Best way to get good at chess?

The Game Room
62

Hi, I’m back (real life intervened!)

I’ve played chess internationally (best ELO of 2390) and taught it for decades.
I play (and beat) Chess Titans on level 10.

There’s a lot of good advice in the thread already, but here are my comments.

  1. How to improve at chess depends on your level.
  2. It’s always worth learning basic checkmates and endings. This stuff will help you understand the relative values of the pieces and it has all been analysed out.
  3. You can learn tactics (surprising moves that swiftly win material, like ‘pin’, ‘fork’ and ‘zweischenzug’) by constant practice. You will learn to recognise patterns i.e. when several pieces are placed ‘just so’, then there could be a tactic.
  4. Strategy (your overall plan) is much harder to learn. A Master can look at a position and almost immediately recognise what each side should be aiming to do, but that’s based on considerable experience.
  5. Opening analysis is best avoided until you have got the hang of the rest of the game. Nobody should memorise openings – they should understand them. Openings change all the time and only professional players can keep up. A few simple tips suffice for the beginner.

Candyman, if you’re a complete beginner, then the games of the Masters are (sadly) too deep for you.
Also you mention you know all the rules – but do you know the three exceptions: castling, promotion and en passant?

I suggest you:

  • get a basic book on endings and play through the examples. You should know how to mate with K+Q v K and K+R v K. You should find out how to play a position of K+P v K (some are drawn, some are won.)
  • find someone to play with. A friendly player about your own level (or just above); a computer program that gives advice (and lets you ‘takeback’); a game on the Internet. If there is a club near you, this could be very useful.
  • play through lots and lots of tests of tactics. Try to spot the similarities – they are there!
  • get a strong player to give you a game with lots of comments*

*that would be me – I’m happy to play a game with you in a thread here where I answer questions and explain stuff. :cool:

63

Would that offer extend to other interested chess players? I saw a previous thread where you played with someone and offered advice or observations on each move, and it was very interesting. I’d love to play a game with you like that, if you have time.

64

I’m not a complete beginner. I’m just not very good at it. I am familiar with the rules.

Concentrate on endings, huh? Good idea. Plus my endgame is my weakest point.

Already been through in detail in this thread. I’m doing those things in that list that I can. I can’t do the things I can’t. :slight_smile:

That could be educational! And fun! I’d love to! How does one play on a thread? Simply post the moves, or find some server space to upload images?

65

I was never a great chessplayer (topped out in the low 1700s; someone like glee would mop the floor with me!) but I remember how I got there from being not just the 1200’s-rated player I was when I first played rated chess, but from being the much weaker player I was a few years earlier.

Think: openings, middle game, endings. They’re very different in character.

Openings - white: hopefully you’ve played enough that you have a sense of whether you like playing d4 or e4 more. Go with the one you like; you don’t have to learn both. Decide which way you want to go if black responds symmetrically (i.e. 1. d4 d5 or 1. e4 e5), and learn how to handle the first few moves by the book in response to the main asymmetrical lines (e.g. Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann for e4; the Indian defenses to d4). After that, just play. Consult opening books when you have a particular point in a particular opening that you realize you need to learn more about, and not before. Otherwise, you’re just stuffing your head with moves you won’t be able to remember.

Openings-black:

This. I settled on the Pirc for e4, and the Grunfeld for d4, but the main thing is to choose one response to each of d4 and e4 that feels comfortable to you, so that you can become good with those two defenses, rather than feeling you have to learn a whole array of them.

And I would personally urge something asymmetrical (i.e. not 1. d4 d5 or 1. e4 e5) because each of those first few moves is essentially a choice of the terrain you’re going to be fighting on, and symmetry basically cedes the choice of battlefield back to the white player.

Middle game: Winning Chess by Reinfeld and Chernev was great for learning the tactical tools of the middle game - pins, forks, and the rest of them. That book took me from being a total patzer to being able to beat people.

