|
Chess (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Dude, you're completely off.
Beginners games are not decided by positional advantages obtained in the opening. They're decided by one guy blundering a piece. |
Okay, I concede, yeah, that is really low level but fair enough.
Yeah, at that level it's basically gambling on blunders and oping the other doesn't see you have the pieces en price.
I meant at least competitive club level.
| quote: | | AND THEN THE OTHER ONE BLUNDERS HIS ING QUEEN!!! I could allow any amateur to use all the opening books and databases he wants, he wouldn't stand a chance. BECAUSE HE'LL BLUNDER HIS PIECES! Until a player hasn't reached a tactical level of about 1600 Elo only mistakes and oversights decide the game. Nothing else. |
Still, maybe a positional advantage isn't that relevant, but a material advantage definitely is. And openings also lead to that. |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
yeah but that's not because it's less important to study openings as your level increases. it's because the necessity of knowing them increases dramatically. so it is in fact much more important to learn openings as your level of play increases.
also, as nobody on here would be rated anywhere near that high i think we're generally thinking something along the lines of:
Beginner = <1200 online, <800 ELO
Intermediate = <1500 online, <1400 ELO
Advanced Intermediate = <1900 Online, <1800
And then expert would be greater than. |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Until a player has reached a tactical level of about 1600 Elo only mistakes and oversights decide the game. |
idk i feel like it's more like an ELO of 1300 or so where that starts to happen, if not a bit lower. I could be wrong I haven't actually played ranked games like that since I was in High School...and I only played a few tournaments so I don't have an accurate gauge of what my ranking would be ELO but I was ranked around 1300 and by then was at a point where most of my games I wouldn't blunder a piece away anymore. I would perhaps use poor tactics that would lead to a piece being lost, but not blundered away in that fashion. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
Openings only lead to material advantages if someone falls for a cheap tactical trick. Again tactics. And even then, beating a weaker player a pawn down is still not too difficult. BECAUSE HE'LL BLUNDER A PIECE!!!
It's only at the level of titled players that people are strong and consistent (one of the single most important things regarding overall strength) enough to make use of minimal positional advantages obtained by opening preparation. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights
idk i feel like it's more like an ELO of 1300 or so where that starts to happen, if not a bit lower. I could be wrong I haven't actually played ranked games like that since I was in High School...and I only played a few tournaments so I don't have an accurate gauge of what my ranking would be ELO but I was ranked around 1300 and by then was at a point where most of my games I wouldn't blunder a piece away anymore. I would perhaps use poor tactics that would lead to a piece being lost, but not blundered away in that fashion. |
Well it's obviously a matter of the point of view. Of course every player makes mistakes, so it's wrong to say that blundering stops at a certain level.
I have an offical Elo of about 1950 and am talking about my own experience here. When I play players below 1500 I can do any I want, they'll lose material due to some oversight sooner or later. No need for a positional plan or a good opening, just playing solid, exerting some pressure and taking the pieces they drop. |
|
|
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Openings only lead to material advantages if someone falls for a cheap tactical trick. Again tactics. And even then, beating a weaker player a pawn down is still not too difficult. BECAUSE HE'LL BLUNDER A PIECE!!!
It's only at the level of titled players that people are strong and consistent (one of the single most important things regarding overall strength) enough to make use of minimal positional advantages obtained by opening preparation. |
I wouldn't be so sure if that. I had a lot of practice games when I still played competitively where you can take moves back as many as you like until someone can point out a forced mate. The purpose was not to win as much as to learn to think ahead at cetera.
But even in those games it was already common to sacrifice in the opening to gain a positional advantage and 'win' by it. Blunders were irrelevant since you could take them back.
A knight and position ahead is really enough to decide it in midgame in a lot of low level games. Winning by blunders only is 8 year old kids playing.
And 9 year old kids who had one year of lessons and tutorship don't do this anymore. Maybe blunder by falling into a combination, but not outright not seeing that their pieces are en prise. |
|
|
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Well it's obviously a matter of the point of view. Of course every player makes mistakes, so it's wrong to say that blundering stops at a certain level.
I have an offical Elo of about 1950 and am talking about my own experience here. When I play players below 1500 I can do any I want, they'll lose material due to some oversight sooner or later. No need for a positional plan or a good opening, just playing solid, exerting some pressure and taking the pieces they drop. |
Fair enough, but this is blundering against a superior player, which is far more common than blundering against a peer.
