- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

5 Things You Need To Avoid To Improve In Chess

#2
<Comment deleted by user>
#3

Thx for this blog. I truely believe, that advice #1 is the most fundamental one, at least for me, personally. I have times, where I truely look at my games afterwards (the ones I lost, at least) - just focussing on the 1..3 worst moves ("blunders" or "mistakes") I made, according to the stockfish-analysis. When there are more than 3 terrible moves, I just focus on the earliest ones and skip the "rest" of the game, as I'm rarely willing to spend too much time on a single game.

Then there are times, where I just keep on playing game after game, rarely checking for my blunders, even, after a lost game. I don't feel like I'm improving at all, during those times. But sometimes that's just what I need - a bit of distraction and relaxation from rl...

I think everyone who thinks they want to improve (=analyze games / studies) should check themselves, how much it conflicts with their desire to just play / relax / have fun / etc...
When there's no conflict, then chances are good, they might become a great player, probably.

Note: I think in advice #1, instead of "Because unlearning is so much harder than learning!", it should read "Because unlearning is so much EASIER than learning!" - at least that's how I resonate with what's said.

Thx for this blog. I truely believe, that advice #1 is the most fundamental one, at least for me, personally. I have times, where I truely look at my games afterwards (the ones I lost, at least) - just focussing on the 1..3 worst moves ("blunders" or "mistakes") I made, according to the stockfish-analysis. When there are more than 3 terrible moves, I just focus on the earliest ones and skip the "rest" of the game, as I'm rarely willing to spend too much time on a single game. Then there are times, where I just keep on playing game after game, rarely checking for my blunders, even, after a lost game. I don't feel like I'm improving at all, during those times. But sometimes that's just what I need - a bit of distraction and relaxation from rl... I think everyone who *thinks* they want to improve (=analyze games / studies) should check themselves, how much it conflicts with their desire to just play / relax / have fun / etc... When there's no conflict, then chances are good, they might become a great player, probably. Note: I think in advice #1, instead of "Because unlearning is so much harder than learning!", it should read "Because unlearning is so much EASIER than learning!" - at least that's how I resonate with what's said.
#4

Tactics is the best training to improve

Tactics is the best training to improve
#5

Sometimes playing blitz to analyze more games might be worth it. Like 12 blitz games analyzed (5+2) or 1 classical game (90+30) analyzed. However, you should not spam both. But do probably 80%-60% rapid-classical!

Sometimes playing blitz to analyze more games might be worth it. Like 12 blitz games analyzed (5+2) or 1 classical game (90+30) analyzed. However, you should not spam both. But do probably 80%-60% rapid-classical!
#6

I always knew I focus too much on the openings, but now when Noel said it should not be more than 20%, I will analyze my whole games from now on (not just the opening part up until the first error) and create studies of the tactical middle game and endgame motifs I found. I will still write the improvement of the first error to my opening book at ChessTempo.

I always knew I focus too much on the openings, but now when Noel said it should not be more than 20%, I will analyze my whole games from now on (not just the opening part up until the first error) and create studies of the tactical middle game and endgame motifs I found. I will still write the improvement of the first error to my opening book at ChessTempo.
#7

yeah yeah, 80% of the chess advice on the internet is terrible, which is why you should buy noel's books instead. i notice a recurring theme in his articles there

yeah yeah, 80% of the chess advice on the internet is terrible, which is why you should buy noel's books instead. i notice a recurring theme in his articles there
#9

Kholmov Gambit isn't that horrible, especially in shorter time controls. It has quite a few little tricks and barely anyone plays the only line where you are really behind. (even just 37% in Lichess Masters Database and only around 10% in 2000+ in rapid games). And even that is a position which Lc0 on gives me 40% win for White, 40% draw, 20% win for white - it works suprisingly well vs players who are stronger than yourself and they often get in time trouble in blitz, especially over the board.

Kholmov Gambit isn't that horrible, especially in shorter time controls. It has quite a few little tricks and barely anyone plays the only line where you are really behind. (even just 37% in Lichess Masters Database and only around 10% in 2000+ in rapid games). And even that is a position which Lc0 on gives me 40% win for White, 40% draw, 20% win for white - it works suprisingly well vs players who are stronger than yourself and they often get in time trouble in blitz, especially over the board.
#10

@spryZEN2014 all help is too late for you :->

@pawngrid said in #7:

yeah yeah, 80% of the chess advice on the internet is terrible, which is why you should buy noel's books instead. i notice a recurring theme in his articles there

I guess you should. Any chess book will help you.

@spryZEN2014 said in #8:

true

Really?

@spryZEN2014 all help is too late for you :-> @pawngrid said in #7: > yeah yeah, 80% of the chess advice on the internet is terrible, which is why you should buy noel's books instead. i notice a recurring theme in his articles there I guess you should. Any chess book will help you. @spryZEN2014 said in #8: > true Really?