Very nice article. I see forward now to study more games of the past - I just need to decide which ones :D
This is a good, well-thought-out article; it is also very generous of GM Avetik to unlock the "3 gifts".
Thanks!
Thanks!
NN trained only with best games, I think, would not get to learn much.
And if using human reasoning, there is a lot of games behind the one game we could see for each instance of famous game.
All the moves not played need to be learned more explicitely, as too many of them hidden behind top games.
unless already at the level where the top games decisions have visible consequences and the alternatives already understood.
Accompanied studies might be better. But then it will become a narration of those other hidden games.
I prefer fragments and compositions.. (and planning problems that are fake). Perhaps specify audience level requirements, maybe not in rating but in board definable skills already familiar. Thematic requirments? Rather than rating or famous player names. That would be more browsable and adaptible to each individual knowledge trajectory over the big world of chess positions. just a theory of learning, that I dare to suggest, being an expert learner myself. in the thick of it. not expert player at all, I should have an aura of credibility for that.. :)
And if using human reasoning, there is a lot of games behind the one game we could see for each instance of famous game.
All the moves not played need to be learned more explicitely, as too many of them hidden behind top games.
unless already at the level where the top games decisions have visible consequences and the alternatives already understood.
Accompanied studies might be better. But then it will become a narration of those other hidden games.
I prefer fragments and compositions.. (and planning problems that are fake). Perhaps specify audience level requirements, maybe not in rating but in board definable skills already familiar. Thematic requirments? Rather than rating or famous player names. That would be more browsable and adaptible to each individual knowledge trajectory over the big world of chess positions. just a theory of learning, that I dare to suggest, being an expert learner myself. in the thick of it. not expert player at all, I should have an aura of credibility for that.. :)
Apologies on asking a basic question, but why does he refer to there being a 'majority pawn attack for white on the queenside' when black has more pawns?
@chessiniowa4545 said in #5:
> Apologies on asking a basic question, but why does he refer to there being a 'majority pawn attack for white on the queenside' when black has more pawns?
Pretty sure he meant to say minority attack - was a typo
> Apologies on asking a basic question, but why does he refer to there being a 'majority pawn attack for white on the queenside' when black has more pawns?
Pretty sure he meant to say minority attack - was a typo
yes probable. I have not head of majority attack. more often the feature being narrated would be more about the static when using majority. as it does not have to be an "attack" plan in particular. not same kind of planning. my current understanding of things. still and always able to learn from misconceptions.. and we don't really know when the major mean of teaching is via examples, never sure the words points to what we digest from what we see.
but I concur. I would vote for previous post solution. A minority attack. being fresh in my memory form prevouis discusions over some boards of mine. It is not just a pawn concept, it implies supporting pieces..
while a static majority feature is longer scope and pointing at only the pawns structure feature. Did I make a theory misrepresntation here? i am practicing the expression of it, to test undertanding. A must do in chess, always. test you words and ideas in any way possible, and feel the environment response. to such expreission. be it on board or amongs fellow communicating players. like forum and here. in the trail of a blog. From a fellow avid learner (before improver even, less pressure).
but I concur. I would vote for previous post solution. A minority attack. being fresh in my memory form prevouis discusions over some boards of mine. It is not just a pawn concept, it implies supporting pieces..
while a static majority feature is longer scope and pointing at only the pawns structure feature. Did I make a theory misrepresntation here? i am practicing the expression of it, to test undertanding. A must do in chess, always. test you words and ideas in any way possible, and feel the environment response. to such expreission. be it on board or amongs fellow communicating players. like forum and here. in the trail of a blog. From a fellow avid learner (before improver even, less pressure).
Maybe this post should include ratings levels. Many players, perhaps including me, may never get beyond the point where the games are decided by hanging pieces and very simple tactics. When I try to study a master games, I don't understand many of the considerations, and even if I did, I wouldn't be able to execute the ideas in a game because of tactical obstacles.
@Graque said in #8:
> Many players, perhaps including me, may never get beyond the point where the games are decided by hanging pieces and very simple tactics.
Play slower time control, so you can avoid hanging pieces. In that case, games can be decided by more complex tactics or even subtle strategical differences. Of course, some analysis is needed to identify the later case, but it can be done and you'll end learning a lot.
> Many players, perhaps including me, may never get beyond the point where the games are decided by hanging pieces and very simple tactics.
Play slower time control, so you can avoid hanging pieces. In that case, games can be decided by more complex tactics or even subtle strategical differences. Of course, some analysis is needed to identify the later case, but it can be done and you'll end learning a lot.
@OctoPinky said in #9:
> Play slower time control, so you can avoid hanging pieces. In that case, games can be decided by more complex tactics or even subtle strategical differences. Of course, some analysis is needed to identify the later case, but it can be done and you'll end learning a lot.
Good point, I was assuming blitz (which is the most popular type played on this site, I think). Perhaps the author meant studying classical games is a must to improve at classical chess, I'm not sure.
> Play slower time control, so you can avoid hanging pieces. In that case, games can be decided by more complex tactics or even subtle strategical differences. Of course, some analysis is needed to identify the later case, but it can be done and you'll end learning a lot.
Good point, I was assuming blitz (which is the most popular type played on this site, I think). Perhaps the author meant studying classical games is a must to improve at classical chess, I'm not sure.