Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    KB, snap

  2. #32
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by black
    I have been spending my time studying chess, without any competitive activity, since about June. I don't intend to play again for quite some time. I see no reason to rely on ratings to tell me that studying is helping my game.

    (That is not a response to the topic, but seemed to relate to recent posts.)
    Interesting plan.

    In three years your rating will be ?? so you'll jump faster

    and you'll win heaps of rating group prizes.

  3. #33
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    At some point in the future though, if you want an objective indicator that your game has improved you'll need to obtain it under the controlled conditions of competition.
    This is the only objective indicator of improved chess understanding!?

    There are two particular tournaments which I am aiming for, and they will be my return to chess. This study is an effort to improve by a large amount before those tournaments arrive.

    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    True, you do not need to rely on ratings to tell you that study is helping your game.

    But at the end of the day, you need to put that study to useful effect and get results otb, which then if you are converting your games into wins/draws, you will gain rating points and then you have something in black and white that shows that your study has improved your chess, rather than just an emotional feel factor.
    Emotional feel factor? You mean to suggest that one cannot use means other than a tournament-related rating, in order to have a reliable sense of improvement?

    Can't one have some idea of their change in level by comparing the depth and accuracy of analysis they have written from study positions, endgame problems, and so on? Also by comparing the time taken to complete such analysis, over a period of time?

    Perhaps by playing non-tournament chess, with clocks, and overcoming problems of time management, or something similar?

    Also, I have been playing unrated games of chess, on chess servers and in the street. Is it not a measurement of improvement to compare my results against opponents whom I play numerous times?

    I have seen significantly improved results, against my main sparring partner in particular, which indicates either an upward trend in my own play, or a downward trend in his. Since he does play rated games, and has not been falling, and since the change of trend has seemed of a consistent motion over numerous months of play, it does seem to suggest that I have improved.

    Although the whole motivation of my study is to improve enough to achieve higher results in tournaments, I do not see why I need tournament play at all times in order to have something more than an emotional feeling that I am improving. Observing the speed and accuracy of analysis through timed study and tournament condition exercises, recognising when analysis incorporates a theme or something recently studied, and things such as my opportunity to play against a similar strength player from time to time, can help indicate improvement in the time between or without rating change.

    Does this sound unreasonable!? My motivation is to put my study into practice through tournament play, but I just don't agree with the idea that I can't have a measurement of improvement worth more than emotional feeling during the periods of not-competing.

  4. #34
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,487
    Quote Originally Posted by black
    This is the only objective indicator of improved chess understanding!?
    Not the only one but many of the others have problems. For instance many people think that because they are solving tactical problems faster they must be getting better at chess when often all this means is that they are getting more familiar with spotting the kinds of motifs so often present in set tactical puzzles when they know there is something to find.

    Can't one have some idea of their change in level by comparing the depth and accuracy of analysis they have written from study positions, endgame problems, and so on? Also by comparing the time taken to complete such analysis, over a period of time?
    I think this might work for tactics and strategy if you picked arbitrary positions from games of a sort you are likely to encounter and then used a very strong program to assess the accuracy of your analysis. I'm not sure how you'd assess an improved understanding of endgames reliably though.

    Perhaps by playing non-tournament chess, with clocks, and overcoming problems of time management, or something similar?

    Also, I have been playing unrated games of chess, on chess servers and in the street. Is it not a measurement of improvement to compare my results against opponents whom I play numerous times?
    I don't consider results in casual games to indicate anything by way of improvement. For instance if you decide that you are using casual games as an indicator of improvement then that means you may be more motivated for them than your opponent, so that alone may cause you to win more.

  5. #35
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    159
    I would agree that the clearest indication of my improvement will come when I finally do compete actively -- and this is certainly a large part of the motivation behind the study -- but I think we're not connecting on the part of my inactivity, and perhaps that is a fault of my communication.

    I do not believe so much that the measurement is significant in a numerical or simple way but, rather, that it is likely and expected that a systematic study of chess literature, opening theory, tactics, motifs, etc, will all help with knowledge and pattern recognition relating to the game. I do not think that it is necessary to find a way to measure this in order to justify the time spent on this due to the obvious benefits of it; both to the general understanding of chess as well as tournament results and, thereby, one's rating.

    Perhaps a rating is the measure of this study, to some extent.

    I'm not sure if either of us really has anything significant to add in relation to the thread itself, and I'm going to leave it there.

    Looking forward to my next tournament.

  6. #36
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    40

    My Year!

