Comments on: Rage Against the Machine (Be the next you Part 1 Chapter 3)

By: David K, Seattle

David K, Seattle — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:50:20 +0000

so much good sense. thank you. i am adding you to my blogroll and glad that i found you. i cannot say that i agree 100% or not, just much appreciation for what you say, and how you say it. best regards, dk seattle

By: drunknknite

drunknknite — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:15:33 +0000

Allow me to retort....

By: peteydaddy

peteydaddy — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:26:44 +0000

Just wanted to drop a line to let you know I’m really enjoying these essays. Keep ‘em coming!

By: wang

wang — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:47:36 +0000

Holy shit guys! Thanks so much. I’m actually blushing and have a huge grin on my face from your reactions.

tanc:
I understood what you were saying. I don’t think that Fritz is the devil’s handywork, but I get a little fed up with people worshipping at the altar of Fritz.

Warheit:
Once again, thanks for the link and the love.

Phaedrus:
Thanks for your kind words. I went to your blog and saw that you know your stuff. Being so much higher rated than I am, I brings me much satisfaction to hear that I am on the right track with my improvement plan.

BDK:
A remark from you is cool enough, but claiming it deserves it’s own spot on the internets, or interwebs, or, you know the thing with the tubes…is very flattering.

By: Blue Devil Knight

Blue Devil Knight — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:06:35 +0000

Dude, this rocks! As I get more “mature” in my chess, I get more and more annoyed by people Kibitzing during games “Fritz says XYZ.” For me, when I was in my period of Fritz dependence, it was largely a matter of not trusting myself one whit to analyze my own games because I sucked so bad. But then I came to realize, yes, I do suck that bad, but I still need to go over my own games (and then follow up with a quick blundercheck), including wins.

This post deserves its own special place in the chess interwebs.

By: Phaedrus

Phaedrus — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:15:05 +0000

It is not often that you see someone who is so spot on when selfimprovement in chess is the subject. Although I think that there are other possibilties to use the chess engine for training, I agree 100% on the methods you reject here. Excelent post.

By: Wahrheit

Wahrheit — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:34:01 +0000

I’m linking this outstanding essay.

By: tanc (happyhippo)

tanc (happyhippo) — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:41:36 +0000

I just realised how my 2nd para above seems to contradict my last para. I meant to say that following book play allows me to increase/maintain any advantage without conceding a change in deviations of +/- 0.5 evals (“squeezing the tiniest advantage”). I find that good players play good moves because the moves are good or they have some inherent strategy which makes playing a lot easier.

At my level, I’m not overtly concerned with opening book (more like a glance of “ohhh, so that’s how i should play”), just that I need to be aware of playing properly without ceding any advantage to my opponent.

hope i’m making sense…..

By: tanc (happyhippo)

tanc (happyhippo) — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:36:05 +0000

Hello wang,

Very interesting thots.

I myself use Fritz to annotate the games. I only pay particular attention when I have deviations from positions resulting in differences of +/- 0.5 evals or greater. This usually means that I’ve created some form of weakness for which my opponent can exploit or had fallen into a tactical/positional trick which I missed. Like you, I still use blundercheck a lot.

For openings, I normally check opening lines as well when they deviate from book and how I should have played. This allows me to squeeze the tiniest advantage out of the position. However, I do take caution when the opening lines do not deviate much and I stick to my overall strategy/plan that is coherent with the opening.

I’ve played many stinkers myself. Like walking into mate, pins, forks, you name it, I played it. I agree with u about going through your own games (wins and losses). Usually when a game leads to a winning position, you tend to lax or lighten up and not thinking critically. This tends to be the most dangerous times because oft, you tend to miss better moves or blunder because of assumption of the “move plays itself” factor.

IMHO computer analysis has its good and bad. The bad being when people become too preoccupied with things like squeezing +0.01 out of the advantage which is surely no way to play chess.

cheers.