Wednesday, June 17, 2009

1506 on ICC 5-minute Blitz!

F i n a l l y ! It's been over two years since I first crossed 1400 on ICC 5-minute, and even though the effort has been sporadic at best, it still took more than enough time. I've had these spells of blitz in which I decide to work on it properly, but they've seldom lasted for more than a couple of weeks at a time. Then 3-8 months of hiatus, and back on it. -It's always been hard to keep myself motivated to train blitz more, as slow chess has always gone so much better for me. Obviously you always much rather do things you're good at. Hopefully that'll change for the better now after reaching a basic level of not dropping everything in every game, so my stratItalicegic/positional strengths should also begin affecting the games. Still much to do on the basic technique though, and I'll also no doubt dive back under 1500 soon enough. Gotta just keep hammering.

It took me 1002 of 5-minute games on ICC, and 2679 on FICS, so roughly 3700 games in total over the four years I've played chess. From what I've heard from other people, they've needed less than half of it to get onto the same level. Maybe it's a side-effect of starting chess 30-years old, but frankly I doubt they've been that counting the amount that precisely. It's so easy to underestimate things like this, forget old accounts and whole sites you've played on. If I'd have to give a guesstimate on my own total amount without my training diary, I'd probably say something like a thousand games in total. But I know I've played exactly 1002 5/0s on ICC, 149 other blitz time controls, 2679 5/0s on FICS, and about 60 games on other sites. So I'd guess their real number of games is much closer to my 3700 than the 1000-2000 they often estimate. Then again, my long pauses in blitz training can't be good, so maybe... Well, I don't know for sure. But I wanted to document these things so other beginner can have at least one exact reference of how much work it took. I would've killed for data like this in my first two years.

So what worked and what didn't?

Well, for one, I must say that tactics never did anything for my blitz, even though it's always advertized as the holy grail of fast chess. It has benefitted me hugely on correspondence chess and the ability of solving tactical puzzles, but my blitz never improved on bit before I begun playing blitz heavily. Although obviously you have to have some basic proficiency in tactics, you can't just expect to survive in blitz if you never drilled tactics. But it isn't the bottleneck, at least on the low levels.

Endgames, well, that's a sort of mixed thing. Although my endgame studies have been far from what I'd like it to be (in quantity/quality), it has had some effect. But, I think the blitz endings get played 'wrong' far more often than 'correctly', so the theory doesn't have that much impact. I'd assume the training effect of playing blitz endings 'incorrectly' for thousands of games is much more relevant in practice, as is any other kind of training practical endings. On higher levels the correct theory will have an increasing effect of course, but at 1500 everybody is still playing everything 'wrong'.

Slow games haven't had much effect either. It's the area I've always used most time since the beginning, analyzing positions for hours every day. The outcome has been that I'm great at seeing what I did wrong afterwards, but that's just too little too late. The ability to analyze slow games is just too, well, slow. The revelations must come instantly, without thinking, or otherwise you lose on time. -Perhaps the slow games will some day reach a critical number, so I'll have seen all the basic situations so many times that playing them correctly becomes instinctive, but after 4 years it still takes conscious thinking time. People who've played for decades are probably in a very different situation regarding all this.

That pretty much leaves openings. The unappreciated love of beginning players, on which the experienced players always tell you not to waste study time. -And in slow chess that's actually true. But in blitz... I don't think so anymore.

During the past year that I've finally focused on my openings properly, it's become obvious that my opening knowledge has been abysmal. The shallowness and uncertainty on even the things I thought I knew has been simply enormous. As the cliché goes, I'm only beginning to undertand the extent of my ignorance. I now study openings every day, and it's paying dividends especially in blitz. I'm actually outplaying my opponents on book knowledge, and to top that I'm even understanding why their non-book moves are inferior. Of course that still happens mostly in the mainlines, and quite early at that, but it's a promising start. I'll continue on that vein and see where it'll get me.

ICC 5-minute: 1506, 1002 games, +484, -504, =14.
RHP: 2061, 324 games, +226, -81, =17.

5 comments:

rockyrook said...

So what do you do every day to study openings?

And another question for you ... when did you start playing chess? It sounds like you started playing in your 30's ... so how long have you been playing?

And lastly, how many hours a day do you play/study chess?

wormwood said...

I started at 30, exactly four years ago today. literally learned how the pieces moved back then, there never was any "I played with dad as a child but stopped" for me.

I've tried to document everything I've done on this blog, reading back you'll see how it's been over time. there have been periods when I've used much more time daily, especially during the first 2 years when I averaged around 4-5h of tactics a day, in addition to hours of playing. I don't do much tactics anymore, only sometimes for fun. if you read back, practically everything I've begun has been dropped relatively soon except for tactics & correspondence chess. there has been many tries on endgames & master games for example, but I haven't just ever been able to keep either up. at least not in anyway comparable to tactics.

right now I've tried to run my CC gameload down, as it takes so much energy that nothing's left for studying. but at the same time the level of opponents has risen (I try to always play against stronger players than myself), so I'm also forced to use even more analyzing time for every move (hours/days).

