Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Forming ICC 45/45 Team
I am putting together a U1600 45/45 on the team. I don't think there is enough of us active on the ICC to make a full team, so I am open to anyone who can play. To play you have to have played a number of standard games and sign up on http://www.teamchess.org/ as interested in playing this round.
Leave me a message if your interested.
-=-=-=-=-
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 | Circle 3 | Circle 4 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% | 99% | 100%r |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% | 95% | 97% |
| Step 3 | 93% | 97% | 97% | 96% |
| Step 4 | 80% | 86% | 90% | 91%* |
| Step 5 | 74% | 77% | 83% | ??% |
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Slow Down
I'm running into some difficulties on Step 4. Ostensibly I am supposed to be spending up to 4 minutes per problem (cough, cough), but I just seem to rush ahead like it's CTS. I need to remember that they love to throw in ringers, which really discourages lazy calculation.
I am thinking in advance that I will need to break up the 1 minute/30sec circles for these 2000 + problems. I probably will resort to mini-circles since they have worked fine in the past.
MDLM graduate J'adoude has recently posted some is reflections on chess improvement. I wonder about this, and I am curious as to what other Knights think. I think more than any other factor poor tactical assessment loses chess games. That's pretty simple, quite accurate for me certainly, and fundamentally seems to be the reason De La Maza changed his chess study.
Before starting this chess training I imagined I would end up with combination(s) in most of my games, either played by me or my opponent. I guess that was a pipe dream, as I rarely see genuine combinations. I have noticed that whenever there is a combination in an annotated game, there usually is some earlier mistake that sets it up, almost like you need collusion to have it all work out.
On the other hand, it seems like simpler threats occur on all the time, and seem to play a huge role for anyone who ignores them.
Here's something that I missed in a recent blitz game:
Black to Move
-=-=-=-=-
I just looked at one of the World Cup Games, and it looks like amateur vs. professional. I like the straightforward tactics that occur, much like in TCT problems.
I am thinking in advance that I will need to break up the 1 minute/30sec circles for these 2000 + problems. I probably will resort to mini-circles since they have worked fine in the past.
-=-=-=-=-
J'adoube "...tactics play a much smaller role now than I previously thought."
MDLM graduate J'adoude has recently posted some is reflections on chess improvement. I wonder about this, and I am curious as to what other Knights think. I think more than any other factor poor tactical assessment loses chess games. That's pretty simple, quite accurate for me certainly, and fundamentally seems to be the reason De La Maza changed his chess study.
Before starting this chess training I imagined I would end up with combination(s) in most of my games, either played by me or my opponent. I guess that was a pipe dream, as I rarely see genuine combinations. I have noticed that whenever there is a combination in an annotated game, there usually is some earlier mistake that sets it up, almost like you need collusion to have it all work out.
On the other hand, it seems like simpler threats occur on all the time, and seem to play a huge role for anyone who ignores them.
-=-=-=-=-
Here's something that I missed in a recent blitz game:
Black to Move
-=-=-=-=-
I just looked at one of the World Cup Games, and it looks like amateur vs. professional. I like the straightforward tactics that occur, much like in TCT problems.
-=-=-=-=-
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 | Circle 3 | Circle 4 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% | 99% | 100%r |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% | 95% | 97% |
| Step 3 | 93% | 97% | 97% | 96% |
| Step 4 | 80% | 86% | 90% | 90%* |
| Step 5 | 74% | 77% | 83% | ??% |
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Circle 4, Step 3 Complete
Down a percentage point but happy to complete it nonetheless. Setting the time limit to 2 minutes really made it difficult, but I hope to get to 99% + by circle 6.
Sancho's opening post has encouraged me to learn a little about the Benko Gambit. After several days I have gotten a general sense of the most common ideas, focusing mainly on when the gambit is accepted and noting some rudimentary responses if White declines. I have no idea how to turn the Queenside pressure into equality in the middlegame/endgame with this puppy, but it seems like a fun challenge.
My goal is to eventually know 2 or 3 defenses as Black in the Queen's pawn opening. I like the Black side of the Queen's Gambit Declined and Grünfeld. There is plenty of reason to look at others, but so far none of the others have stuck with me. I have seen Queen's Gambit Accepted players do well with the Black pieces, either leaving White with the typical isolated Queen pawn or exchanging Queens early and ruining White's castling. As far as simplicity is concerned, that might be the best.
