Famous Games: The Octopus Knight

"Famous Chess Games Ever Played". Anatoly Karpov vs. Garry Kasparov. The Octopus Knight. The game was played between these two famous chess players as Game 16 of the 1985 World Championship Match. The game was named The Octopus Knight because of the dominating position of the Black Knight on d3. Black won, 40 moves, Sicilian Defense, Dominating Knight, White resigned... To see and enjoy The Octopus Knight, click the Play button below:

A Must Read!!! ---- Part 2

Conscious memory

Regarding the extent of the relationship between opening work and general chess ability, we begin our discussion by quoting Rowson from p.83-84 (italics ours):

“You may think you are learning opening moves, but while you are consciously memorizing variations, you are also subconsciously learning new structures, feeling new squares, picking up new patterns and ideas and most of these things probably makes you stronger in a more general sense.”

There are several quite confusing and problematic issues (see italics) in this quote and to start out; there is no such thing as conscious memorizing, due to the fact that memory and cerebral activity are (subconsciously) independent of consciousness and possible acts of volition. This is the reason why people are hard pressed to explain why they forget something; their consciousness being “denied access” to the processes that makes one forget. Strictly speaking, it is not the “I” that forget but subconscious processes referred to by the pronoun me. Forgetting “on purpose” more resembles repressing or suppressing than forgetting in the strict sense. With regard to memory; nobody forgets things “on purpose”, though many of us probably are familiar with sins of omission. This means neither remembering nor forgetting are controlled by the will, or any other intentional/volitional activity, but that sins of omission are made possible because impulses already subconsciously triggered are thereupon aborted before running to action. When speaking in mentalistic terms, it is of paramount importance to distinguish the different concepts to avoid unfortunate implications later on. What might be meant by “conscious memorizing”, is that one is (intentionally, like “desire”, or “urge”, not necessarily involving some kind of volition,) set on remembering what is read, that one entertains a wish to remember what is studied, however, memory works differently and independently of these kind of mental acts. Purporting that memory is conscious, has some rather serious implications, which Rowson seems to be unaware of. Consciousness is often confused with will, as are desires and urges as well. Contrary to urges and desires, acts of volition are often associated with an agent, who, out of nowhere, is able to act on purpose or intention, implying that if there is something we should remember (opening theory, our loved ones‟ birthdays etc.) there would be no reasons, not to.

World class chess players are said to have a strong memory but there seems to be no reason to assume that they are more “conscious”, in the sense of being stronger willed to remember, than lesser blessed wood-pushers. Differently put, chess players, irrespective of strength, have the same “level” or “amount” of consciousness, which again, is different from “presence of mind”. A certain Fischer, for example, was renowned for his memory, writing down all of his 22 blitz games at Herceg-Novi in 1970 after playing, and this has nothing to do with him “wanting” to remember, for natural reasons, the games “stuck” in his memory.

There are, of course, different memory “tricks”, which in their turn, paradoxically enough, also must be remembered, like making up a story or a line of associations, of the things one are to remember, like shopping lists or names, but when it comes to remembering chess theory, main lines, subvariations, all their ramifications, different structures etc. these are simply too ineffective to work properly.

Memory and the ability to remember are subconscious and take place regardless of our knowing, i.e. consciousness. If memory were conscious, there would be no reason as to why we would have problems remembering our analyses, preparations, openings or the whole  series of Informators, Yearbooks, magazines as well, since “conscious memory” plays on the analogy of a computer, consisting of different partitions with files which our RAM, i.e. conscious (short term) memory, would easily enough access, which is not the case. If memory were conscious, chess playing and acquisition of chess skills would partly be reduced to a mechanic exercise, where the only thing to do was at will to load the memory with chess “stuff” which we thereafter would access “downloading” the relevant files. Also, memory tends to fade with age, which would not be a problem if memory were based on acts of volition, since we at our own will, could reproduce any chess material whatsoever.

However, we know just too well that repeated studies is necessary to remember games, variations, lines, fragments, themes, bits and piece etc. Very rarely do things immediately stick to memory no matter how strongly we want to remember it all the very first time. So, our first conclusion is that memory works subconsciously.

Acquisition of Chess Skills

Moving forward, regarding development of chess ability, Rowson (p.84) goes on to explain Karjakin’s and Magnus Carlsen’s acquisition of chess skill more by their exposure to games, positions, structures etc. than innate talent or ability, which, incidentally, also is in accord with the pedagogic spirit of the times, underestimating the significance of inborn talent.

Karjakin and Magnus’ talent (i.e. their brains’ ability to absorb and assimilate what it is exposed to) plays a far greater role than Rowson seems to admit. Without the ability to absorb or assimilate what one is exposed to, it does not matter how much or how many times one is exposed to different games, structures etc. Rowson’s point of view reduces chess learning to a rather mechanical exercise and also implies that far more players far more easily would become far stronger than is actually the case, simply by being exposed to chess material. If Rowson is correct, we would be hard pressed to explain how younger players come to be stronger than older ones with far more experience and having had the time to assimilate and absorb infinitely more chess than young prodigies. True, work can do much, but without talent one will forever sing the song of mediocrity. What characterizes talent is a certain ability or capacity to much better exploit, apply and take advantage of a smaller amount of material than lesser gifted players might. Talent is extremely effective use of presented material, and this is why both Karjakin and Magnus are as strong as they are at such a tender  age. What characterizes talent, prodigies and whiz kids, is the ability to absorb and assimilate material amazingly fast upon which the brain generalizes and then produces one brilliant move after another, which is impossible to explain if exposure to chess was the main component. Differently put: full conscious transparency with unlimited access to information would seem to render talent superfluous and unnecessary. Rowson is right when quoted as saying “probably” since nobody knows or has not even the remotest idea about how the brain generalizes or processes the absorbed material for the simple reason that consciousness is “denied access” to these inner processes.

Who is Doing the Playing?

Research (Kornhuber, Deecke et.al) showed that thinking, generally and more specifically, is independent of consciousness and acts of volition (not be confused with wishes, urges and desires) and that most of the information passing through our central nervous system is subconscious but we might be able to direct our attention or awareness. The thinking processes, the material and the preparation themselves are all subconscious, i.e. outside our conscious control, with the implication that we cannot think “what we want”, and having access only to the results of these processes (Julian Jaynes &William James). The brain silently works in the background feeding our consciousness with different suggestions, some good, others bad, some brilliant, others just horrible, which is the task of consciousness to keep or to discard. Our brain per se has no notion of quality, consciousness does, which means that chess playing (and human activities in general) is left in the hands of the fine-tuned interplay between conscious and subconscious processes; knowing what to keep and what to dispatch among all the suggestions, whims and ideas the brain comes up with. If this were not the case, we could conjure up brilliances in all walks of life, thinking brilliant thoughts solving all our problems, on and off the board, simply by acts of volition.

Most of the time when playing, consciousness is not involved at all. If chess playing were conscious, as a logical implication, with all information readily accessible through the eyes that sees the board and the memorizing of chess material and since we would clearly know when we were about to make a bad move or blunder, we would never make mistakes since no-one on purpose, intentionally or wilfully, blunders. Why would they? Simply by acts of volition, we could decide to play the best moves as we would have full overview of what is going on since consciousness is transparent, and the position on the board is there for everyone to see. However, this is not the case as consciousness never triggers moves, the brain does. So, when does consciousness arrive, we hear you ask, since you obviously are aware that you are playing a game of chess. Well, consciousness, humming away in the background, might be said to function as a “blunder-check”, to use Fritz lingua, quite lightly monitoring our play before making a move, making sure that no pieces are left hanging or put en prise.

Of paramount importance is to recognise the corollary of thinking being subconscious as this seems to undermine the notion and understanding not only of who is doing the playing but also how this playing is explained.

Traditionally, chess games are explained and moves attempted justified in the analyses after the game where the players try to give reasons or motifs for their choice of moves and this is usually the order of the day; moves first played – and then explained.

In the light of our new knowledge, doesn’t this strike you as rather peculiar? Strictly speaking, we would think it should be the other way around; first we explain why certain moves are to be played and then the brain triggers the requested moves, right? If we could have an ongoing discussion with ourselves during a game (silently!), explaining what moves to play and which to avoid, we would never make bad, neither dubious moves nor even blunders, why would we? If we could give perfectly viable and reasonable explanations for every move we make, why would our brain then not produce or come up with moves best fitting the explanation? The Russian proverb; “We are all satisfied with our reason, but not with our position”, captures this apparent paradox nicely. Still, our experience is that we quite often make weak moves and even blunder from time to time.

A problem with our current everyday understanding is that consciousness does not create its own content and therefore needs a source to feed it something it can relate to. The brain is this source and consciousness might then conjure or concoct explanations to moves after being triggered, while logically speaking, the explanation for moves should come first, making chess the rational game it is perceived to be. The brain does actually not need to be able to articulate why certain moves are to be preferred or triggered, the sheer ability to produce moves based on experience and knowledge suffices. In blitz and rapid games, where consciousness is almost absent, these kind of games are merely perception and intuition, this is even more apparent since there is no time during play to ponder possible explanations before a move is to be triggered.

Who is blundering?

A “blunder” might be perceived as some sort of spontaneously ill-conceived move- suggestions, impulses to moves which would be detrimental to one’s position if not aborted before running to action. However, we are not talking about strategically weak moves on a general level, like misplacing a piece, which might occur due to lack of general chess ability and understanding. What we are talking about, are moves seemingly, literally, occurring out of nowhere, so to speak, moves there apparently are no sensible reasons to play. The key question is; if consciousness does not do the playing, then, who does the blundering? Someone or something must be responsible for players blundering, and who or what part of us might that be?

As mentioned earlier, a light consciousness monitors while playing, whereas full consciousness announces itself the moment a chess player blunders, which his/her body language just too well illustrates. Note the order; we never encounter players saying in advance that “in ten moves I will blunder my Rook on c5”. On the other hand, how often do we not hear about the ones that actually did blunder their Rook on c5 and THEN became aware of it? We have seen them, haven’t we? The howlers? Even super-GMs commit them. All of us commit or make blunders, but some seem more prone or liable than others. (No names being mentioned to protect the innocent) So, what are blunders and how to explain them, since nobody blunders on purpose? We have seen them, haven’t we? The amateurs and professionals alike in the aftermath of a game, trying to explain their blunder, shaking their heads in disbelief, scratching their brows, sighing while desperately trying to come up with a rational explanation.

This time, only briefly can we touch upon the “whys” and the “hows” of blunders but as a general pointer, we might say that blunders occur due to lack of interplay between brain and consciousness and seem to have only three possible explanations:

1) Taking in only parts of the position due to lack of adequate vision, focussing only on certain parts of the board.

2) We take in the whole position but something happens while processing the material resulting in apparently spontaneous and inexplicable blunders.

3) Even when seeing the whole board, our brain does not take it all in.

The first explanation might be the most clear-cut, implying that inadequate focus is lack of information and thus absence of interplay between the brain and a conscious mind able to abort the impulse before running to blunder, i.e. action. Your brain has not informed you that Rc5 is or will be hanging, you don’t see it and thus blunder. Had you been informed, you would have seen it, and perhaps be able to stop or abort the impulse before blundering.

Mistakes in this department might be caused both due to fatigue but also due to lack of general chess ability and experience. Differently put: this kind of mistakes might also strike quite strong GMs as well, but still to a lesser degree than amateurs and having more to do with GMs being humans than GMs. GMs might fall victim to this kind of blunders due to fatigue rather than lack of proficiency, while amateurs might suffer from it both because of fatigue and lack of chess skills.

Regarding the second explanation, blunders are something we try to avoid, so if blunders have anything to do with what we take in, why would the brain process the material in such a way that it leads to blunders?

This seems to happen only if there is a problem with the “wiring”, so to speak, which is conceivable if not too frequent. An analogy might be when people say one thing and the listener hears something completely different or making highly unlikely or unreasonable interpretations of what is being said. This way of misinterpreting or misprocessing information, has nothing to do with our consciousness; we are in no position to wilfully “choose” to misinterpret or misprocess the information as the information is already misinterpreted by the “wiring” and then informs the consciousness. Consciousness does not create its own content, and its sources are either external (sense impressions) or internal (imagination). Purposefully or intentionally misinterpreting information might make for a brilliant Monty Python sketch but seems too ineffective and tiresome a way of communicating with and relating to other people, not to mention playing chess where the goal is to mate your opponent. Why would you want to cock things up for yourself?

The plot thickens when arriving at the third explanation, valid for both amateurs and professionals, raising a timely question: how it is possible to blunder when seeing the whole board with our own two eyes, right? Wrong! This reason for blundering is closely connected to our point about the order in which chess is played and explained and research shows that only a fraction of all information passing through our eyes is perceived by consciousness implying that we might see the whole board and still not perceive it. This means that there might be chunks of information your brain does not take in or misses even when your eyes physically are seeing the board. How else to explain blunders when seeing the board knowing perfectly well where the pieces can and cannot go? Amateurs and professionals literally perceive different boards even if they see the same one and a pertinent question is why? The answer is simply that the minds of professionals are trained to perceive more information when they look at positions than amateurs’ minds are. This is so since perception has nothing to do with possible acts of volition. We might direct our attention towards what we want to see, even though wanting is not conscious either, but we are in no position to control what our brain perceives as the brain works independently of what we think it should perceive, think etc. Unforced or unmotivated errors might be described as some kind of “bug” in the “system”, if not a collapse in some quantum mechanic wavelength function, at least it seems that some kind of sudden, spontaneous cerebral short circuit has taken place, and this just happens because chess playing is done subconsciously and humans are still fallible. The more exercised the brain, the more of the position it can take in, and the more is perceived, the smaller is the chance for triggering impulses leading to blunders.

Blunders happen simply because impulses prove stronger than our ability to abort them and might be said to arise due to lack of interplay between brain and consciousness. Precisely because of the interface of consciousness chess players can be held only partially responsible for their moves, although to what extent is an open question even though there is a widespread misconception of chess being a game without “luck”. In this respect, chess might be said to be a game of metaphysical luck, since chess players, not being responsible for their wiring, neither can know what their brains might come up with on the next move nor if they will be able to stop themselves when about to commit a blunder or a bad move.

As long as there are factors outside our control, depending on whether they turn out to our advantage or not and as long as these factors cannot definitely be established as lack of chess ability, chess is partially a game of luck. If one blunders because of too narrow a vision, then this faculty needs to be exercised and if blundering does not depend on what is taken in, it is far more difficult to explain but still possible drastically to reduce the blunder rate.

Towards the end of the article we will discuss a foolproof method for fighting impulsiveness and blunder tendencies.

Pattern recognition or How is chess played?

Chess players, chess authors and chess psychologists attempt to explain chess playing by the concept of “pattern recognition” which at first may sound plausible. However, closer examination reveals serious conceptual problems needing to be dealt with.

We begin by addressing what might be called “functional” issues, i.e. problems linked to constructively applying the concept of “pattern recognition‟ to explain development of chess skills and chess playing. Secondly, we will have a closer look at more pure conceptual problems inherent in the notion of pattern recognition. Hopefully, we will also discover that the functional problems are closely linked to the conceptual problems (If the concept is unclear, how can it be applied?).

Bengkel Cerdik Catur

Aku ingin berkongsi info terkini, walaupun mende ni da lame aku bace cume belum berkesempatan nak buat entry. Info ini dipetik dari www.stonemaster.info.

Bengkel Cerdik Catur Shah Alam yang akan bermula awal bulan Februari 2010. Bengkel ini dianggap Tahap Intermediate dan bukan beginner. Tidak sesuai kepada peserta yang tidak tahu nak gerakkan sebarang buah catur dan tidak sesuai yang baru nak kenal permainan catur. Jika terdapat permintaan, sessi yang berasingan akan dibuat untuk mereka2 yang baru nak mengenal catur. Bengkel ini merangkupi 4 sessi semuanya dan diadakan pada setiap hari Ahad di bulan Februari tersebut. Setiap sesi memakan masa 3 jam. Minuman disediakan. Nota, cd, cenderahati dan Sijil Penyertaan akan diberikan kepada setiap para peserta. Yurannya adalah hanya RM70 untuk 4 sessi. Tempat diadakan bengkel catur tersebut ialah di Shah Alam.

Untuk Pra Daftar, sila hubungi En. Mohd Fadli bin Zakaria (0142312370) atau emel: seme_event@yahoo.com

 Oleh,

Famous Games: A 1619 Greco's Game

A chess series "Famous Chess Games" is designed for chess lovers. See A 1619 Greco's Game, which was played by Gioachino Greco in 1619. White won, 8 moves, Queen sacrifice, checkmate... A chess series "Famous Chess Games" in full will be available at this chess site. To see and enjoy A 1619 Greco's Game, click the Play button below:



• If the video stops, drag a little right the play ruler handle with your mouse.

Me,

~~~Tips of the Day~~~ (10)

The Double Threat

One of the favorite moves in chess is being able to threaten two pieces at the same time with your one piece. This forces your opponent to decide which piece to sacrifice. An example of this is placing a bishop in diagonal file that threatens to take two pieces. Whichever piece your opponent moves, you will be able to take the other. Another example would be placing a rook in an open file so that it threatens both a knight and a bishop. If your opponent moves the knight, you can take the bishop, if your opponent moves the bishop then you can take the knight.
This is a move that will definitely assist you in winning games. This move only gets better when you are able to threaten two pieces with a pawn. A variation to this move is to utilize a knight so that it places the king in check and the king must move so that it is out of check, allowing you to be able to take a rook or bishop etc. A knight is a wonderful piece to use in creating a double threat because of its versatility and due to the fact that some inexperienced players simply overlook the available moves that your knight has in front of it.
Defending against the double threat consists of two strategies. First is the option of retreating so that both of your pieces are defended by one another. This is not always an available option though. The second defense is to threaten a highly valued piece that your opponent has, generally a queen. If you are being threatened with a double threat and can threaten your opponent's queen, your opponent is likely to defend that queen before taking advantage of the double threat they have laid out.

 

 

VIDEO Lesson

Chess Castling

[*See Chess Videos - All]

Chess Castling Video: The video below will help you learn Chess Castling... Chess Castling is the only move in chess where 2 pieces moves at the same time... Chess Castling is the most difficult move to understand because of many rules and conditions being applied...

The following is the recommended course to learn Castling and some additional info. You are advised to see the video first. Then you can find the explanation on this chess move in writing - just below the video. The video will give you a visible way to learn this chess move...

Within this chess video, you will see:
• What Castling is and how to make this move correctly.
• Castling notation, types, conditions, rules, and more.
• One useful example when Castling is Allowed...

The video is designed for chess beginners. It consists of 7 short parts and displays one useful example at the end. All the statements are graphically explained and supported with the running text... To start the Chess Castling video - click the Play button below:


• If the video hasn't shown up, please wait a little.
• If the video stops, drag a little right the player's handle.
• If the video displays an error, try to start and play it later.

The following is a reference on Chess Castling in writing:
• Castling is one move where the King and a Rook move at the same time.
• There are 2 types of Castling: Castling Short and Castling Long.

• Chess notation: 0-0 for Castling Short and 0-0-0 for Castling Long.
• Only one Castling is Allowed for one chess game for each party.
• There are 5 Conditions under which Castling is Not allowed.

• Condition 1: The King or a Rook has moved from its original position, Not allowed.
• Condition 2: There is a chess piece between the King and a Rook, Not allowed.
• Condition 3: The King is in check, Not allowed.

• Condition 4: The King would be in check after Castling, Not allowed.
• Condition 5: The King would move via an attacked square, Not allowed.
• To castle correctly, the chess player should follow these 2 steps.

• Step 1: The chess player should move the King 2 squares toward a Rook.
• Step 2: Then he should move the Rook onto the square over which the King crossed.
• Castling is handy: It provides the King Safety and Rook Development.

The following is more details on this chess move to learn: If the King has moved – Castling is Not allowed at all. If the left Rook has moved – Castling Long is Not allowed at all, but Castling Short is still Allowed, and via verse…

If the Rook is being attacked or if the Rook would move via an attacked square, Castling is Allowed. Please remember that Castling is very useful chess move espesially at the beginning of the chess game: It is recommended to castle between the 5th and 10th move.

Regards,

A Must Read!!! ---- Part 1

CHESS QUOTE OF THE DAY "Pawns: they are the soul of this game, they alone form the attack and defense." - Philidor

Mind Games: Who is Doing the Playing?

 
Discoveries on consciousness have inspired the Norwegian philosopher Rune Vik-Hansen to forge a new view on development of chess skills. Challenging the current pedagogical climate, which claims that talent is insignificant and exposure to material a magic formula, he clarifies why blunders in chess are caused by a lack of interplay between consciousness and mind. Treatise with summary.

Summary/Abstract

Born out of recent findings from the field of consciousness and mind, the article explains that chess playing is based upon a fine interplay between a mind subconsciously triggering moves, and a well disciplined consciousness knowing what to keep and what to discard. The highly popular opinion that chess playing is done solely by a conscious self is challenged.