Best of all, it teaches you how to narrow down the alternatives that you have to consider in the middle game, and even better, how to choose moves that limit your opponent’s responses, so that you can think of your next move or two as you’re plotting your current move.

If you click through, you’ll notice that this book is VERY well-liked. Buy a used copy. Enjoy.

Endgame: another Chernev book, Practical Chess Endings, got me started here. It starts with basic King-and-one-pawn v. King endings, and gradually works up from there.

The one disadvantage of the recommended books is that they’re in old-fashioned notation (e.g. 1 P-K4 rather than 1 e4).

I personally never gained anything from playing the games of the masters. They were simply too far above me. I’d rather play with people who are better than me, but close enough in ability that I can see how they’re beating me, and learn from it.

66

What are those 1200, 1700 rankings? How does one get one? Sounds like a way to measure progress.

67

Isn’t that kind of redundant? I mean, if you can mate with K+R (which isn’t that hard to begin with), then you automatically also know how to mate with K+Q. More interesting is two bishops, or bishop and knight, or positions where the defender also has some pieces left.

68

ELO ratings - you get one (in the US) by joining the USCF and playing rated games.

69

Oh, right. Not much use to me then!

70

If you play online at sites like chess.com or ICC you will also get ratings associated with those sites, which could certainly serve the function of tracking your progress over time.

(The way these things basically work is your rating goes up or down after every game depending on whether you win/lose/draw, by an an amount determined by how your rating compares to that of your opponent.)

71

The minor piece endings are interesting, but you could go an entire lifetime and never have them turn up in practical play, whereas K+Q v K is the logical outcome of a game that’s gone down to the last pawn, although if both players are any good the defender loses nothing by resigning.

72

Certainly. Chess has been very good to me :slight_smile: and I’m happy to put something back.

Here’s an example of a previous thread:

If Candyman74 wants a game too, I suggest he be White v me (less chance of getting into trouble in the opening!)
So would it be fair for me to have White v yourself?

Also if a kind soul would put a chess diagram int othe threads, that would be great (makes it fun for spectators.)

73

I’ve had K,B+N v K once in nearly 2000 games.
Interestingly I’ve never reached K+Q v K - they always reaign first.

Two reasons I suggest playing positions like K+R v K:

  • you learn to think ahead in a heavily simplified position
  • you learn about why some pieces are better than others in an open position
74

Hiya, good to see you back! Jim’s D&D is still going over on the 'Phant should you feel like bringing Ghan out of retirement. Also I have your absence to thank for my signature. :cool:

So the practical effect of knowing the K, B+N ending has been to bump up your win percentage by 0.025% (a half-point in 2000 games). I’m sure you agree that for most of us there are more profitable areas of study. :smiley:

75

I think that was the previous thread I was watching. Black suits me fine. Do you want to start the thread, or should I? Thank you in advance!

You should know that I play only a few levels higher than “beginner.” I was barely adequate to play on my high school squad ten(ish) years ago, but I’ve played more than a few games since then so I’m not completely rusty.

76

If you’re playing online through chess.com you can play rated games which will help you to recognize your level. I’m only ~1400 on there. I play most of my games against my own level but also a fair amount of games against higher ranked opponents so I can learn from them.

77

Ha ha!

I’m too embarrassed to tell you what ranking it gave me. Suffice it to say it has fewer digits than yours…

78

:slight_smile: Well, it’s only a guide. When my brother was looking to improve he found this book to be quite helpful, especially the section about pawn structure. The author also serves as a coach on chess.com apparently; I’m not sure how that works though, I just play my games there.

My kids are learning the endgame first and it’s helping them understand the strength of the pieces and the way they can co-operate with other pieces in a way that was never as intuitive for me as it will be for them.

79

I didn’t say it was practical, I said it was interesting. And that still doesn’t address the fact that the K+R ending automatically implies the K+Q ending (aside from it being slightly more difficult for a newbie to screw up the K+Q).

80

Ah, but the K+Q ending does give you a rather fun way to screw up–the stalemate.

81

Stalemate is the bane of my weak endgame. I can’t seal the deal.