|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
The Way of the Notebook
“When you have attained the Way of Strategy there will not be one thing
you cannot understand...You will see the Way in everything.” I take this to mean that once you have mastered a thing, you have taught yourself how to master all things. You have taught yourself the ability of mastery. I mastered the craft/art of firing a pistol through constant, daily practice. This practice entailed a review process that became second nature. This review process is a subject of this article. I have a strong background in science, not a degree, but a strong background. This influences my use of notebooks. In the laboratory the notebook is used to define, review and revise the task at hand. It states a purpose and can project a result. The review will show whether the progress is satisfactory. Now to the meat and potatoes of the matter: I would submit that a notebook, a record of your training is essential to true improvement. You will be able to review your mistakes and improvements with equal consideration. The medium of the computer allows a substantial accumulation of hard data. How do we convert this data into a useful form? How do we collate this data into a defined and focused study plan? These are the two questions I will attempt to answer. It is the ‘process’ I discuss. First is to state a goal. Ok, ok, your goal is to become better at chess. Easy, yes? Now to the plan. There are many books that offer plans on improvement. I will not, nor am I in a position to say, which is best. I can tell you - pick one. Then write down what you intend to do and how you intend to do it. At regular intervals (regular) review your progress. This is where the refinement comes in. You can use the rating system as a standard or a set of problems from a book or series of books. It matters not what you use as your standard but have it consistent. In other words do not apply the rating standard at FICS to your ICC games or results. If you use a series of problems from a book, you should be able to identify, in your games, where and how the concepts the problems taught, are utilized. Reproducible results is the marker of success. There are two mediums that I use for recording data. Hard copy and the computer, the hardcopy is very easy to use and versatile in that I can work on it anywhere. I can have it open and record things done on the computer. It is the main 'brain' of the system I use. The computer holds a vast amount of raw data. The challenge is to collate the data into something useful. The time you take and the thought you put into developing your review plan is essential to progress. Start with your raw data. Take all your games and divide them into two categories. Won and lost. Divide these into won as White and won as Black. Lost as White and lost as Black. At this juncture you are not yet looking for specific reasons why you won or lost. You are trying to define your style. This definition is important. If you are inclined to closed games, then you should know it. The process will give you some surprises. I constantly find that the data does not support a belief I hold about my game. Now that you have done this, find out which openings you are most successful with/against. This is raw data; it is there for you to see! Find out which openings you are least successful with/against. This is your starting point. Now you have started. These are your games. You should have identified which are your weak areas (by ECO) and which are your strong ones. Now by ECO separate from a large database (like Megabase) the games won by white and in a separate one all the games won by black. Keep track. Scroll through these games quickly. This will give you clear ideas, examples, of winning plans. It will show you how to use the 'device' of the opening you choose. Next compare this to the way you play the opening. You are focusing on the technique of piece co-ordination, specific tactics and specific strategical devices. This is not memorization to the 15th move of a specific opening line. This is comparison of overall application to the specific opening or 'game' you have already demonstrated ability with. To explain further: How do you use your pieces in the prosecution of the attack? If the opening has a high incidence of success by attacking on the h-file does your attack focus there, or do you attack down the e-file? If the games from the masters use specific pieces, do you trade those pieces off? Again keeping track of this is important. The reverse is looked at for the games lost. Now that you have identified this trend you look for another. From these games you can identify which tactical and strategical devices you are strong or weak in. This is not a shotgun approach. You will be