Disputing the concept of “conscious memory”, it is shown that that one cannot remember material by acts of volition, and that development of chess skills cannot be explained by concepts revolving around consciousness.

The article takes to task the current pedagogical claims that talent is of no significance and that exposure to chess material will bring the aspiring player equally far, and also the prevalent understanding that passion for, taking an interest in and believing in what you do are important components in improvement, chess or otherwise. On the contrary, the text demonstrates the significance of innate ability, and that passion and interest merely can direct our attention towards certain fields of study, but that acquiring skills involves different mental processes than these.

Avoiding blunders being a major component in development of chess skills, they are here explained as caused by a flawed interplay between consciousness and mind, based upon the distinction between seeing and perceiving. A possible solution to the problem is suggested.

A closer look is taken at the highly popular concept in chess lingua, “pattern recognition”. By pinpointing functional as well as conceptual problems, it is shown that the concept does not meaningfully lend itself to explain chess playing. Specific idiosyncrasies between patterns and structures are scrutinized to show that the conceptual problems run deeper than mere semantics. The fundamental difference is argued by looking at how these two relate to each other, and how they are expressed in chess discourse and chess literature. Since no formal definition of “pattern” in chess exists, it is impossible effectively to meaningfully communicate “pattern recognition” as a workable concept to explain the development of chess skills. To then explain chess playing and support the claim that the idea of “pattern recognition” is highly problematic, “exformation” is introduced as a new concept to chess discourse, thinking and communication.

Upon closure, chess playing is compared with judgment in the field of morality, trying to explain that just as in morality, chess players constantly encounter and have to deal with situations (positions) never before encountered.

Finally, it is offered why many present methods of study will not seriously improve or develop chess skills. In context of the undertaken analysis, Kotov’s method is suggested for chess improvement, and it is explained why it works.

---

Development of Chess Skills – A New Understanding

In light of recent discoveries on consciousness and mind, a whole new framework regarding development of chess skills and chess playing has to be forged, and the present discussion takes as its point of departure Jonathan Rowson’s well written and thought-provoking article from NIC 2008/05. Rowson addresses the role of talent and also the relationship between opening work and general chess ability, explaining it by “conscious memorizing” and the more familiar “pattern recognition”. Our analysis will revolve around these concepts, revealing a different position than Rowson's as quoted later below.

Introduction

The premises for challenging Rowson’s point of view are based upon The User Illusion, Tor Nørretranders’ outstanding and still relevant book about consciousness from 1991 and we will first have a look at some basic premises for chess acquisition and learning.

Research (Kornhuber, Deecke, Libet, later reproduced and published in Brain, 1991) has shown that any apparent act of volition normally begins subconsciously. Experiments have shown that, by changes in electrical fields, the brain prepares actions before we become conscious of them. It takes from a half to a second and a half of cerebral activity (evoked response and Bereitschaftspotenzial and other fancy phenomena) to become conscious of what is going on “back there”. It takes time to create consciousness (to become conscious) just at it takes time to organize the millions of sense impressions, separating the relevant ones from the irrelevant to create our unified and coherent perception of the world and the half second is just enough time to do that. The distinction between what we are conscious of and not might be called “the interface of consciousness” which illustrates the lack of transparency of the human mind. Illustrative might be an analogy from the world of computers; what you see on screen is only a fraction of what is going on beneath the surface.

Even though we have no idea how immaterial consciousness may arise from material processes, it certainly does, and remains one of the great mysteries, if not the greatest, along with quantum mechanics. We might feel and experience our decisions as conscious but strictly speaking, in the strong sense, they are not, since consciousness itself never triggers impulses but only can relate to impulses triggered by deciding to “veto” them or not. The usual way to go about it is to “veto”, or abort impulses that will lead to unwanted, awkward, unfortunate, embarrassing or immoral actions, thus saving the “free will” in a negative sense since it does not purposefully or intentionally initiate or trigger impulses/actions as traditionally understood.