Your traps and swindles are probably more sophisticated than that which they are accustomed to. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
Clearly I'm not talking about missing that your queen is attacked. But simple one movers like pins, forks, etc. will happen often at that level.
The reason it seems to happen more often against superior players is that strong players won't miss their chance and won't offer easy opportunities themselves. |
|
|
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Clearly I'm not talking about missing that your queen is attacked. But simple one movers like pins, forks, etc. will happen often at that level.
The reason it seems to happen more often against superior players is that strong players won't miss their chance and won't offer easy opportunities themselves. |
Of course, but then in the end, as the level cancel's each other out, wouldn't positional and material advantage not play an important role again?
I mean, you're basically saying that it plays no role because you could beat an inferior player despite a material setback. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
You're right that levels cancel each other out, but more in a statistical long term sense than in a single game. There both players will make mistakes, but not the same ones, thus the one who wins is the one who's more alert to exploit his opponent's oversights and avoid his own.
Of course smaller positional factors still play a role, what I'm saying is just that they don't decide the game. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
A little bit is true about both opinions about importance of the opening. Grandmasters often say that openings are not as important for beginners but what I think they mean by this is if you spend all your time studying and memorizing an opening at some point you are going to reach the middle game and if you can't think for yourself you will quickly loose any advantage you have gained.
My point about improving by playing the computer and viewing its suggested move, is that I stop and take the time to explore and understand why its making that suggestion. Often when you play a person you are not recording your moves in the game and seldom realize a mistake and can't take back moves. All you care about is winning and are under the pressure of time to make a move. Where as with the computer you can make a blunder, undo it as many times as it takes for you to find what the proper response.
For myself I'm not a beginner but I haven't played in a number of years. Which means, I understand general tactics but I've forgotten the specific traps you need to avoid in various openings.
Ruy Lopez I know well and if black plays standard defense its straight forward e4 Nc6 (a simple case of attack and defend). However, if black plays the Sicilian response to e4 c5 if you have never seen that opening or have forgotten the pit falls to avoid you will be quickly beaten either by the computer or an opponent who knows that opening.
The Queen Gambit opening leads to a very dangerous line of play with aggressive attacks and counter attacks if not played correctly will quickly lead to a loss for either side.
Players often realize learning a uncommon opening is a good way gaining an advantage over players who only know first 5 moves of standard Ruy Lopez. And thats my point that for those who want to take the time to study openings they can defeat equally skilled players who play for the fun of it and don't study openings. |
|
|
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
You're right that levels cancel each other out, but more in a statistical long term sense than in a single game. There both players will make mistakes, but not the same ones, thus the one who wins is the one who's more alert to exploit his opponent's oversights and avoid his own.
Of course smaller positional factors still play a role, what I'm saying is just that they don't decide the game. |
I get where you're going from. But I what I mean is that they blunder far less because their aequally novice opponent will far less exploit their blunder.
One of the things I dislike though about chess is that a mate almost never occurs unless it's a blunder. people resign before that when they are simply in a positional disadvantage. There is almost no such thing as coming back against the odds. Games already get resigned if both players have the same material but one player has a superior position. Then the other can't really win any more.
It makes matches dull to watch. I'm not saying adding chance is necessary, but in the end, if players no longer make blunders, then the game is already decided pretty early on unless Kasparov overlooks a mate against a computer.
It's also one of the reasons I've become to find real time strategy more interesting than turn based strategy, the possibility to make a daring and bold move when you're behind to pull yourself back without the other having the time to calculate all paths when he accepts your gamble or not. I used to find real time strategy a waste because it seemed to be only multitasking and reflexes and hardly any strategy but it has its charms.
I'm currently also developing a turn based strategy game which is similar to chess in some way except that you have fewer pieces and can regain them. But the thing is that how a piece moves is dependent on how the pieces around it are positioned and able to move. Thereby you can change how pieces are allowed to move by capturing a piece on the other side of the board and start and avalanche. The game is currently geared towards that pieces must be sacrificed and regained at a fast pace and it makes it hard to plan ahead too long. You just have to go on instinct towards what you think is a good position. |
|
|
|
|