    Well, I've had a fantastic year I have to say... last year was an absolute shocker of a year in which a junior like me who should be improving, didn't, in fact my chess got worse probably because I moved into a high school where Chess is seen as 'lame' or for 'nerds' or 'boring' which caused me to lose a little interest in Chess. You may think that's school, how does that affect your chess? well, for me, it did, moving from Essex Heights Primary School.(which has one of the best chess programs in Australia) to a school which had none. I dropped from 1226 at the start of 2007 to 1198 at the end of 2007. It had dropped from 1226 to 1130 in the 1st quarter of 2007

    So this year, not wanting to have another shocker of a year, I played alot more chess tournaments than last year. Unlike last year, I played in tournaments where I wasn't 'expected' to beat higher rated people or in other words, where I was in a lower half of the tournament or to the lower end of the top half. Also, I started reading Chess Books alot more frequently and for some, repetitively such as 'The 10 Most Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them' by Larry Evans, this has definitely helped.

    This has guided me from 1198 to a surprising 1507, a definite A, my goal was to be at least 1400 by the end of the year, and to be 1500 was a definite surprise

  7. #37
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,364
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunner Duggan
    I believe my chess improved but is not reflected in the rating (losses are losses but by narrower margins).

    Reason for this statement is that I am getting much closer to beating stronger opponents over quite a number of games and have lost just a few crashes to considerably lower rated players.

    An example of the former is that in the BBC Champs, I finished 4/7. Of the three losses, all to stronger opponents,
    a) I was a piece up (and lost) as analysed on CC - a tough game
    b) I was a pawn up (and lost a better position) - as analysed on CC
    c) I was better, then dead drawn 0.00, then lost to an incomplete endgame knowledge.

    All proper losses to be sure, but my point is that previously I wouldn't have been able to get near these blokes, whereas now I'm closing in. Their ratings don't seem to be dropping.
    Well, you're making them worry anyway. Seems like there is a problem with converting; whether it is relaxing a bit and allowing counterplay, inaccuracies in transition from middlegame to endgame, or something else, I can't tell. Evidently one of the games was due to endgame deficiencies, so there seems to be merit in the advice of people like Capablanca, Solo, Igor G and Antić to study the endgame first.

    I had thought it might be the Tromp but the above doesn't support this. All the best for 2009!
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  8. #38
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    928
    Hi Duggan

    I just think you need to stop the infamous duggan blowup as shown in most of the games you post.




    Quote Originally Posted by Gunner Duggan
    I believe my chess improved but is not reflected in the rating (losses are losses but by narrower margins).

    Reason for this statement is that I am getting much closer to beating stronger opponents over quite a number of games and have lost just a few crashes to considerably lower rated players.

    An example of the former is that in the BBC Champs, I finished 4/7. Of the three losses, all to stronger opponents,
    a) I was a piece up (and lost) as analysed on CC - a tough game
    b) I was a pawn up (and lost a better position) - as analysed on CC
    c) I was better, then dead drawn 0.00, then lost to an incomplete endgame knowledge.

    All proper losses to be sure, but my point is that previously I wouldn't have been able to get near these blokes, whereas now I'm closing in. Their ratings don't seem to be dropping.

    OK dribble over. I get a D/E.

  9. #39
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronD
    Hi Duggan

    I just think you need to stop the infamous duggan blowup as shown in most of the games you post.
    so why do you reheat his soufflé by quoting him?
    .

  10. #40
    CC Grandmaster Garrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    the City
    Posts
    3,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Well, you're making them worry anyway.
    Yes - best of luck Gunner for 2009 and beyond.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    so there seems to be merit in the advice of people like Capablanca, Solo, Igor G and Antić to study the endgame first.
    Garrett is starting to think this way too. And I don't think it's just 'groupthink' either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    I had thought it might be the Tromp
    No probably not . I don't think we can blame the Tromp or Colle for Gunner losing games, after all, they achieve an easy equality for white.

    Cheers
    Garrett.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Fourth Asian Schools Chess Festival
    By klyall in forum Overseas Tournament News and Results
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 17-11-2008, 09:12 PM
  2. ACF September 2008 Ratings
    By Bill Gletsos in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-09-2008, 02:34 AM
  3. Box Hill bulletins
    By Davidflude in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-07-2008, 07:06 PM
  4. Tournaments for June 2008 ACF Ratings
    By Bill Gletsos in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 31-05-2008, 08:10 PM
  5. Mt Buller - Chess World letter to ACF
    By ChessGuru in forum Mt Buller Chess
    Replies: 210
    Last Post: 17-07-2004, 11:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •