Nice post, thanks for that!

Great post YKW.

As someone relatively new to the game, I find it oddly comforting that top players occasionally make blunders, miss obvious tactics, etc. (albeit a lot less often than patzers like me). I guess if chess were truly a pure skill game (as it's often billed) it would be no fun, because the lower rated player would always lose to the higher rated one and there would be almost no point in playing. But because there are things like psychology, focus, "being in the moment", etc. mixed in with the skill and knowledge, it gives it the highs and lows which make everything more interesting.

Chess is solved: whoever impregnates his wife wins! /thread

J/k, thanks for the excellent post! I'm a living example of how much execution matters

Btw, could you post in the LC about whatever has happened to the lineup of your family since then? (The championship in question was a more than a year ago.) How has it affected your wife's chess career? I can't find your TR on this for some reason, if it exists at all.

Interesting post YKW!

I agree that this part of the game is very important, but I think the relative importance is different for everyone.

Can you put into words how/what you changed mentally? Somehow I guess its not like an on/off switch

I have been practicing mindfulness meditation recently, hard to tell if it has any effect on my chess but it is good for real life too

To me chess and poker are the same game with only the visual difference that needs extra talent at chess.

One needs knowledge from the opening to the end, every part of the game, every street. A weakness on these areas will give worse results. One can see when one performs poorer because of knowledge reasons, though it is not exactly sure one is aware of how much one doesnt know.

The second part is grinding, where every decision made is one move. The aim is to play a game without serious mistakes, preferably against just a level stronger or even competition.

I work mostly on my grinding, neither my poker nor my chess knowledge is lacking too much. The only reason i still sometimes play chess is a part of my aims to improve my grinding, thats maybe 90% of my focus. I dont train tactics, i am good enough there already as knowledge, but i enjoy and train grinding, solid play, move by move, being mainly about positional play i suppose though not that i have a name for it, it being like someones tactics grinding but i just play positional, move by move and it is the only thing i like and is of worth for me. The place one at this time might do this for free is chess.com where there is a solid engine one can play with a tablet. I dont enjoy playing humans as much, as i get so much more and solid and stronger competition and get a game any instantly. Lately, i have played the level 8, thats maybe 100 150 point stronger than my average level, where i hold my own w white most of the time but w black i make a mistake or get outplayed half the time, it being seriously stronger w white, and my black defense isnt as strong as it could be as knowledge but its good enough and i enjoy using my understanding also, not just known ways.

I play c level blitz, slower blitz, faster or slower as the engine game has no time. If i dont blunder, i play as strong as that engine, b level. Thats the strongest i can be at chess, and two things needed to be even that strong is to some improve my black knowledge, but mostly its about becoming a stronger grinder, thats my main aim at poker, using chess sometimes for that practise.

To some, technique, that is, knowledge, is the main thing, but for me thats the smaller part of the game as my basic strategy and balanced play and logic moves are already there, that i can improve only a bit anymore. The limitations of my strength are in talent, eg. i am not strong enough visually to do well at chess calculations against strong players, but other than that its not that i play major weaker, just that i get outplayed at the area of visual calculations and there is nothing i can do about it but play solid and try to hold it positionally.

So, to cap it, i dont give as much value to knowledge, though my technique is good at least at poker, but its as far as it goes and its not some major thing after that, as much work as it took to get good, but the day to day play is 90% about ones grinding ability, the aim being to play mistake free, as that is what really matters.

Two things close the grinding are logic moves, that form the best moves in situations, and the best reads. The stronger poker players are strong especially here. The other is understanding the boards in situations and it connects to technique too, and is much about knowledge but the stronger players understand those boards still better as they can be logic read also and it needs brain power. These are the most advanced things in poker and need attention during the grinding as much of the strenght comes from them when it comes to making money in tougher games, though grinding w basic strategy is what i value the most, there being little i can do to perform stronger than my brain and current knowledge experience, but i can focus on playing w less mistakes, it all adding up.

I think it all as grinding, and just note when i make a smaller or bigger mistake on this area, improving my knowledge. But the engine that puts it all together is ones grinding strength, that they might call ones a.game when it is performing strong. And after the knowledge, that is what matters the most, though if spotting a weakness in knowledge, understanding of the position, like w black, one can improve there.

But what i go and do when i play poker, chess, i go to grind and the focus is in getting through without mistakes, but just like one makes a significant mistake at chess vs. stronger and equal opponent up to every other game w black, one also makes those in a poker game like as often, and maybe less so vs. weaker player as one might get away with it more often.

