|
Post by matejst on Jul 20, 2022 20:56:06 GMT
That IS cheating. But since you're cheating yourself... On a more serious note -- it's a good way of training (recommended by Hawkins in his book about endings), although it's overkill in pawn endgames. But I repeated the process eventually with two rook endings -- I spent almost an hour on just two positions, until I really understood all the possibilities, all the finesses. I will continue with the same method with endings: play them against an engine, learn how to win/draw them through trials and errors, and eventually, only if needed, look at the explanations and solutions. I will use the program Theory and practice of chess endgames for this, and perhaps, later, do the exercises and tests from Chess endgames training if I find it useful.
BTW, all these courses exist for Peshka, although I prefer the older programs. BTW, I could send you some chess materials like the last time, if you want.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jul 21, 2022 5:25:51 GMT
Not to worry, I have an overabundance of material.
About Peshka, it's not the first time you mention you prefer the old version. How come? It's not the aesthetics, surely.
|
|
|
Post by matejst on Jul 21, 2022 8:48:06 GMT
I don't know, really. I don't like changes for the sake of changes, and my conception of aesthetics is medieval, rather functional. I switch to new programs only when they have a new, really useful functionality I need. Whenever it is possible, I keep old software, which is often more stable, better coded than the new one.
Then, I distrust software that connects with the internet without asking, that has "online" functions, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jul 21, 2022 9:08:43 GMT
It connects? I thought that was ChessBase. Guess I'll play offline from now on.
|
|
|
Post by matejst on Jul 21, 2022 9:34:42 GMT
It connects? I thought that was ChessBase. Guess I'll play offline from now on. I did mean ChessBase. I was speaking in general. Banksia Gui also connects to the internet. Some engines do it too. Most of modern software in one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jul 21, 2022 12:00:05 GMT
And CT-ART? Any specific info on this one?
|
|
|
Post by matejst on Jul 21, 2022 12:31:01 GMT
If you want to check, just start the resource monitor (type "resmon" in the field "search" of the menu) and you will see all the applications making a connection: CA, Fritz, CB, Aquarium. No Peshka. I don't know what they do (online databases, opening books, probably), but I still don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jul 23, 2022 9:42:31 GMT
So far, the line is flat. When I get tasks rated 1700 or lower, I can even go down if I miss just one variation. With 1800 tasks I still go up even if I make mistakes, but only marginally. What I don't like, is that it may say the task is to find a checkmate, when a secondary variation leads "only" to decisive advantage. I don't see any serious player going for the main variation in anything but a blitz game (as a trick):
|
|
|
Post by matejst on Jul 23, 2022 12:37:27 GMT
In the old program, the Elo is more linear. And I mostly do exercises in "Tactics for intermediate players", which are deemed more difficult (which is not always true), give you much more Elo for the solution, and anyway you are not required to solve all the branches. And even there, I also lost Elo at times just like it happens to you now. My solution was to solve just a few problems a day to avoid any mistake; two, three, four max, and to switch to exercises in Lucas, especially the one with repetition, whose aim was to help you recognize patterns swiftly. Then, I stopped thinking about it. After reinstalling the software in my "new" laptop, I am at 2017 in Peshka, 1744 in TfIP (I started at 1500 I guess).
Then, Elo is more generously distributed in other courses. Ct-Art and Tactics for intermediate players are the most difficult to get a good rating. Try some other courses (tactics in openings -- seems to be useful -- endings, strategy, etc.) That's how I achieve 2017 in two, three days in Peshka, trying stuff. It would have been much more difficult solving only combinations.
BTW. I would like to recommend to you Soltis book "What it takes to become a chess master". Best read I had about chess lately. A lot of practical, very important tips, that confort me in my thinking that players like us, with some systematic work, enough disciplined playing, can easily become masters.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jul 23, 2022 13:03:46 GMT
Soltis comes recommended from a variety of sources, since I can remember. One of those things in the back-burner, but for the time being I want to finish this course. In a few months if possible; so I won't do just 3 or 4 tasks a day, but dozens.
|
|
|
Post by matejst on Jul 23, 2022 14:20:28 GMT
Soltis comes recommended from a variety of sources, since I can remember. One of those things in the back-burner, but for the time being I want to finish this course. In a few months if possible; so I won't do just 3 or 4 tasks a day, but dozens. Probably -- all is well summarize in this book -- undefended pieces, attacking moves, etc. I saw it in several other books (courses) too, but we have all here. The second chapter, "Habits", is very useful. The analysis of the examples is good, because it shows that the amount we calculate, usually, is way above what is needed most of the time. By just applying these advises yesterday I avoided many of the little errors I usually make, and played some good moves, found some good ideas in a position which should have been, for me, very difficult to win . (In the end, Maia 1600 made not one, big two blunders, but I was very satisfied with my play.) In general, after so many years, we have "it" somewhere in us, it is often just a question of putting some order in our thinking.
Try the second type of exercises from LucasChess: tactis with repetition. I use to do 50-100 exercises a day, since they repeat themselves, and I restarted recently doing some. It helps recognizing patterns, but it is not too useful for calculation technique. In my experience, it helps a lot -- I see it when I analyze. It helps "seeing", although "seeing" is not enough in real play most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jul 23, 2022 15:16:43 GMT
Learning by repetition sounds attractive, I might insert some of that in my training.
|
|
|
Post by matejst on Jul 23, 2022 16:17:21 GMT
Here is a list of what I do with a timetable:
- Learning openings (memorization, daily, analysis, through games and after played games; should do more); - Tactics: LucasChess repetition (again), daily, CTiP several exercises daily (I restarted the program so I still do moderately difficult exercises); - Endings: daily. - Playing: every two days. Still playing against weaker Maia despite resolution to switch to higher levels.
Most difficult and frustrating: endings.
Have I improved? I general, I think I have. I certainly regained approximately the level I had at the end of the nineties. I probably play differently though.
What still bothers me? Bad habits. Although I can visualize a lot, I lack discipline. I made a lot of progress here, but I still hurry too often for my taste. I manage to play long sequences of good moves. These are not engine choices, most of the time, but second, third choices, sane moves in the spirit of the position. And then, so often, I stop being discipline, steady, a make an error.
Problems with calculation in endgames. A bit better now, but still difficult.
I am still very slow to make positional decisions, but I think now it is not a real problem, but something that is due.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jul 23, 2022 17:27:53 GMT
Strategy would be last on my list. First tactics, then endings, then openings, then strategy. Endings are heavy on tactics, so having those first helps. Openings have their own strategy, so I'll get some of that too, before going into more broad themes.
|
|
|
Post by matejst on Jul 23, 2022 18:05:21 GMT
You have to work the openings, Ozzie. I analyzed my games from 1997-99 then in 2007. The reasons for my losses are: 1. openings (I not only did not know the moves, variations, by the usual plans and tactics in several openings); 2. zeitnot (especially in 2007, when the time controls had changed) 3. endings. But then, I forgot a lot since I played the last time, so my knowledge of openings is probably far worse than yours.
|
|