Milestones

[richard]

Good to hear iduditz.

Richard.

[sourire]

I've recently gotten back in to chess and have found that  working problems on this site has lead to better concentration in my longer games, increased visualization, and stronger chess in general as a result. Thanks!

I feel similarly. I'm not doing this to get better at chess as much as I'm doing it to be a better thinker in general. If you knew my background you'd understand

Increased concentration, lucidity, just a healthier, more focused mind in general is my goal. To misquote the last Godfather completely out of context, I want all my ships to sail in the same direction.

That said, I reached 2200! I'm on a 22 problem win streak that I nearly blew just now. I spent 61 minutes on a problem that should have taken me 10, at most. Doing less problems per day and only doing them when I feel at least 90% ready seems to help tremendously.

Sometimes I think that it's lame to spend so much time on a single problem, but those are the defined rules in standard time so I justify it. Besides, I know some members here are physically setting up chessboards and in my mind that's way lamer 

[chipschap]

I know some members here are physically setting up chessboards and in my mind that's way lamer 

It would be "lamer" if they set it up so they could move the pieces around the board in order to solve the problem.  However, setting up a hard problem to get a 3-D perspective, and more importantly, a simulation of actual over the board play, is recommended by some authors.  They speak of a real difference in solving from a 2-D diagram in a book or on the screen, compared with what you actually face in a tournament.

To take this further, one author (in "Chess for Zebras" I believe) recommended setting up a problem position on a real, tournament sized board AND a clock, set to 20 minutes or so.  He said it makes for better practice, and I think there is something to it.

[revenant]

Or use the following method which came to me highly recommended by a friend.  First, hang on your wall three photographs of people with stern expressions, as if they are sucking on lemons.  Perhaps your great-great-grandmother (in daguerrotype), the principal of your grade school, and a long-dead chess champion (not a kindly equanimitous one like Capablanca; better an ornery-rat one such as Alekhine).  The idea is that they will gaze with incipient disapproval upon the move you are about to make at your computer and thereby increase the moral pressure you feel to do your best.

Next, obtain a bear trap and an electronic photosensor that can discriminate between colors.  Aim the sensor at the area of the Chess Tempo solving page on your screen where the "Correct" or "Failed" result will be displayed the instant after you make your move.  Configure it to emit a signal only if the pixels are red, not green.  Wire it up to an actuator that will trigger the bear trap which is now lying on your desk by your keyboard.

Set the bear trap open and place one hand directly between its yawning teeth.  Place your other hand on the mouse and get comfortable in your seat as you gaze at the screen.  Click on "Solve Tactics" and you are now ready to find a move!  Are you tough enough?  Have you got what it takes?

I am happy to report that the aforementioned setup, if you stick with it, gives enough of an incentive to play well that I passed a new century in Blitz just yesterday!  If I can do it, anyone can.

"But Revenant," the curious reader may well ask, "I see by your Stats page that you have failed 4,782 problems.  How were you able to type this very post unless you started out with at least that many (plus one) hands?  For that matter, how is it that you are still alive at all?"

Thank you for your concern for my wellbeing.  The answer is that I didn't say the bear trap had to be made of sharp metal.  Mine is in fact made of dried tapioca.  When it springs shut it's not painful, just sort of damp and gooey.  The only downside is the inconvenience of having to reassemble it after each failed problem, which can drive one to distraction.

[andreacoda]

Sometimes I think that it's lame to spend so much time on a single problem, but those are the defined rules in standard time so I justify it. Besides, I know some members here are physically setting up chessboards and in my mind that's way lamer 

I guess I’m one of “those”, so I feel I have to say something! :-) The method of setting up a non trivial problem on a real board has been recommended to me by my chess teacher: given he has a FIDE ELO rating of 2443, I assume he knows what he is talking about.

He told me to do this because he has been noticing a big difference between the games I play over the internet and OTB, even at similar time controls: I seem to be much sharper (relatively speaking) over the internet than OTB. He suggested this may be due to the fact that I find it easier to spot tactics and combinations on a 2D, rather than “real”, chessboard, hence the recommendation.

Also, given I do indeed set up the position, but I do not move the pieces when trying to solve the problem, I don’t feel like cheating!