The problem with the notion that man consciously can act on will or by volition, is that if one finds oneself in a vacuum, figuratively speaking, it is in principle impossible to stringently give an account of why some actions are to be preferred to others since all possibilities in some sense might be considered equal. This implies that decisions are “conscious” only in a weak sense, meaning that “conscious decisions” exist only in the veto, and not in the triggering.

People, of course, if perceptive, are consciously aware what impulses are triggered (body language or physical movements), but most of what’s going on inside of us, passes without involving consciousness at all. Consciousness might be said to be in the receiving end, so to speak, of cerebral processes, resembling what our German chess playing friend uses to say. “What have we here?” This also solves the problem of choosing among an infinite number of equally held possibilities; it is far easier to choose among possibilities already presented to consciousness, since we would already have a penchant or be more prone to some than to others. These, apparently, quite abstract findings, certainly have some revolutionary, concrete implications regarding human life in general and chess playing specifically. 

To be continued~~~

Regards,

Sexy maths: Skills of a Chess Grandmaster

For a while, the chess Olympiad this year looked like producing a surprise winner but closer inspection of Israel's team sheet revealed that it was pretty much business as usual: half the players were named Boris!

Other than a brief blip in the 1970s, the biennial event has produced remarkably consistent results. From 1952 to 1990, the Soviet Union ruled the contest, and after the superstate's fragmentation either Russia or one of its former union satellites struck gold every time. As it turned out this year, the Soviet diaspora's turn in the spotlight was short-lived and Armenia triumphed for its second successive Olympiad.

Despite being connected by being born under the red flag, those that dominate the game are better categorised by their membership of a different club: the mathematical mafia. Legend has it that the game was invented by a mathematician in India who elicited a huge reward for its creation. The King of India was so impressed with the game that he asked the mathematician to name a prize as reward. Not wishing to appear greedy, the mathematician asked for one grain of rice to be placed on the first square of the chess board, two grains on the second, four on the third and so on. The number of grains of rice should be doubled each time.

The King thought that he'd got away lightly, but little did he realise the power of doubling to make things big very quickly. By the sixteenth square there was already a kilo of rice onthe chess board. By the twentieth square his servant needed to bring in a wheelbarrow of rice. He never reached the 64th and last square on the board. By that point the rice on the board would have totalled a staggering 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 grains.

Playing chess has strong resonances with doing mathematics. There are simple rules for the way each chess piece moves but beyond these basic constraints, the pieces can roam freely across the board. Mathematics also proceeds by taking self-evident truths (called axioms) about properties of numbers and geometry and then by applying basic rules of logic you proceed to move mathematics from its starting point to deduce new statements about numbers and geometry. For example, using the moves allowed by mathematics the 18th-centurymathematician Lagrange reached an endgame that showed that every number can be written as the sum of four square numbers, a far from obvious fact. For example, 310 = 172 +42 + 22 + 12.

Some mathematicians have turned their analytic skills on the game of chess itself. A classic problem called the Knight's Tour asks whether it is possible to use a knight to jump aroundthe chess board visiting each square once only. The first examples were documented in a 9th-century Arabic manuscript. It is only within the past decade that mathematical techniques have been developed to count exactly how many such tours are possible.

It isn't just mathematicians and chess players who have been fascinated by the Knight's Tour. The highly styled Sanskrit poem Kavyalankara presents the Knight's Tour in verse form. And in the 20th century, the French author Georges Perec's novel Life: A User's Manual describes an apartment with 100 rooms arranged in a 10x10 grid. In the novel the order that the author visits the rooms is determined by a Knight's Tour on a 10x10 chessboard.

Mathematicians have also analysed just how many games of chess are possible. If you were to line up chessboards side by side, the number of them you would need to reach from one side of the observable universe to the other would require only 28 digits. Yet Claude Shannon, the mathematician credited as the father of the digital age, estimated that the number of unique games you could play was of the order of 10120 (a 1 followed by 120 0s). It's this level of complexity that makes chess such an attractive game and ensures that at the Olympiad in Russia in 2010, local spectators will witness games of chess never before seen by the human eye, even if the winning team turns out to have familiar names.

 Article Source : Times Online

Regards,

Lesson - Watch the video~

Its all about life...




Regards,