Just that the stuff one thinks in a poker game is maybe different, it is not different really at all. And though i have a complete technique and can learn when i make a logic mistake, as play or read, its still mostly about move by move grinding, and that is what playing is mainly about.

Maybe a complete knowledge w c.play is like average, w a.play its like a.level. Playing stronger than that isnt possible for mortals, only to talents, high intelligence, freaks of nature. The good thing about poker is that most havent grinded their way up. The freaks are out there and though they seem to be many eg. on chess servers, they are just rare people on this planet and they are there way more often, so it is very rare. In a game of poker one can generally do better w the knowledge, experience, grinding, the experience being the edge one can have against hobby players, and it shows in a game of chess also, though makes little difference vs. weaker players or when playing vs. too strong opponents.

I started chess when i was 7 and my first rating was ~1000 uscf. My rating barely went up for over a year despite studying tactics and playing a bunch of otb. Then I somehow stumbled upon some Roman Dzindzi videos and ended up watching as many of them as I can find. There was no youtube back then but I was lucky he was working or something for the mechanics institute library, so a bunch of his videos were available for rent. My rating shot upto 1600 within a year, and then 1800 within the next year.

I'm not trying to promote dzindzi videos, since I think there's better material out there. I think what really helped me was having insight on the thought process of a strong player.

I'm sorry, but these statements are not true given that the chess world doesn't know your name and this:

Ever since first playing chess I seem to remember being good at tactics which was probably a big reason I hit 1500 very quickly. What helped me to get from 1500-1800 was a solid understanding of varying middlegame concepts and basic endgames. From 1800-2000 it seemed to be a more refined choice of openings that fit my style of play. And from 2000-2200 it was a deeper understanding of how my opening choice connects to the resulting middlegame positions as well as deeper endgame understanding. I always have a chess book I'm in the middle of reading and now work as a full-time online chess coach so I plan on getting back to 2300 soon (down to 2270 now) and eventually get 2400 in the near future :-)

I know that this might be a little wrong but could i just ask you guys what kind of content a 1000 rating on chess.com player like me can watch?
(I want it to be videos preferably on youtube)

Thanks.

Without regard to the above question, I want to mention a couple of recently published videos that I've happened to watch at almost the same time and which are dedicated to the same consideration - how and when to make optimal moves and how not to miss the advantage (especially in the limited time setting when thinking deep on every move would lead to time trouble).

'When to try and play the "strongest" aka "best" moves in chess?!' by KC
'Never Let Another Chess Advantage Slip!' by FM Alisa Melekhina

Also:

GM Roman Dzindzichashvili's video on endgame tactics

Grunch

I peaked as a Class A player (1800-1999 rating), and I would say some of the top things that helped me improve very quickly were:

(1) Reading Jeremy Silman's first Reassess Your Chess book. IMO, it is sort of like Harrington on Hold Em in that it teaches you things to think about during the game, how to formulate a plan, and the thought process of trying to execute your plan. Chess can be a complicated game, but the book tries to at least make you think about what you want to do, come up with a plan to do it, and then try to make that plan come to fruition. Thinking about things logically and always having a reason for a move is a good step to building a good foundation to your thinking in chess.

(2) Tactics. I bought several tactics books and, in my spare time when I was kid (like waiting around with my parents somewhere doing whatever we were doing), I would just do tactics puzzles. Seeing different tactics also helped me identify combinations, patterns, etc. that may come up. And there are tons of them! Some are more traditional/common than others, and you'll see them time and time again in your games.

These were the two things that helped me improve the most. However, if I were to be more serious abotu things, I would also recommend the following:

(1) Endgames. Most games progress to an endgame. Studying those and knowing them very well (and hopefully better than your opponent) will give you a significant advantage over your competition. I would study the more common endgames first (e.g., rook end games, minor piece end games). One amazing thing I learned about Fischer later is that that guy was probably the most technically sound end game player of his generation (particularly when it was bishop vs. knight end games). He could turn a seemingly drawish endgame into a full point.