Cheers,

Andrea

[drahacikfm]

To take this further, one author (in "Chess for Zebras" I believe) recommended setting up a problem position on a real, tournament sized board AND a clock, set to 20 minutes or so.

Yes, and not a digital clock, but the old fashioned kind that ticks loudly so it makes you nervous, like in a real tournament game!

If you don't want to always setup the position on a real board, you could set them up just during the few days before you go to play in a tournament, to get used to a real board.

[sourire]

Or use the following method which came to me highly recommended by a friend.  First, hang on your wall three photographs of people with stern expressions, as if they are sucking on lemons.  Perhaps your great-great-grandmother (in daguerrotype), the principal of your grade school, and a long-dead chess champion (not a kindly equanimitous one like Capablanca; better an ornery-rat one such as Alekhine).  The idea is that they will gaze with incipient disapproval upon the move you are about to make at your computer and thereby increase the moral pressure you feel to do your best.

Hahaha. Killer post, I laughed out loud.

That's fair enough, Andreacoda and Drahacikfm.

I just think that if I were to set up a physical board with the probem at hand it would make it much, much, easier.

I guess I used the word "lame" because part of the difficulty of the tactic is having to solve it on a computer screen.  When I play over the board after solving tactics on a computer, the sort of tactics I struggled with on the computer pop out to me over the board, so I don't seem to have a real problem converting 2-d to 3-d.

But if a Fide master and a 2400 teacher are telling me it's an intelligent thing to do, I don't feel I can really justify a counter-argument. So if anyone's listening I'd say they're probably right, not me.

Besides, I lost 2 in a row right after I made the post and I'm on hiatus for the next couple of days (unless my chess tempo addiction gets a hold of me) so I can finish reading the 8th edition of Technical Analysis of Stock Trends 

Thanks for the replies.

[drahacikfm]

10-year-old bubak did 19 Standard-rated in a row correct today.  Had to mention that

He had been in a slump, going from 2200 down to almost 2000, but now he's back above 2100 Standard.

[uri blass]

10-year-old bubak did 19 Standard-rated in a row correct today.  Had to mention that

He had been in a slump, going from 2200 down to almost 2000, but now he's back above 2100 Standard.

My record is 23 in standard and 38 in blitz
In Standard I always have hard in my preference but in blitz I decided to change my preference from hard to easy so the last 100 problems are with easy preference.

Uri

[andreacoda]

10-year-old bubak did 19 Standard-rated in a row correct today.  Had to mention that

Don't know why, but I hate that kid... 

Joking, of course (envy is a bad animal...) - many congratulations, both for the student and the trainer! 

[drahacikfm]

My record is 23 in standard

Congratulations, better than a 10-year-old

In Standard I always have hard in my preference

For people rated over 2400 in Standard it makes no difference at all if you set it to Hard, Medium, or Easy.  Theoretically, Hard should give you problems with 2400 average, Medium with 2300 average, and Easy with 2200 average.  But as you know the average you get is way below 2200 because there are not enough high-rated problems.  (In fact, it's probably below 2000:  looking at your last 50 Standard problems, 33 were below 2000 and 17 above 2000).

So it make absolutely no difference what you set it to.  Richard stated this before too.  It probably makes no difference for anyone over 2200 Standard.

[andreacoda]

Finally, I broke 1700 (1703.6, obtained right now), Indeed I am not anywhere close to the top ten, but it is still a huge improvement from the 1487 I started from!

I am getting there, just one rung at a time :-)

Cheers,

Andrea

[tama]

Dont be discouraged i started at 1600 standard and look at were i am now.

[drahacikfm]

2500 Standard for the first time!  A month ago I was 2496, but then I missed several problems and dropped about 80 points.  Finally worked my way back up and was very careful on the last problem today

[revenant]

A bit like that game where you have to pull a wooden block out from a tower of blocks and not let the whole thing fall down.  (What's that called again?  Sold under several names I think.  Not "Jumanji" ...)

Or like driving a truck full of nitroglycerine over a mountain road.  --  "Le Salaire de la peur" / "The Wages of Fear" (1953)  --  remade as Sorcerer (1977).

Thanks for raising the bar.