free chess online

Free Chess Online

Vote and you will uncover!
Nutty name, real matters
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
amenhotepi 14 ( +1 | -1 )
Formal, or, just Classic I, am not sure whether to look upon Chess in a Formal way; or, whether just to adhere with best instinct, and blitz everything
daverundle 95 ( +1 | -1 )
There have been some very good good instinctive players, Tal stands out but there have been many others, instinct often produces the best move, but how much is that instinct dependant or a product of good formal training/practice.

Many of the players we regard as being instinctive have from a very early age been taught the principes on which chess is built, good awareness of space etc the difference between a good move and a bad move is often a very fine line, a sacrifice that works one day is refuted another, a weaker move can look brilliant against one opponent or weak against another.

Blitzing everything & playing on instinct will produce you some wins and some losses, & the losses will probably come because your opponent is playing to a plan & using the formal rules that he/she has been taught.
More: Chess
kewms 80 ( +1 | -1 )
It's generally agreed that slower time controls produce objectively better chess. 1 hour games are better than blitz games; full length tournament games are better than 1 hour games; correspondence games are better than OTB games. The slower the time control, the less important chess instincts are and the more important careful analysis becomes. So, even if your chess instincts are very very good, in the same class as an Anand or Tal, slower time controls will reduce or eliminate your advantage.

Put another way, instinct wins in situations, like blitz, that demand instant responses. Analysis wins in situations that allow time for analysis. The best players can do both.

Katherine
daverundle 26 ( +1 | -1 )
Good post Katherine you are absolutely right, it is a point i have made in other debates re human or computer, if you are prepared to take the time do your research and analysis in correspondence chess you can play like a grandmaster, OTB it is a whole new ball game!!
amenhotepi 67 ( +1 | -1 )
Thanks daverundle Yes, daverundle -

..Do you think that offline " swatting " to improve my Chessgame is valuable, for me ? ...I have been playing Chess on-and-off for thirty yrs, now ! I suppose I know a few Openings etc, but my performance on the Chessboard dose n't seem to reflect my persuit and like of the Game. I do seem to Lose quite a lot on this Site and others, though I rate myself as average.
Prehaps, you could say daverundle - IS: an exceptional knowledge of a lot of " Chess-positions " necessary, in order to excecute meaning well ? This may seem a little naive really, when, although a thorough and expeditious " ..survey " is only going to aid...
- But, would n't a good " spatial-ability " of the brain ..work just as well .. ?

best
kewms 99 ( +1 | -1 )
Even engines don't analyse everything out to checkmate. Chess is too complicated for that. At some point, every player -- human or computer -- has to decide whether the end result of their analysis is a position favorable to them. That's where "chess knowledge" of core principles, key positions, etc. comes in. If your positional judgment is flawed, deeper analysis won't help you. Especially in slow chess, where your opponent is less likely to make tactical blunders.

Keep in mind, by the way, that "average" chess players lose a lot of games. By definition, 50% of players are better than you. Also, an "average" casual player is much weaker than an "average" tournament player. The stronger players here more than likely had years of tournament experience, either postal or OTB, before GK ever came along. At these time controls, the strongest players here could probably beat most commercially available engines.

Katherine
daverundle 223 ( +1 | -1 )
amenhotepi I would say that it is not necessary to memorise a lot of specific positions, but i think there is merit in concentrating on 1 or 2 openings with white & black. To support Katherine's point i played a lot of tournement chess over the years and had the advantage of being coached by a strong player and benefitting from analysing games and positions with other very strong players.

My adivice would be chose openings that are sound but not fashionable so are not over analysed, concentrate on those where it is not necessary to learn a lot of complicated systems in the opening 10 or so moves eg with white The London System ( which i have been playing regularly on this site) KIA/Reti which i have also had success with. With black the Caro Kann is sound but gives black chances, the Petrov very drawish although i am waiting for some new material and having another look at this opening. For shock value the Scandinavian is also worth considering, or the Pirc.

I would stay away from the French, Ruy Lopez, Queens Gambit Declined (although QGA is worth a look). Once you have decided what opening or openings you want to play check out games on the data bases available here and elsewhere and stick to the plan come what may, eventually you will find the same positions or similar positions arising ( i played a game here the other day where the exact position arose from a game i played against a former NZ champion in 1974!!) the more often this happens the more confidence you will have in your game and then your instincts can take over in the middle game.

I could go on forever but finally we have a very strong FGM (male level IM) on this site who has produced a good book that could well help if you want to contact her her username is yelenadembo, i am actually in the process of reading her book and am finding it very useful, and she has a different slant on somethings and the book is written so that you can understand the point she is trying to make, she is also ranked in the top 10 women chess players in the world i believe, and is a naturally attacking player, anyway enough!! I hope this helps.
amenhotepi 56 ( +1 | -1 )
Thanks kewms Yes, kewms -

quoting you: "..Keep in mind, by the way, that "average" chess players lose a lot of games. By definition, 50% of players are better than you. Also, an "average" casual player is much weaker than an "average" tournament player.." unquoting you. -

I was going to post something very similiar kewms. Yes - I must look at the " thing " ..in the terms it " resides in." Your point about; " the tournament player..." HAS been mentioned to me by a friend before quite recently at my home ..But thank you Katherine for the " pointers." I will heed them closely.

best
amenhotepi 110 ( +1 | -1 )
Thanks daverundle Yes, daverundle -

Quoting you: ".. would say that it is not necessary to memorise a lot of specific positions, but i think there is merit in concentrating on 1 or 2 openings with white & black. To support Katherine's point i played a lot of tournement chess over the years and had the advantage of being coached by a strong player and benefitting from analysing games and positions with other very strong players.." unquoting you -

I, do tend to look at my Chess in a similiar fashion to: your quote daverundle,
though, I tend to go for Black, as; I prefer to be at complete " odds " with everything " ..from the start ! "
I, recognise the Openings you mentioned. Of those, I,am intrigued by: the " French " and have played it several times in the past, also; the " R. Lopez " I find interesting. A very worthwhile " play," sometimes. -

Also your point re the coaching you have had - You are lucky.
I had a friend once, about 15 yrs ago, whose father was IM. Obviously the IM had taught him a lot of Chess. His son was about 19 when we used to play. Otherwise, I have been Clubs-player, for some time....

Thanks for your advice. I will " mull-over " and " eschew. "

best