| |
Main
Date: 03 Aug 2008 21:22:56
From: John Salerno
Subject: How much of playing chess is mechanical?
|
I'm curious about this, since I'm not far enough along yet to figure out
the answer myself. I haven't really begun to study any sorts of named
strategies yet, like the Sicilian Defense, etc. but I know that a ton of
them exist.
So my question (in general) is, how much of playing chess is simply
making moves "by the book", and how much is actual improvisation/talent
when you are in the moment?
To be honest, the more I learn, it seems like the game heavily relies on
memorizing certain moves and patterns. This is fine, of course, but is
that *all* there is?
I know you might open with a certain move, and the opponent might do
something unexpected that forces you to abandon that particular move you
were going for. But at this point, do you get creative and do your own
thing, or do you simply switch to yet another specific move that has
already been created ages ago?
Thanks!
|
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2008 18:44:55
From: ChessVariant Inventor
Subject: Re: How much of playing chess is mechanical?
|
'John Salerno[_2_ Wrote:
> ;280229']I'm curious about this, since I'm not far enough along yet t
> figure out
> the answer myself. I haven't really begun to study any sorts of named
> strategies yet, like the Sicilian Defense, etc. but I know that a to
> of
> them exist.
>
> So my question (in general) is, how much of playing chess is simply
> making moves "by the book", and how much is actual improvisation/talen
>
> when you are in the moment?
>
> To be honest, the more I learn, it seems like the game heavily relie
> on
> memorizing certain moves and patterns. This is fine, of course, bu
> is
> that *all* there is?
>
> I know you might open with a certain move, and the opponent might do
> something unexpected that forces you to abandon that particular mov
> you
> were going for. But at this point, do you get creative and do your ow
>
> thing, or do you simply switch to yet another specific move that has
> already been created ages ago?
>
> Thanks!
Lets put it this way. If you just learned how the pieces move an
played about 2-3 games, and then decide to cram/memorize every singl
opening out there, you will rarely win a single game.
On the other hand, if you instead you learn the basic principles of th
opening, and practice many mate in 1/mate in2 / and other tactical
chess puzzles, supplementing with actual play. You can actually ris
to 1900 + rating without memorizing a single opening line of play.
There is a book called Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess - it is great fo
beginners
There is another side to this though: how much of human intelligenc
involves pattern recognition - e.g. solving math problems? this is no
memorization but recognizing patterns like say solving x^2 -6x + 9= 0
which is (x-3)(x-3) =0 and x=3 .
On the chess board, discovered attack, backrank, forks etc and othe
tactical operations are recognized by good players, so much so that i
becomes "mechanical" - they don't have to actually think (or they ar
not aware they are thinking) to solve some of these problems agains
much weaker players.
Memorization of opening lines is very ineffective for sub 2000 rate
players.
A certain poster on this forum uses the opening e4 e5 nf3 f6 Damian
Defense . This would easily crush a weak player who memorizes ever
single line of the Ruy Lopez say
--
ChessVariant Inventor
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2008 07:23:24
From:
Subject: Re: How much of playing chess is mechanical?
|
On Aug 3, 9:22=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> I'm curious about this, since I'm not far enough along yet to figure out
> the answer myself. I haven't really begun to study any sorts of named
> strategies yet, like the Sicilian Defense, etc. but I know that a ton of
> them exist.
>
> So my question (in general) is, how much of playing chess is simply
> making moves "by the book", and how much is actual improvisation/talent
> when you are in the moment?
>
> To be honest, the more I learn, it seems like the game heavily relies on
> =A0 memorizing certain moves and patterns. This is fine, of course, but i=
s
> that *all* there is?
>
> I know you might open with a certain move, and the opponent might do
> something unexpected that forces you to abandon that particular move you
> were going for. But at this point, do you get creative and do your own
> thing, or do you simply switch to yet another specific move that has
> already been created ages ago?
The ratio of memorized vs. original moves varies greatly, depending
on the stage of the game and the level of competition. At the highest
levels, i.e. top grandmaster competition, many of the players have
memorized many opening lines out to 20 or 30 moves. Not all possible
openings, of course, but those most likely to be played. If both
players stay within a memorized line, those first 20 or 30 moves can
be played, as you put it, mechanically, and the "real" game begins
only when their prepared line ends and they have to think for
themselves.
For complete beginners, on the other hand, chess is an adventure
from move one, because they have to figure out everything from
scratch.
Besides openings, certain standard themes and techniques can be
memorized. For example, in the realm of endgame technique, every good
player should know how to checkmate a lone king with king and rook,
king and queen, king and two bishops, and king plus bishop and knight.
He should know how to advance a pawn to queen, and how to prevent this
when it is possible.
There are basic tactical methods one must know: forks, pins,
discovered attacks, skewers, removal of the guard, line clearance,
interference, etc. In the middle game, there are many recurring
combinative themes, e.g. the bishop sacrifice on h7/h2, sacrifices on
f7/f2, back-rank mating combinations, etc.
With all these middle-game and endgame tactics, the point is not to
memorize a definite series of moves, but to learn to recognize a
theme, a general method, that can be used in many positions, positions
that may differ in detail but which all have a certain pattern in
common. The player who has studied more patterns and the themes
appropriate to each is like a soldier who has more weapons and ammo
than his enemy. Using them is not exactly a mechanical process, but
it does require study, so that you have the right weapon handy when an
opportunity arises to use it. Without the study, you probably won't
even realize the opportunity is there.
Learning all this is as fundamental to good chess play as, say,
learning different kinds of punches is for a boxer, or different holds
and escapes is for a wrestler. It's also fun.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2008 07:06:54
From: SBD
Subject: Re: How much of playing chess is mechanical?
|
On Aug 5, 8:36 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 4, 11:39 pm, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > There are basic tactical methods one must know: forks, pins,
> > > discovered attacks, skewers
>
> > This is basically where I'm at right now. I haven't learned any named
> > moves yet, but I've learned about forks, discoveries, pins, and skewers.
> > I know how (basically) to look for these patterns, but they are
> > different in every game so I have to watch out for them and adjust on
> > the fly.
>
> > For many years all I've ever known is how the pieces move, and in the
> > last four days I've learned about the above tactics, which has already
> > vastly improved the way I play the game. To me, this is the fun part.
> > You know the proper way to approach the game, but every game is still
> > different. It seems once you start learning openings, then you're
> > basically just playing with your eyes shut.
>
> No, not really. Studying openings is just a way of improving your
> chance to get a strong position going into the middle game. It's not
> just memorization -- you should study books that explain the strategic
> goals, the ideas behind the moves. A good book to start opening study
> with is "Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" by Reuben Fine. Some of it
> is rather dated now, but few books explain better the logical basis
> underlying the major opening lines.
> Studying openings also helps you to discover your own chess tastes,
> to learn what early moves lead to the kind of game you find
> interesting and play well in, compared to others you find dull,
> confusing, or unpleasant. For example, if you like a wide-open game
> with the pieces roaming free, you'll probably want to play 1.e4 and
> get into gambits. If you like a calmer game where you seek positional
> advantage rather than tactical opportunity, you will probably prefer
> 1.d4, 1.c4, or 1.Nf3.
> A book I would *_strongly_* recommend is "Logical Chess: Move by
> Move" by Irving Chernev (http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?PID=239). This
> book, more than any other, removed the veil from my beginner's eyes
> and let me see chess with halfway decent clarity.
>
> > Quick question: are all these named moves (Sicilian Defense, etc.) only
> > opening moves? Is there such a thing as a named middle or end game move,
> > or are these moves specifically for the opening?
>
> Most "named moves" (we usually say "lines" or "variations" since
> more than one move is involved most of the time) are openings -- the
> premier chess encyclopedia, "The Oxford Companion to Chess," lists
> 1,327 named openings. But some endgames also have names, such as the
> Lucena, Philidor, and Saavedra positions. As do some middle-game
> positions and themes, e.g. the Pillsbury Bind, the Classic Bishop Sac,
> the Double Bishop Sac, the Minority Attack, etc.
> Then in the realm of problem composition, a very different field of
> chess study, all sorts of themes and situations have names: Turtons,
> anti-Turtons, Plachutta Interference, and many others I don't know but
> Dr. Dowd, also a contributor to this thread, surely does.
