Beginners, ask your chess questions

''Beginners, ask your chess questions''

I really wanna be sarcastic here, like really!

"15+10 matchmaking is hell" * I see you are at 2341. At my level it is still OK, depends on the hour of the day.

"10+5 already takes 5-7 min on average" * But the games are not that good. Better one 15+10 than two 10+5.

"I don’t have much time to play 15+10, so I just play 10+5" * Yes, for 15+10 you should have 1 hour available, for 10+5 half an hour is enough.

"or variants" * Variants are fun, but do not help to improve.

"I’ve tried analysing games (won and lost)" * Analyse lost games only. 'You may learn much more from a game you lose than from a game you win.' - Capablanca. Analyzing a lost game for an hour brings you more than analyzing a won game for an hour. It is tempting to drool over your own magnificent wins for hours and to quickly shove aside a stupid loss, but you should do the opposite. Identify your decisive mistake that made you lose the game and study all aspects of the losing move. What were your thoughts? What was the right move? What moves did you consider? Did you consider the right move? Why did you chose the mistake? How much time did you spend on it? How much time did you have available? In a game you won you probably made some mistakes as well, but those were inconsequential and thus you will not remember them. The pain of the loss helps you remember the mistake in the lost game. Fischer mentioned how he stayed up all nighty analyzing a game he lost. He also mentioned how he remembered a mistake in a game and avoided repeating it.

"changing openings" * That is bad. Each time you switch openings you lose more, not less. It takes time and losses to accumulate experience.

"studying endgames" * This is important. 'In order to improve your game you must study the endgame before everything else; for, whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middlegame and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame.' - Capablanca
Capablanca was sent to Columbia University to study chemical engineering, but instead he studied chess endgames for a year. After that he was near unbeatable.
very instructive are the endgames by Capablanca. There is a blog here where his 60 best endgames are imported.

"one thing I might need to do is to play more" * Well you do need an hour to play a 15+10 game. Apart from play you may study grandmaster games. 'The best way to learn endings, as well as openings, is from the games of the masters.' - Capablanca
Fischer did not play in 1969, but analysed his own games for his book 'My Sixty Memorable Games'. In 1970 he came back stronger than ever before. Kramnik said that he studied thousands of games for 7 days per week. At some point he decided to study 6 days per week only and then he noticed a decline in his playing strength. Play and study should be in balance. I believe study time should be more than playing time.

even thought you win or loose make sure to analyze your games no matter what

I'm taking this thread seriously and have a quick question:
If I wanted to study endgames, and by academic hypothesis I had time to do it ( who knows, maybe in the future...), which one would be best to start with ?

B+B vs K is the most complex one I know, although I have never encountered it, so it's likely I forgot it. So the best I can play is K+P vs K

@morphyms1817 said in #1:

... My level is intermediate. ...
@mpozonios said in #4:
i would not say 1200 blitz on lichess is intermediate. Intermediate would propably be 1500 - 1800 ...
15+15

https://lichess.org/b7mornGL

game (~1 week ago) [Black "morphyms1817"] 1464 --> 1488

@a_Tauri said in #14:

... If I wanted to study endgames, and by academic hypothesis I had time to do it ( who knows, maybe in the future...), which one would be best to start with ? ...
My guess is that the late IM Silman would have advised you to read up to page 212 in Silman's Complete Endgame Course.
https://www.amazon.com/Silmans-Complete-Endgame-Course-Beginner/dp/1890085103?asin=B00H273OJS&revisi5a3244f2&format=2&depth=1

"If I wanted to study endgames... which one would be best to start with ?"

"B+B vs K is the most complex one I know" * Start with the 5 basic checkmates: KQ vs. K, KR vs. K, KBB vs. K, KBN vs. K, KNN vs. KP

"I have never encountered it" * That does not matter, it teaches you about the value of pieces and how to coordinate them

"it's likely I forgot it" * Do not memorize, understand and you will not forget

"the best I can play is K+P vs K" * That is next: KQ vs. KP, KR vs. KP, KP vs. K, then KQP vs. KR, KRP vs. KR etc.

"time to do it" * Procure Chess Fundamentals - Capablanca. In 60 pages it contains all you must know.

@kindaspongey said in #15:

My guess is that the late IM Silman would have advised you to read up to page 212 in Silman's Complete Endgame Course.

This was indeed appreciated advice. This book has been on my shopping list for a while now. I haven't bought it yet only because I'm in a ( long ) period where I can only dedicate time to chess for a few games, no more. In the meantime, given my particular interest in the topic, all opinions are welcome.
I hope that one day I can devote myself to the systematic study of this phase of the game, the one that most appeals to me. The good news is that I'm in no rush.

Thanks for your suggestions, too, @tpr. I'll add Capablanca to the list, too.

@tpr said in #12:

This post motivated me to finally get into studying master games again. Thanks.

In case others struggle with that, Silman and Heisman both talked about the benefits of studying many games relatively quickly.

pouring hours into each single game was keeping me from doing it entirely, so maybe try it too.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JPsie80pPc0

"... There are two extremes to the approach of replaying games, both of which can be very useful if used in moderation:

1. The 'Ken Smith' fast-approach. ...
2. The 'Excrutiating Detail' slow-approach. ...
   ... If you have never done either, you are surely missing something in your chess education.
   Despite the obvious advantages of occasionally going to the extreme, I suggest a norm of getting out a chessboard, playing each move, reading what the author has to say about the move, and then making the next move. At this rate, it should only take 20-40 minutes to play over an annotated game. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2005)
   https://web.archive.org/web/20140627023809/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman50.pdf
   "... [annotated games are] infinitely more useful than bare game scores. However, annotated games vary widely in quality. Some are excellent study material. Others are poor. But the most numerous fall into a third category - good-but-wrong-for-you. ... You want games with annotations that answer the questions that baffle you the most. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)

#12: You should analyse your won games as well. Reasons:

• You winning a game doesn’t mean that you made good moves; it could be that you made bad moves and your opponent failed to refute them. A strategy working doesn’t automatically mean that it is good. If your moves were bad and met by terrible ones, you'll think that you should repeat them if you don’t analyse them.

• Find and analyse the good moves you played. Success isn’t achieved by analysing one’s mistakes; it’s achieved by analysing one’s every move. ‘Why was this move good?’ ‘How can I spot this good move in the future?’ ‘If I face this good move that I made in a future game, how can I combat it?’ ‘Was there a better move than this good one?’

• You need a balance. It is tempting to think, ‘yes, I won,’ and then move on, not letting your fun be potentially minimised temporarily by searching for your mistakes that lie in victory. That is a form of toxic positivity. It’s a mindset that I suspect people are naturally drawn toward.