(2) Openings. This is a lot less important IMO, but if you play certain openings all the time, I think it's important to know the ones you play inside and out. And not just the first 10 moves or whatever. Know what types of endgames you can and will get into with the openings you play. Some openings lead to very specific positions that will recur within your games (e.g., Sicilian Dragon). You should know those very well and be prepared. Also, simply memorizing the moves doesn't make you a better player. Understand why the moves are the book line, and understand why the moves are being played. That way, if you're caught off guard, you're not worrying about whether your move is the "opening book line" and you can proceed with the fundamental concepts upon which your opening centers on.

Anyways, hope this post is helpful to you aspiring chess players. Even though I'm only in my 30's, I feel like an old curmudgeon when it comes to talking about chess! haha

Thanks for the tip! Do you think it should be read before 'My System' by Aron Nimzowitsch (the '21st Century Edition' of 1991) or after it?

I don't think it matters much whether you read one before the other. When I was younger, it was easier to read Silman's because it was written more recently than Nimzowitsch's (which was like in the 1930's or 40's I think; you probably have a reprint).

Both are good. Silman's is more geared toward a simpler audience (think scholastic/kid), so it's easier to read. But obviously Nimzo was great with positional concepts, etc. Nimzo's is a classic.

I would say read whichever one's style that you prefer at the moment, think about what is being said, and then read the other one.

Good luck!

ha, squinting at ykw's 75% post brought results. the peer review process ftw

Damn apparently I have answers to give ITT, somehow I missed it.

I'll get to it at some point I promise

You don't need to read My System until you feel you are strong enough to say "you don't need to read My System".

One thing that's been working for me ever since I started playing again is focusing more on what my opponent is trying to do than what I want to do. Eventually people make mistakes once you counter everything they try to do. This at least has allowed me to get up to 1400...but I'm sure there are downsides that will eventually cause me to hit a wall that I don't currently see.

Don't touch My System with a ten-foot pole. You specifically, I mean. It'll reinforce your most harmful beliefs.

The 4th edition of How to Reassess Your Chess is fine; avoid the first three for similar reasons.

i teach chess for a living. as in, i go to work at 9, come home around 3, give a couple lessons and make dinner around 6. i teach children how to play chess, all day long. during the school year, i teach in classrooms, during the summer, i run camps. i've been doing this for thirty years.

i was about to respond to this thread when i read attogcinc's post. the advice given is exactly correct.

i was a struggling 1700 when i first read silman's book. the first tournament game i played after working through the book's lessons, i beat a 2300. the game is published. htryc is perhaps the clearest and most valuable chess improvement book you can work through on your own.

buy it. go through the lessons once quickly. then go through it again slowly. should take you about 3 months. then go through it again. you will gain a clear understanding of what you need to do to win a game of chess. best chess book i have ever read.

Can HTRYC be useful for an almost 2400 guy? I've seen it recommended over and over again and I am thinking maybe I should finally get it.

Prolly won't kill ya

How to reassess your chess (4th edition in particular) deserves all it's praise, if anyone was only going to get one book for their entire career it should be this one. excellent value for money as well.


it is geared more for those 1400-2200 but I think you might still get something out of it even at 2400.

to achieve near 2400 requires substantial chess skills. depends on what you perceive is your weakest skill. htryc is primarily a middle game book with a look towards linking middle game planning to a favourable ending.

if tactics are you are weakest skill, this book won't help much.

from just an historical perspective, the book has a lot of value. silman's analysis of several of history's great games is entertaining and enlightening. if i was a 2600 (dreaming), i think i'd still enjoy silman's perspective.

Imo you can never go wrong with studying endgames- and there is endless material to study.

I wouldn't worry too much about things like minor piece endings with 1 pawn on the board (I bought Nunn's book on it and it was the most boring thing I've ever seen, and probably didn't help me at all- his book on rook endings is pretty useful tho).

I would say that the best things to study are K+P ending and Rook endings. Also some 4p vs 3p with R or minor piece stuff (either all on 1 wing or with 1 queenside pawn extra etc). Also stuff like exchange for 1 pawn etc (a famous position is the R+f4,g3,h4 pawns vs black B and f5,g6,h5 pawns which is not easy to win and has many practical game examples). Getting better at endgames automatically makes you better at middle games since your decisions get better in the middle game due to your better knowledge of possible endgames.

Btw the books I found very useful for endgame study are the ones by Jon Speelman.

http://www.amazon.com/Endgame-Prepar.../dp/0713439998

is one of them.

But I'm sure you can find many good books on endings. If you can speak Russian, then probably Yuri Averbakh's books would have been curriculum (they were all translated into Chinese and used by the trainers there in the old days).