In my previous post, I mentioned that the chess blogosphere seemed to be more quiet than it used to be. Right after writing this, I stumbled over a whole series of interesting posts and discussions. Just today, Chessloser writes about getting stronger (both literally and at chess). He discusses, if a book aimed for players above a certain rating is appropriate for lower rated players.

I have been thinking about similar issues lately. I started to work with a chess coach a while ago, studying basic chess strategy and endgames. Does this make me a better player? Well, somewhat. To a certain extend, I believe that higher players would get more out of these lessons than I do. I still struggle too much with losing to simple tactical shots to be able to use concepts like pawn structures effectively. Don't blame my coach for this, though - we discussed this before we started the lessons and he warned me that they are designed for slightly higher rated players. It all boils down to knowledge and having the skill to use it. I might know now more about strategy, but my tactical skills are too weak to effectively use my new knowledge.

You might wonder now why I pay somebody for chess lessons if they are not efficient for me. Well, first of all, I do think they make me a (somehow) better chess player. I actually start to see some improvements in my correspondence chess games, where I have more time to check my moves for tactical mishaps and therefore generally blunder less than during "live" games. But for the most part, the knowledge gained from studying material that is a little too advanced for me makes chess more enjoyable. For instance, it helps me to understand annotated master games better, enabling me to appreciate the moves of chess masters more than before. And after all, I both play and study chess to have fun.

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form

Name

Website

Comment

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment