| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:08:29 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| Messages: | 111,532 |
Just kidding.-a However, I did make a first step.
I've been working on a comprehensive checklist for each turn like that
2300 GM I was playing must have had.
1.-a Gauge threats.
Look where the queen can play if still on the board.-a Look what's developed, any open diagonals of bishops, etc.
This is often in itself enough for a move.-a If there are no threats you
can do what you like.
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
Just kidding.-a However, I did make a first step.
I've been working on a comprehensive checklist for each turn like that
2300 GM I was playing must have had.
1.-a Gauge threats.
Tactics are fundamental, yes.-a Is your opponent threatening anything?
Did his move create an opportunity for you?
Chess, Teichmann said, is 99% tactics.-a You will improve most rapidly if you study tactics, but too many players instead study opening theory,
only to find themselves lost as soon as they exit their memorized variations.
Playing over master games will by itself give you a feel for openings.
Not much time should be spent on positional play until you stop dropping pieces to short combinations.-a And you'll get a feel for it anyway,
playing over games.
Look where the queen can play if still on the board.-a Look what's
developed, any open diagonals of bishops, etc.
That's a bit random.
Chess, Teichmann said, is 99% tactics. You will improve most rapidly if
you study tactics, but too many players instead study opening theory,
only to find themselves lost as soon as they exit their memorized >variations.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 15:36:34 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Chess, Teichmann said, is 99% tactics. You will improve most rapidly if
you study tactics, but too many players instead study opening theory,
only to find themselves lost as soon as they exit their memorized
variations.
Fundamentally openings is all about getting the kind of middle game
you want where if you're at all like me is where you get to exercise
what you can do in tactics.
My main problem has always been blunders around the 3 1/2 to 4 hour
mark which has probably taken a minimum of 250-300 points off my
rating through the years.
I well remember one game when I (about 1700 at the time) W v 1600, W v
1900, D v 2300 (a game I should have won - I was crushing positionally
around move 30 but bungled the endgame where I'm usually pretty
strong) and L vs 1950 - no blunder but horrible judgement in
exchanging to the endgame
And then in the next tournament (in early September) lost to in back
to back rounds vs two junior brothers who were 1300 and 1400 but were
2050 and 1900 3 months later. Talked to their dad who figured they had
played 300-400 games vs each other over the previous summer
That was around the time that I began playing less and organizing more
which is why that FIDE certificate on my wall says IA rather than
IM....
As I have a tendency to fall asleep early in the game and wake up with a >horrible position, my main advantage has been opponents who blunder in a >winning position around the same time.
But mainly because they try to blitz me. In one game against an A
player I had ten minutes left to his two hours, was two pawns down, with
a cramped position, weak pawns, and eighteen moves to go.
He decided not to "let me think on his time", but guess who was the
better speed player? My flag fell eight moves past the time control, by >which time he was about to be mated.
It's when I have a superior but not clearly winning game that I tend to
lose in the last half hour of the first session. Generally I use up
too much time trying to convert the win, and blunder.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 17:35:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
As I have a tendency to fall asleep early in the game and wake up with a
horrible position, my main advantage has been opponents who blunder in a
winning position around the same time.
But mainly because they try to blitz me. In one game against an A
player I had ten minutes left to his two hours, was two pawns down, with
a cramped position, weak pawns, and eighteen moves to go.
He decided not to "let me think on his time", but guess who was the
better speed player? My flag fell eight moves past the time control, by
which time he was about to be mated.
One of the top Soviet era GMs (Kotov in Think Like a Grandmaster if
memory serves) says blundering in the opponent's time trouble is one
of the fundamental errors even GMs make.
It's when I have a superior but not clearly winning game that I tend to
lose in the last half hour of the first session. Generally I use up
too much time trying to convert the win, and blunder.
Which is why you and I are not rated 300-400 points higher :)
The Horny Goat wrote:
Which is why you and I are not rated 300-400 points higher :)
The Canadian open in Quebec in 1981 was my peak in terms of
insanity. In all but one of the games I lost, I was winning.
William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
Which is why you and I are not rated 300-400 points higher :)
The Canadian open in Quebec in 1981 was my peak in terms of
insanity. In all but one of the games I lost, I was winning.
Don't feel bad. Losing from a winning position is something
we all do... I've almost made a career out of it!
William Hyde wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
Just kidding.-a However, I did make a first step.
I've been working on a comprehensive checklist for each turn like
that 2300 GM I was playing must have had.
1.-a Gauge threats.
Tactics are fundamental, yes.-a Is your opponent threatening anything?
Did his move create an opportunity for you?
Chess, Teichmann said, is 99% tactics.-a You will improve most rapidly
if you study tactics, but too many players instead study opening
theory, only to find themselves lost as soon as they exit their
memorized variations.
Playing over master games will by itself give you a feel for openings.
Not much time should be spent on positional play until you stop
dropping pieces to short combinations.-a And you'll get a feel for it
anyway, playing over games.
Look where the queen can play if still on the board.-a Look what's
developed, any open diagonals of bishops, etc.
That's a bit random.
No it's not.-a I was still talking about gauging threats.-a Look where the enemy queen can play.-a Look what developed enemy pieces can do.-a Look at any open diagonals of enemy bishops, etc.-a This is the way you can gauge immediate threats in the next turn.-a It doesn't cover knights two moves away though.
You obviously thought I was talking about my queen, my developed pieces
and my bishops.
Blueshirt wrote:
William Hyde wrote:Over a hundred years ago GM Bernstein pointed out that we generally win
The Horny Goat wrote:
Which is why you and I are not rated 300-400 points higher :)
The Canadian open in Quebec in 1981 was my peak in terms of
insanity. In all but one of the games I lost, I was winning.
Don't feel bad. Losing from a winning position is something
we all do... I've almost made a career out of it!
as many-a games from lost positions as we lose from won positions, and
that should console us.
Given that I don't get many won positions from the opening, I think that
I win more lost positions than I lose won positions, and that is even
more consoling.
William Hyde
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 17:35:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
As I have a tendency to fall asleep early in the game and wake up with a >>> horrible position, my main advantage has been opponents who blunder in a >>> winning position around the same time.
But mainly because they try to blitz me.-a In one game against an A
player I had ten minutes left to his two hours, was two pawns down, with >>> a cramped position, weak pawns, and eighteen moves to go.
He decided not to "let me think on his time", but guess who was the
better speed player?-a My flag fell eight moves past the time control, by >>> which time he was about to be mated.
One of the top Soviet era GMs (Kotov in Think Like a Grandmaster if
memory serves) says blundering in the opponent's time trouble is one
of the fundamental errors even GMs make.
It's when I have a superior but not clearly winning game that I tend to
lose in the last half hour of-a the first session.-a Generally I use up
too much time trying to convert the win, and blunder.
Which is why you and I are not rated 300-400 points higher :)
The Canadian open in Quebec in 1981 was my peak in terms of insanity. In
all but one of the games I lost, I was winning.-a In all but one of the games I won, I was losing, sometimes badly.-a I offered a draw in a
winning position because transit was shutting down for the night and the incompetents who ran the event had provided accommodation across the
city, I offered a draw in a lost position because while the opponent had
not seen the winning maneuver, I could not prevent it and he would see
it eventually.
So only two games had legitimate results.
At the superbly organized 1980 event my games were more rational.-a Only
two ended foolishly, one win and one loss.
But at that event the playing hall wasn't a humid 90F.
William Hyde
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
William Hyde wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
Just kidding.-a However, I did make a first step.
I've been working on a comprehensive checklist for each turn like
that 2300 GM I was playing must have had.
1.-a Gauge threats.
Tactics are fundamental, yes.-a Is your opponent threatening anything?
Did his move create an opportunity for you?
Chess, Teichmann said, is 99% tactics.-a You will improve most rapidly
if you study tactics, but too many players instead study opening
theory, only to find themselves lost as soon as they exit their
memorized variations.
Playing over master games will by itself give you a feel for
openings. Not much time should be spent on positional play until you
stop dropping pieces to short combinations.-a And you'll get a feel
for it anyway, playing over games.
Look where the queen can play if still on the board.-a Look what's
developed, any open diagonals of bishops, etc.
That's a bit random.
No it's not.-a I was still talking about gauging threats.-a Look where
the enemy queen can play.-a Look what developed enemy pieces can do.
Look at any open diagonals of enemy bishops, etc.-a This is the way you
can gauge immediate threats in the next turn.-a It doesn't cover
knights two moves away though.
You obviously thought I was talking about my queen, my developed
pieces and my bishops.
I'd like to add - take a quick look to see if the enemy blundered, this often only takes a few seconds maybe half a minute to be thorough.-a This
is the opposite of a threat - it's an easy opportunity.
William Hyde wrote:
Blueshirt wrote:
William Hyde wrote:Over a hundred years ago GM Bernstein pointed out that we generally
The Horny Goat wrote:
Which is why you and I are not rated 300-400 points higher :)
The Canadian open in Quebec in 1981 was my peak in terms of
insanity. In all but one of the games I lost, I was winning.
Don't feel bad. Losing from a winning position is something
we all do... I've almost made a career out of it!
win as many-a games from lost positions as we lose from won positions,
and that should console us.
Given that I don't get many won positions from the opening, I think
that I win more lost positions than I lose won positions, and that is
even more consoling.
William Hyde
Maybe you lose because you don't know how to apologize when you are
clearly wrong.
one who made the mistake.
I don't understand people who don't apologize when they mess up. You
ruined my day with your random comment.
William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 17:35:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
As I have a tendency to fall asleep early in the game and wake up
with a
horrible position, my main advantage has been opponents who blunder
in a
winning position around the same time.
But mainly because they try to blitz me.-a In one game against an A
player I had ten minutes left to his two hours, was two pawns down,
with
a cramped position, weak pawns, and eighteen moves to go.
He decided not to "let me think on his time", but guess who was the
better speed player?-a My flag fell eight moves past the time
control, by
which time he was about to be mated.
One of the top Soviet era GMs (Kotov in Think Like a Grandmaster if
memory serves) says blundering in the opponent's time trouble is one
of the fundamental errors even GMs make.
It's when I have a superior but not clearly winning game that I tend to >>>> lose in the last half hour of-a the first session.-a Generally I use up >>>> too much time trying to convert the win, and blunder.
Which is why you and I are not rated 300-400 points higher :)
The Canadian open in Quebec in 1981 was my peak in terms of insanity.
In all but one of the games I lost, I was winning.-a In all but one of
the games I won, I was losing, sometimes badly.-a I offered a draw in a
winning position because transit was shutting down for the night and
the incompetents who ran the event had provided accommodation across
the city, I offered a draw in a lost position because while the
opponent had not seen the winning maneuver, I could not prevent it and
he would see it eventually.
So only two games had legitimate results.
At the superbly organized 1980 event my games were more rational.
Only two ended foolishly, one win and one loss.
But at that event the playing hall wasn't a humid 90F.
William Hyde
Admit you were wrong about my statement being random, for posterity at least, and the good sense of the other people reading. You have injected madness into a serious discussion.
Lane the Caustic wrote:
William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 17:35:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
As I have a tendency to fall asleep early in the game and wake up
with a
horrible position, my main advantage has been opponents who blunder >>>>> in a
winning position around the same time.
But mainly because they try to blitz me.-a In one game against an A
player I had ten minutes left to his two hours, was two pawns down, >>>>> with
a cramped position, weak pawns, and eighteen moves to go.
He decided not to "let me think on his time", but guess who was the
better speed player?-a My flag fell eight moves past the time
control, by
which time he was about to be mated.
One of the top Soviet era GMs (Kotov in Think Like a Grandmaster if
memory serves) says blundering in the opponent's time trouble is one
of the fundamental errors even GMs make.
It's when I have a superior but not clearly winning game that I
tend to
lose in the last half hour of-a the first session.-a Generally I use up >>>>> too much time trying to convert the win, and blunder.
Which is why you and I are not rated 300-400 points higher :)
The Canadian open in Quebec in 1981 was my peak in terms of insanity.
In all but one of the games I lost, I was winning.-a In all but one of
the games I won, I was losing, sometimes badly.-a I offered a draw in
a winning position because transit was shutting down for the night
and the incompetents who ran the event had provided accommodation
across the city, I offered a draw in a lost position because while
the opponent had not seen the winning maneuver, I could not prevent
it and he would see it eventually.
So only two games had legitimate results.
At the superbly organized 1980 event my games were more rational.
Only two ended foolishly, one win and one loss.
But at that event the playing hall wasn't a humid 90F.
William Hyde
Admit you were wrong about my statement being random, for posterity at
least, and the good sense of the other people reading. You have
injected madness into a serious discussion.
It took you two weeks and a name change to express your deep hurt at my comment.
Sorry, but your trolling is too obvious.
William Hyde wrote:
Lane the Caustic wrote:
William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 17:35:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
As I have a tendency to fall asleep early in the game and wake up >>>>>> with a
horrible position, my main advantage has been opponents who
blunder in a
winning position around the same time.
But mainly because they try to blitz me.-a In one game against an A >>>>>> player I had ten minutes left to his two hours, was two pawns
down, with
a cramped position, weak pawns, and eighteen moves to go.
He decided not to "let me think on his time", but guess who was the >>>>>> better speed player?-a My flag fell eight moves past the time
control, by
which time he was about to be mated.
One of the top Soviet era GMs (Kotov in Think Like a Grandmaster if
memory serves) says blundering in the opponent's time trouble is one >>>>> of the fundamental errors even GMs make.
It's when I have a superior but not clearly winning game that I
tend to
lose in the last half hour of-a the first session.-a Generally I use up >>>>>> too much time trying to convert the win, and blunder.
Which is why you and I are not rated 300-400 points higher :)
The Canadian open in Quebec in 1981 was my peak in terms of
insanity. In all but one of the games I lost, I was winning.-a In all >>>> but one of the games I won, I was losing, sometimes badly.-a I
offered a draw in a winning position because transit was shutting
down for the night and the incompetents who ran the event had
provided accommodation across the city, I offered a draw in a lost
position because while the opponent had not seen the winning
maneuver, I could not prevent it and he would see it eventually.
So only two games had legitimate results.
At the superbly organized 1980 event my games were more rational.
Only two ended foolishly, one win and one loss.
But at that event the playing hall wasn't a humid 90F.
William Hyde
Admit you were wrong about my statement being random, for posterity
at least, and the good sense of the other people reading. You have
injected madness into a serious discussion.
It took you two weeks and a name change to express your deep hurt at
my comment.
Sorry, but your trolling is too obvious.
I look for threats by seeing what the enemy queen can do, looking for
enemy bishop diagonals and try to look two moves ahead on enemy knights.
-aHow do you look for threats, lift up the board and look underneath it
for hidden weapons?
Lane the Caustic wrote:
William Hyde wrote:
Lane the Caustic wrote:
William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 17:35:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
As I have a tendency to fall asleep early in the game and wake up >>>>>>> with a
horrible position, my main advantage has been opponents who
blunder in a
winning position around the same time.
But mainly because they try to blitz me.-a In one game against an A >>>>>>> player I had ten minutes left to his two hours, was two pawns
down, with
a cramped position, weak pawns, and eighteen moves to go.
He decided not to "let me think on his time", but guess who was the >>>>>>> better speed player?-a My flag fell eight moves past the time
control, by
which time he was about to be mated.
One of the top Soviet era GMs (Kotov in Think Like a Grandmaster if >>>>>> memory serves) says blundering in the opponent's time trouble is one >>>>>> of the fundamental errors even GMs make.
