mudchess

Thanks for all the replies. I appreciate Javier's discretion; it is hard to come to any diagnostic point without having some of my games here. In the above position I took 1 minute to see Rxc6! and conclude with absolute certainty that it was winning. I estimate that I took 50 secs to see it and another 10 to realise the move's value. However, in terms of assessing my "pattern recognition" I feel that some caution should be used; I took about 30 seconds to get my mind around "where the pieces were and what they were doing". Then, I spent about 10 seconds looking for ways of promoting the pawn such as threatening the rook with a knight, advancing a kside pawn etc. After about 40 seconds I did see that there was a "forkable" pattern and a possible "grab and run" combination as I call them: grab a piece while getting a fork in "on the run" from the uncovered forking square. It should be noted that I am looking at this position "from the cold". There is no series of moves that has led up to this point. That is a weakness of improvement by puzzles in my view. In an actual game I would have been eyeing the forkable position of black's king and rook for as long as it had been there. At the very least I would have looked at the futile attempts at pawn promotion. I add that in correspondence chess there is absolutely no way I would miss Rxc6! : Indeed, I have spotted tactical motifs in my cc games that are far , far more complex than this!~ I have 2 games going at the moment that are very close to completion - my opp0onent's resignation is certain in both. I might put those games up as a contrast to my weaker OTB ones.

The following is my take on this not that anyone really cares: Surely there has to be some level of trust at the top level of sport. In Soccer the players kick the ball out if someone's injured. In rugby league the referee asks the captain to sort out any of his own players. If Topalov does not trust Kramnik to such a minimal degree then Topalov should not be playing chess at all. Of course the bathroom is the "only" area not under video scrutiny; no brainpower is needed to work out why that is. That is not to say that I have any time for either player; they have both been prima donnas. Ban them both from pro chess events for a year [ not that I can see that occurring]. Restage the match and have 2 players who want to play: Susan Polgar versus Carlsen, Shirov versus Morozerivch... Unbelievable. An incident which will now be in the notebook of every standup comedian on the planet.

Is it due to the greater amount of time in correspondence games? I don't know. In my correspondence games I do more than just avoid the blunders that I fall into OTB; I also find a lot of complicated and hard-to find tactical strokes. I often get promising positions in OTB chess and mess them up; but in correspondence chess I get full value from better positions.

Let me put it this way. OTB I can not get a rating above 1200 ELO no matter how hard try. I am playing a correspondence chess event in which one of my opponents is OTB 2000 ELO and has been very activ e at that level for years. I wouldn't have a prayer of a chance against him OTB. But in correspondence chess it is a different story: I have beaten him in one game and am winning the other game of the pairing. If I play 800 ELO points better at correspondence chess compared to my OTB play then, yes, I may havesome things to improve upon, but also it surely shows a different slant of ability. There was a superb correspondence player called Silva who won the Australian correspondence title about ten years ago. When interviewed he said that he couldn't play OTB chess without blundering. It happens. I have read a lot of books on positional chess [books by Love, Abrahams etc] and without a time limit I am able to bring my understanding into play in correspondence chess: this gives me an edge that I just ca n never manage with the clock ticking. I play "straight down the middle" 19th century classical positional chess rather like Pillsbury/Maroczy etc ; I don't try to bamboozle my opponents with any weird openings . While I respect teh hypermodern ideas of chess I don't tend to use them a lot. If I try to play blitz chess at any time limit [5 mins each, 15 mins each etc] I find it very hard to play that quickly without blundering.

Do people have different kinds of ability in chess? I cannot play blitz chess at all. I blunder in over teh board chess. I can only play correspondence chess.

It is good that Javier is prepared to put in links to other chess coaches' sites! It was never my intention to demean this site. Bill has coached me a few times. My ELO is pretty low in over the board chess [ about 1000] and he helped me a lot. I regret to say that a lot of the books that I found useful are out of print: John Love "Positional ideas in chess". This is wonderful for any novice. He goes through teh absolute basics of positional chess: centralisation, pawn structures, half open files etc. There is a quiz at the end of each stem game too. John Love "tactical ideas in chess". Smae as above but with tactics. If somebody knows absolutely nothing about tactics or positional play then the above two books are really good. In both books Love means what the title suggests: ideas. Theses are not cobbled together "do 50 exercises" and look up the answers fodder. He takes some classic games such as Nimzowitsch using his doubled pawn complex. For a follow up book I would recommend anything by Gerald Abrahams. His approach to positional chess is a bit more abstract. He considers the board to be a forest and the pawns mark out the "terrain" of what the pieces can do. What I WOULD NOT recommend for any novice is to get too immersed in opening "theory". Try to understand some general ideas and then the opening stuff can come later.

Now, I learned to play back in school during a time when chess was undergoing a resurgence. My roomie taught me. However, despite my best efforts, I quickly ran up something like a 0-56 record and realized that I simply was not smart enough to play. Occasional dabbling in the years since have re-enforced that opinion ****************** I have a couple of suggestions. [1] In my view someone's IQ is less important than someone's desire to learn and improve. I suggest starting off with a couple of points to apply in any game of chess. From the outset try to place at least one pawn in the four centre squares [ at e4, e5, d4 or d5] . Then bring out pieces and try to clear the back rank so that the rooks can swivel across. Don't worry so much about the results if you are applying the above you will get better. [2] Give some consideration to playing by correspondence. These days events can be done by email/fax etc and they provide a safe learning process. [3] I am not sure what books to start out with. I am not a chess coach. But I suggest going to a site run by Australian FM Bill Jordan . He has an electronic book called "chess concepts" that is good. If you google BILL jORDAN chess chess you will get his website. [4] I am not sure what books ot recommend. Frankly, there are a lot of masters whose books I wouldn't recommend; to teach novices/learners chess is a specialised art and not every chess master is capable of doing it. Chess Made Easy by Purdy is one good book. Purdy was an Australian chess master and won the first correspondence world championship.