different kinds of chess ability

[mudchess]

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.

[Javier]

In my opinion, people can be better at tactics/closed positions/endgames, etc. but if you can't play blitz at all and you blunder all the time in over the board games, then perhaps it's not so much that you have a different ability but rather that your general ability has to improve.

It is true that some people are really good at correspondence chess, but normally they make good otb players as well.

[mudchess]

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.

[Javier]

Yes, I understand what you mean. But from my perspective, "blundering" in otb games and not doing it on correspondence games is mainy due to the fact that you have lots and lots of time when you play correspondence.

But what is the issue here? the issue is that you blunder more often than players of your potential strength, and why does this happen?

99% of the time it is due to tactical ability. Perhaps if you set up some positions providing some examples we can deepen into the subject.

 

(use our WIKI to learn how to add diagrams and games to a post)

 

( Use our WIKI to learn how to add diagrams and games to a post)

 

Cheers!

[mudchess]

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.

[likesforests]

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.

Tactical skill can be further divided into "calculation" and "pattern recognition".

 

Calculation is when you look at a fresh position and say, "If I go here, he goes there, then I capture..." All chess players do this to some extent. The better class players have honed this skill by studying complex tactical positions.

 

According to Scientific American, while us patzers spend most of our time calculating, grandmasters spend much of their time recalling similar positions. This is pattern recognition. In the words of the tactician Tarrasch, "You must see!"

 

Perhaps your pattern reconigiton skills are weak? Think! How quickly can you solve this diagram for White?

 

 

Instantly, I see the knight belongs on f6, so we have to move the rook with a gain of tempo. 1.Rxc6! bxc6 2.Nf6+ (1.5sec). 1.Rxf7 just looks silly. I wonder briefly if the knight can move and protect his rook at the same time, but the e7 pawn prevents Kf8 so we're good to go (2.5sec).

 

If you take 10-20 seconds to solve this, you don't "see" knight fork tactical patterns.

 

Another possibility is you haven't developed a disciplined thinking process. For example, examining every check and capture, every move. The good news is, both of these skills can be learned, and don't require fast young brains. :-)

[Javier]

Good post, Likeforests.

 

If you take 10-20 seconds to solve this, you don't "see" knight fork tactical patterns.

 

I do not agree that it can be told whether someone's good or bad at pattern recognition just by answering one position, but I do agree that the diagram that you have attached is a very good example of pattern recognition.

 

It's difficult to give a complete assessment of Mudchess' problem without seeing any of his games an how he blundered in those games. (it's a bit like giving a medical diagnose based on some symthoms alone).

But I definitely don't think blunders can be explained in terms of ability.

If I runner kept on falling down at every 100 m, 200m, 800m, 1000m, etc. but never fell down when running a marathon, I wouldn't be speaking in terms of "ability", I'd be thinking: why is he falling down in those races, what exactly is the reason?

[likesforests]

Good points... seeing a few of his games is the only way to know for sure.

[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.