I try to work at least an hour every day on my openings, often 2-3 hours. go through theory/analysis, try out things, figure out 'what ifs', then go blitz them on FICS or ICC. revisit old things (you always seem to forget a lot of the stuff you already knew, and start playing stuff wrong), read on new things (especially against alapin & other anti-sicilians). there's a lot of going through old material.

my goal in opening study is to learn my openings in & out. to understand ideas, to know what to do when the opponent leaves the book. basically it all comes down to one thing, which is understanding my positions. to know them thoroughly without even looking. -I'd estimate I'm maybe 10 percent there, on my better openings. there's a lot of work left.

transformation said...

nice going man!
and a lovely win vs. rhcp3434 at ICC. sweet.

you MIGHT not believe me, but as a rule, i almost never check my RSS feed but since i had to find something earlier today outside chess, when i reoppened my browser, vola, there your blog popped u and said 'updated four minutes ago'... himmm, i had to look.

this is a great result, and having flirted 1400 many many times in bullet, know just how hard it is to break through, having played thousands of games myself in pursuit there, just as you do here.

im semiretired at blogger due to long term unemployment, but will be back at an appropriate time.

nice post, thank you, david

wormwood said...

yeah, I was on fire that session. should've lost against rhcp3434 though, he had a check there forcing bishop trade just before the mate. but such is blitz, and I didn't force him to use up all his time so that he missed that saving move. :) then again, maybe I DID force him into time trouble after all!

no such luck after that, hitting insomnia again. no reason to blitz in this shape...

you take care of #1 first dk, the blogs can always wait. use the energy where it's needed. we've been here for years, and I doubt we'll ever really vanish anymore. we'll be here when you feel like blogging again.

transformation said...

[allow me to be brief, my girlfriend is in town, yes, i met a sweetie, and comments at CTS:]

From Message
2009, Sep 22 dktransform @NetsageF: sorry, my mistake but all the more so to the
point. Backrank is by Loomis whom I also know. Loomis
is a solid upper Class B chess player, and for he to
talk about intuition is more valid, as at 1800 one has
to have something to guess from. Wormwood at blogger
is Burning Castles, the B threw me off........ but both
strong students of chess, for sure. dk
2009, Sep 22 dktransform @Netsagef: I understand and appreciate what you say. A
few comments if I may please? First, I know the author
of those Backrank posts at blogger quite well, having
even written about him a few years back, among others
at OUR community there, in chess improvement. Wormwood
was here, and was at 1350/1400 and made it to upper
1600's as most tenured users know, by brute force,
100,000 tries. I have also chatted with wormwood at
ICC. Let it be noted, that what you speak is not a
matter of WHAT as WHEN. If you are dropping now from
57% to 56%, this is not a disaster, but at 1273, there
is no marginal benefit to rating increase. I humbly
suggest, that IF you dispose of rating concerns (the
lower the percentage, the more rating is being
cultivated, that is to say to minimize rating loss by
guessing at unobvious problems as distinct from
calculating), the more you will be engaged in the
process of seeing the board. Now, as I said, its a
matter not so much of how as when. AFTER you do 30 or
40,000 tries at 85/90/95%, it is THEN that discarding
more care and testing your intuition will be more
valid. Picasso could throw paint as good or better
than Motherwell, Franz Klien, and all the other Modern
Abstract Expressionist artists. But mark my words, as
a boy, he learned to draw like Ingres or Jacques-Louis
David. The latter drew somewhat like a photo, so that
Picasso when he discarded those constraints, was not
running from something but transcending it. He could
do what they did (I started drawing when I was six
months old, and designing buildings full on by age ten
in detail and was copying da Vinci's line anatomical
drawings by age 22, so no one need be offended,
please). Now, Wormwood DID talk about intuition BUT
you are missing that he was at 73-75% and not without
much prodding by me did he FINALLY set out for 80%.
But it is not that simple. He made it to 1900/2000 at
Red Hot Pawn in correspondence chess but barely 1300 at
ICC 5/0 to start. He HAD to do another 20 or 30,000
tries at 90 to 95% to get a 70k user ID to 80% at 75 to
77%, if you follow. Until NetsageF you know how to do
the tries, until you know them, and can see them and do
them, it seems to me that you are not so much
practicing tactics as getting bad vision. I don't come
here to learn or practice calculation. I, too, love
bullet and blitz. But I come here to practice seeing
the board accurately with a timer, not learning or
practicing tactics when I can do it at CT-Art 3.0 or
Reinfeld or Emms 1000 et al much better, but getting
the board in 8 or 12 or even 30 seconds, but not 2 or 4
seconds regularly, when that is not chess. Practice
correct thinking even if it is fast. Practice the time
pressure with maximal correctness. If you play blitz
at 56% you are dying on a regular basis. Forget rating
for now, and practice not slow but at least not super
fast reactive moves when you, it would appear, do not
as yet know many of these patterns. 56% at 1280 is bad
learning. No offense, but so be it. Take care, David
Korn
http://dk-transformation.blogspot.com/2007/06/prolegema
-to-any-future-chess-blogger.html [PS, simply page down
for Wormwood past note to me by Peter Norvig, Director
of Research at Google, one smart mother, see his CV
linked there