As 2009 draws to a close, it looks like I’m going to finish with just 17 or 18 rated tournament games this year. This is about half of what I’ve done in previous years. Also, in previous years I’ve played in several Team 45-45 tournaments online, and this year I haven’t done any of that.
A combination of family and work factors have kept me from playing or studying as much this year.
So it’s really no surprise that my rating is sagging in the low 1600s.
Since my non-chess life looks like it’ll be about the same for 2010, I expect my chess play and study time to also be about the same. It isn’t realistic, therefore, for me to set a short-term goal of improvement. If I can keep my rating from dropping too much despite limited playing time, that will be an accomplishment.
But I am continuing to study and play as much as possible, because I enjoy both.
My current study activities include:
- Intensive opening study
- Problem-solving in the new book by Khmelnitsky, Chess Exam: Matches against Chess Legends, You vs. Bobby Fischer
- Going over my own (few) games
- Thought-process exercises of my own devising
OK, I know what you’re thinking. Why am I, a middling class player, doing intensive opening study?? I should be doing tactics, tactics, tactics!
Save your breath, at least for now. How and why I’m doing opening study will be the subject of another post in the near future.
When other aspects of my life calm down and I can start playing a lot more tournament games, I think it’s possible for me to move my rating up out of the 1600s. In meantime, I’ll just try to have fun.
5 Comments
We have a lot in common…hanging out in the low 1600’s, not having played many tournaments this year.
Except my reason for not going to tournaments is pure laziness.
I know you said that we must not spill our breath about your “Intense” opening study but i wouldn’t bother about it. It took me three years to create an opening that suited me not knowing that their were already opening books about it. Only after those three years of self discovering those openingmoves i got a book about the Colle-(Zukertort) opening to discover that my labour was all already excisting. Do i feel pain and sorrow that i didn’t discover the book sooner? Not at all since when reading the book i could actually follow all what he said because i learned by trying and finding out things myself. I just followed the three golden opening rules (1. one pawn in the centre, not more then two; 2. develop your pieces and 3. king safety).
With other words, play as the 3 golden opening rules descrive and rediscover an opening like i did. Believe me, it’s the best way to learn an opening and the plans that come with it.
I believe however that the difference between 1600 and 1700 isn’t opening or tactics but more correct calculation so i recomend guess the move exercises besides tactical exercises to be a great part of your training.
When it comes to openings, the first 5-10 moves, knowing them is helpful, particularly in more open positions, but even there things are usually not so forced. Actually, the French Advanced variation theory in the first 10 moves has been a LOT more important for me to know than any variation of the Open Sicilian, for example.
Playing helps you appreciate the opening, more ready to assimilate more info most likely, and gives a sense of relief from the notion that chess is merely a game of memorization.
Some closed openings I think are probably better played than studied. I am incredulous on the number of books on the Colle. If someone needs that much explained to them, then I would think perhaps it’s because they need more work on tactics and general chess rather than needing a book to think for them and cover a multitude of eventualities – really, that is what calculating is all about.
I don’t think that opening study is the most horrific crime that can be committed by a middle level class player. Although in an effort not to steal your thunder I’ll let you explain it later on, I have actually come to believe that if done correctly it is a really great tool for improvement.
wang—Thanks. Maybe I’ll get that explanation written this week.