[Chess] Best ways to improve your skills?

Aus_Snow · 14th March 2009, 08:46 PM

So, I played a bit of chess (not much) quite a few years back. The guy I learned from didn't really know that much - en passant would've been news to him, for example. But I quickly got the hang of how things moved, a few good openings, the usual.

Recently, I made a decision to learn. . . well, properly (I hope). I'd like to be able to play well at all times, rather than OK-ish when not significantly challanged. Not that I've played against other people for years (or played many games in my life, full stop, for that matter) - I've started again, but this time playing the CPU for a while first. Only a couple of people I know might be up for a game here and there, but I'm sure I can find some other good players. . . once I feel that I'm up to the task!

Which brings me to the point: Are there any resources the chess players among you would recommend (e.g., books on the subject) ? A few interesting websites have come up in my searches, so those are bookmarked, but I'm open to more of those, if any particularly stand out. I have a strong feeling at least someone will say that I must simply play more. And that's undeniably true, but knowledge also goes a long way.

I suppose the other question on my mind will be kind of answered by virtue of the number of forumites replying. But still, how many EN Worlders are into chess anyway? Many of you? And, while I'm asking that, is it more or less popular in general these days?

Pretty sure that's all for now.

Gansk · 15th March 2009, 08:17 AM

I would memorize two openings (one for black, one for white) from a book, then play them multiple times against a computer, using the book to respond to whatever the computer did.

Try to understand why the book recommends these moves by analyzing how you can take advantage if the opponent does something different.

Eventually the computer will jump off the script, then it is up to you to play the endgame. If you can beat the computer more than 50% of the time, then increase the difficulty level and start over.

Some people have an intuitive feeling for tactics with chess, based on playing hundreds of games (especially if they are good at speed chess, you probably will never beat them). I never got to that level, but understanding an opening inside and out gave me an advantage against most casual players.

Storminator · 15th March 2009, 03:15 PM

I have a book, Weapons of Chess [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Chess-Omnibus-Strategies-Fireside/dp/0671659723/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237122551&sr= 8-1]Amazon.com: Weapons of Chess: An Omnibus of Chess Strategies (Fireside Chess Library): Bruce Pandolfini: Books[/ame] that I think is worth reading. According the Amazon reviewers it's geared towards players with a ranking under 1500 (which is definitely me, and it sounds like you).

I'd also recommend signing up for Yahoo games (or some equivalent). I found I could get a good game of chess pretty much any time. As you already know, playing is the best teaching tool. Is there a local chess club in your area?

PS

Crothian · 15th March 2009, 03:31 PM

What is ranking?

I've been also getting back into chess. I've been mostly playing my computer and slowly increasing the difficulty level.

Storminator · 15th March 2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crothian

What is ranking?

I've been also getting back into chess. I've been mostly playing my computer and slowly increasing the difficulty level.

If you do formal tournaments or play USCF players they have a ranking that tells you how good you are. The more games you win, the more your ranking goes up, the better the players you beat the more your ranking goes up. If you lose, especially to lower ranked foes, it goes down.

I've only ever been ranked on Yahoo, which approximates the ranking system, and as I recall you have to be a pretty solid player (and play regularly) to break 1500. World champions and grandmasters are something like 2400+.

PS

frankthedm · 19th March 2009, 08:14 PM

Only tip i got is more of a psychological ploy. The host for my gaming group told me this one. Place your pieces off center in their squares. Altering the way things look to someone very used to seeing things in a certain way [100's or 1000'a of games] can potentially through them off their game. How strong an effect this has will vary by how wide the pieces are. Slender pieces used this way may drive folks nuts.

Michael Morris · 19th March 2009, 10:21 PM

First learn your basic mating patterns.

King + Queen vs. King
King + Rook vs. King
King + 2 Bishops vs. King
King + Knight + Bishop vs. King.

You'd be amazed how many intermediate players don't know that last one. To improve it is imperative that you can perform all of these mates efficiently. In learning them you'll learn about fencing the enemy King and the principle of opposition.

Next move to King and Pawn end games. Learn how the principle of the opposition determines whether the side with the extra pawn can win or must settle for the draw.

Then King + Pawn vs. King + Queen. Surprisingly if the pawn is on the seventh rank and in the bishop or rook files the side with just the pawn can force a draw. Learn why.

Build from there. King and Pawn end games - rule of the square, King and rook endings. By understanding how the game ends you are better equipped to play the game as a whole. When I teach chess, I teach it backwards for this reason.

It's easier (and less overwhelming) to learn how to maneuver with only a few pieces on the board. Once you master those situations controlling the whole army from the start will be less of a chore.

I know a little of what I'm talking about (ELO rating 1750)

Merlin's Shadow · 29th March 2009, 09:42 AM

Nothing beats learning by playing, so do lots of it whether face-to-face or online. I also highly recommend notating your games. Most online games do this automatically, but if you play f2f use a pencil and notebook. It can be very helpful to revisit a game on your own later because you can go through it step by step analyzing your own game - what worked, what didn't, etc. And, of course, you can do this with your opponent's moves as well, understanding why they made the moves they did.

I also like to sit down with notations of famous games played by grandmasters and play it out to study it.

I don't play near as often as I used to unfortunately, but my rating was right around 1700 when I was.

Aus_Snow · 19th April 2009, 09:48 PM

Spam reported.

Aus_Snow · 19th April 2009, 09:51 PM

Thanks for the advice, guys. I've been further honing my skills against the computer, and thinking about the game a bit more.

The endgame suggestions there, in particular, have got me thinking.

Oh, and I've contacted the local chess club. When I'm feeling brave enough. . .

Mustrum_Ridcully · 28th April 2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Morris

First learn your basic mating patterns.

King + Queen vs. King
King + Rook vs. King
King + 2 Bishops vs. King
King + Knight + Bishop vs. King.

You'd be amazed how many intermediate players don't know that last one. To improve it is imperative that you can perform all of these mates efficiently. In learning them you'll learn about fencing the enemy King and the principle of opposition.

Next move to King and Pawn end games. Learn how the principle of the opposition determines whether the side with the extra pawn can win or must settle for the draw.

Then King + Pawn vs. King + Queen. Surprisingly if the pawn is on the seventh rank and in the bishop or rook files the side with just the pawn can force a draw. Learn why.

Build from there. King and Pawn end games - rule of the square, King and rook endings. By understanding how the game ends you are better equipped to play the game as a whole. When I teach chess, I teach it backwards for this reason.

It's easier (and less overwhelming) to learn how to maneuver with only a few pieces on the board. Once you master those situations controlling the whole army from the start will be less of a chore.

I know a little of what I'm talking about (ELO rating 1750)

Interesting.

It reminds me that someone created a proof about checkers how there is always a draw end in case of perfect play.
Instead of trying to analyze all possible ways for a checker party to evolve, they showed that the most relevant opening strategies always lead to a game with no more than 10 pieces, and then proved that from there one, you could always end up with a draw.

This hasn't been possible in Chess, though.