An example of a named endgame maneuver, often used also in problems,
is the Prokes maneuver. Look it up on the web (its in Wikipedia) but
understanding it....
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2008 06:36:17
From:
Subject: Re: How much of playing chess is mechanical?
|
On Aug 4, 11:39=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > =A0 There are basic tactical methods one must know: forks, pins,
> > discovered attacks, skewers
>
> This is basically where I'm at right now. I haven't learned any named
> moves yet, but I've learned about forks, discoveries, pins, and skewers.
> I know how (basically) to look for these patterns, but they are
> different in every game so I have to watch out for them and adjust on
> the fly.
>
> For many years all I've ever known is how the pieces move, and in the
> last four days I've learned about the above tactics, which has already
> vastly improved the way I play the game. To me, this is the fun part.
> You know the proper way to approach the game, but every game is still
> different. It seems once you start learning openings, then you're
> basically just playing with your eyes shut.
No, not really. Studying openings is just a way of improving your
chance to get a strong position going into the middle game. It's not
just memorization -- you should study books that explain the strategic
goals, the ideas behind the moves. A good book to start opening study
with is "Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" by Reuben Fine. Some of it
is rather dated now, but few books explain better the logical basis
underlying the major opening lines.
Studying openings also helps you to discover your own chess tastes,
to learn what early moves lead to the kind of game you find
interesting and play well in, compared to others you find dull,
confusing, or unpleasant. For example, if you like a wide-open game
with the pieces roaming free, you'll probably want to play 1.e4 and
get into gambits. If you like a calmer game where you seek positional
advantage rather than tactical opportunity, you will probably prefer
1.d4, 1.c4, or 1.Nf3.
A book I would *_strongly_* recommend is "Logical Chess: Move by
Move" by Irving Chernev (http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?PID=3D239). This
book, more than any other, removed the veil from my beginner's eyes
and let me see chess with halfway decent clarity.
> Quick question: are all these named moves (Sicilian Defense, etc.) only
> opening moves? Is there such a thing as a named middle or end game move,
> or are these moves specifically for the opening?
Most "named moves" (we usually say "lines" or "variations" since
more than one move is involved most of the time) are openings -- the
premier chess encyclopedia, "The Oxford Companion to Chess," lists
1,327 named openings. But some endgames also have names, such as the
Lucena, Philidor, and Saavedra positions. As do some middle-game
positions and themes, e.g. the Pillsbury Bind, the Classic Bishop Sac,
the Double Bishop Sac, the Minority Attack, etc.
Then in the realm of problem composition, a very different field of
chess study, all sorts of themes and situations have names: Turtons,
anti-Turtons, Plachutta Interference, and many others I don't know but
Dr. Dowd, also a contributor to this thread, surely does.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2008 22:55:59
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: How much of playing chess is mechanical?
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Most "named moves" (we usually say "lines" or "variations" since
> more than one move is involved most of the time) are openings
Ah, thanks! I couldn't think of anything else to call them! :)
And I'll check on those books you mentioned. Logical Chess sounds
especially interesting.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Aug 2008 20:49:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: How much of playing chess is mechanical?
|
On Aug 4, 11:39=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> Quick question: are all these named moves (Sicilian Defense, etc.) only
> opening moves? Is there such a thing as a named middle or end game move,
> or are these moves specifically for the opening?
The vast majority of them relate to chess
openings, but there are a few named
endgames as well.
Jose Capablanca advised learning the
endgame first, but the catch is that your
results in real games may not see much
improvement if you are getting stomped
before you reach the ending.
The opposite approach can yield rather
interesting results. I've known players
who were horrible endgame players, who
won many games without their opponent
ever discovering that fact; a trap nets
them a "free" win, or their opponent may
resign in disgust after his blunder is
refuted early on.
I prefer something in-between, where
no part of the game is played purely by
rote. My experience has been that in
most cases, tactics decide who wins.
But the higher up the ratings chart you
go, the less leeway you have insofar as
coming back from bad positions via
tactical wizardry.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2008 13:13:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: How much of playing chess is mechanical?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Aug 4, 11:39 pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> Quick question: are all these named moves (Sicilian Defense, etc.) only
> opening moves? Is there such a thing as a named middle or end game move,
> or are these moves specifically for the opening?
