Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Say I'm down by 2 to 5 points. The general consensus seems to be that it is bad for me to trade in this situation. Should I run all around the board avoiding trades looking for the perfect opening, or is there more to this. Perhaps someone can suggest a book to study about this.
|
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 17/06/2014 19:34, Jules W. wrote:
Say I'm down by 2 to 5 points. The general consensus seems to be that it is bad for me to trade in this situation. Should I run all around the board avoiding trades looking for the perfect opening, or is there more to this. Perhaps someone can suggest a book to study about this. In serious match play you have probably already lost unless you got some serious counterplay initiative for the material sacrifice. It is generally a good idea to swap off and simplify as much as possible when you are ahead because the less total material there is on board the more your fixed material advantage counts in your favour. The converse of this is that if you are down on material you should be aiming to keep the position complex and not trade pieces unless forced to do so. You are hoping that your opponent will make a mistake. And it doesn't matter how much material you are behind by if you can still deliver checkmate whilst the opponent is taking your queen. Keeping queens and rooks on the board is usually a good idea if you are materially behind (as is swapping them off if you are ahead). -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 17/06/14 19:34, Jules W. wrote:
Say I'm down by 2 to 5 points. The general consensus seems to be that it is bad for me to trade in this situation. In addition to what Martin says, this is a chess-specific example of a more general game-theoretic concept, namely that of variance reduction. If you are winning, then you want to reduce the variance [randomness] of the position, even if this involves returning some of your advantage, so as to increase the chance that you will be able to turn your advantage into a win. Conversely, if you are losing, then you want to increase the variance [even if this involves handing your opponent a bigger advantage], on the grounds that the more random/complex/difficult the position, the bigger the chance that the opponent will go wrong. "Trading" is one way to reduce, in typical positions, the variance, so it is, broadly, good for the player who is notionally winning, bad for the player who is notionally losing. As with all chess "rules", there are few, if any, absolutes. Chess is not played by rote. Should I run all around the board avoiding trades No. looking for the perfect opening, If you're losing. there is no "perfect opening". At best, there may be ways of setting your opponent problems that s/he is unable to solve. This is more likely if there are still lots of pieces on the board, less likely if the position is simple. or is there more to this. Perhaps someone can suggest a book to study about this. There used to be a Fred Reinfeld book "How to Win when you're Ahead", which had a companion whose title I forget, but it finished with "... when you're Behind". Amazon and Bookfinder don't seem to know anything about it. Caution: Reinfeld's books are not uniformly excellent. But I once watched a small boy losing in short order in a simultaneous display against the local champion, and it turned out that he'd been sitting on a pile of books in order to raise himself enough to see the board properly; the pile included the above two books and also "How to Win Quickly". Perhaps he hadn't read them. Broadly, if you're at the stage where you need to ask the above, then more important than studying books is to get yourself to your nearest chess club and play, play and play again. Study books when you know enough about chess to know what you're studying. When you do start studying, learning about tactics is Numero Uno, followed by basic endgames, followed by middlegame strategy. Leave openings until you've reached the degree of experience where they matter. Playing real, live opponents face-to-face is much better than playing against the computer. -- Andy Walker, Nottingham. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:11:21 PM UTC-6, Andy Walker wrote:
On 17/06/14 19:34, Jules W. wrote: Say I'm down by 2 to 5 points. The general consensus seems to be that it is bad for me to trade in this situation. Broadly, if you're at the stage where you need to ask the above, then more important than studying books is to get yourself to your nearest chess club and play, play and play again. I play on gameknot.com and usually have about 50 games going. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 27/06/2014 11:56, Jules W. wrote:
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:11:21 PM UTC-6, Andy Walker wrote: On 17/06/14 19:34, Jules W. wrote: Say I'm down by 2 to 5 points. The general consensus seems to be that it is bad for me to trade in this situation. Broadly, if you're at the stage where you need to ask the above, then more important than studying books is to get yourself to your nearest chess club and play, play and play again. I play on gameknot.com and usually have about 50 games going. You don't give us any idea of your playing strength or rating. You may well be confusing quantity with quality. You can learn a lot from every defeat by analysing it afterwards with a decent engine. Fritz X is the cheapest at present (just £5 on Amazon) http://www.amazon.co.uk/chessbase-Fr...C7NG K3RD98RJ If you want to train specific themes or techniques then any of the various apps that do puzzles or training would be appropriate. I am quite impressed with iChess free on Android as a portable set of puzzles even though its puzzles don't always allow perfectly valid alternative lines to the actual match play solution. From the question you have asked Total Chess Training would be far too advanced but TASC2 Chess Training might well be about right: http://www.chesshouse.com/TASC_Chess...ess_p/a216.htm It covers all the basics and set plays that you must know to progress. You might have to run it in an XP virtual environment. I have never tried it on any more recent OS. It might work it might not. The CD hasn't been updated in donkey's years but is still a very good intro. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Sometimes playing a computer is better. If the opponents are too weak you won't have to delve too deeply into a position since decisive combinations will be handed to you on a silver platter by the mindless moves your opponent makes. Some persons play chess virtually without thinking. A computer makes you work to both avoid getting caught by tactical surprise and to work in finding tactical motifs in positions where they aren't staring you in the face. So human opponents can only improve your game if they can play as competitively as computers of respectable strength play. Something similar happens in boxing. For example, we have boxers who enter the ring with undefeated records they have attained against pushovers. Their boxing skills have never really been tested. They have become sloppy in execution. Careless in defense. Overconfident in a nonexistent skill. Such boxers are immediately exposed when they suddenly encounter someone who really knows how to box. So all that supposedly beneficial practice did more harm than good. Gee! I am really surprised idiot hasn't popped up and moronically proclaimed all this as total BS as done on my other response on another thread. Last edited by Radrook : October 17th 16 at 03:36 PM |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess | alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) | |||
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess | rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) | |||
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess | rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) | |||
Dirty Djordje.......when chessplayers go bad! | rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) | |||
Dirty Djordje......when chessplayers go bad! | rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) |