Timeline for How do I become less materialistic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2016 at 11:20 | comment | added | Jeff Y | @Bad_Bishop That's interesting about pieces getting traded off. Are you familiar with Benjamin's latest book, Liquidation? It might have something for you also... | |
| Apr 29, 2016 at 8:14 | comment | added | user1108 | Hi @JeffY: I agree that sometimes the hardest thing to do is to spot the mate. I'm actually working through GM Ftacnik's 1000 mates to help my calculation. But the main issue I'm finding is in line with what Scounged said. I point my pieces at the enemy King, then lose the initiative, e.g. my pieces get traded off and I have no attack. | |
| Apr 28, 2016 at 20:33 | comment | added | Scounged | Yeah, I mentioned it mainly to emphasize that the two subjects are different in nature, not that they aren't connected to each other. | |
| Apr 28, 2016 at 20:25 | comment | added | Jeff Y | @Scounged I see what you mean. What I meant by using the term "lever" in my "answer" though is that I think studying the -in-2's and -in-3's will "bleed over" into all the other areas the OP mentioned -- initiative vs. material, sacs, and as you say, king hunts in general. | |
| Apr 28, 2016 at 20:14 | comment | added | Scounged | I'm not sure that this is what the OP means when he says "knowledge of mating attacks". I think it's more like the "I will go attack the opponent's king, and it's impossible to see all the way to a mate, but I know it will work, because it is strategically justified" type of thinking that is the issue. What you're describing is lack of knowledge of mating patterns, which are essential as well, but not the same thing. | |
| Apr 28, 2016 at 20:02 | history | answered | Jeff Y | CC BY-SA 3.0 |