The vast majority of them relate to chess
openings, but there are a few named
endgames as well.
------
Yes, that's about right. That's good advice.
But there are also formations and functions in games which have names -
usually about strategic ideas rather than specific tactics. A term Russians
use is 'bridge' which is a means [a route] to convey your piece to where you
want them in the enemy position.
Such things as a 'bridge' are not about any specific moves or even specific
positions - but they describe something general about whatever is happening
over the board.
Sometimes general tactical features also have names - such as Zwischenzug
[German], though often written with the old Italian name Intermezzo, or in
English, in-between-move [the move that breaks up what would otherwise be a
forcing sequence].
You don't need to know the names of these things in order to do them!
So... there are lots of terms for both tactics and strategic consideration.
Sometimes there are funny ones. I was once faced with a Russian idea about
commanding the seventh rank [which means getting rooks there, maybe queen
too, often fatal to other player] and had to 'translate' the phrase, "the
rooks broke through like pigs in heat." :))
Anyway, I see you got good advice from our newsgroup - most people seem to
think that too much concentration on rote-memorizing of openings is not a
good idea, and have instead suggested much more attention to tactics.
You could add a bit of attention to endgames too, so that if you are on the
sad end of a K v K & Pawn endgame, you could know how to save half a point,
or make your opponent prove he knows how to win it? You might wish to look
at special conditions relating to rook pawns, and also bishop pawns - so you
can achieve a stale-mate.
I have designed and am teaching an accredited chess course, and two big
factors are important in it. One is tactics - and I use a book by Susan
Polgar, Chess Tactics for Champions, which is very good.
I also emphasise the need for pattern recognition, so that you 'see' things
in the game so you can make them tactical or strategic elements in your
play, and here I use some Russian material - the first 2 volumes of a series
called Chess School, both written by Sergey Ivashenko.
What is quite fascinating with students is their time-response! First time
through the exercies in pattern recognition [mate in 1, mate in 2, Knight
manouevers to achieve a fork, etc] is that it may take 1 minute per diagram
at the beginning. After 100 diagrams, the student can redo the first ones
and see everything in 10 seconds. This is proof of the pudding. You just
start seeing a huge amount of critical possibilities you never saw before!
My advice to you if you want to make the effort, is to optimise in your
studies what you can /see/, not remember. You will need to see a lot to get
very good. Memorization alone is hard work, and does not achieve much
momentum - and no momentum at all if you cease memorising. Whereas the habit
of helping your own insights will take you to the top, if you want to go
there.
The play is the thing, said Shakespeare, and you will automatically, without
effort, also acheive very much pattern recognition if you play a lot! About
equal to your study time to start. And play fast - if you are not seeing
things then it does not improve with time! The advantage of fast games [10
or 15 minutes with a clock] is that you can play more of them and learn more
than if you play slow.
Anyway - good luck to you. If you want to try out what any of us have
recommended, will you come back in 6 months and tell us how daft we were?
;)
Cordially, Phil Innes
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2008 22:53:43
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: How much of playing chess is mechanical?
|
Chess One wrote:
> My advice to you if you want to make the effort, is to optimise in your
> studies what you can /see/, not remember.
Yes, this is what I'm working on right now. Like I mentioned, I've
learned what pins, skewers, forks, etc. *are*, but not necessarily how
to spot them quickly (or sometimes at all!). So I know this is a big
part of it and fortunately my mind works this way anyway. I tend to see
patterns and relationships visually, so I think with some practice it
will start coming naturally.
> Anyway - good luck to you. If you want to try out what any of us have
> recommended, will you come back in 6 months and tell us how daft we were?
> ;)
Absolutely! And I'm sure I'll be back frequently between now and then to
keep asking my rather newbie questions. :)
|
| | |
Date: 04 Aug 2008 23:39:52
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: How much of playing chess is mechanical?
|
[email protected] wrote:
> There are basic tactical methods one must know: forks, pins,
> discovered attacks, skewers
This is basically where I'm at right now. I haven't learned any named
moves yet, but I've learned about forks, discoveries, pins, and skewers.
I know how (basically) to look for these patterns, but they are
different in every game so I have to watch out for them and adjust on
the fly.
For many years all I've ever known is how the pieces move, and in the
last four days I've learned about the above tactics, which has already
vastly improved the way I play the game. To me, this is the fun part.
