I have always liked 1..e5 as well. It assures Black a strong piece of the center and good development of the pieces. The only drawback is that there are so many different ways White can play that it is difficult to become proficient in every line. Yusupov recommends that black players just become good at the Petroff, not because it is a great defense, but just to reduce the complexity of all of White's choices when you play 1...e5.

As much as I raved about the BabasChess interface over on FICS, this (Blitzin on ICC) is the fastest, most seamless, smooth interface out there. Timeseal and lag control is fantastic on ICC and the visuals on the board are sleek, professional, and universal looking.

As for the games over there: I'm having a LOT of fun. I lose my share but the wins are really satisfying and I'm getting a lot better. They just play down to every last square and every last pawn on that network and I love it.

I have already toyed with the Petroff as a surprise weapon against 1. e4 but agreed - It's not the best lol. There are definitely some sharp, tactical positions that can arise from it, though and if you catch yourself in a game against an inferior opponent tactically, you can get a nice advantage with some tempo early.

very nice thread

Hey War,

Haven't read this entire thread but are you working with any coaches? I found that working with one skyrocketed my understanding of the game. More experienced and stronger players would point out several mistakes that I just overlooked.

And good luck with the quest.

What are your thoughts on the Seirawan book? I have considered it myself.

Thanks!

As for coaches...indeed, this is something I need to implement in the near future. I'm not currently working with any coaches, nor have I, but I know that I'm nearing the point where it would be the absolute most beneficial thing for my improvement. I'll either look into getting an in person coach locally or scouting around ICC for one of the coaches there.

I have three of his books and have started on two of them: Brilliancies and Strategies. They're both very well written and are good for either a breeze through read or to actually break out the board and pieces with. I think Seirawan has a talent for introducing more advanced concepts to an intermediate user without the reader really even realizing it. He very much speaks "to you" in the text and the tactics and strategies outlined are engrossing.

Understand that when you see me criticizing Dan Heisman it might just be as a result of what I'm comparing him to. The Seirawan material, as well as My System, is phenomenal.

WarCrazy - I wanted to "weigh in" about Dan Heisman even though I think I essentially agree with both you and Rei (if possible lol).

His nook articles and his ICC videos are probably not supposed to be anything like Seirawan or My System material. You are almost surely comparing "apples to oranges" and it's not really fair to any of those guys. I also wouldn't be surprised if he does his ICC videos simply b/c there is a large demand for it due to the popularity of his articles and as a coach for beginning players. If he isn't great at it, I would be surprised if he incorrectly thought he was great at it. But if it provides certain players with entertainment or some help, it seems fine.

I've found reading Heisman nook articles (the handful I've read) to be helpful. I have found myself dismiss several important things he advocates and then realize very quickly that I do not have them mastered properly (e.g. tactics). I've also noticed (and my coach seems to possibly have too) that my thought process when looking at positions is not always the same. I tend to jump around a bunch. I don't know if I've always thought like that or it's due to the 5 year layoff but Heisman's short nook articles that are essentially primers on this have seemed very helpful to me.

So....completely dismiss certain sources of chess help that other players seem to have legit reasons to value at your own expense. E.g. It's fine to just not read anything Silman and you can probably objectively rail on some of his writing style, but most if not all of his books seem to be quite well done and possibly extremely helpful. But it's probably a mistake not to read anything by him if you saw some random video that was too beginnerish and assumed his content has no value.

Hey, WarCrazy, I'm sorry about the argument the other day -- the breakdown in civility was exclusively my fault. I should have been a lot less vicious and condescending. You are entitled to your opinions about Heisman et al., of course. I wish you luck in reaching 2200.

Awww, I'm so proud of you!!!

Hi, WarCrazy, just stumbled onto your thread... definitely subbed. I have a similar log here myself with similar goals, except I'm already around 1800-1900 and over 10 years younger.

Here's my two cents.

What you are trying to achieve is insanely difficult. I don't think anyone in history has done this yet. Trying to get from around 1200 to 2200 after the age of thirty is unheard of. If you were over 40 yrs old, I would say this is an impossible task.

Problem is people who get to a master/near master level usually start very young. I started playing chess in primary school and was playing tournaments regularly by high school. As you age, it becomes harder to learn information and patterns (e.g. much harder to learn a language as an adult compared to being a child).

