Tags: chess, play chess online, chess online, online chess, online chess, play chess online, backgammon
Chess Forum
ability-tw.com << online chess - < chess - chess > - chess online >>
| From | Message | Posted by novagold
ability-tw.com
5/11/2008
13:17:24
Play online chess |  Subject: How do you make your moves on GK?
Message:
I was just wondering what process other people use to make moves on this site. Do you use the analyse board feature or just look at it and figure it out mentally or both? How long do you spend looking and the board and how far ahead do you try to calculate? Do you write down your moves or just hope? How many moves do you generally consider?
Personally I only consider about 3 or 4 moves (probably why I'm this rating :) ) and then use the analyse board feature to try and figure about 3 moves onwards or so.
| Posted by ionadowman
ability-tw.com
5/11/2008
22:33:30
Play online chess | How does one make moves...?
Message:
I keep a chessboard close by the machine, and if the position looks as though it will require a bit of thought (i.e. 90% of the time), set out the position on it. I have a small travelling magnetic set as well to keep the game position for reference. I have more than once set up the wrong position to decide my moves. You would be surprised how often a seemingly trivial difference in position can make a big difference in how to proceed.
I'll occasionally use the "analyse the board" if I just want to go over a sequnce of moves before playing, or sometimes just to sort out a few "candidate moves". It could, of course, be used much more extensively than I do.
Check out the games database, too, especially for openings. Until recently GK carried only the games played on GK (those played by at least one 1500+ plyer, but you could narrow this to "1900+ games". This has been replaced by master games, but these aren't complete games - only the openings (in some depth, mind you).
I have no idea whether the GK game database has been retained in some obscure corner of this site, or has been eliminated altogether. I rather hope it has been retained.
I'm inclined to think that database was more useful than has been alleged. Some of the "poorer" games might well have been valuable for showing what to avoid!
Chhers,
Ion
| Posted by lighttotheright
ability-tw.com
5/12/2008
05:17:00
Play online chess |
Message:
I often use a physical board too. I have a few tricks to make 100% sure that I've set it up to the correct position.
I'll pick a couple of candidate moves and think as far as I can. Then I will set up the resulting position for each candidate move on the physical board and do the same thing all over again...unless it is a familiar simple position. If it is a position that I already know well, then I often can play very quickly without using a physical board.
Note: sometimes I get lazy and don't use this method; but I will always think ahead as far as I can. Looking 3 to 4 moves ahead is not nearly enough in my opinion. I like to say that I only think only 1 move ahead because you cannot 100% accurately predict what your opponent will do in all circumstances; yet the truth is that looking ahead varies and depends upon the situation. Sometimes 8 or 9 moves is not enough. Sometimes 1 is enough.
When looking deep into the endgame, I often don't need to count the moves. I'm looking for familiar patterns. Sometimes those patterns can give you assurance of victory 30 to 40 moves down the road. But I'm not actually thinking move by move that far. I use my intuition that I've gained from experience.
| Posted by ganstaman
ability-tw.com
5/12/2008
11:56:47
Play online chess |
Message:
For openings, I use databases and my current knowledge of openings. As the game leaves my brain's "opening book" I start to look more at the databases, playing through select games and then seeing what move makes the most sense (play a little bit with the board analysis).
For the middle and end games, I start off staring at the board. Just getting an idea of what's going on. Then, I bring up the 'analyze the board' and go through my ideas. If it's seeming complex, I leave myself a note here with the variation tree written out. This allows me to come back later and add to it without having to repeat all my work. Also, it makes sure that I don't miss a move somewhere down the line that I analyzed but simply forgot.
I go as deep as needed within the given time. Some moves fail at 4 ply. Others look promising, but if I don't trust them much I will take them out much further. In a game I have now, I have one line analyzed out 11 ply, and I'm going to add to this in length and in branch points (there are so far only 2 other branches I've considered for this move).
I try to look at as many moves as possible, but only a few (1 to 4 on average) get serious analysis and consideration. When I don't have much time, I look at less moves, but try to take them deeper just so I can feel comfortable enough with them (if I can't see a winning shot for me, I'd at least want a move that doesn't lose for me). Even then, I at least toy with most moves for like 20 seconds.
I think that if you have some idea of what you are looking for in a move, and you have a good way to organize your thoughts, and you almost NEVER make a move on the same day you do all your analysis on it (if you come back the day after, things will look very different), then you should be able to analyze deeper and find some better moves overall.
| Posted by ionadowman
ability-tw.com
5/12/2008
13:14:48
Play online chess | ganstaman mentioned something...
Message:
... that I had intended to but forgot: using the "make a note" feature. In my view this is a very useful feature that I woefully underemploy - probably because i pencil my intentions all over the scoresheets that I keep (just A4 pages, 5 games the side). It is a useful aide-memoire when one has a forced sequence to play, or a clear-cut plan to follow. It saves having to rethink it (aside from routine checking for accuracy) especially for slowish games where you might not remember so well what's been going on. At any rate I have occasionally used it, and I do like that idea.
Cheers,
Ion
|
Chess news:
New Way to Crown Winners in Chess Games That End in Ties — Tournaments that end in ties are a problem in chess, and how to break them — or whether to even try — is a thorny topic. Some chess tournaments use complicated scoring systems to determine a winner. But what fan understands that a new chess champion is the player with the higher Sonneborn-Berger score? People want the winner to be decided in a competition, not by a calculator. Tie-breaker games have their own problems. If they keep ending in draws, it may be days or even weeks before one player wins. And White always has an advantage, so each player needs a turn at that color. So-called Armageddon games emerged a few years ago. These are one-game playoffs ...
The Catalan Chess Opening, part 2: the g2 bishop — How can White best exploit the potential of his fianchettoed kingside bishop? RB I'm a Catalan virgin, but I'm beginning to see some themes, in particular the power of the bishop on g2. Unfortunately the bishop's dominance of the h1-a8 diagonal is contested by the black bishop on b7. If I could somehow block its scope, my own bishop's potential would be enhanced. That's why I'm fixating on the c6 square. Ideally, I'd like to land a knight on c6, and maintain it there or force Black to swap off his bishop. The trouble is that ...
Gata Kamsky qualifies for 2011 candidates — American chess has a munificent sponsor, Rex Sinquefield. The retired fund manager has bankrolled the last two US chess championships, the latest with a $170,000 prize fund, in his Missouri home city Saint Louis where he has created a state of the art chess club which hosted the title event. The 2009 chess champion, Hikaru Nakamura, was stimulated to hone his inconsistent talent and is now ranked in the world top 20. Its format, a 24-player Swiss, included top US women plus Ray Robson, 15, who has since become a grandmaster. The 2010 championship last month went to Gata Kamsky, the former chess prodigy who went close to the world title in 1996, gave up to become ...
|
|