. This prevents mate and at least allows the black knight to be
> rescued after 8. QxR Nc6
>
>
> Did my ideas look logical to you? I haven't run it through Chessmaster
> yet, and I analyised it to the same depth at which I would probably have
> played it.
>
> Tonight I'll check out game 2.

see you soon!
AT

> PS: ks out of 10 and gold stars are DEFINATELY appreciated!:D

Date: 19 Oct 2005 10:03:48
From: tdiedwards
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

Date: 18 Oct 2005 18:26:39
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

En/na tdiedwards ha escrit:
> I'm probably rated not much more than 1300. I've tried to study
> grandmasters' games to improve. It doesn't seem to work. The strategy
> goes over my head, I can't see deeply enough into the tactics, and
> finally I get bored and tired.
>
> Do you think it makes sense to study blunderless games by players just
> one strategic rung over my head and progress step by step rather than
> study games played by vastly superior players?
>
> Or... is choosing to study games which aren't prime examples of chess
> at its best a crazy idea?
>
> (If anyone rated 1400-1500 has blunderless games for me to look at I
> would be very grateful to recieve them!)

I think it can be useful (to study Alekhine games is useful too) but I
think there are no 1500-games blunderless.

And maybe there are no problem studying games with great blunders.
You can try to discover what were those blunders and that's not easy!!

AT

Date: 25 Oct 2005 07:00:23
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

>> I'm probably rated not much more than 1300. I've tried to study
>> grandmasters' games to improve. It doesn't seem to work. The strategy
>> goes over my head, I can't see deeply enough into the tactics, and
>> finally I get bored and tired.
>>
>> Do you think it makes sense to study blunderless games by players just
>> one strategic rung over my head and progress step by step rather than
>> study games played by vastly superior players?
>>
>> Or... is choosing to study games which aren't prime examples of chess
>> at its best a crazy idea?
>>
>> (If anyone rated 1400-1500 has blunderless games for me to look at I
>> would be very grateful to recieve them!)
>
>
> I think it can be useful (to study Alekhine games is useful too) but I
> think there are no 1500-games blunderless.
>
> And maybe there are no problem studying games with great blunders.
> You can try to discover what were those blunders and that's not easy!!

I like to study games when the super-GMs play guys rated under 2600 FIDE,
and make them look like 1600s.

When I see a 2600 FIDE player, I know Topalov sees him as weak, and I want
to know why!

Date: 18 Oct 2005 14:09:08
From: Vasileios Zografos
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

Perhaps another idea to consider is to buy a computer chess program (such as
chessmaster 10), which are rather cheap (try in Amazon for example) and can
be extremely helpful.
For example Chessmaster has many tutorials for beginners (strategy, tactics,
endgames etc) and also annotated grandmaster games that I think will greatly
improve your game.

Also remember. The most important thing you can do (even from buying books
and computer programs) is to play many many chess games, preferrably with
players much better than you. That is the only way to learn I think. Why
dont you try one of the online chess websites (e.g. http://gameknot.com).
They let you play very slowly if you wish, so you can think about your
strategy in your own time. This is a great way to learn.

"tdiedwards" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'm probably rated not much more than 1300. I've tried to study
> grandmasters' games to improve. It doesn't seem to work. The strategy
> goes over my head, I can't see deeply enough into the tactics, and
> finally I get bored and tired.
>
> Do you think it makes sense to study blunderless games by players just
> one strategic rung over my head and progress step by step rather than
> study games played by vastly superior players?
>
> Or... is choosing to study games which aren't prime examples of chess
> at its best a crazy idea?
>
> (If anyone rated 1400-1500 has blunderless games for me to look at I
> would be very grateful to recieve them!)
>
>
> --
> tdiedwards

Date: 21 Oct 2005 21:06:06
From: The Man Behind The Curtain
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

Vasileios Zografos wrote:
> Perhaps another idea to consider is to buy a computer chess program (such as
> chessmaster 10), which are rather cheap (try in Amazon for example) and can
> be extremely helpful.
> For example Chessmaster has many tutorials for beginners (strategy, tactics,
> endgames etc) and also annotated grandmaster games that I think will greatly
> improve your game.