able to identify where your weak areas are from both your won and lost games. They are equal in this respect. Which are the combinations that you consistently miss? Which are the combinations that you consistently see? From your games you can set up tactical problems. These can be identified and edited, then created into a specific database with a good database manager like ChessBase (there are others, I do not work for ChessBase). This means you should constantly search your games for opportunities to add to these specific databases. This same technique can be applied to your endgame or any facet of your game. It can be expanded to influence your choices on what outside avenues you choose to study. For instance, you determine that you are missing a lot of mates in one or two. You can begin a course of study like 1000x checkmates to specifically address that. You recognize that you have a complete lack of knowledge of simple mating attacks (they do not always lead to mate, but can still win the game). You use the Mating Attacks Against 0-0. You must also keep track of how well you do in these ventures. The raw data is there, you must discipline yourself to look at it. You start on a course of study, review the results of the study. It will give you direction or focus in choosing your next endeavor. By doing this you will have taught yourself how to analyze a game, not just your games. This is an added plus. Keep track (with me it is in a hard copy notebook) of your results. Then at regular intervals (say three months) go back through and work all the problems you have made again. Compare the results. This will keep you apprised of what areas may require remedial training. Reread your original thoughts and plans. Reread your stated goals after each endeavor and see if they were met. Record this. The key is to continue the process. After you reach a significant number of games, compare entire games from an ECO (it does not have to be from a specific ECO but should be from a stated goal) you played from your last review period. This is a crucial item. Divide games into periods (for easy comparison) but be sure to make specific games well annotated with the goals of that 'period' pronounced. Use these games to compare with specific games from the current period. In this light you can see if the specific goals were met. I say this because after about 1000 games, you will not be able to look at them all over and over. Take the indicative games and compare them. This will also be a separate database. I do not have blitz games in this category. I use blitz games in the accumulation of tactical problems, but they are just too fast for serious contemplation. My notebooks (hard copy) are organized by task. This in itself was a revision process. I began as I stated. I wrote down the books that I read noting the salient points were that were within my level of understanding. From this I based my decision on what other books to read. This was part and parcel to gaining a broad base of knowledge of the game itself. All of this and the reasoning for each choice was written in the notebook. I soon found that I needed other notebooks. Next I kept track of my games. I kept track of who I played and how well I did against each individual. From this I was able to determine the style that each had. I was able to have proof of what their weaknesses were. This lead me to look at my games in the same respect. Once this was recognized a refinement was necessary. I discovered that the areas I had thought to be my strongest points were really my weakest. Beneficial indeed. Here are some earlier excerpts from my notes: “1st Book, 20 Nov 97 to 15 Jan 99 the purpose of this notebook is to record my chess games and give a rough draft analysis of these games. Some games will be incomplete and wrong due to constraints of time during the original transcription. I will enter positions that merit analysis due to their instructive value.” I begin by transcribing the game scores from whatever source I have. I had not, as of yet, developed a consistent method of writing the game scores. I mean to say that they are on scraps of paper, unlined paper, small notebooks, whatever was handy at the time. Later I started to keep them in spelling tablets. It was useful as the lines were numbered and the pages had a line drawn down the middle of the page. It could hold 50 games, was cheap and easily acquired at the local drugstore. “From the opening I had intended to utilize the concepts studied in the ‘Brilliancies’ book concerning the Fischer game. Utilizing the moves Ne2 and f3.” The book referred to here is Winning Chess Brilliancies by Yasser Seirawan. One recurring thing of note is the habit of buying other books from an author that I have previously read and enjoyed. “After Black played Be6 I knew I could keep his light colored Bishop ‘bad’ and kept this in mind as a secondary strategy throughout the game. I constantly reinforced the attack on the Queen pawn with Nc3. Black further boxed in his Bishop with c6. I was not ready to let the Bishop out and played c5. Black now had his light Bishop restricted to the King side and I did not yet have any weak ‘colored’ squares or holes. Black plays 4…Nf6. This causes a weakness at e4 but I was more concerned with g4. The Ng4 move used successfully by Makua in several games against me. I now could play 5.f3. This move seems to solve the Ng4 move. Black plays 5…Qa5, pinning the N. I counter with Bd2. This move forces him to move the Queen and allows me a tempo to protect d4 as now my Queen is blocked. My Knight move would’ve been to attack the pawn at d5 then fork the King and the Queen Rook with check. Black played 6…Qc7. Preventing this and a discovered attack from the light colored Bishop. I now had a gain in tempo and needed to continue my plan to play N(g)e2. I played 7.e3 with this in mind and to protect d4. This gave me a pawn structure with a weakness at e3. Black plays 7…N(b)d7. This helps protect his Black squares. He still has two bad Bishops. My black Bishop is bad because of guard duty on e3, but the move to e4 is still clear and I keep it in mind. I develop my light Bishop with my next move to support e4. [ I should at some point analyze Black playing b5 and then flanking my Knight at c3] Black plays 8…b6 which attacks my c-pawn and can eventually cause the release of Black’s light colored Bishop, by the line bxc, dxc. Black then pushes his Queen pawn exposing my King after the forced reply exd. That move also now has Black’s light squared Bishop released. I choose to support the c-pawn with my b-pawn. This move is 9b4. This could lead to Black moving a5, causing me to move a3-exchange pawns , then Rooks. But I see no advantage for Black in that position. My Queenside pawns would still be essentially intact and his Queen is still hemmed in. He plays 9…g6, a prelude to fianchetto his Bishop. If Black can find a place for his light Bishop he could use his dark Bishop and Queen for a king side attack on the h2-b8 diagonal. I finally move my g1 Knight with 10. N(g)e2. Black responds with 10…Bh6? When he originally made the move I annotated it with a question mark. I saw this as a way to exchange dark Bishops and place my Queen on a commanding diagonal of her own, with my Knights supporting instead of my Bishops. I play 11.0-0. Black plays 11…0-0. I now play e4 to force the exchange of the Bishops then my f-pawn, causing the file to open for my Rook. Black responded with 12…Nh5?! The N move reinforces the g2-b8 diagonal for Black’s Queen but leaves the exposed Bishop hanging for capture with an attack on the Rook at f8. I could not see a winning attack on my King side – even though Black had a Queen, Bishop and Knight poised for an attack. I thought I would gain a tempo with 13.Bxh6. It should be noted here that this is the first capture of the game. Black responds by protecting his Rook, 13…R(f)e8, and I gain another tempo. I then decide to block my exposed diagonal, relying on my skill and a natural reluctance on Black’s part to lose a Knight for a pawn. 14.e5, he replies with 14…f6. I further restrict with 15.f4 – I lost sight of blocking Black’s light colored Bishop. My dark Bishop is like a bone in Black’s throat. My light Bishop now has a healthy diagonal and is pointed at Black’s King side. I begin to think about how to remove Black’s g-pawn. Black starts a Queen side attack with 15…bxc5, I reply with 16. bxc5. Black then exchanges on the Kingside with 16…fxe5, and I reply with 17.fxe5. I think my position is good. I have a Rook and a Bishop covering square f8, the Black Queen is boxed in and I have protection for my weak pawn supporting my strong center. I decide to force an exchange of Knights to get rid of his Knight at h5. I play 18.Ng3. He responds 18…Ng7!? I did not understand his move when he played it, but it does block my Bishop from attacking f8. An exchange at this point, I think, will only do me harm. I play 19.N(c)e2. Now I pay for the pawn moves with a pin on my Queen. I had intended to attack with my Knights down the c file. Black’s move 19…Bg4! Stopped that plan. I try to salvage with 20.Qd2, this reinforces my dark Bishop and further inhibits Black’s Queen from a5. It does not prevent Black from moving his pawn to a5 and it prevents my dark Bishop from returning to the Queen side. Black begins to marshal an attack with 20…Rf8. I decide to attack the Bishop and pressure the g6 pawn with 21.Qg5. I have also attacked the pawn at e7. Black decides to exchange his Bishop for the Knight at e2 with 21…Bxe2. 