It's when I have a superior but not clearly winning game that I >>>>>>> tend to
lose in the last half hour of-a the first session.-a Generally I >>>>>>> use up
too much time trying to convert the win, and blunder.
Which is why you and I are not rated 300-400 points higher :)
The Canadian open in Quebec in 1981 was my peak in terms of
insanity. In all but one of the games I lost, I was winning.-a In
all but one of the games I won, I was losing, sometimes badly.-a I
offered a draw in a winning position because transit was shutting
down for the night and the incompetents who ran the event had
provided accommodation across the city, I offered a draw in a lost
position because while the opponent had not seen the winning
maneuver, I could not prevent it and he would see it eventually.
So only two games had legitimate results.
At the superbly organized 1980 event my games were more rational.
Only two ended foolishly, one win and one loss.
But at that event the playing hall wasn't a humid 90F.
William Hyde
Admit you were wrong about my statement being random, for posterity
at least, and the good sense of the other people reading. You have
injected madness into a serious discussion.
It took you two weeks and a name change to express your deep hurt at
my comment.
Sorry, but your trolling is too obvious.
I look for threats by seeing what the enemy queen can do, looking for
enemy bishop diagonals and try to look two moves ahead on enemy
knights. -a-aHow do you look for threats, lift up the board and look
underneath it for hidden weapons?
I told you all this in my initial post, which it is now clear you did
not read.
William Hyde
William Hyde wrote:
Lane the Caustic wrote:
William Hyde wrote:
Lane the Caustic wrote:
William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 17:35:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
As I have a tendency to fall asleep early in the game and wake >>>>>>>> up with a
horrible position, my main advantage has been opponents who
blunder in a
winning position around the same time.
But mainly because they try to blitz me.-a In one game against an A >>>>>>>> player I had ten minutes left to his two hours, was two pawns >>>>>>>> down, with
a cramped position, weak pawns, and eighteen moves to go.
He decided not to "let me think on his time", but guess who was the >>>>>>>> better speed player?-a My flag fell eight moves past the time >>>>>>>> control, by
which time he was about to be mated.
One of the top Soviet era GMs (Kotov in Think Like a Grandmaster if >>>>>>> memory serves) says blundering in the opponent's time trouble is one >>>>>>> of the fundamental errors even GMs make.
It's when I have a superior but not clearly winning game that I >>>>>>>> tend to
lose in the last half hour of-a the first session.-a Generally I >>>>>>>> use up
too much time trying to convert the win, and blunder.
Which is why you and I are not rated 300-400 points higher :)
The Canadian open in Quebec in 1981 was my peak in terms of
insanity. In all but one of the games I lost, I was winning.-a In >>>>>> all but one of the games I won, I was losing, sometimes badly.-a I >>>>>> offered a draw in a winning position because transit was shutting >>>>>> down for the night and the incompetents who ran the event had
provided accommodation across the city, I offered a draw in a lost >>>>>> position because while the opponent had not seen the winning
maneuver, I could not prevent it and he would see it eventually.
So only two games had legitimate results.
At the superbly organized 1980 event my games were more rational. >>>>>> Only two ended foolishly, one win and one loss.
But at that event the playing hall wasn't a humid 90F.
William Hyde
Admit you were wrong about my statement being random, for posterity >>>>> at least, and the good sense of the other people reading. You have
injected madness into a serious discussion.
It took you two weeks and a name change to express your deep hurt at
my comment.
Sorry, but your trolling is too obvious.
I look for threats by seeing what the enemy queen can do, looking for
enemy bishop diagonals and try to look two moves ahead on enemy
knights. -a-aHow do you look for threats, lift up the board and look
underneath it for hidden weapons?
I told you all this in my initial post, which it is now clear you did
not read.
William Hyde
It's true.-a I saw red with your random comment.-a I've read it now and am man enough to say that there was good advice and commentary other than
that touch of madness.