Boy how times have changed.

I remember this group about 6 or 7 years ago, when people who endorsed
Chessmaster were mocked and Fritz was the darling program. Many people
claimed Chessmaster wasn't really tough, even though independent tests
on the same equipment showed a rather insignificant difference between
the two in ratings strength. Now, Chessmaster seems to get more
recommendations than Fritz.

I like them both, but for different reasons, and always have. But I
like Hiarcs even more than Fritz. Hiarcs seems to my amateur eyes to
play a quieter, more positional, more "human"-like game. YMMV.

John

--

Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

Date: 28 Oct 2005 02:56:45
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

The Man Behind The Curtain <[email protected] > wrote:
> I remember this group about 6 or 7 years ago, when people who endorsed
> Chessmaster were mocked and Fritz was the darling program. Many people
> claimed Chessmaster wasn't really tough, even though independent tests
> on the same equipment showed a rather insignificant difference between
> the two in ratings strength. Now, Chessmaster seems to get more
> recommendations than Fritz.

People seem to recommend Chessmaster as a teaching tool and as an
adaptable opponent and Fritz as an analysis tool. Different programs
are good at different things.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Carnivorous Hi-Fi (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ music system but it's full of teeth!

Date: 18 Oct 2005 16:17:48
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

Vasileios Zografos <[email protected] > wrote:
> Also remember. The most important thing you can do (even from buying
> books and computer programs) is to play many many chess games,
> preferrably with players much better than you. That is the only way to
> learn I think.

Yes, though you don't want to play exclusively against players who are
much stronger than you because it's demoralizing and because you won't
necessarily be able to work out what you're doing wrong. It's important
to also play against some players of your own strength and a little weaker
so that you can get some practice at winning `won' positions. Playing
only strong players will leave you being extremely defensive and unable to
exploit any advantages that do come your way.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Salted Disgusting Wine (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a vintage Beaujolais but it'll turn
your stomach and it's covered in salt!

Date: 25 Oct 2005 06:58:02
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

>> Also remember. The most important thing you can do (even from buying
>> books and computer programs) is to play many many chess games,
>> preferrably with players much better than you. That is the only way to
>> learn I think.
>
> Yes, though you don't want to play exclusively against players who are
> much stronger than you because it's demoralizing and because you won't
> necessarily be able to work out what you're doing wrong.

I disagree. Stronger opponents playing at full strength will show you
*exactly* what you are doing wrong.

> It's important
> to also play against some players of your own strength and a little weaker
> so that you can get some practice at winning `won' positions.

You can get that too against stronger competition by watching them do it to
you!

>Playing
> only strong players will leave you being extremely defensive and unable to
> exploit any advantages that do come your way.

Or you'll rise to the occasion and beat them.

I always wondered what would happen if a parent offered a child $10 every
time it beat Fritz on its highest level.

Date: 28 Oct 2005 02:55:27
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Yes, though you don't want to play exclusively against players who are
>> much stronger than you because it's demoralizing and because you won't
>> necessarily be able to work out what you're doing wrong.
>
> I disagree. Stronger opponents playing at full strength will show you
> *exactly* what you are doing wrong.

But not necessarily in a way the weaker player can understand.

> I always wondered what would happen if a parent offered a child $10
> every time it beat Fritz on its highest level.

Their largest expenditure in this enterprise would be the purchase cost of
Fritz.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Sumerian Beer (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a refreshing lager that's
really old but it's perfect for your
grandparents!

Date: 29 Oct 2005 14:41:35
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

>>> Yes, though you don't want to play exclusively against players who are
>>> much stronger than you because it's demoralizing and because you won't
>>> necessarily be able to work out what you're doing wrong.
>>
>> I disagree. Stronger opponents playing at full strength will show you
>> *exactly* what you are doing wrong.
>
> But not necessarily in a way the weaker player can understand.