22.Bxe2. Black plays 22…R(a)e8 as a prelude to an attack on my Queen or my Bishop. I play 23.Bd3 because I am looking at the pawn on g6 still. Black must also have seen it and plays 23…Rg8. I did not annotate this at the time but I thought it was not wise to surrender the f-file to my Rook. I played 24.Rf7 to put a ‘pig on the seventh rank’. I was still looking at the e7 pawn. Upon retrospect Black moved his Rook to allow his Knight to become unpinned. He played 24…Ne6, attacking my Queen. This move also protects the e7 pawn. Forcing me to move gave me an insight to see a potential mate. 25.Qh4! I saw the removal of the h-pawn instead of the g-pawn. I saw a Rook sacrifice as a prelude to a mating combination. Black played 25…Qb8. This move had the potential to lose me a Rook. As I had not worked out the full implications of the mating net, I became distracted and played conservatively with 26.R(a)f1. This was unnecessary and could’ve blown the mate. If Black had seen it and played R(g)f8 he would’ve lost the exchange, but saved the mate. Or better yet, move his Knight to f8 and protect the h-pawn. Fortunate for me he did not. He played 26…Qb2, attacking my a-pawn and my d-pawn. I played 27.Rxh7!! His move was forced 27…Kxh7 and I played 28.Bf8#- discovered mate by the Queen.” I promise not to bore you folks with any more of the above type of analysis. The main points that are illustrated by the above are: The applied use of a studied idea or thought. The ability to review it’s effectiveness and the ability to review your thoughts during a game to point out their inadequacies. For instance: I was constantly seeing threats that had no basis in fact. I was running from shadows. I completely misread the material advantage I had. This is another excerpt from 10 Jun 98. “This notebook has proved it’s worth. I can see the beginnings of my current usage of space and that as a consideration in refusing trades or sacrifices that leave me materially ahead but positionally bankrupt.” Keeping track of such things helps you to discover and then refine your style of play. This is an excerpt from the second notebook on 18 Jan 99. “To recap from the last book; I have read and studied ‘Combinations the Heart of Chess’, I need to read it at least three more times. I have read ‘The Art of Chess Combinations’. I need to read it at least one more time. I need to study ‘The Idea’s Behind the Chess Openings’. I think my game has improved over the last year. I am seeing more combinations and I understand positional play more.” Yes, heady words to be sure. The second phase of this article is upon us. I started playing on the ICC during 1999. This of course means that I owned a computer and began collecting and using all that marvelous software. As in all things, this lead to gains and losses in the techniques of note taking. I now write analysis into the game score using the ChessBase program. I play many, many more games, but nearly all of them are on line. I belong to a chess league and play for a team on line. I can look at the recent games of my opponents and download them to my database. When I replay their games I look for specific trends. I look to see if they trade Queens early. I look to see if they are shy about trading Queens. I look to see if they favor one piece attacks. Once I see these trends I try to plan a game against it. It is a technique that can backfire. It is a technique that has dual benefits. I can now train myself to look more critically at my game, for these very trends. Logan9 (1743) - Kevinfons (1522) [D06] 1.d4 d5
This was a concept in a Spassky game. Sacrifice the exchange very early and use the opportunity to develop faster than your opponent. I had noticed in my review of my opponents games that he likes to grab material. [ 6...Na6] 7.Nc7+ Kd8
12... Ne4+ [ 12...Be6] 13.Ke1 Be6
He has four pieces on their original squares. 19...Nb4 He still has his pieces trapped. 21.g3? Rc8??
Saw this right after I moved. I am still moving too fast. I am playing blitz at a slower time control. [ 21...Nxf1! 22.Rhxf1 Bxh3-+] 22.Bg2 Rc2 [ 22...Nbc2 23.Rac1 Nxg2 24.Kxg2 Ne3+
25.Kf2 Rxc1 26.Rxc1 Bxh3!; 23.Rhc1?? Nd3+!!
This I saw very early. It was the result of the 'instant recognition' tactical training. 24.Kg1 Nxc1
[ 28.Re1 Kd6 29.f4 Nxg2] 28...Nxg2 [ 28...d3!! This move was the one to play!] 29.Rxg2 Rxg2 The thought here was to hasten the Queening of the pawn. I had a clear win. [30...Bxb3] 31.Kf2 f5
[ 43...a1Q Hmm, I thought the risk of a stalemate was high. Apparently not. 44.Kc2 Kc4 45.Kd2 Qd1#] 44.Kc2 h4 [ 49.Kb4 h1R 50.Kb5 Ra1 51.Kb4 Rhb1#] 49...h1R As you can see from the notes in the game, I am still chasing ghosts. I am applying the strategical concepts I studied and the tactical training is paying off. I still have a long, long way to go.
|
The
|
|||
|
|||||