So I wish you the best of luck in your endeavour, but I'll leave some advice that I think are crucial for you to understand:

1. Get a coach

I think this is very very important. You're basically not going to get to 2200 at your age without a coach. You need a coach to point out your bad habits and point you in the right direction after deciding what he think is best for your development. E.g. My coach managed to spot some important bad habits in my play that allow me to improve my rating by a hundred points in a very short time. E.g. He picked up that I was playing moves that aren't constructive to the plan of the position (e.g. trying to launch a flank attack when centre isn't secured). He also picked up small habits like auto-defending when my opponent create threats when I should be looking for moves that seek counterplay. He also picked up that I was playing hope chess, creating threats or setting traps hoping my opponent will fall for them, but those moves don't work against better player and will not improve the quality of my position. This is something that I think you might also be guilty of.

2. Post games for review

Post some games here, and I'll try to review and look for bad habits your making.

3. Put in major hours

You're looking at a huge commitment here, by that I mean it's a huge undertaking. You're looking at several hours of work a day. Studying tactics (of course) and learning how to play middlegame and developing a plan based on the position. This is something you have to commit to and I'm not sure if you can do that.

4. Spend some time on openings

At your level, you don't need to understand that deep move order and variations. But you should start at least understanding the themes and ideas in each opening.


Being good at chess means alot of time spend studying the game off the chess board. I spend hours a day, doing puzzles and working on my technique. This is something you should think about. I don't know if you have work or other commitment in your life, but trying to achieve what you want to achieve is going to mean full attention and priority to studying this game. So far you've been playing alot of game, but haven't been studying much on theory I assume. I would recommend learning the basics like attacking plans (developing plans on attacking the king based on their structure around the king)

First off - Thanks for the lengthy post and contributions. What you wrote really grabbed my attention and I would have made an update to this thread earlier than now if I hadn't read your post. You, and a high rated player on ICC, adjusted my perspective on things a bit and it's led to a lot of progress in the last two weeks. On the chessboard and off.

The bottom line is that as much as I was doing, I wasn't doing enough. I did some research on players who made tremendous progress at different points in their lives and they all had one thing in common: They studied the game obsessively. Ate, slept, breathed chess for a handful of years. As a result, I've begun studying the game for several hours a day and using more online tools to aid in the process. I haven't played a lot of games in the last few weeks and the ones I've played, I played very well. I'm using the following tools heavily right now:

-ChessTempo
-ChessMentor
-Lichess Coordinate Trainer and Tactical Trainer
-Chess.com and ICC videos
-Games and Openings Databases. Extensively.
-Books combined with OTB study.

I'm doing a ton of standard tactics, reading through a lot of annotated master games, playing out opening variations against different engines, etc. I'm really attacking the learning process from every angle. I understand the game far, far more than I did even the last time I posted.

During this study the last few weeks (where I've literally done nothing but study chess all day and night other than a ride or dinner here and there) I've begun looking at the game completely different. I have incorporated an entire opening system at this point and am regularly studying both the theory behind it as well as working on tactical problems that arise from those opening's resulting positions.

I'm using a KIA/KID/Pirc system now. I don't open 1. e4 with white, I open 1. Nf3 and then g3, setting up for the kingside fianchetto. I can, of course, adjust the opening order accordingly but I generally reach the same three positions on the board regardless of what my opponent does. With white I also started looking at the English opening today and it's transpositions into some nice 3 and 4 pawn front Indian games I can go into from it. I'm contemplating studying this on the side as a) I'm learning the KID and b) I think it's a great surprise weapon to use as a compliment to the KIA opened with Nf3.

Of course, tons of people avoid the KID because it's theory heavy but ...I'm studying the game constantly anyway. I *like* that it's theory heavy and I think it's an extremely complex and interesting opening. I like undermining an established center. At the level I'll be competing at for a bit it offers some outstanding tactical opportunities for me against players who aren't going to be as tactically sound.

As for tactics...as said, I don't just *do* tactics. I study them, their variations, discuss them, etc. CT standard tactics and Lichess trainer tactics are just a regular part of every day for me. My tactical vision has improved tremendously. I was tired of not seeing the game on a 1500+ level and have just drilled myself in coordinates and tactics so that I can read through books easier and flat out outclass my opponents tactically. I hit a bit of a sticking point right around the 1500 mark after I last posted but then just plowed past it by simply spending hour after hour after hour studying. People I know who I play OTB are just really easy to beat at this point and I'm excited about taking my skills and applying them in some competitive games now.

I hinted on this as well but it's been a big part of progress: I stopped limiting my resources. I have a chess.com diamond, use lichess (I agree, it's starting to become amazing), and have my ICC sub. I'm basically just using every tool at my disposal and absorbing as much information as I can.

Your post is spot on accurate. What I'm working towards here really is going to require this kind of study and dedication. I'm all in. Everyone in my life knows that this is what I'm doing now and supports it. I don't have any real hurdles in the way as far as anything with that goes and my significant other (girlfriend) is in the middle of taking classes towards her Masters right now so we're both living a similar lifestyle. It's all working out well thus far.

