i need advice on improving (1300)

@tpr said ^

In a tactics puzzle you know there is a tactic

This is where the problem arises! A beginner KNOWS that there is a tactic in the problem, but CANNOT find it for 5 minutes. These are the kind of puzzles that need to be shown to the coach, shown on the forum, in order to determine an individual weak topic.

There are tactics in the puzzle, but the player does not see them. This is a 100% guarantee that the player will not see this tactic in the game.

(@)kindaspongey: A game lasting for seventy-five moves is rare; the better approach is to use all of your time in order to attain a better position, survive off of increment, and win on position.

@shadow1414 said ^

(@)kindaspongey: A game lasting for seventy-five moves is rare; the better approach is to use all of your time in order to attain a better position, survive off of increment, and win on position.

not easy for a thirteen hundred

"not easy for a thirteen hundred"

• It is easier for a 1300 player to play 30 decent moves at average 40 seconds/move than at average 25 seconds/move.

(@)martinmodern: 'not easy for a thirteen hundred' ~ That is all the more reason to start practicing it: Their opponents ---especially the ones who stick to easy strategies--- will be at a disadvantage when it comes to time usage. If you do not learn hard strategies, then you will not become a hard player.

In life, you get what you work and pay for. Handicapping yourself to only using, 'easy strategies' is self-desruptive.

Learning a new game is hard, so should the OP not have started chess?

Ok, too much noise on this thread not really answering your questions very well.

At 1300, I don't need to look at your games. Your tactical eye is blind. The solution?

A big dose of themed tactical puzzles. The specific themes are:

1 Pin
2 Deflection
3 Overload
4 Decoy
5 Double Attack
6 Knight Fork
7 Discovered Attack
8 Clearance
9 Obstruction
10 Removing the Defender
11 The Power of the Pawn
12 Back-Rank Mate
13 Stalemate
14 Perpetual Check and Fortresses
15 f7: Weak by Presumption
16 The Vulnerable Rook's Pawn
17 Attacking the Fianchetto
18 The Mystery of the Opposite-Coloured Bishops
19 Chess Highways: Open Files
20 Trapping a Piece

This list is from the book "A Course in Chess Tactics" by Dejan Bojkov and Vladimir Georgiev, Gambit Press.

This is a good book because the chapters concentrate on a single tactical motif and show you the ideas in how to obtain the motifs in play. Setting up a pin, deflecting a piece, etc.

Ch. 21 has a set of puzzles for you to solve WITHOUT any hints and they are not like the poor puzzles here or on chess.dumb where you know what you have to do. Thes positions could be winning, drawing, or just get an advantage of some sort. Like a real game.

Amazon $10 USD for Kindle version. I could tell you where to get a free pdf copy but it's likely against the rules here.

your tactics are low-hanging fruit. Fix it first. I bet if you did that you'd rise up over 1500-1600 no problem. Just dont kid yourself - that is your MAIN and PRIMARY issue in your game.

I cringe when neophytes roll out the kings gambit then massacre the opening. So, first point is put together a reasonable opening repertoire that is a few moves deep, simple, gets your pieces out and king to safety and reaches a playable middle game. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you have love for the KGA, then at least learn it reasonably well. But it is not for the faint of heart as it's

1. a Gambit, so you need to know how to attack, and
2. it's risky if you do not know it well.

Off the dome you are losing most of those games, I'm guessing.

But see my previous post - you are tactically blind.

And one last thing:

My top three for you would be

1. Tactics, as previously described.
2. Study endgames. The GoTo is "100 endgames you should know"
3. Simple opening repertoire - nothing fancy. Any reasonable opening book will do. I like Fundamental Chess Openings.

You said 60-90 min per day? do 20-30 minutes on each subject per day. Tactics you need help in (rating-based). Your opening repertoire is probably lacking big. Endgames will show you how the pieces work on a near-empty board.

What that you say? What about strategy?

You don't worry about that unless you are in middlegames and the nagging question of "What in the hell do I do in this position?" comes up. Analyzing your losses will point you somewhat in the right direction. That would be #4 on my list. Add it if you want. "Chess Structures" By Rios is awesome, but might me out of reach for you - but we always aim higher in chess.

