Chess games

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Dw at least you're not having as many tactical problems as me. I spent a couple of weeks hovering around 1800 on TT and recently things have been going wrong and I kept getting the puzzles wrong, so I decided to just reduce my rating to 1600 and try to work my way up again. But then I struggled even more with 1500 rated problems (don't ask how) so I got really pissed and reduced my tactics rating all the way to 1100. Now working my way back up, spending time on each tactic and making sure my basics are in place before I get back to 1800. I really am not a good tactician lol. I don't know if it's lack of familiarity with the chess pieces, but I cannot help missing that a piece is hanging etc. in these puzzles.
    Well I do sometimes question how reasonable the ratings are. Until I started playing more frequently again last month my rating was around 1500-1700 for ages, and I found some problems tough at this level. Then, after some more heavy practise lately, I shoot up to 1900, and the 1800 problems didn't really seem much harder. Well, the higher 1800s and early 1900s, you get some more convoluted and demanding puzzles, but still, on the whole, I don't see a vast difference. Often you will get "red herring" problems where the solution is worthy of a 1000 (capture a hanging piece) but you go down some complex line and either get low points based on time or pick a wrong idea. I'm hanging loads of pieces in blitz though. I suppose it's only blitz, but it's so annoying, countless games it's *hangs piece in ridiculous fashion* *resigns immediately* I feel like by this point I shouldn't have to concentrate on the most basic of basics, i.e. "is this square covered by an enemy piece", but if I don't, I'll sometimes miss it...
    By the way if you haven't already check out Jerry's latest video, a really interesting strategic game coloured with some cheeky tactics.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Well I do sometimes question how reasonable the ratings are. Until I started playing more frequently again last month my rating was around 1500-1700 for ages, and I found some problems tough at this level. Then, after some more heavy practise lately, I shoot up to 1900, and the 1800 problems didn't really seem much harder. Well, the higher 1800s and early 1900s, you get some more convoluted and demanding puzzles, but still, on the whole, I don't see a vast difference. Often you will get "red herring" problems where the solution is worthy of a 1000 (capture a hanging piece) but you go down some complex line and either get low points based on time or pick a wrong idea. I'm hanging loads of pieces in blitz though. I suppose it's only blitz, but it's so annoying, countless games it's *hangs piece in ridiculous fashion* *resigns immediately* I feel like by this point I shouldn't have to concentrate on the most basic of basics, i.e. "is this square covered by an enemy piece", but if I don't, I'll sometimes miss it...
    By the way if you haven't already check out Jerry's latest video, a really interesting strategic game coloured with some cheeky tactics.
    Yeah you're right, the puzzles can sometimes be quite inconsistent in terms of difficulty. I'm hoping to get to 1900 eventually but I struggled enough to get any higher than 1800. Out of interest do you calculate everything when you do a puzzle? Like do you calculate each one to the end so that you're always 100% that your solution is correct? This is obviously the best approach but I've noticed I'm lazy a lot of the time and don't bother, so making sure I do this with each puzzle, don't care how long it takes since it's much more important to get the puzzle correct slowly and know that your solution is correct from the start than to guess/'wander through' the puzzle (and I play 30|0 most of the time anyway so taking my time isn't so bad).

    Lol yeah I've noticed that you play decent games and then just randomly hang a piece. I can only say just take more time to make sure you don't, although it's quite surprising since you obviously have a lot of vision given your tactical skill.

    Gonna watch his vid now .
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Yeah you're right, the puzzles can sometimes be quite inconsistent in terms of difficulty. I'm hoping to get to 1900 eventually but I struggled enough to get any higher than 1800. Out of interest do you calculate everything when you do a puzzle? Like do you calculate each one to the end so that you're always 100% that your solution is correct? This is obviously the best approach but I've noticed I'm lazy a lot of the time and don't bother, so making sure I do this with each puzzle, don't care how long it takes since it's much more important to get the puzzle correct slowly and know that your solution is correct from the start than to guess/'wander through' the puzzle (and I play 30|0 most of the time anyway so taking my time isn't so bad).

    Lol yeah I've noticed that you play decent games and then just randomly hang a piece. I can only say just take more time to make sure you don't, although it's quite surprising since you obviously have a lot of vision given your tactical skill.