I would also, as we've discussed, like to start implementing a coaching session or two a week with someone I gel with mentally. In the meantime, I'm establishing a good foundation for them to work with here. As has been the case since I started this, with each step deeper into the world of chess I only become more interested and more motivated. It's time to really start putting in some tournament time followed by heavy review. I'm scheduled to play next Wednesday night in the local club swiss and the Team 45/45 league is starting on ICC on June 2nd and I'm a part of that, too. I'm also trying to get in one ( to start ) FIDE event down in Manhattan at the Marshall Club per month so I can start posting a rating there, as well.

I appreciate the apology and I'm sorry, too. That said, I'm really thick skinned and never carry disagreements or grudges into a new day. Once the sun sets on something, it's in the past as far as I'm concerned.

I've actually been studying a little bit more Heisman material since we last spoke and I will admit that some of it has been of a higher caliber than I originally thought. I'm sure that as I learn more and gain some experience OTB my opinions on things will change drastically...as they already have to a large degree.

With that commitment you are likely to make it
I only have a small criticism, what is the point of playing time controls like 15/0? Those time controls are dangerous because you cant analyze ****. Those are 900 seconds which leads to 25 seconds per move. What can you analyze in 25 seconds?

edit: I have to play rapid games in my school tournaments. I used to try and analyze imbalances and stuff and changed strategy to making solid safety checks instead of trying to understand the positions deeply. My results have improved. And we are talking 30/0.

You're right and that was one of the reasons I stopped limiting the venues I play on. The pairing pools on ICC go 3/0, 5/0, 15/0, and 45/45 and naturally the pools are a way to get a well matched game quickly. Chess.com has the 30/0 pairing pool and the 45/45 pairing pool and it seems like getting a long game on Lichess is pretty easy, too. All of that said, the point of playing rapid games is to be able to play several games a day that aren't blitz, you know? I think 15/10's are pretty good for working on tactics and openings and 30/0's are nice for getting a quick game that can be analyzed a bit. That said, the meat and potatoes of serious online play is 45/45 and that's what I'm focusing on at this point since FIDE time controls are obviously much longer with secondary and tertiary controls.

I think settling in on the right time controls is actually pretty important and that's why I've spent so much thought on it so far. The approach that I'm going with here is primarily heavy study and 1-2 long games a day...with some rapid 15/10's or 30/0's here and there. Studying the game intently and then calculating my moves deeply in long games is definitely a routine that will foster a better mindset for the kind of progress that I'm looking to make. Time that might have been spent on blitz is better spent on study and review. As you point out, however, a lot of tournaments are running games with 25/5 to 60/5 time controls and this is why I think playing some rapid games is beneficial to my growth. Point blank - what the USCF calls "regular" chess in some cases is very much rapid chess in FIDE.

I think you are more likely to be better at 30/0 by playing 45/45 than by playing 30/0 imo

The only skill you can learn at 30/0 is time management and being selective with your thought process.

Well, as I said earlier there is another advantage to rapid chess: You can play several games in a day. You can't rack up 4-6 45/45's a day but you can play numerous 15/10's and 30/0's. Both pools on Chess.com are also packed constantly so there's no waiting around for these games. It just adds to the overall volume of play.

I agree with you in that playing a lot of rapid, and just about any blitz, is counterproductive to my goal. I still maintain the things I said before about each time control, including blitz, serving a purpose and developing a different aspect of your game. The thing is that blitz really changes the way you think about the game. It's almost like an addict mentality that sets in and you can't help but start playing game after game, and chasing wins almost like a poker player chases losses to get back to even. If you're winning it's even worse - one more game, just a few more rating points, etc. All the while you're just playing for quick tactical shots and working on your openings...while not seeing any quality endgames. It's just an overall interference for someone like me who is trying to get good at long games over the board.

I cannot say the same things for rapid though. Where I seem to disagree with a few of you is in that I don't believe you get "caught in the switches" of your thought process and calculation in rapid chess. I think 15+10 and 30+0 games are ideal for working on clock management and calculating under stressful conditions. 5/0 is just too short...it's blitz. 15/10 is an entirely other beast though and I think it behooves me to work on both rapid and classical in tandem moving forward for a lot of the same reasons many play blitz in tandem with their long chess. I just think 15+10 is helping in a lot of ways whereas 5/0 and 3/2 chess is not.

Blitz really won't come into play very much for me, if at all, on my climb through regular/standard OTB ratings. Rapid chess and it's conditions absolutely will. As for whether or not playing 45/45's would just blanket you with improvement across the board better than playing *any* rapid would in itself - That's a good question and I'd like continued feedback on this subject. It's such an often talked about thing these days with time controls getting shorter and shorter.