You mean not *fully* understand. Part of improving at chess is coming back
to play again even after getting your tail kicked by a strong player.
Playing weaker players will show you where you stand but won't help you
improve much.

>> I always wondered what would happen if a parent offered a child $10
>> every time it beat Fritz on its highest level.
>
> Their largest expenditure in this enterprise would be the purchase cost of
> Fritz.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Date: 18 Oct 2005 16:44:23
From: Vasileios Zografos
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4Uv*[email protected]...
>
> Yes, though you don't want to play exclusively against players who are
> much stronger than you because it's demoralizing and because you won't
> necessarily be able to work out what you're doing wrong. It's important
> to also play against some players of your own strength and a little weaker
> so that you can get some practice at winning `won' positions. Playing
> only strong players will leave you being extremely defensive and unable to
> exploit any advantages that do come your way.
>
>
> Dave.
>

Perhaps that's true. Who knows?
I guess I am talking from my personal experience. Before you learn how to
win you have to learn how to lose right?
Whatever works best for you I guess.

Date: 19 Oct 2005 09:42:58
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

Vasileios Zografos <[email protected] > wrote:
> Before you learn how to win you have to learn how to lose right?

Learning to lose is easy -- you're allowed to resign before any moves have
been made! :-)

Dave.

--
David Richerby Mexi-Chicken (TM): it's like a farm
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ animal that comes from Mexico!

Date: 19 Oct 2005 22:38:07
From: Vasileios Zografos
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

I am pretty sure that's not what I meant :)

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:+NC*[email protected]...
> Vasileios Zografos <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Before you learn how to win you have to learn how to lose right?
>
> Learning to lose is easy -- you're allowed to resign before any moves have
> been made! :-)
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Mexi-Chicken (TM): it's like a
> farm
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ animal that comes from Mexico!

Date: 18 Oct 2005 09:01:58
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

tdiedwards <[email protected] > wrote:
> I'm probably rated not much more than 1300. I've tried to study
> grandmasters' games to improve. It doesn't seem to work. The strategy
> goes over my head, I can't see deeply enough into the tactics, and
> finally I get bored and tired.

You were looking at annotated games from before about 1950/1960, right?

Unannotated games are, as you say, too difficult and more recent games
tend to be much more subtle and complicated. Lasker, Capablanca and
Alekhine are about the right period to be looking at -- modern enough that
they're still relevant but old enough that the strategy is still
relatively clear.

There's a book by Chernev called something like `The 62 Most Instructive
Games of Chess Every Played' that explains the strategic and tactical
elements of the games pretty well. I strongly recommend that for starters
and there's a one-volume version of Alekhine's best games (edited by
Nunn) that's well worth a look after Chernev.

> Do you think it makes sense to study blunderless games by players just
> one strategic rung over my head and progress step by step rather than
> study games played by vastly superior players?

Probably not. Such players, even when they don't make gross tactical
errors will typically make awful positional mistakes and miss all kinds of
opportunities to simplify into won endgames and so on. There's much more
to learn from grandmaster games and I think it would be better to learn a
small fraction of that than to learn everything a weaker player could
teach you. You can revisit the same grandmaster games repeatedly as you
get better and learn more and more from them; the same isn't true of games
played by people only slightly stronger than you, who'll teach you a lot
of bad habits.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Flammable Accelerated Peanut (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a roasted nut but it's twice
as fast and it burns really easily!

