For a bit of context, I am around 1500 and just getting back into wanting to play seriously and was wondering if anyone here had some advice. I've noticed that most of the chess discussion is...
For a bit of context, I am around 1500 and just getting back into wanting to play seriously and was wondering if anyone here had some advice. I've noticed that most of the chess discussion is quite limited and mostly news related but I was hoping that we could get some better strategical discussion.
According to the engine I was supposed to sac my queen for a very strong attack on move 14. I am used to sacing a queen when there is a clear mate threat and the sacrifice involves breaking up pawn protection, however in this case it was not as clear cut. I did see the option but I was concerned that I didn't have the ability to convert and as a consequence I went from a totally winning position to a drawn one. I ended up winning in the endgame but I would like to improve my attacking abilities. Any one have any general strategies and suggestions?
So looking at your position, after viewing where the king is restricted and the threats you are making on it, it's fairly clear that after a few moves the opponent would need to give the queen...
So looking at your position, after viewing where the king is restricted and the threats you are making on it, it's fairly clear that after a few moves the opponent would need to give the queen back or it would be mate.
The thing to keep in mind is you need to see what threats you currently have. After dxc6 and the exchange of the queen for the rook, his king is trapped. It has no moves because the D file is completely blocked off. So next think, how can I exploit that?
Well, you are also threatening check by moving the pawn that is now on c6. If he takes it, you can take back with the bishop which would be forced mate unless he gives back his queen. At which point you are up material. Interestingly, the engine says to go Be3 first before taking on C6 but it works out similarly, he has to give back the queen eventually.
When looking at the option of sacking the queen, it doesn't necessarily have to be forced mate, but it could be that they need to give up so much in return to stay alive that it makes it worth it.
I'm also around 1500 as well, but I think it does help to just take a step back, look at what you are actually threatening, and see if it's possible to exploit that. Restricting the other king's position can be key, and if you can exploit that, it will be a big help.
Ya, looking back I realized how uncomfortable it would have been to play black at that point and I don't think I would have been any happier about winning a queen. I think I need to think more...
Ya, looking back I realized how uncomfortable it would have been to play black at that point and I don't think I would have been any happier about winning a queen.
I think I need to think more about evaluation over piece value. I've gotten better at that with sacking the exchange or losing a pawn to get the bishop pair. When it's the queen though, it's much more difficult for me. I'm sure if I thought more about the clear threats you pointed out it and less about the "oh no my queen" I would have gone for it.
Don’t know if your “Oh no my queen” is referencing Eric Rosen or not, but if it is he’s a fun guy to watch on YouTube/Twitch. I actually played against him once in a high school tournament. He...
Don’t know if your “Oh no my queen” is referencing Eric Rosen or not, but if it is he’s a fun guy to watch on YouTube/Twitch. I actually played against him once in a high school tournament. He kicked my ass…
Some people just see things at a completely different level.
Another "not as good as you" player so sorry I can't be of instant help on the relevant issue. My tangential thought is this is probably not a thing that will matter as a 1500 elo player? To be...
Another "not as good as you" player so sorry I can't be of instant help on the relevant issue. My tangential thought is this is probably not a thing that will matter as a 1500 elo player?
To be clear i'm sure it's a skill worth learning and focusing on, but at the same time it does strike me as a fairly large edge case at that level. The engine pointing out the move might be one even grandmasters miss, and in my time screwing around with chess.com (i've only played the bots and up to the 1500 one) I can't think of a lot of recommended lines in evaluation where a queen sacrifice with no mate was the play.
Not trying to discourage, and I think it's a very interesting question and hope to see a response from someone good, but just pointing it out as I've been competitive in many other games and find that sometimes intermediate and higher level players will focus on edge cases that really only matter at the highest level (super common in MOBA stuff) rather than refining the core skills.
It definitely is a bit more of an edge case but I'm more concerned of working on the point at which an attack is strong enough that your queen isn't necessary which is a fairly common occurrence....
It definitely is a bit more of an edge case but I'm more concerned of working on the point at which an attack is strong enough that your queen isn't necessary which is a fairly common occurrence.
I wouldn't say that bots are a great example of how real games play out. From my understanding, which could be wrong but the bots are the same level as most engines but are programmed to blunder more or less depending on their level.
Also lower level players can totally make great suggestions there's a ton of things I miss. All input is welcome
I dont have a good answer to your main question because I'm a worse chess player still learning basics. However I did want to get your perspective on analyzing chess both during and post game and...
I dont have a good answer to your main question because I'm a worse chess player still learning basics. However I did want to get your perspective on analyzing chess both during and post game and am hoping this gets to your overall goal of having a broader strategy discussion.
The other day my husband had shared a funny video where a chess player is thinking about how amazing his next move will be because the next 5 moves will get him to create a check mate scenario he'd win in his mind. Then after his move the other player wins because the chess player never analyzed that scenario and didn't realize he was about to be defeated.
The video was partially hilarious because of its delivery but also because that's so similar to how I fail in chess.
So, how far in advance do you analyze moves? Or do you just focus on all possible scenarios in that moment on the board and not go ahead in scenarios? Maybe that's still to simplistic of a way of looking at it but just kind of curious how people look at the board while playing.
Also as you look back do you try to figure out ways you could've won sooner or just look at different scenarios to learn more options next time?
It really depends on how complex the position is. Some times you don't even need to calculate and you can just make a move because you know there aren't really any downsides to a move, these are...
