Comments on: +100

By: Donnie

Donnie — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:40:29 +0000

@Blunderprone: Oh, you’re part of a cult. It’s just that the government’s a bit slow in recognizing it.

@Derek: Absolutely. But if people want to broadcast their thinking ahead of time, I’ll take advantage!

By: Derek Slater

Derek Slater — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 03:24:13 +0000

Oh – just for the record, I don’t write before moving. I think that’s an absurd habit. Scoresheet’s for recording the moves as played in the game, not for improving your play.

By: Blunderprone

Blunderprone — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:46:11 +0000

Its not a cult? Damn…. I wasted all this time and shunned my family for nothing?

By: Donnie

Donnie — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:45:29 +0000

@Derek: Slightly odd may be par for the course for chess players. Of course, if he’s slightly odd for a chess player, then that has extra meaning.

As far as notation’s concerned, I love playing someone who writes their moves down first, then thinks about it. Gives me an idea what they’re looking for. Except when they use foreign languages, although I’ve gotten the Spanish down; eg Cb6 = Nb6 (Caballero = Knight)

@BDK: Maybe I’ll just switch back and forth between the two. Probably as long as you practice consistently, it’s hard to not improve.

By: Blue Devil Knight

Blue Devil Knight — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 04:38:29 +0000

For good reasons to prefer tempo over emerald for tactics server, see zenchess. It has two modes, which is nice: fast (like CTS, which tests how much you already know and helps you stay sharp), and slow (to actually think).

By: Derek Slater

Derek Slater — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 03:41:29 +0000

de la Maza is a slightly odd ducky. There’s a lengthy discussion with him in H Goldowsky’s book Engaging Pieces. (Yes, I have met both MDLM and Howard.) He quit because he felt his method had taken him as far as it could, plus he got a full-time job again and couldnt’ spent 8 hour days at the board any more.

re: notation, I am a creature of habit and it also turned into a running joke, that young players would no longer be able to decode my scoresheets. This year I changed solely because I think you have to be willing to blow up everything about your game if you’re going to improve at an advanced age.

By: Donnie

Donnie — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:31:25 +0000

@Derek: I would die happy to hit Expert level, so the KIA it is. Or will be, based on David’s advice. This year, I met for the first time someone who never learned dinosaur notation. I’m surprised you went so long before switching.

@David: Thank you for giving me a reason to avoid studying openings! *bows low in gratitude* I’ll switch to that other tactics site on your recommendation.

@l3rucewayne: Once (if) I hit 1800, I’ll have to get that book.

You’re thinking of the right guy (de la Maza), and I found the article where Silman was not terribly complimentary of him. The point about de la Maza suddenly quitting tournament chess was interesting. If you look at his last two supplements, they are the same (2041), the implication being he finally hit a plateau and quit. Or, he just got bored with chess.

Based on everything I’ve read, my conclusion is this: de la Maza’s method will get one to a certain level depending on your natural talent…maybe 1600, 1800, or 2000. After that, it’s time to start getting serious about learning positional concepts to improve. And in reality, basic positional concepts should be at least introduced, even while focusing on tactics.

De la Maza is a cool last name, in any case.

By: l3rucewayne

l3rucewayne — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:28:14 +0000

Opening study can be useful somewhat but you really need to learn the ideas involved not just the variations. “The ideas behind the chess openings” is really good for that. (besides learning the ideas makes it a lot easier to memorize the variations anyways.) is that guy these knights errant are emulating the same guy as the writer of “Rapid chess improvement”? as i recall that guy(I think thats the guy anyway.) basicly focused on just tactics, jeremy silman had a very low opinion of him in a book review, and the book seems like one of those promise you the moon for free sales pitches, but i might be thinking of the wrong guy or book.

in endings i think one of the most useful lessons is one in “my system” about how to create a passed pawn, if you have read it you can answer this question: if you’ve got a 3 pawn phalanx on there original squares on the q-side against a 2 pawn phalanx on there original squares, which pawn should you advance first to create a passed pawn? if you don’t know automatically you should check out the short lesson in “my system” its helped me loads of times.

answer: .”nwap dessap etadidnac” eht ro ,ti fo daeha yltcerid nwap on sah taht nwap ehT

By: David K, Seattle

David K, Seattle — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:00:09 +0000

BTW: no opening study should be done unless you are 1800+, otherwise this is much misapplied energy, and great far ‘increasing returns’ on tactical study. chess tempo is not big enough.

By: David K, Seattle

David K, Seattle — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:58:11 +0000

http://chess.emrald.net/ctsActTact.php?Rows=100 i simply cannot recommend this enough. more than chess tempo. the combination of timed shorter term tactics (CTS) with longer, deeper efforts at calculation (CT-Art 3.0) is the best way. after that: endings. where is study of GM games in your plan?