Date: 19 Oct 2005 01:17:13
From: tdiedwards
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

David Richerby Wrote:
> tdiedwards [email protected] wrote:[color=blue]
>
> You were looking at annotated games from before about 1950/1960
> right?
>
> Yup, and after. There was no logic to what I was looking at.
>
>
> Unannotated games are, as you say, too difficult and more recent games
> tend to be much more subtle and complicated. Lasker, Capablanca and
> Alekhine are about the right period to be looking at -- modern enoug
> that
> they're still relevant but old enough that the strategy is still
> relatively clear.
>
> Cool. That's going to help a lot. I hadn't considered specific period
> to be better to learn from than others.
>
>
> Thanks for that and the other recommendations you made. Thanks t
> everyone else who replied too. It's all good stuff. I'm going to loo
> at the material you suggested and will have a lot more direction now.
>
> RE: Chessmaster X. I have been using that (in fact an earlier version
> and found it to be an amazing help. In fact it's what has taken
> forgotten childhood hobby and revitalized it into a serious addiction
> I thought the tutorial on openings was especially good - teachin
> opening ideas rather than names and sequences in isolation of theory
> I'd like to get more Pandolfini stuff. I liked Waitzkin's commentarie
> of his games too

--
tdiedwards

Date: 19 Oct 2005 02:17:17
From: Vasileios Zografos
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

"tdiedwards" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> RE: Chessmaster X. I have been using that (in fact an earlier version)
>> and found it to be an amazing help. In fact it's what has taken a
>> forgotten childhood hobby and revitalized it into a serious addiction.
>> I thought the tutorial on openings was especially good - teaching
>> opening ideas rather than names and sequences in isolation of theory.
>> I'd like to get more Pandolfini stuff. I liked Waitzkin's commentaries
>> of his games too.
>
>
> --
> tdiedwards

Well although I haven't seen earlier versions of chessmaster (only very old
ones) I think Chessmaster 10 went under major overhaul and looks like a
solid chess game with a very powerful engine (beat Fritz 8 twice on my
computer) and also doubles up as a fun game for a younger audience.
This version is mostly annotated by Waitzkin and being Pandolfini's student
he gives great importance (as one should) to endgames. The idea is once you
are comfortable with endgames, you could (at least in theory) play a middle
game so that you end up with an endgame position that is most familiar and
comfortable to you. They also have a huge database of annotated gm games
(some really classic ones from the 1600s). Tutorials and test and an
annotated opening database (which may be extended online).
I think its a good idea to look into that software. It has certainly
improved my game. I especially like the blunder alert option that gives you
pointers when you are about to make a mistake (and most important WHY it is
a mistake).

Date: 19 Oct 2005 17:59:26
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

>>> RE: Chessmaster X. I have been using that (in fact an earlier version)
>>> and found it to be an amazing help. In fact it's what has taken a
>>> forgotten childhood hobby and revitalized it into a serious addiction.
>>> I thought the tutorial on openings was especially good - teaching
>>> opening ideas rather than names and sequences in isolation of theory.
>>> I'd like to get more Pandolfini stuff. I liked Waitzkin's commentaries
>>> of his games too.
>>
>>
>> --
>> tdiedwards
>
> Well although I haven't seen earlier versions of chessmaster (only very
> old ones) I think Chessmaster 10 went under major overhaul and looks like
> a solid chess game with a very powerful engine (beat Fritz 8 twice on my
> computer) and also doubles up as a fun game for a younger audience.
> This version is mostly annotated by Waitzkin and being Pandolfini's
> student he gives great importance (as one should) to endgames.

How often do you reach an endgame against Fritz 8?

Waitzkin quit with a 2532 USCF rating, hardly impressive for someone who did
the amount of work he did at the age he did it.

>The idea is once you are comfortable with endgames, you could (at least in
>theory) play a middle game so that you end up with an endgame position that
>is most familiar and comfortable to you.

Endgames are like the opposite of openings. One should "book out" from the
simplest checkmates the way the tablebases do it.

That said, it's better to get your opening repertoire down first so you know
which types of endgames you are most likely to wind up in, and study those.
For example, I play the French Defense, and in the Exchange variation, I get
a certain type of endgame that is definitely worth studying.

> They also have a huge database of annotated gm games (some really classic
> ones from the 1600s). Tutorials and test and an annotated opening database
> (which may be extended online).
> I think its a good idea to look into that software. It has certainly
> improved my game. I especially like the blunder alert option that gives
> you pointers when you are about to make a mistake (and most important WHY
> it is a mistake).