Sancho's opening post has encouraged me to learn a little about the Benko Gambit. After several days I have gotten a general sense of the most common ideas, focusing mainly on when the gambit is accepted and noting some rudimentary responses if White declines. I have no idea how to turn the Queenside pressure into equality in the middlegame/endgame with this puppy, but it seems like a fun challenge.
My goal is to eventually know 2 or 3 defenses as Black in the Queen's pawn opening. I like the Black side of the Queen's Gambit Declined and Grünfeld. There is plenty of reason to look at others, but so far none of the others have stuck with me. I have seen Queen's Gambit Accepted players do well with the Black pieces, either leaving White with the typical isolated Queen pawn or exchanging Queens early and ruining White's castling. As far as simplicity is concerned, that might be the best.
-=-=-=-=-
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 | Circle 3 | Circle 4 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% | 99% | 100%r |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% | 95% | 97% |
| Step 3 | 93% | 97% | 97% | 96% |
| Step 4 | 80% | 86% | 90% | ??% |
| Step 5 | 74% | 77% | 83% | ??% |
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Circle 4, Step 2 Complete
I just barely made it to 97% for all of Step 2 this time. It's nice to get an upward trend for Step 2.
I just checked out One Move Chess by the Champions. It is a collection of mate problems taken from games played by the World Champions v. Amateurs through GMs. I like how it's more talky than most problem collections, especially after spending so much time earlier with Polgar's 5334. It has a brief bit of information on each player, and on each problem they give a subtle hint if your stuck. Mainly it is a relief to go through something like this without any time pressure or percentage recording :-).
I just checked out One Move Chess by the Champions. It is a collection of mate problems taken from games played by the World Champions v. Amateurs through GMs. I like how it's more talky than most problem collections, especially after spending so much time earlier with Polgar's 5334. It has a brief bit of information on each player, and on each problem they give a subtle hint if your stuck. Mainly it is a relief to go through something like this without any time pressure or percentage recording :-).
-=-=-=-=-
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 | Circle 3 | Circle 4 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% | 99% | 100%r |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% | 95% | 97% |
| Step 3 | 93% | 97% | 97% | 97*% |
| Step 4 | 80% | 86% | 90% | ??% |
| Step 5 | 74% | 77% | 83% | ??% |
Monday, November 14, 2005
Game Report
I got in three OTB games this past weekend, losing 2 and winning 1. I haven't been playing much recently, and I expected to be rusty. Nonetheless I think I played pretty good overall, and the win was possibly my best game this year.
I was black.
-=-=-=-=-
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 | Circle 3 | Circle 4 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% | 99% | 100%r |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% | 95% | 97%* |
| Step 3 | 93% | 97% | 97% | ??% |
| Step 4 | 80% | 86% | 90% | ??% |
| Step 5 | 74% | 77% | 83% | ??% |
Friday, November 11, 2005
Circle 4 Begins
I did a review of Step 1 by going to the first problem I got wrong last time, backing up 30 problems, and then doing all the problems from that point on, 30 seconds per problem. I got everything right except one problem which TCT marked as "The played move is not bad". That's really rare, and it doesn't effect the score when it happens :-D.
I am slipping a bit in Step 2, almost never using the allotted time per move, though result being I got a couple wrong that I got right last time. Vigilance seems called for.
Step 2, Exercise 4c, Problem 3 marks Ne4 and Ba6 as wrong when it's the best. It only accepts e5, which obviously is the most straightforward move.
White - Black, Tasc Chess Tutor 20051rb2rk1/p4ppp/1q2pb2/1Nnp4/3N3P/1P6/P1PQPPP1/2KR1B1R b - - 0 1
Analysis by Fritz 8:
1. -+ (-4.43): 1...Ne4 2.Qe1 a6 3.Nc3 Bxd4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.e3 Bf6 6.Bc4 Qc5 7.c3 a5
2. -+ (-3.68): 1...Ba6 2.e3 Bxb5 3.Nxb5 Rfc8 4.f3 Qa6 5.Kb1 Rxb5 6.Bxb5
3. -+ (-3.66): 1...e5 2.Nc3 Bb7 3.Nf3 d4 4.Nb1 Rfc8 5.e4 Nxe4 6.Qe1 Bd5
4. -+ (-2.91): 1...Bxd4 2.Nxd4 e5 3.Nf3 Ne4 4.Qe3 Nxf2 5.Qxb6 axb6 6.Rg1 Nxd1 7.Kxd1 f6
I am slipping a bit in Step 2, almost never using the allotted time per move, though result being I got a couple wrong that I got right last time. Vigilance seems called for.