It really depends on how complex the position is. Some times you don't even need to calculate and you can just make a move because you know there aren't really any downsides to a move, these are usually positional moves. When I can see that there is a tactic where certain moves are forced that is when I calculate deeper, it's just pattern recognition at that point. It's very rare that I'll look at all possible moves. I'm definitely not great by any means and I blunder all the time but you get to a point where you sort of know they will play one out of three moves and only look at those.
As far as analysis I just mentally mark a parts of the game that I thought a big decision occurred. Then I go back and see if I made the right choice or if I should have gone a different direction and see the reason behind the better idea.
For a bit of context, I am around 1500 and just getting back into wanting to play seriously and was wondering if anyone here had some advice. I've noticed that most of the chess discussion is quite limited and mostly news related but I was hoping that we could get some better strategical discussion.
According to the engine I was supposed to sac my queen for a very strong attack on move 14. I am used to sacing a queen when there is a clear mate threat and the sacrifice involves breaking up pawn protection, however in this case it was not as clear cut. I did see the option but I was concerned that I didn't have the ability to convert and as a consequence I went from a totally winning position to a drawn one. I ended up winning in the endgame but I would like to improve my attacking abilities. Any one have any general strategies and suggestions?
So looking at your position, after viewing where the king is restricted and the threats you are making on it, it's fairly clear that after a few moves the opponent would need to give the queen back or it would be mate.
The thing to keep in mind is you need to see what threats you currently have. After dxc6 and the exchange of the queen for the rook, his king is trapped. It has no moves because the D file is completely blocked off. So next think, how can I exploit that?
Well, you are also threatening check by moving the pawn that is now on c6. If he takes it, you can take back with the bishop which would be forced mate unless he gives back his queen. At which point you are up material. Interestingly, the engine says to go Be3 first before taking on C6 but it works out similarly, he has to give back the queen eventually.
When looking at the option of sacking the queen, it doesn't necessarily have to be forced mate, but it could be that they need to give up so much in return to stay alive that it makes it worth it.
I'm also around 1500 as well, but I think it does help to just take a step back, look at what you are actually threatening, and see if it's possible to exploit that. Restricting the other king's position can be key, and if you can exploit that, it will be a big help.
Ya, looking back I realized how uncomfortable it would have been to play black at that point and I don't think I would have been any happier about winning a queen.
I think I need to think more about evaluation over piece value. I've gotten better at that with sacking the exchange or losing a pawn to get the bishop pair. When it's the queen though, it's much more difficult for me. I'm sure if I thought more about the clear threats you pointed out it and less about the "oh no my queen" I would have gone for it.
Don’t know if your “Oh no my queen” is referencing Eric Rosen or not, but if it is he’s a fun guy to watch on YouTube/Twitch. I actually played against him once in a high school tournament. He kicked my ass…
Some people just see things at a completely different level.
It was a reference to Rosen, I used to watch him a lot but pretty much just stick to Naroditsky now. Super cool you got to play him though
Another "not as good as you" player so sorry I can't be of instant help on the relevant issue. My tangential thought is this is probably not a thing that will matter as a 1500 elo player?
To be clear i'm sure it's a skill worth learning and focusing on, but at the same time it does strike me as a fairly large edge case at that level. The engine pointing out the move might be one even grandmasters miss, and in my time screwing around with chess.com (i've only played the bots and up to the 1500 one) I can't think of a lot of recommended lines in evaluation where a queen sacrifice with no mate was the play.
Not trying to discourage, and I think it's a very interesting question and hope to see a response from someone good, but just pointing it out as I've been competitive in many other games and find that sometimes intermediate and higher level players will focus on edge cases that really only matter at the highest level (super common in MOBA stuff) rather than refining the core skills.
It definitely is a bit more of an edge case but I'm more concerned of working on the point at which an attack is strong enough that your queen isn't necessary which is a fairly common occurrence.
I wouldn't say that bots are a great example of how real games play out. From my understanding, which could be wrong but the bots are the same level as most engines but are programmed to blunder more or less depending on their level.
Also lower level players can totally make great suggestions there's a ton of things I miss. All input is welcome
I dont have a good answer to your main question because I'm a worse chess player still learning basics. However I did want to get your perspective on analyzing chess both during and post game and am hoping this gets to your overall goal of having a broader strategy discussion.
The other day my husband had shared a funny video where a chess player is thinking about how amazing his next move will be because the next 5 moves will get him to create a check mate scenario he'd win in his mind. Then after his move the other player wins because the chess player never analyzed that scenario and didn't realize he was about to be defeated.
The video was partially hilarious because of its delivery but also because that's so similar to how I fail in chess.
So, how far in advance do you analyze moves? Or do you just focus on all possible scenarios in that moment on the board and not go ahead in scenarios? Maybe that's still to simplistic of a way of looking at it but just kind of curious how people look at the board while playing.
Also as you look back do you try to figure out ways you could've won sooner or just look at different scenarios to learn more options next time?
It really depends on how complex the position is. Some times you don't even need to calculate and you can just make a move because you know there aren't really any downsides to a move, these are usually positional moves. When I can see that there is a tactic where certain moves are forced that is when I calculate deeper, it's just pattern recognition at that point. It's very rare that I'll look at all possible moves. I'm definitely not great by any means and I blunder all the time but you get to a point where you sort of know they will play one out of three moves and only look at those.
As far as analysis I just mentally mark a parts of the game that I thought a big decision occurred. Then I go back and see if I made the right choice or if I should have gone a different direction and see the reason behind the better idea.