I think players should DIY, ASAP, simply because that's what championship
calibre players do.

Date: 27 Oct 2005 05:00:47
From: Ron
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

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

> Endgames are like the opposite of openings. One should "book out" from the
> simplest checkmates the way the tablebases do it.

And yet, most endgames are won or lost long before the tablegame phase.

Endgames are not about "book."

Date: 30 Oct 2005 07:52:06
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

>> Endgames are like the opposite of openings. One should "book out" from
>> the
>> simplest checkmates the way the tablebases do it.
>
> And yet, most endgames are won or lost long before the tablegame phase.

Yet seeing ahead to the "endbook" is what steers the win.

>
> Endgames are not about "book."

Sure they are.

Try beating a tablebase sometime.

Date: 19 Oct 2005 21:13:36
From: Vasileios Zografos
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

> How often do you reach an endgame against Fritz 8?
Hi,
are you trying to make a point here regarding the power of Fritz8 vs
Chessmaster or the importance of learning endgames?

> Waitzkin quit with a 2532 USCF rating, hardly impressive for someone who
> did the amount of work he did at the age he did it.

I think (and of course we will never know and only hypothesise) that
Waitzkin gave up on chess (I wouldn't say quit) before becoming GM because
he devoted his time to that tial art that he is doing (dont ask me for
the name I dont remember it). Thats why he started wining the gold medals
because he gave up on chess.

> Endgames are like the opposite of openings. One should "book out" from
> the simplest checkmates the way the tablebases do it.

No they are not. There is much more tactics in endgames than simple
memorisation of moves of the openings.

> That said, it's better to get your opening repertoire down first so you
> know which types of endgames you are most likely to wind up in, and study
> those. For example, I play the French Defense, and in the Exchange
> variation, I get a certain type of endgame that is definitely worth
> studying.

I disagree with this and I think this might become a heated debate. Many
people can more or less survive the strategic traps that you can set during
an opening game. The real weaknesses are aparent in the endgame. Even a
novice can make 5 opening moves and if you memorise a bunch of opening lines
does not guarantee you anything. But a poor endgame theory is what (at least
I believe) separates the winners from the losers.

> I think players should DIY, ASAP, simply because that's what championship
> calibre players do.

The solution is that there is no single solution. Play, read, experiment,
ask for advice and dont give up. Thats the only way to become better. Period

Date: 21 Oct 2005 04:36:25
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

>> That said, it's better to get your opening repertoire down first so you
>> know which types of endgames you are most likely to wind up in, and study
>> those. For example, I play the French Defense, and in the Exchange
>> variation, I get a certain type of endgame that is definitely worth
>> studying.
>
> I disagree with this and I think this might become a heated debate. Many
> people can more or less survive the strategic traps that you can set
> during an opening game.

By "opening" I mean the first 20 moves, not the first five. Computers
routinely win their games in 25 moves or less, even against strong
competition.

>The real weaknesses are aparent in the endgame. Even a novice can make 5
>opening moves and if you memorise a bunch of opening lines does not
>guarantee you anything.

The opening lasts as long as one is in book, which now can run 20 moves or
more. I'm up to about 17 myself.

Date: 20 Oct 2005 09:24:09
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

Vasileios Zografos <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ray Gordon wrote:
>> How often do you reach an endgame against Fritz 8?
>
> are you trying to make a point here regarding the power of Fritz8 vs
> Chessmaster or the importance of learning endgames?

He means that knowing about the endgame is worthless because, if you play
somebody much stronger than yourself, you won't get that far. Let us be
diplomatic and point out that some people disagree with this `argument'
and that many people feel that, between players of roughly equal strength,
superior endgame skill counts for an awful lot.

>> That said, it's better to get your opening repertoire down first so you
>> know which types of endgames you are most likely to wind up in, and
>> study those.
>
> I disagree with this and I think this might become a heated debate.