As for time allotments: In "15+10" that is 900 seconds + 400 seconds added by increment which is 1300 seconds or about 21 minutes for a 40 move game (the average). that works out to be around 30 seconds per move. Naturally, early opening moves, recaptures, and checks are nearly instantaneous so you bank some time on those responses. Knowing you can spend 30 seconds on a move for a 40 move game is a little easier to understand.

:)

Spam puzzles every day, don't play faster than 15+10, blunder check every move, and chomp on hanging pieces.

@kindaspongey said in #5 (to mrloophole):

... [Site "https://lichess.org/qyrbG568"] ... You played the first 6 moves at an average rate that would have made sense if you had expected the game to last for 144 moves. In a 10+5 game, you could average 13 seconds per move and have enough time for 75 moves. ...

@shadow1414 said in #12:

... A game lasting for seventy-five moves is rare;

I agree. I was not attempting to identify the best choice for mrloophole. I was just making the point that mrloophole could use more time per move and still have a lot of time.

@shadow1414 said in #12:

the better approach is to

I imagine that many approaches would be "better" than what mrloophole had chosen.

@shadow1414 said in #12:

use all of your time in order to attain a better position, survive off of increment, and win on position.

For a specific individual in a specific game, the position may not necessarily be "better", and the results may not be so good just relying on the 5-second increment from move 31 on (especially if the opponent has averaged 19 seconds per move and still has a 3-minute time reserve).

@tpr said in #14:

"not easy for a thirteen hundred"

• It is easier for a 1300 player to play 30 decent moves at average 40 seconds/move than at average 25 seconds/move.

In a 10+5 game, averaging "40 seconds/move" would exhaust the 10-minute time reserve before move 18. One could average "40 seconds/move" for 30 moves in a 15+10 game, but, after move 30, it might not be easy to play acceptably "off of increment" (especially if the opponent has averaged 30 seconds per move and still has a 5-minute time reserve).

@shadow1414 said in #15:

... 'not easy for a thirteen hundred' ~ That is all the more reason to start practicing it: Their opponents ---especially the ones who stick to easy strategies--- will be at a disadvantage when it comes to time usage. If you do not learn hard strategies, then you will not become a hard player.
In life, you get what you work and pay for. Handicapping yourself to only using, 'easy strategies' is self-desruptive.

If (after move 30 in a 10+5 game) one player can average 15 seconds per move for 18 moves while the opponent is obliged to average 5 seconds per move, it may be the supposed "easy strategies" player who scores the point.

@shadow1414 said in #15:

Learning a new game is hard, so should the OP not have started chess?

A choice in favor of “hard” is not always a good choice. Back in 1912, there was an occasion when it might have been a good idea to go for a slower crossing of the Atlantic.

@ChessPriyome said in #18:

... In "15+10" ... for a 40 move game (the average). that works out to be around 30 seconds per move. ...

I, of course, think that averaging 30 seconds per move would be better than averaging 40 seconds per move in a 15+10 game, but I would still think that some players would be uncomfortable having nothing but increment after 45 moves.

@ChessPriyome said in #16:

... "A Course in Chess Tactics" by Dejan Bojkov and Vladimir Georgiev, Gambit ...

http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/A_Course_in_Chess_Tactics.pdf

@ChessPriyome said in #16:

... your tactics are low-hanging fruit. Fix it first. ...

I am not confident that the Bojkov-and-Georgiev book is appropriately described as “low-hanging fruit”.
Anyway, as far as I know, there is no generally accepted standard for when tactics are considered to be "fix"ed. For many players, tactical improvement is something that happens gradually as part of a program that also involves working on other issues.
This sounds more sensible to me:

@ChessPriyome said in #18:

... do 20-30 minutes on each subject per day. ...

However, to me, the prescription looks too rigid.

@ChessPriyome said in #18:

... I like Fundamental Chess Openings. ...

"... For inexperienced players, I think the model that bases opening discussions on more or less complete games that are fully annotated, though with a main focus on the opening and early middlegame, is the ideal. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)

@ChessPriyome said in #18:

... "Chess Structures" By Rios is awesome, but might me out of reach for you - but we always aim higher in chess. ...

"... Chess structures: A Grandmaster Guide is not a primer of positional play; ... Instead, you might think of Chess Structures as positional chess 'finishing school.' ..." - John Hartmann
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/chess-structures-a-grandmaster-guide/
A sample can be seen at https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7495.pdf .
Maybe, mrloophole can find something useful at https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/i-need-advice?page=2 .