You know the proper way to approach the game, but every game is still
different. It seems once you start learning openings, then you're
basically just playing with your eyes shut.
Quick question: are all these named moves (Sicilian Defense, etc.) only
opening moves? Is there such a thing as a named middle or end game move,
or are these moves specifically for the opening?
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2008 08:44:18
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: How much of playing chess is mechanical?
|
"John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm curious about this, since I'm not far enough along yet to figure out
> the answer myself. I haven't really begun to study any sorts of named
> strategies yet, like the Sicilian Defense, etc. but I know that a ton of
> them exist.
>
> So my question (in general) is, how much of playing chess is simply making
> moves "by the book", and how much is actual improvisation/talent when you
> are in the moment?
>
> To be honest, the more I learn, it seems like the game heavily relies on
> memorizing certain moves and patterns. This is fine, of course, but is
> that *all* there is?
>
> I know you might open with a certain move, and the opponent might do
> something unexpected that forces you to abandon that particular move you
> were going for. But at this point, do you get creative and do your own
> thing, or do you simply switch to yet another specific move that has
> already been created ages ago?
Good post John. I think there are several answers possible. The benefits of
learning openings are approximately; you don't spend a lot of time working
things out on the board, and you attempt to create a position you know which
at least is not worse than opponent. The danger of playing by rote is that
if you play without enough attention to what opponent is doing, then you
won't likely get an advantage or be equal by move 10 or 12, when the middle
game takes over.
Capablanca gave Colle a lesson on his 'model development system' in Karlsbad
1929. Black adjusted early to white's set-up, whereas white made no
adjustment, so consequently lost the initiative, then the game. Capablanca
needed no special fireworks to get a superior position.
Extending that idea, one interesting aspect about learning openings is to
ask yourself 'who really controls the game'? Usually black determines the
opening after white has made a few moves - and black's advantage is that he
likely knows his own choice of opening [which variation of an opening he
choses to play] better than white.
For example; black can choose any of a dozen Sicilian-type openings, but he
only really needs to learn one of them, whereas White has to know something
about all of them.
The trick of it, when opponent deviates from 'normal' play, has he made a
weak move, or simply a less usual move?
To understand the difference beforehand takes a lot of study and
memorization. And is it better to concentrate on other aspects of chess, or
cram openings? Usually weaker players try to learn too much aforehand,
rather than achieve relatively simple positions which they understand a
lot - so that if opponent deviates, they still understand the relative plans
for white and black, and do not become 'lost' over the board.
Super GMs are no guide to what the rest of us should do - even though they
have extensive opening knowledge [what you call 'mechanical'] - their
understanding of the mechanics is vastly superior to the rest of us.
Probably some sensible balance between learning a few opening systems for
white and black, plus paying attention to tactical possibilities and even a
couple of strategic ideas [develop all your pieces before launching major
initiaites, etc] will yield much better results than attempting to remember
tons of opening lines. After all, you have X amount of time to study, so
perhaps the question to put to yourself is what to spend it on?
You don't want want to get a better position in the opening at the expense
of being tactically clueless in the middle-game - another fault of
beginners.
Cordially, Phil Innes
dangers of
> Thanks!
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2008 04:33:55
From: SBD
Subject: Re: How much of playing chess is mechanical?
|
On Aug 3, 8:22 pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> I'm curious about this, since I'm not far enough along yet to figure out
> the answer myself. I haven't really begun to study any sorts of named
> strategies yet, like the Sicilian Defense, etc. but I know that a ton of
> them exist.
>
> So my question (in general) is, how much of playing chess is simply
> making moves "by the book", and how much is actual improvisation/talent
> when you are in the moment?
>
> To be honest, the more I learn, it seems like the game heavily relies on
> memorizing certain moves and patterns. This is fine, of course, but is
> that *all* there is?
>
> I know you might open with a certain move, and the opponent might do
> something unexpected that forces you to abandon that particular move you
> were going for. But at this point, do you get creative and do your own
> thing, or do you simply switch to yet another specific move that has
> already been created ages ago?
>
> Thanks!
You certainly ask perceptive questions for a newcomer.
This is something you could mull over for a month.
|
|
