@ohcomeon_1 said in #10:
> You can rest assured that most of your losses are because
>
> Please do not post broken links!!!
Nonsense, the last time he played was two weeks ago and @PTX187 posted his comment less than an hour ago.
You can rest assured that most of your losses come from tactical blunders. But it does not hurt getting your positional play right. The best ways is to follow general principles. Fight for the center. Develop your pieces. Castle. Rooks on open files. Bishops on open diagonals... And develop, develop, develop. Development above all.
@ohcomeon_1 said in #12:
> You can rest assured that most of your losses come from tactical blunders. But it does not hurt getting your positional play right. The best ways is to follow general principles. Fight for the center. Develop your pieces. Castle. Rooks on open files. Bishops on open diagonals... And develop, develop, develop. Development above all.
Which follows the practice of abiding by opening theory and naming your approach according to convention facilitates communication of your means of deployment.
@heallan said in #11:
> Nonsense, the last time he played was two weeks ago and @PTX187 posted his comment less than an hour ago.
I don't know what you are talking about. There was a broken link in @PTX187 post: https://www.you.ube.com/playlist?list=PL9RQPxG_e-LkKfDgKp5AVNcW5cppg-7ZW
I just asked not to post broken links. Are you challenging the fact that it is a broken link?
@ohcomeon_1 said in #14:
> I don't know what you are talking about. There was a broken link in @PTX187 post: www.you.ube.com/playlist?list=PL9RQPxG_e-LkKfDgKp5AVNcW5cppg-7ZW
>
> I just asked not to post broken links.
No, you said this: "You can rest assured that most of your losses are because...". Nonsense.
"... Logical Chess [(Batsford edition by Chernev)] ... a collection of 33 games ... is definitely for beginners and players who are just starting to learn about development, weak squares, the centre, standard attacking ideas, and the like. In many ways, it would [be] a wonderful 'first' book (or first 'serious' book, after the ones which teach the rules and elementary mates, for example), and a nice gift for a young player just taking up chess. ..." - IM John Watson (1999)
https://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/assorted-recent-books
https://www.amazon.com/Logical-Chess-Every-Explained-Algebraic/dp/0713484640?asin=0713484640&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1
"... The Amateur's Mind ... (for players 1000 to 1600) ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (2010)
https://www.silmanjamespress.com/shop/chess/amateurs-mind-the-2nd-edition/
"... The Amateur’s Mind ... is one of the best instructive books in print. ..."
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708094419/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/ammind.pdf
“... Most internet players think that 30 5 is slow, but that is unlikely slow enough to play 'real' chess. You need a game slow enough so that for most of the game you have time to consider all your candidate moves as well as your opponent’s possible replies that at least include his checks, captures, and serious threats, to make sure you can meet all of them. For the average OTB player G/90 is about the fastest, which might be roughly 60 10 online, where there is some delay. But there is no absolute; some people think faster than others and others can play real chess faster because of experience. Many internet players are reluctant to play slower than 30 5 so you might have to settle for that as a 'slow' game." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627010008/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman12.pdf
@heallan said in #15:
> No, you said this: "You can rest assured that most of your losses are because...". Nonsense.
Oh, you think that 900-1000 games are decided (as a rule) by something other than tactical mistakes. To use your way of arguing: nonsense.
There are positional puzzles but they're very different from tactical puzzles and not a good place to start. For the most part tactics don't need to be explained, you just need to see the pattern and it makes sense, but strategic chess is about explanations. The first step is to learn the basic vocabulary or elements of chess so that you can assimilate those explanations. I'm sure you already recognize things like open files and passed pawns, but it can take a little more work to understand space advantages, weak squares, backward pawns, initiative, how to use the bishop pair, etc. I remember I had a mental block about weak squares for example and then suddenly it clicked. Once you gain this vocabulary you literally start to see the board differently and then it's an endless but fun process of trying to assess which elements are the most important in any given position and to link them to tactical ideas. I think it's probably still best to use a book for an introductory survey and Winning Chess Strategies by Yasser Seirawan is a great place to start. Chess Training for Post-Beginners: A Basic Course in Positional Understanding by Yaroslav Srokovski is probably slightly more advanced, and has a bit less prose and more examples, but both of these are fairly short, and you want something that you'll actually finish. Have fun!
@heallan said in #15:
> No, you said this: "You can rest assured that most of your losses are because...". Nonsense.
That was not even in the post you were replying to.
Tactics. And maybe Simple Chess by Chernev or even.... dun dun dun... How to Re-Assess Your Chess by Silman! Lol! (Someone had to say the word Silman) Also Silman’s Endgame Course is absolutely fantastic.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.