The point that certain openings tend to lead to certain kinds of endgame
is valid, though. Given that most people do have an opening repertoir of
sorts (even if it's just at the level of ``I play the Sicilian Dragon but
make it up as I go along'') it's worthwhile looking at the sort of
endgames that most often result from the openings one plays and putting a
little more time into those.

As a silly example, there's no point studying knight endgames if you play
an opening where the knights get swapped off in the first ten moves. As a
more sensible example, the Ruy Lopez exchange variation leads to endgames
where the pawn structure slightly favours White (he has a 4-3 majority on
the kingside and Black's 4-3 majority on the queenside is hampered by the
doubled c-pawn). If you play that opening, being familiar with the
strategies for this type of ending will be the difference between an
enormous pile of draws and a fair number of wins.

> The solution is that there is no single solution. Play, read,
> experiment, ask for advice and dont give up. Thats the only way to
> become better. Period

I thought you said there was no single solution? :-)

Dave.

--
David Richerby Voodoo Cat (TM): it's like a cat that
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ has mystical powers!

Date: 21 Oct 2005 04:37:43
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

> As a silly example, there's no point studying knight endgames if you play
> an opening where the knights get swapped off in the first ten moves.

Now some guy is going to write that he took this advice and wound up on
board one in a megaswiss in a game where he lost to a guy who promoted a
pawn to a knight.

Date: 21 Oct 2005 08:37:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> As a silly example, there's no point studying knight endgames if you
>> play an opening where the knights get swapped off in the first ten
>> moves.
>
> Now some guy is going to write that he took this advice and wound up on
> board one in a megaswiss in a game where he lost to a guy who promoted a
> pawn to a knight.

Damn. Hadn't thought of that. :-/

Dave.

--
David Richerby Electronic Flammable Wine (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a vintage Beaujolais but it burns
really easily and it uses electricity!

Date: 24 Oct 2005 23:34:14
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

>>> As a silly example, there's no point studying knight endgames if you
>>> play an opening where the knights get swapped off in the first ten
>>> moves.
>>
>> Now some guy is going to write that he took this advice and wound up on
>> board one in a megaswiss in a game where he lost to a guy who promoted a
>> pawn to a knight.
>
> Damn. Hadn't thought of that. :-/

When I was young and an "aspiring champion" I bought "Queen Endings" (the
specialist tome of the day), and spent the better part of the summer of 1988
going over it meticulously (if you want to be a pro player, I figured, stuff
like this should be studied).

I noticed very quickly that many Queen Endings result from pawn endings
where both sides queen, and sometimes you can have two or three of them in
one game!

Apparently, the way to win with an extra pawn in an queen ending is to
centralize the queen rather than the king and use the pawn to shield against
the checks. That is, if you don't get some skewer, pin, fork, or mating
threat set to spring after the other guy queens like in Searching for Bobby
Fischer.

Date: 19 Oct 2005 09:04:09
From: tdiedwards
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

Vasileios Zografos Wrote:
> "tdiedwards" [email protected] wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Chessmaster X. I have been using that (in fact an earlier version)
> and found it to be an amazing help. In fact it's what has taken a
> forgotten childhood hobby and revitalized it into a seriou
> addiction.
> I thought the tutorial on openings was especially good - teaching
> opening ideas rather than names and sequences in isolation of theory.
> I'd like to get more Pandolfini stuff. I liked Waitzkin'
> commentaries
> of his games too.
>
>
> --
> tdiedwards
>
> Well although I haven't seen earlier versions of chessmaster (only ver
> old
> ones) I think Chessmaster 10 went under major overhaul and looks lik
> a
> solid chess game with a very powerful engine (beat Fritz 8 twice on my
> computer) and also doubles up as a fun game for a younger audience.
> This version is mostly annotated by Waitzkin and being Pandolfini'
> student
> he gives great importance (as one should) to endgames. The idea is onc
> you
> are comfortable with endgames, you could (at least in theory) play
> middle
> game so that you end up with an endgame position that is most familia
> and
> comfortable to you. They also have a huge database of annotated g
> games
> (some really classic ones from the 1600s). Tutorials and test and an
> annotated opening database (which may be extended online).
> I think its a good idea to look into that software. It has certainly
> improved my game. I especially like the blunder alert option that give
> you
> pointers when you are about to make a mistake (and most important WH
> it is
> a mistake).

