The systematic blunder checking is working like a charm. I've started around 50 CC games since I took it up, completed about 30, with only 1 single piece dropped in total! And of the completed 30 games, I've lost 6, 5 of which I was a piece down before starting to blunder check. So, only 1 lost game after the blunder checking, 2 draws, and 20+ wins!
My rating on RHP has risen to all time high 1638 from the low point of 1530, where I started blunder checking. But it's rise has been hindered by those 5 old lost games, some against 1300's and 1400's, and I'm expecting my rating to climb even higher now that the last lost game ended 4 games ago. Of the 15 games I have going on, in four I'm up a minor piece or more, in one I'm up an exchange, and at least even in all others. So it's all looking good, Very good, and I'm quite optimistic about breaking the 1700-barrier before long. It's becoming increasingly certain that the thing keeping me in the 1500's was the lack of structured thought process, and namely the blunder checking part of it.
The way I'm doing it now, is that after I've decided on my move, I look at every piece one by one, check they're not en prise or under-defended, check specially for enemy knight forks, for alignment for possible pins and skewers, for bishops assassinating undeveloped rooks or attacking my castle. Then I check all my pawns are safe.
More complicated checking I do before blunder checking, meaning removal of guards, possible double attacks, discovered attacks, longer combinations in general. The actual blunder checking I reserve only for the simple one-move oversights, to keep it simple and fast.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Those are great results!
I read something just last night in
"Chess for Zebras" by Jonathan Rowson which shed a new light on "blunder checking". Rowsan writes that the stronger players look at a chess position and try to find moves that will falsify their hypotheses, and that novices look at their moves trying to impose their will on the position.
If we followed this advice we would be in permanent blunder check mode and would be more likely to train ourselves to spot the possible counter-moves that lead to material loss
or worse.
BTW Don't let the name throw you. "Chess for Zebras" is one of the most practical chess books I have encountered. I thought that the "Zebras" part of the title was making a reference to the White and Black pieces found on the chess board. When in fact it is based on a Sufi saying keeping one mindful of assumptions. "When you hear hoof beats, think of a Zebra".
I highly recommend it.
I think I've heard about it before, but haven't seen it myself. sounds interesting. falsification, that's certainly a scientific way to look at a position. :) I do kind of an opposite thing when I'm in a tough spot. -I keep telling myself "there IS a way out of this" and keep looking for it. it goes without saying that I play a lot better at those situations. :) now if I only could transfer that thinking to the easier parts, to keep me off the bad places I tend to drive myself into... I guess I have a problem recognizing critical moves.
Post a Comment