    Gonna watch his vid now .
    Literally just put on tactics trainer with 1913 rating and the first puzzle it gives me, which turns out to be rated 1898, is a mate in 1. It's a surprising mate in 1, to be fair, but I mean damn.. I calculated that one to the end. In general it does depend; I'd say I'd look for decent candidate moves, try to calculate for a bit of time, and then if I'm having difficulty coming up with anything concrete in any line, I'll just go for the one that intuitively appeals best. Were the trainer less stringent on time, I would probably be less lazy. Although have they fixed it now so that the minimum you can get is +1 or something? I don't recall losing points after solving lately; a few months ago you could if you took long enough..

    I think it's basically a tunnel vision thing. Getting so fixated on certain ideas that you ignore the actual position in front of you. Typically I will make these moves when under pressure, or when I am not focused and rather dejected (which has been the case for most of today's blitz. Thankfully I've wrestled it back over 1400, but I was up to 1482 or something like that yesterday)
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Literally just put on tactics trainer with 1913 rating and the first puzzle it gives me, which turns out to be rated 1898, is a mate in 1. It's a surprising mate in 1, to be fair, but I mean damn.. I calculated that one to the end. In general it does depend; I'd say I'd look for decent candidate moves, try to calculate for a bit of time, and then if I'm having difficulty coming up with anything concrete in any line, I'll just go for the one that intuitively appeals best. Were the trainer less stringent on time, I would probably be less lazy. Although have they fixed it now so that the minimum you can get is +1 or something? I don't recall losing points after solving lately; a few months ago you could if you took long enough..

    I think it's basically a tunnel vision thing. Getting so fixated on certain ideas that you ignore the actual position in front of you. Typically I will make these moves when under pressure, or when I am not focused and rather dejected (which has been the case for most of today's blitz. Thankfully I've wrestled it back over 1400, but I was up to 1482 or something like that yesterday)
    I've always been confused by some TT comments saying how they lost so many points etc. when the lowest I've ever got was +1, so yeah it seems chess.com have changed it so that you don't lose points provided you get the puzzle right, which I think is very good.

    I don't even want to try improving at blitz; I'll leave that til uni. Wouldn't be able to stand playing such bad chess XD (I'm terrible when pressured for time).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    I've always been confused by some TT comments saying how they lost so many points etc. when the lowest I've ever got was +1, so yeah it seems chess.com have changed it so that you don't lose points provided you get the puzzle right, which I think is very good.

    I don't even want to try improving at blitz; I'll leave that til uni. Wouldn't be able to stand playing such bad chess XD (I'm terrible when pressured for time).
    That's pretty cool. I think having so much emphasis on time is still harsh, but at the end of the day there has to be some element of time in chess I guess.

    Blitz is even worse over the board though lol. Having to hit the clock all the time.

    I mean look at this rapid game I just played (getting my e4 and Ruy Lopez on lol, can be quite fun). Surely he did not want to sac the exchange, so he must have seen a tactic that was not there or misunderstood my threat, and he's not much lower rated than me. I also am not sure if his pawn sacrifice in the opening was intentional.. https://www.chess.com/live/game/1716580289

    Incidentally this is, of the ones I have checked, though I doubt the others were candidates, my first game with no inaccuracies I believe. Not great play, with 10 average centipawn loss, with more "good" moves than you'd like, but whatever.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    That's pretty cool. I think having so much emphasis on time is still harsh, but at the end of the day there has to be some element of time in chess I guess.

    Blitz is even worse over the board though lol. Having to hit the clock all the time.

    I mean look at this rapid game I just played (getting my e4 and Ruy Lopez on lol, can be quite fun). Surely he did not want to sac the exchange, so he must have seen a tactic that was not there or misunderstood my threat, and he's not much lower rated than me. I also am not sure if his pawn sacrifice in the opening was intentional.. https://www.chess.com/live/game/1716580289

    Incidentally this is, of the ones I have checked, though I doubt the others were candidates, my first game with no inaccuracies I believe. Not great play, with 10 average centipawn loss, with more "good" moves than you'd like, but whatever.
    Honestly I'd love the rush of slamming the clock after every move XD. Can't wait to play OTB.

    Really nice game there! Nice finish in particular. And yes, that pawn sacrifice was definitely unintentional, your opponent just chasing your LSB beginner-style and showing little understanding of the opening itself. You say that you don't play the Ruy much but from this game it looked like you were familiar with it and he had never seen it in his life XD.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Honestly I'd love the rush of slamming the clock after every move XD. Can't wait to play OTB.

