New answers tagged

0

I have to say, studying the whole 1.e4 repertoire is quite hard, so I suggest that you narrow your options down. I reccommend the King's gambit. For other non-...e5 responses to 1.e4, you could attempt to rip up the position and to make your first-move advantage apparent. For the Sicilian, there is another case. Play the Kopek system(Bishop to d3), which ...


4

1700-2000 rated problems are generally going to be 2-3 moves or at the very least forcing combinations. They shouldn't take 10 minutes or anywhere near that. If you're spending that long on them that means you're lacking the pattern recognition of the simpler tactics that are the building blocks. You need to work on solving simpler 1 and 2 move combinations ...


3

You have to be honest with yourself at first. It is impossible that you gonna solve all the puzzles, you will ALWAYS be facing one or other that you can not solve in time. SO, use this to your advantage! Expect this one. Search for this one. Wait patiently for this one. And when it comes, laugh about it, because you was prepared for it. Also, obviusly, study ...


1

Checkers is at the point where it is all memorization. For Fischer chess was too close to that for him to really enjoy it any more. For most of us chess still has enough problems to solve to keep us interested.


2

You deal with frustration in many ways. If the self help books do not cure you then see a shrink. If you meant to ask how do you learn to solve puzzles faster then it would depend on your ability. Everybody hits their limit at some point. Otherwise you need to study more first then solve puzzles of that type. Just doing random problems will not help you ...


5

It happens every day to a lot of players! Some problems are very hard and can be very frustrating. My advice would be to try hard during "your 10 minutes", and if the problem is challenging to move on without seeing the solution. Come back to the puzzle after you've had a break and cleared your head. At least, that works great for me!


0

I have been playing Pirc, even so I can learn different lines. I even bought some interesting books, one in Spanish "La Defensa Pirc y Fianchetto de Rey" and another in English that I don't remember the name now, but I'll get the name on the website I bought. Pirc can vary from very simple lines to some of great complexity, where both sides can ...


5

While tactical skills (calculating accurately several moves ahead) can definitely translate, everything else is completely different


2

Adopting e4 is a huge undertaking. Since you played the English, I recommend you incorporate the King's Indian Attack into your repertoire as you can play it against anything you haven't studied yet. A gambit repertoire is not a bad idea either. You might be able to link lines like: 1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 1.e4 c5 you can ...


3

Memorization of entire games from a million years ago was never used as a method to train young players; or at least not those players who went on to become grandmasters. (There are other things that do end up taught repeatedly and usually mainly memorized, like crucial opening tactics and endgame strategies.) It is easier, for a strong player, to memorize ...


0

The easiest way to close a decent repertoire would probably be to study the Vienese Opening (or maybe Danish Gambit) against 1...e5, some line against the Sicilian (it really depends on how much time you want to spend. You can choose between Open Sicilian, Closed, Alapin... pick up the one you like the most). Against Caro-Kann you have the Panov. It'll teach ...


6

The special feature of a 1.e4 repertoire is that transpositions are rare. You can have independent repertoires against each of black's replies. This is very different from 1.c4, 1.d4 and 1.Nf3 where moves can often be played in many different orders and you always have to watch out for transpositions between your various lines. Then these are the "big ...


9

It's not as if top players sit down to memorize an old game. They don't spend time only memorizing, memorization is not a goal. But they study lots of games. Old games, new games, famous games, their own games. Constantly. And they have amazing memory so they remember these games, as a side effect of studying them, move by move. Of course there are also ...


4

When studying an old game, you can take however long you want to analyse if its the best move. The conclusion that this is the best move came from "calculating ability" and not from "memory". There is not need to "calculate" this again when in a match. It's faster and easier to play from memory. Kinda the same as when learning ...


7

"Seems very unusual": source? Every time I've heard a good player (from club-competent to world-class) talking about his games, they were remarkably capable of precisely recalling positions. So I would say that it is "very usual"; it stems from thinking long and hard about those positions, either during games or while studying; it ...


2

If there is a long complex line it is easier than trying to figure out the right move while the clock is ticking.


43

Memorization is mostly a side effect, not the end goal. Top players can spend hours or days analyzing a single game to try to understand all of the instructive ideas. Memorization naturally flows from that.


Top 50 recent answers are included