portsmouthchessleague.myfreeforum.org

sniper · Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Posts: 5

I have a really good book at home (Test Your Chess With Daniel King - recommended) in which the reader is taken through a game and has to suggest the next move. You are awarded points out of 100 for each game based on your suggestions. Based on an average over 20 games, you are supposed to be able to judge your strength against a look up table.

Now, my point is that, in the comfort of my own home I score ok, and achieve a 'strength' better than my club games would indicate. SO, what the hell is going on? Why do I fall apart in face-to-face games? Is this usual? What can I do to transfer my 'at-home' strength to the game board?

How do I overcome the chess-pyschlology that wrecks my games? I've thown away lots of draws (to losses) and a few winnable positions (to draws and losses) simply by 'losing it'.

My questions are not about tactics, strategy, technique, combinations, vision or any of that technical stuff. But about fear, stress, nerves, the cant-think-straight it's all a blur syndrome etc.

bjames · Site Admin Joined: 16 Jan 2006 Posts: 39

Had similar problems in my first season but this will change the more you play. My problem this year has been when I feel I am winning or should win I overlook something and either have to settle for a draw or worse end up losing. Likewise when I've feel that I'm losing I end up putting more resisitance up and ended up getting something from the match. Still I know where I went wrong.

Edd · Joined: 22 Jan 2006 Posts: 54

In reply to the original post; my suggestion is that the nerves will become less of an issue over time, especially once you've got some good results under your belt. Also it is a good thing that you feel nervous because that's a lot better than not caring and just losing without a fight. But if psychology, nervous tension, and competitivity of a game is too much for you, competitive chess may not be your thing.

Edd · Joined: 22 Jan 2006 Posts: 54

I've read my last post and I'd like to add that I think fear of an opponent and assuming the opponent somehow knows what they are doing the whole time is possibly the reason for playing badly once you are on a win or losing instead of drawing. I think the greatest fear in the first season or two of a chess player is fear of yourself and of messing up the position, i.e. distrust of yourself to seeing the game through to a win (or holding the draw in a worse but drawable position). This fear of messing up should subside in general, although anyone must be careful not to make mistakes - that's part of what the decision making in chess and deciding on a move is about - checking for blunders should be a conscious algorithm that you do every time before moving and you should be wary of making mistakes but not scared of it all the time. After finishing some games successfully which you may previously have failed to succeed in, you'll get more confidence in your skill to make the most of a position once it is reached, and that will reduce the paranoia about blundering or misplaying the position and make you more likely to play well instead of playing in a state of worry or hope. I have no doubt that the first two seasons are the hardest for any chess player. If you can handle the disappointments and blows to your confidence that occur in the first couple of years, afterwards you can start to enjoy your chess games a lot more and to be thinking more about the position than worrying if you will do something stupid. I would say that forcing yourself into good general habits when playing, like checking for blunders, is the best way to avoid paranoia about blundering, and will give you much more confidence in your game.

sniper · Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Posts: 5

Edd speaks with wisdom. I'd like to recount a couple of my recent games. At the Portsmouth Congress in Jan I was playing against a stronger opponent (Antony Elbourn 82 vs my 61 - it's all relative!), and at the time check found that I was rather pleased with myself, being a whole rook up. I was under a bit of an attack, but within a couple of moves I would simply re-organize my pieces and convert the win. The clocks went back with me to play. I attacked a piece (rather than coordinate) after which he immediately mated me! A couple of weeks later, I played the same guy in a league match. At the time check, I found that I was rather pleased with myself, being a good pawn up in a NQE (not quite endgame). The clocks went back with me to play. Yes - I blundered and got mated within a few moves!

SO - blunder check, blunder check, blunder check...

bjames · Site Admin Joined: 16 Jan 2006 Posts: 39

I've been there too. The amount of games I have been winning and then thrown away is huge. I have though been on the other side as well. To me its the nervousness - when i feel worse i relax more and just play chess

Edd · Joined: 22 Jan 2006 Posts: 54

I would say specifically that I started using a blundercheck in my league games around summer 2005 before the 2005/6 season [approximately]. All this consists of is, once you have decided on the move you are intending to play, checking any replies your opponent has to that move, such as forced replies (which may be a couple of moves deep or some forced continuations may be several moves deep, but usually the former). I tried this out at home for a few games of about 60 0 time control online with a chessboard setup in order to emulate a league game. I found predictably that on the first few attempts I was still forgetting to blundercheck after a while and had to keep reminding myself, but eventually after a few training games at home in this way aimed at instilling this habit, the habit became permanent in all league games. Of course in the first few league games I also kept forgetting to do blunderchecks and having to remind myself, but after a while it became second nature.

It isn't easy to force yourself into a new habit, but I can't imagine being able to play chess without the blundercheck. The important part is consciously asking yourself if your move is a blunder.

Now a continuation of this idea is that at first you just check if your move is a blunder. The depth of this check depends on the position, how much time you have, and how strong you are. You can't blame yourself if you tried to calculate as far as possible in a complicated position and were outplayed. The main point of the blundercheck though is a reality check to see if you are doing anything obvious, like leaving a piece en prise.

I'm convinced that by forcing yourself to consciously check if your move is a blunder (and possibly a couple of other things, like checking what the changes in the position are after your opponent moves and if there are any unexpected tactical chances) that this algorithm will take any player over the 100 mark in ECF grade. In my opinion, the only thing that seperates players under 100 and players over 100 is consistency of avoiding any blunders.