    Really nice game there! Nice finish in particular. And yes, that pawn sacrifice was definitely unintentional, your opponent just chasing your LSB beginner-style and showing little understanding of the opening itself. You say that you don't play the Ruy much but from this game it looked like you were familiar with it and he had never seen it in his life XD.
    It's more fun, but more stress, I suppose. And you'll tend to play worse, I think.

    Yeah the last two moves are pretty funny ...h3 ...g4#. Maybe he figured it was okay because everyone "hangs" their pawns in lines of the Ruy. Not defending the e5 pawn again after Bb5 technically hangs it to Bxc6 Nxe5, early castling in the main line Berlin technically hangs e4 to Nxe4...only in those lines the pawn will be won back and possibly with interest. Here the pawn is never won back and the computer thinks he has pretty much no compensation at all, giving close to a pawn advantage. Weird from a 1600, especially as I've seen 1400 rapids play decent. But the exchange sac was even weirder, I dunno what he thought I was threatening. I'm familiar with the Ruy, but more so from other's games on it, and I used to play it more when first starting out. It's just that for most of the time playing chess I've primarily played d4, and when I've played e4 almost exclusively opted for the Scotch if hit with e5. Ruy theory can be somewhat daunting; you've got the fried liver, and its many crazy lines, and, as mentioned before, there's lots of "hanging" pawns and you need to know when things are tactically protected and when they aren't.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    It's more fun, but more stress, I suppose. And you'll tend to play worse, I think.

    Yeah the last two moves are pretty funny ...h3 ...g4#. Maybe he figured it was okay because everyone "hangs" their pawns in lines of the Ruy. Not defending the e5 pawn again after Bb5 technically hangs it to Bxc6 Nxe5, early castling in the main line Berlin technically hangs e4 to Nxe4...only in those lines the pawn will be won back and possibly with interest. Here the pawn is never won back and the computer thinks he has pretty much no compensation at all, giving close to a pawn advantage. Weird from a 1600, especially as I've seen 1400 rapids play decent. But the exchange sac was even weirder, I dunno what he thought I was threatening. I'm familiar with the Ruy, but more so from other's games on it, and I used to play it more when first starting out. It's just that for most of the time playing chess I've primarily played d4, and when I've played e4 almost exclusively opted for the Scotch if hit with e5. Ruy theory can be somewhat daunting; you've got the fried liver, and its many crazy lines, and, as mentioned before, there's lots of "hanging" pawns and you need to know when things are tactically protected and when they aren't.
    I think his Nge7 was pretty dodgy in itself, since it blocks the DSB, puts the g knight on an inferior square and allows an easy c3,d4 for White.
    Yeah and I don't understand the exchange sac either, basically gave away the game.
    Fried Liver isn't part of the Ruy, it's a line in the Italian Game? But yeah some lines of the Ruy can be ridiculously hard to play accurately just by 'working things out'. You really need to know theory to play it well (I don't know much theory but I still play it lol).
    Might start trying the Scotch idk. Not entirely sure whether the Ruy is the best e4-e5 opening for me, but maybe I could learn some theory and then I'll be better at it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    I think his Nge7 was pretty dodgy in itself, since it blocks the DSB, puts the g knight on an inferior square and allows an easy c3,d4 for White.
    Yeah and I don't understand the exchange sac either, basically gave away the game.
    Fried Liver isn't part of the Ruy, it's a line in the Italian Game? But yeah some lines of the Ruy can be ridiculously hard to play accurately just by 'working things out'. You really need to know theory to play it well (I don't know much theory but I still play it lol).
    Might start trying the Scotch idk. Not entirely sure whether the Ruy is the best e4-e5 opening for me, but maybe I could learn some theory and then I'll be better at it.
    It's been played before, but yeah it's weird. I presume the idea is to be ultra safe about the e5 pawn in case the bishop takes, but that is incongruous with hunting the bishop down.

    Yeah lol Bc4 not Bb5 oops. Supposed I should have generalised to e4-e5.

    Scotch is pretty simple because typically they take everything and you quickly get a nice queen on d4 (no knight to bother it right away) and pawn on e4 with no complicated pawn breaks or anything to worry about for the time being.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    It's been played before, but yeah it's weird. I presume the idea is to be ultra safe about the e5 pawn in case the bishop takes, but that is incongruous with hunting the bishop down.

    Yeah lol Bc4 not Bb5 oops. Supposed I should have generalised to e4-e5.

    Scotch is pretty simple because typically they take everything and you quickly get a nice queen on d4 (no knight to bother it right away) and pawn on e4 with no complicated pawn breaks or anything to worry about for the time being.
    I think most people who play Nge7 have had bad experiences with Bxc6 followed by losing the pawn XD.

    I've noticed that most weak players will just trade off and give you a great queen position in the Scotch, but when considering starting to play the opening I'm gonna assume they don't do that. I've seen that Kasparov likes the Scotch, so I'll watch some of his games for some insights.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    I think most people who play Nge7 have had bad experiences with Bxc6 followed by losing the pawn XD.

    I've noticed that most weak players will just trade off and give you a great queen position in the Scotch, but when considering starting to play the opening I'm gonna assume they don't do that. I've seen that Kasparov likes the Scotch, so I'll watch some of his games for some insights.
    Not trading seems rare.
    Just played a 30|0 against a 1600s guy with a ****ing ridiculous opening, he played it really fast and it pissed me off because I knew it was terrible, so I played too fast. Ended up saccing a piece because he kept closing up every pawn break and he was pushing on the kingside despite his position being horrible and development being horrible; it rubbed me the wrong way. I don't think I was that much worse even after the sac but I let a simple fork in and was decidedly lost. I guess that was a psychological loss.
    edit: yeah lol before a fork I was -1.6 up despite the fact I was down a piece for two pawns or something like that.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Not trading seems rare.
    Just played a 30|0 against a 1600s guy with a ****ing ridiculous opening, he played it really fast and it pissed me off because I knew it was terrible, so I played too fast. Ended up saccing a piece because he kept closing up every pawn break and he was pushing on the kingside despite his position being horrible and development being horrible; it rubbed me the wrong way. I don't think I was that much worse even after the sac but I let a simple fork in and was decidedly lost. I guess that was a psychological loss.
    That happened to me a lot too, I'd just say be as patient as possible with terrible play; trying to punish it too quickly can backfire.

    I played some guy on lichess recently and they played some terrible moves in the opening, castled queenside in a ridiculous position and I managed to play perfectly and attack the queenside with 0 inaccuracies until I'd worked my advantage up to +4.8 (and I wasn't even ahead in material). Nice space advantage, open b-file everything. Then I moved my queen again to b3 to make a stupid one-move checkmate threat - I was too lazy to consider his replies and realise that it was easy to defend - and after that I started to run out of ideas and such. Even when I'd completely run out of ideas my position was still completely winning but since I was so focused on winning on the queenside I didn't notice I could easily switch the play and crush him on the kingside.
    Had I not played Qb3 and just developed my last minor piece (there was a great square for my DSB) and patiently connected my rooks, maybe double on the b-file it would have been an easy win.

    So yeah, be patient; it's always better to miss good moves yourself than to allow your opponent good moves.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    That happened to me a lot too, I'd just say be as patient as possible with terrible play; trying to punish it too quickly can backfire.

    I played some guy on lichess recently and they played some terrible moves in the opening, castled queenside in a ridiculous position and I managed to play perfectly and attack the queenside with 0 inaccuracies until I'd worked my advantage up to +4.8 (and I wasn't even ahead in material). Nice space advantage, open b-file everything. Then I moved my queen again to b3 to make a stupid one-move checkmate threat - I was too lazy to consider his replies and realise that it was easy to defend - and after that I started to run out of ideas and such. Even when I'd completely run out of ideas my position was still completely winning but since I was so focused on winning on the queenside I didn't notice I could easily switch the play and crush him on the kingside.
    Had I not played Qb3 and just developed my last minor piece (there was a great square for my DSB) and patiently connected my rooks, maybe double on the b-file it would have been an easy win.

    So yeah, be patient; it's always better to miss good moves yourself than to allow your opponent good moves.
    Fair enough but my opening was ugly as hell as well, I didn't have a clear plan.
    Just lost another ****ing game, 16 moves for god's sake. Just another ****ing tactic. Pathetic.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    ---
    Apologies for the petulance lol. You might enjoy this rook and bishop vs rook pair to rook vs rook end game. I rather like 37. ...c3! I missed 44. ...Rd1 winning instantly I believe, but oh well. In time trouble so loads of inaccuracies and ways to kill it off faster but whatever. https://www.chess.com/analysis-board...ram_id=3127570
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Apologies for the petulance lol. You might enjoy this rook and bishop vs rook pair to rook vs rook end game. I rather like 37. ...c3! I missed 44. ...Rd1 winning instantly I believe, but oh well. In time trouble so loads of inaccuracies and ways to kill it off faster but whatever. https://www.chess.com/analysis-board...ram_id=3127570
    Nah it's fine, I get angry at myself for playing bad chess all the time lol. Particularly when I'm winning and then straight up run out of ideas (basically I manage to refute every idea I have and I can find tonnes of good moves for my opponent).

    Looked liked a reversed KID lol. I'm surprised he just completely missed an obvious fork, but again nice finish to the game; you seem to be good at finishing lol. 40. ...Rc3 would've been beautiful though.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Apologies for the petulance lol. You might enjoy this rook and bishop vs rook pair to rook vs rook end game. I rather like 37. ...c3! I missed 44. ...Rd1 winning instantly I believe, but oh well. In time trouble so loads of inaccuracies and ways to kill it off faster but whatever. https://www.chess.com/analysis-board...ram_id=3127570
    Out of interest what board and pieces do you use? I use alpha pieces green board.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Nah it's fine, I get angry at myself for playing bad chess all the time lol. Particularly when I'm winning and then straight up run out of ideas (basically I manage to refute every idea I have and I can find tonnes of good moves for my opponent).

    Looked liked a reversed KID lol. I'm surprised he just completely missed an obvious fork, but again nice finish to the game; you seem to be good at finishing lol. 40. ...Rc3 would've been beautiful though.
    Well, I suppose it is better to be aware of good moves for your opponent than not to be.
    Yeah I've never really played the closed sicilian but I've seen some games on it. I mean that's pretty much identical to the fork I missed two games ago, so I'm not that puzzled by a 1600 doing so. He obviously got tunnel vision: He wanted to protect the pawn in the case the knight moved or was captured. lol 40. Rc3, if only. I had too little time at that point. I wouldn't say the finish was that good considering there was 40. Rc3, 44. Rd1, and I could have played the game ending move earlier. An interesting thing to note is that actually capturing the pawn instead of pushing was superior, counter-intuitive, as it doesn't get a protected passer, but the point is to attack the rook on the back rank when it defends, forcing it to capture the pawn, then "fork" the rook and the king, again forcing a capture, and the king can't catch the remaining pawn in time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Out of interest what board and pieces do you use? I use alpha pieces green board.
    For a while I used blue board with classic pieces. Now I'm using dark wood with alpha pieces. Alpha and classic are both good, most of the others confuse me. Dark wood feels more authentic lol.
    Been trying to solve a few of the tactics puzzles by setting my pieces up on an actual chess board to get more used to it..
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    For a while I used blue board with classic pieces. Now I'm using dark wood with alpha pieces. Alpha and classic are both good, most of the others confuse me. Dark wood feels more authentic lol.
    Been trying to solve a few of the tactics puzzles by setting my pieces up on an actual chess board to get more used to it..
    Ah yeah I noticed you used alpha and dark wood from the link to your game. Dark wood looks nice, you're right; might start using that. And yeah besides alpha and classic they all look a bit weird, although chess.com does seem to like neo a lot.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Ah yeah I noticed you used alpha and dark wood from the link to your game. Dark wood looks nice, you're right; might start using that. And yeah besides alpha and classic they all look a bit weird, although chess.com does seem to like neo a lot.
    I tried 3D earlier. Not as bad as you might think...

    I struggle to contain my anger with myself over this one. What the actual **** am I thinking. How the hell can you lose this endgame. Jesus christ. Absolute retard. https://www.chess.com/live/game/1717631122 Two pawns up, or was it three? Absolutely no positional compensation for him originally. I should just accept I can't play chess at all with the absolute poverty of intuition and logic it takes to lose that.
    And after an intelligently played middlegame as well. Lmao.
    edit: Well I'm not sure it's even lost at the end, but I don't know the drawing tactics. Point is more not winning, drawing or losing are both ridiculous results for white.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 4, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

Quick Link:

Unanswered Forum Games Threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Study resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.