One annoying thing Chessmaster10 has is some chap commenting on hi
games in a section called "Attacking Chess". I don't know about you bu
I found him really irritating- basically presenting the games b
skipping over the positional play and then saying "Now check out m
ingenius combination and see how I dominate my opponent!" In fact it'
the positional play leading up to these combinations that it th
interesting part and the part that most chess students probably want t
know about. It's also probably the most difficult part to explai
clearly which I guess is why he leaves it out. Waitzkin explains th
lead ups to his attacks really well (and doesn't come across at all a
a show-off!)

But, it's a great package though

--
tdiedwards

Date: 19 Oct 2005 09:03:30
From: tdiedwards
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

Date: 19 Oct 2005 16:46:05
From: Vasileios Zografos
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

Indeed. I find this guy annoying too. His is a grandmaster I think (too lazy
to dig up his name) but his voice and the way he commentates is crap.

Waitzkin is easier on the ears, and his comments seem more helpful and
focused on the important stuff. Don't know...maybe its all that tai-chi (or
whatever this tial arts is called) that he is doing that gives him this
relaxed-I am the master type of personality.

"tdiedwards" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Vasileios Zografos Wrote:
>> "tdiedwards" [email protected] wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Chessmaster X. I have been using that (in fact an earlier version)
>> and found it to be an amazing help. In fact it's what has taken a
>> forgotten childhood hobby and revitalized it into a serious
>> addiction.
>> I thought the tutorial on openings was especially good - teaching
>> opening ideas rather than names and sequences in isolation of theory.
>> I'd like to get more Pandolfini stuff. I liked Waitzkin's
>> commentaries
>> of his games too.
>>
>>
>> --
>> tdiedwards
>>
>> Well although I haven't seen earlier versions of chessmaster (only very
>> old
>> ones) I think Chessmaster 10 went under major overhaul and looks like
>> a
>> solid chess game with a very powerful engine (beat Fritz 8 twice on my
>> computer) and also doubles up as a fun game for a younger audience.
>> This version is mostly annotated by Waitzkin and being Pandolfini's
>> student
>> he gives great importance (as one should) to endgames. The idea is once
>> you
>> are comfortable with endgames, you could (at least in theory) play a
>> middle
>> game so that you end up with an endgame position that is most familiar
>> and
>> comfortable to you. They also have a huge database of annotated gm
>> games
>> (some really classic ones from the 1600s). Tutorials and test and an
>> annotated opening database (which may be extended online).
>> I think its a good idea to look into that software. It has certainly
>> improved my game. I especially like the blunder alert option that gives
>> you
>> pointers when you are about to make a mistake (and most important WHY
>> it is
>> a mistake).
>
>
> One annoying thing Chessmaster10 has is some chap commenting on his
> games in a section called "Attacking Chess". I don't know about you but
> I found him really irritating- basically presenting the games by
> skipping over the positional play and then saying "Now check out my
> ingenius combination and see how I dominate my opponent!" In fact it's
> the positional play leading up to these combinations that it the
> interesting part and the part that most chess students probably want to
> know about. It's also probably the most difficult part to explain
> clearly which I guess is why he leaves it out. Waitzkin explains the
> lead ups to his attacks really well (and doesn't come across at all as
> a show-off!)
>
>
> --
> tdiedwards

Date: 25 Oct 2005 10:44:00
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: studying games by players 1400-1500

> Waitzkin is easier on the ears, and his comments seem more helpful and
> focused on the important stuff. Don't know...maybe its all that tai-chi
> (or
> whatever this tial arts is called) that he is doing

Push-hands tae kwon doe, which is chinese for "easy to win world
championship at."