Chess Improvement for old f***s

@ThunderClap said in #21 (~22 hours ago):

... BTW however it's a little difficult without knowing your rating (probably 100 -150 points higher than you have here on Lichess since you have only 23 games played here ... I guess) So I can recommend Endgame Strategy by Mikhail Sherevesky as the Chess Book you should have around , look at, & Study a bit heh' ...
@kindaspongey said in #22:
"... one will not learn the basics from [Shereshevsky's 'Endgame Strategy'] at all; rather, it is a series of mostly complex examples, often in the middlegame rather than in the ending! Indeed, there are 62 pages of 'complex endings'; and most players would call the vast majority of the rest of the book's examples quite 'complex' as well. ... I like this book a lot, but it has more to do with transitions from the middlegame than with endings themselves. ..." - IM John Watson (2000)
https://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/endings-endings-endings
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9144.pdf
@kindaspongey said in #29:
... I was just trying to give fh_chess_65 more of an indication of what the Shereshevsky book is about.
@fh_chess_65 said in #30:
Why would I want to know about the Shereshevsky book?
I thought that you might like information about it because NM ThunderClap had suggested the Shereshevsky book.
@fh_chess_65 said in #30:
Something is wrong with my writing if you get the impression that I need it. My plan was clear on books.
I had come to no conclusion. It had seemed possible that you were influenced by #21 from NM ThunderClap.
@fh_chess_65 said in #30:
Perhaps ... people jump to the conclusion that I was asking for suggestions. This should have been cleared up if they had bothered to read what I had already posted. ...
I am not aware of any of your pre-#22 comments that ruled out the possibility of you being influenced by NM ThunderClap.

@kindaspongey said in #31:
<snip>

I am not aware of any of your pre-#22 comments that ruled out the possibility of you being influenced by NM ThunderClap.

Fair enough on one point, it was thunderclap that first recommended Sherevsjky in post 21, you downplayed Sherevshevsky in post 22, but then in your post 29, you clearly stated to NM_Thunder_Clap that you were trying to inform me about the Shereshevsky book. That threw me off, as I had completely forgotten about ThunderClap's recommendation, or else just discarded that information. I was more fixated on his suggestion to forget about improving and laugh at my blunders.

Let me tell you something, I do not need your help in dealing with ThunderClap. All that does is clutter up the discussion with your endless nitpicking. Ok, forget about Shereshevsky. Let's consider your previous comment, on page 2 I think about the Flores Rios book. It may or may not be true, but it is useless information to me, and suggests also that you either did not read all of my remarks about that book, or did not give much thought as to why I am using it. When did I ever say I needed some kind of strategy book or some kind of finsihing book, and wtf do mean by a finishing book? I must have given several reasons why I like the Flores Rios book on page 1, which you ignored completely, instead you try to "enlighten me" on some downside of the book that is irrelevant to my purpose, Gimme a break!

Please stop wasting my time. Your endless nitpicking and quoting of IMs, in most cases without a supporting comment of your own, bores me to tears. If I want to know what Watson thinks, I'd read him.

Try starting your own discussions for a while, instead of pissing in everyone elses's.

Get the drift? Much more of this and i will block you. Or I will take my discussions somewhere else.

@fh_chess_65 said in #3:

