lichess.org
Donate

Why You Shouldn't Train Like Grandmasters

What if I’m a grandmaster :). Jk, rlly nice blog

What if I’m a grandmaster :). Jk, rlly nice blog

Very good post and applicable to many levels of play. Thanks!

Very good post and applicable to many levels of play. Thanks!

me is like:
stage 1: trying to trolling opponent piece by some complex thing
stage 2: opponent simple get advantage cuz i blundered, so i start to make more troll about checkmate or getting queen
stage 3: ok sac all my piece,just to troll my opponent that make stalemate move
i like 3 check and atomic cuz if u make 1 blunder, you can start next round already, and in normal chess, making blunder is annoying for both side, blundered side need keep playing while he already see he is going to lose, and advantage side need make sure not make mistake even he can almost see he is going to win, and almost half of the game, both side is just simple wasted the time and the brain cell while the result is nothing changed
its so boring when you have advantage and opponent not giving up, 3 check and atomic is like advantage = almost always a mate in X

me is like: stage 1: trying to trolling opponent piece by some complex thing stage 2: opponent simple get advantage cuz i blundered, so i start to make more troll about checkmate or getting queen stage 3: ok sac all my piece,just to troll my opponent that make stalemate move i like 3 check and atomic cuz if u make 1 blunder, you can start next round already, and in normal chess, making blunder is annoying for both side, blundered side need keep playing while he already see he is going to lose, and advantage side need make sure not make mistake even he can almost see he is going to win, and almost half of the game, both side is just simple wasted the time and the brain cell while the result is nothing changed its so boring when you have advantage and opponent not giving up, 3 check and atomic is like advantage = almost always a mate in X
<Comment deleted by user>

Very interesting topic, I really liked it, because I often try to take the advantage or create some deep positional plan, so that I can win the game, and that often wins me the position, (I often get into +3 +4 positions) But I can't really win, because I spent all my time getting that advantage and sometimes I don't even have a meaninful advantage (Meaningfull >= +3) so I just blunder due to time pressure, or I fall for a trap, because I think there's a tactic, and I remember telling my self "My sacrifices NEVER work!" because I often get very good position but I can't win them. So how do I really convert winning positions?

I understand, the "just work on your tactics", but is that just it? I just have to eat Puzzles for Breakfast, PuzzleStreak for Lunch and Puzzle Storm for Dinner?

PS: what rating is amauter?

Very interesting topic, I really liked it, because I often try to take the advantage or create some deep positional plan, so that I can win the game, and that often wins me the position, (I often get into +3 +4 positions) But I can't really win, because I spent all my time getting that advantage and sometimes I don't even have a meaninful advantage (Meaningfull >= +3) so I just blunder due to time pressure, or I fall for a trap, because I think there's a tactic, and I remember telling my self "My sacrifices NEVER work!" because I often get very good position but I can't win them. So how do I really convert winning positions? I understand, the "just work on your tactics", but is that just it? I just have to eat Puzzles for Breakfast, PuzzleStreak for Lunch and Puzzle Storm for Dinner? PS: what rating is amauter?

@The_Skeleton

No, that's not the point, and that would quickly lead to a plateau. The point is to make sure that one has a good grounding in all of the fundamentals of the game at a basic level; meanwhile, the problem that most amateurs have is that they study sophisticated opening and positional concepts thinking they are deepening their understanding while missing relatively simple tactics or misplaying fundamental endgame positions in practical games. (In fact they might trying to learn sophisticated strategic ideas without having learned basic strategic ideas.)

The premise of the post is that amateurs need to learn how to prosecute an advantage before learning how to fight for one: how to recognize that a mating attack is available and execute it properly (tactics); how to recognize that an endgame position is winning and how to play it out correctly (endgames); how to recognize a positional advantage and knowing more or less what to do about it (strategy & combinations). Of course, one has to also play the beginning of the game in such a way as to provide himself with a position where he might be able to get an advantage (opening play). Most amateurs aren't studying the material that help with these skills, but are looking at material that is much too advanced or sophisticated.

For example, consider which is more likely to be popular among amateurs: the latest opening course on Chessable, or the popularity of Alekhine's My Best Games of Chess among amateur chess players? And do you know what Alekhine's game collection is like? It's 200+ games of Alekhine going "I played OK I guess but suddenly the opponent did something wrong and gave me the advantage, now watch how I executed him afterwards.be" Alekhine's considerations were both strategic and tactical at once, but also very lucid and quite accessible to amateurs, which is why his game collection is so highly recommended. This is the kind of material GM Studer is talking about: basic strategies and tactics understood with a high degree of accuracy, not some strategic brilliancy by Karpov.

So, yes, tactical and endgame training should get the lion's share of one's training time, but there should still be some strategic training and a little opening study. It's just that the strategic and opening training needs to be less pretentious than is usually observed among us class players, and it should get less emphasis than the tactical training.

Hope that helps clear it up.

P.S. "Amateur" more or less means you don't have a title, like "IM," "FM," "GM" &c. It means a player who hasn't "mastered" the game yet and still needs to focus on developing some aspect of the fundamentals of the game.

@The_Skeleton No, that's not the point, and that would quickly lead to a plateau. The point is to make sure that one has a good grounding in *all* of the fundamentals of the game at a basic level; meanwhile, the problem that *most* amateurs have is that they study sophisticated opening and positional concepts thinking they are deepening their understanding while missing relatively simple tactics or misplaying fundamental endgame positions in practical games. (In fact they might trying to learn *sophisticated* strategic ideas without having learned *basic* strategic ideas.) The premise of the post is that amateurs need to learn how to prosecute an advantage before learning how to fight for one: how to recognize that a mating attack is available and execute it properly (tactics); how to recognize that an endgame position is winning and how to play it out correctly (endgames); how to recognize a positional advantage and knowing more or less what to do about it (strategy & combinations). Of course, one has to also play the beginning of the game in such a way as to provide himself with a position where he might be able to get an advantage (opening play). Most amateurs aren't studying the material that help with these skills, but are looking at material that is much too advanced or sophisticated. For example, consider which is more likely to be popular among amateurs: the latest opening course on Chessable, or the popularity of Alekhine's *My Best Games of Chess* among amateur chess players? And do you know what Alekhine's game collection is like? It's 200+ games of Alekhine going "I played OK I guess but suddenly the opponent did something wrong and gave me the advantage, now watch how I executed him afterwards.be" Alekhine's considerations were both strategic and tactical at once, but also very lucid and quite accessible to amateurs, which is why his game collection is so highly recommended. This is the kind of material GM Studer is talking about: basic strategies and tactics understood with a high degree of accuracy, not some strategic brilliancy by Karpov. So, yes, tactical and endgame training should get the lion's share of one's training time, but there should still be some strategic training and a little opening study. It's just that the strategic and opening training needs to be less pretentious than is usually observed among us class players, and it should get less emphasis than the tactical training. Hope that helps clear it up. P.S. "Amateur" more or less means you don't have a title, like "IM," "FM," "GM" &c. It means a player who hasn't "mastered" the game yet and still needs to focus on developing some aspect of the fundamentals of the game.

@wjyg said in #4:

You don't have to keep on playing once you blunder. You could resign, but of course playing on is more fun :)

@wjyg said in #4: > You don't have to keep on playing once you blunder. You could resign, but of course playing on is more fun :)