Step 2, Exercise 4c, Problem 3 marks Ne4 and Ba6 as wrong when it's the best. It only accepts e5, which obviously is the most straightforward move.
Analysis by Fritz 8:
1. -+ (-4.43): 1...Ne4 2.Qe1 a6 3.Nc3 Bxd4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.e3 Bf6 6.Bc4 Qc5 7.c3 a5
2. -+ (-3.68): 1...Ba6 2.e3 Bxb5 3.Nxb5 Rfc8 4.f3 Qa6 5.Kb1 Rxb5 6.Bxb5
3. -+ (-3.66): 1...e5 2.Nc3 Bb7 3.Nf3 d4 4.Nb1 Rfc8 5.e4 Nxe4 6.Qe1 Bd5
4. -+ (-2.91): 1...Bxd4 2.Nxd4 e5 3.Nf3 Ne4 4.Qe3 Nxf2 5.Qxb6 axb6 6.Rg1 Nxd1 7.Kxd1 f6
-=-=-=-=-
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 | Circle 3 | Circle 4 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% | 99% | 100%r |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% | 95% | 98%* |
| Step 3 | 93% | 97% | 97% | ??% |
| Step 4 | 80% | 86% | 90% | ??% |
| Step 5 | 74% | 77% | 83% | ??% |
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Circle 3 Complete
Woot.
My "Incremental Chess Improvement" program is progressing well, and it looks like I might complete my 7 circles of TCT within my own lifespan. Although it has only been 3 times through, I seem to have memorized some problems. Knowing the answers without knowing why is not going to work when I face novel positions OTB in the future, so I am making sure I don't rush through the process. Because of this memorization, I really am leaning towards doing mini-circles after TCT. For now I will continue my TCT circles the long way, but I recommend mini-circles for anyone with limited time available to commit to chess every day. (Mini-circles = doing circles on 40-120 problems in a group).
For circle 4 I will cut the time on Steps 2+3 to 2 minutes, Steps 4+5 to 4 minutes.
I had a nice blitz game that ended in a draw this week, playing Black against the Center Game. I had Chessmaster analyzed the game and had 100% agreement with both me and my opponent's moves. I would like that in OTB someday, but I'll take it anywhere I can get it!
I have begun carrying around 1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate. Problem 227's solution is a little off, and I almost could see it to the end. Fritz agreed with my last move, so that was nice.
-=-=-=-=-
Thoughts on CTS
Many of the Knights have moved towards doing CTS for training. There does seem to be a correspondence between rating there and chess performance OTB and certainly blitz, and international masters are among the most active tactictions. The whole idea is really cool, too. In spite of all this I seem to be of only moderate enthusiasm about it. Here is my take on CTS as a replacement for TCT or CT-Art in a MDLM style training program.(rant rave rant...)
- Time pressure. How much of this is good? Personally, I still seem to be rushing and guessing alot, and I almost never use 30 seconds in a problem. For example, here is the solution for problem 55999. I guessed this one wrong, even though I saw the possibility of that Knight fork. The Knight fork looked too complicated, so I played something else. Afterwards I looked at it and concluded it really was complicated. I just can not calculate this one very fast.
It's so easy to rush and then get rewarded. When hesitate on CTS I think it's good, and perhaps it's a sign that my circle training is kicking in. Both TCT and (my small exposure to) CT-ART have made me examine what could be wrong about an obvious move, as they love to toss in those ringers. - Collection. TCT is a great collection, very well thought out in my opinion. CTS seems broad, less focused. On the other hand, CTS's collection seems much more real world. Over half of the tactical situations I have seen occur or be threatened seem straightforward.
- Plans. I think one of the things that makes me less enthusiastic about CTS is how it doesn't help much with situations like this.
I can play either side, make 2 to 5 good moves, and then lose on the next move. This is a factor as I get into an endgame 20-30% of the time. - Percentage. What is the ideal percentage correct? Opinions? Right now mine is just under 80%. I think this is the best way I can gauge performance. Getting less than 75% for a session makes me feel like the session was too sloppy.
- Volume. I think you really need to go through thousands of problems to improve with CTS. TCT has my time for now.
-=-=-=-=-
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 | Circle 3 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% | 99% |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% | 95% |
| Step 3 | 93% | 97% | 97% |
| Step 4 | 80% | 86% | 90% |
| Step 5 | 74% | 77% | 83% |