... Of course any feedback here is welcome, but I'll be sticking to the plan. ...
@fh_chess_65 said in #6:
... The only instructional chess book in my plan is “Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide, by Mauricio Flores Rios. It’s a very nice survey of pawn structures, ... This will be my guide. ...
@kindaspongey said in #16:
"... Chess structures: A Grandmaster Guide is not a primer of positional play; ... Instead, you might think of Chess Structures as positional chess 'finishing school.' ..." - John Hartmann ...
(To #16, "fh_chess_65 reacted with horsey")
@ThunderClap said in #26 (after quoting #22):
... Are u calling OP a beginner ?????????? ...
(To #26, "fh_chess_65 reacted with +1")
@kindaspongey said in #29:
... No, I was just trying to give fh_chess_65 more of an indication of what the Shereshevsky book is about.
@fh_chess_65 said in #30:
Why would I want to know about the Shereshevsky book? Something is wrong with my writing if you get the impression that I need it. ...
@kindaspongey said in #31:
... I thought that you might like information about it because NM ThunderClap had suggested the Shereshevsky book. ... I had come to no conclusion. It had seemed possible that you were influenced by #21 from NM ThunderClap. ...
@fh_chess_65 said in #32:
.... in your post 29, you clearly stated to NM_Thunder_Clap that you were trying to inform me about the Shereshevsky book. That threw me off, as I had completely forgotten about ThunderClap's recommendation, or else just discarded that information. I was more fixated on his suggestion to forget about improving and laugh at my blunders.
Let me tell you something, I do not need your help in dealing with ThunderClap. ...
I was not trying to help you to "deal" with NM ThunderClap. When writing #22, I just thought that it might be useful to you to have more information about the Shereshevsky book suggested by NM ThunderClap in #21.
My #29 had nothing to do with any NM ThunderClap reaction to your blunders. #29 was a reaction to NM ThunderClap's #26 question (to me), about what I was doing.
@fh_chess_65 said in #32:
All that does is clutter up the discussion with your endless nitpicking. ...
It did not occur to me that Watson's information about the Shereshevsky book (#22) or my reaction to NM ThunderClap's #26 public question (or, for that matter, my reaction to your public (#30) question (to me)) would be seen by you as "nitpicking".
@fh_chess_65 said in #32:
... Let's consider your previous comment, on page 2 I think about the Flores Rios book. It may or may not be true, but it is useless information to me, and suggests also that you either did not read all of my remarks about that book, or
I am not currently aware of any specific pre-#16 statement by you that indicated that it could not be useful to you to see a reaction to the Flores Rios book by someone else.
@fh_chess_65 said in #32:
did not give much thought as to why I am using it. When did I ever say I needed some kind of strategy book or some kind of finsihing book,
It seemed possible to me that the John Hartmann comment might influence your perception of your needs.
@fh_chess_65 said in #32:
and wtf do mean by a finishing book?
My impression is that John Hartmann was indicating that some readers might find it helpful to combine Flores-Rios-reading with reading from other books.
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/chess-structures-a-grandmaster-guide/
@fh_chess_65 said in #32:
I must have given several reasons why I like the Flores Rios book on page 1, which you ignored completely,
I was unaware of anything to be gained by commenting on your reasons.
@fh_chess_65 said in #32:
instead you try to "enlighten me" on some downside of the book that is irrelevant to my purpose, ...
"Enlighten" is your word choice. I only thought that the John Hartmann comment might help you with your purpose.
@fh_chess_65 said in #32:
... Please stop wasting my time. Your endless nitpicking and quoting of IMs, in most cases without a supporting comment of your own, bores me to tears. If I want to know what Watson thinks, I'd read him.
Pre-#22, it had seemed to me to be possible that, amidst the vast amount of IM Watson writing, there could be a useful comment that had escaped your attention.
@fh_chess_65 said in #32:
Try starting your own discussions for a while, instead of pissing in everyone elses's. ...
When somebody publicly asks me questions, publicly accuses me of "pissing", and so on, it seems to me to be reasonable for me to answer and defend myself.

OK, this is how the Korchnoi - Grischuk, Biel 2001 thing went down. I love this more and more now in the current situation. The early stages of the game were kind of boring, but I expect that did not bother Korchnoi or Grischuk. Nothing much was happening in the chat, until somebody drops a bomb, and the place explodes.

"Hey, get a load of the size of Grischuk's fingers" (they're long). "I'll bet he's got a very big pe**s". (that's the prevailing theory, at least in Cosmopolitan magazine). Naturally, everybody wants a piece of the action, and a flurry of one-liners scrolls by. Good ones, since we are dealing with chess players...

"Grischuk's pe**s is soooo big he has to... what?

"Drop his pants to go peepee, cause he can't fit it through the fly-hole?

"wrap it twice around his neck so he don't step on it when he walks around naked?"

I can't remember, that's why I want the transcript. Anyways, I was staying quiet, keeping an eye on the game and the meelee. Suddenly the game heats up, and Korchnoi is pressing. It's time for me to speak up.

Me: "Korchnoi is going for the win!"

Someone else comes right back with "YES!, Grischuk has a very big pe**s!"

Me: "Sorry, I guess I'm off topic". That one earned me some respect. :)

That's all I remember. Perhaps you had to be there.

Are you out there Mr Grischuk? LOL

ok, I forgot something very important, concerning Axl Bachman's forward in the Flores RIOS.

@fh_chess_65 said in #11:
<snip>

The forward was very pleasing, written by GM Axel Bachman, they were teammates on the chess team at university. Bachman’s own style during that time was to study many games (about 100,000 over his career) for only a couple minutes, looking for REPEAT PATTERNS. The downside of that is that it’s very time consuming, plus it is not so easy for everyone to see those patterns. He then concludes that Flores Rios’ book is intended to deal with exactly those problems.

<snip>

I forgot to say what exactly AXL Bachman gained by looking at 100,000 games for two minutes each, looking for repeat PATTERNS. This is what he has to say...

"... has allowed me to gain an excellent positional understanding. Staring at a position for a few seconds (that's what he said) is often enough to see who is better, which plans will work, which pieces should be traded, etc."

And I thought to myself "Damn, surely this must be what I need. The ability to make a quick assessment. If I can see that I have an advantage, I should be able to figure out how to win on my own. My technique is just fine, thank-you very much.

As for the over all plan, naturally diet and exercise plays a role. Also a daily training schedule, based on available scientific evidence, not from chess.com bloggers. The focus will be on learning and playing at the best times, best in terms of mental sharpness. For example sleep. Bobby Fischer himself said that he was mentally sharpest in the early morning. In that light, the question becomes "How much time do I need, after waking, to be mentally prepared" This sort of action is often a closely guarded professional secret. I expect that the pros would not want to divulge their training secrets"

#36
"diet and exercise plays a role"

• Here is some information:
  https://handbook.fide.com/files/handbook/Nutrition%20and%20Exercise%20Doc.pdf