~~~Tips of the Day~~~ (9)

The Power of the Pawn

Many in chess underestimate how powerful their pawns can be. Pawns are similar to the foot soldier in a war, while not as awe inspiring as the tank or the heavy artillery, the foot soldiers ultimately win the war. It is the same with pawns in chess also. One very rarely, and rarely know about moves by a pawn is called En Passant. This move can be used only when an opponent moves his pawn forward two squares on its initial movement. When this happens, the opposing player has the option to take the moved pawn "en passant" as if it had only moved one square. This option, though, only stays open for one move.

Allowing your pawns to move forward in small multiple groups can give you an edge as well. It is much more difficult for your opponent to defend against different approaching attacks than just one large one. If you are on a battlefield and have a limited number of troops, it is easier to defend when the enemy comes in one large group. It is much more difficult to try and defend against multiple fronts. This is the same in chess when the pawns are advancing into opposing territory.

Keep in mind that towards the end of many games all that is left is pawns, the king, and perhaps one of your primary pieces. At this point in time pawns become critical defenders and offensive pieces. Combine that with the ability to trade them in for a queen when you reach the 8th rank (other side of the board), pawns become all important. So do not allow your pawns to simply be thrown away as unimportant since they can help you a great deal in the end.

Regards,

Catur - Sukan SEA 2011

Dipetik Dari: http://stonemaster.info/2009/12/18/catur-kembali-ke-sukan-sea-2011-3/

Daripada Zulhilmi Supaat
VIENTIANE, 7 Dis (Bernama) — Tuan rumah Sukan SEA ke-26, Indonesia akan menganjurkan 37 acara termasuk dua acara sukan extrem dan dua acara baru pada temasya yang akan diadakan di empat wilayah pada 2011.
Wakil Malaysia pada mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Persekutuan Sukan SEA (SGF) Datuk Sieh Kok Chi berkata Indonesia juga akan menggugurkan empat acara yang dipertandingkan pada temasya ke-25 di sini iaitu acara petanque, renang sirip, muay thai dan timang bulu ayam.
"Dua acara sukan extrem yang dimasukkan ialah mendaki tembok dan kasut roda," katanya kepada Bernama, di sini, Isnin.
Sieh yang juga setiausaha kehormat Majlis Olimpik Malasia (MOM) sebelum itu menghadiri mesyuarat berkenaan yang diadakan di sebuah hotel di sini.
Beliau berkata Indonesia akan menawarkan acara badminton, angkat berat, akuatik, bola sepak, memanah, menembak, silat, taekwando, olahraga, skuasy, hoki, billiard & snuker, tinju, bola tampar, bola keranjang, golf, judo, sepak takraw, ping-pong, wushu dan berbasikal.
Acara lain yang tidak dipertandingkan di Vientiane tetapi ditawarkan di Indonesia ialah tenpin boling, ekuestrian, gimnastik, lawan pedang, catur, lumba bot tradisional, kayak, mendayung, pelayaran, bola lisut dan besbol.
Indonesia juga buat pertama kalinya dalam sejarah Sukan SEA menawar acara Kempo, sejenis sukan lawan pedang menggunakan buluh, yang berasal dari Jepun.
Selain itu, negara itu juga menawarkan acara powerlifting bagi atlet normal. Acara itu sebenarnya adalah acara bagi atlet paralimpik.
Sieh berkata Singapura telah menarik diri daripada menganjurkan Sukan SEA ke-27 pada 2013.
Vietnam, tuan rumah Sukan SEA ke-23 bagaimanapun telah menawar diri untuk menganjurkannya jika tiada negara Asean lain yang berminat.
Sieh berkata mengikut giliran yang ditetapkan SGF, Singapura sepatutnya menganjurkan temasya dwi-tahunan itu pada 2013, diikuti Kemboja, Myanmar, Brunei, Malaysia dan Vietnam.
– BERNAMA

Berita ini membuatkan hati ini teruja menanti 2011...

Aku,

~~~Tips of the Day~~~ (8)

Put your Pieces to Work

Some approach chess with an extremely defensive mentality. This works in some situations and not in others. Being too defensive leads to your primary pieces being stuck on the back row and being of little offensive value. This is particularly true when your queen, bishops, and rooks are trapped behind the line of pawns. To win a game of chess you need to develop your back row pieces at some point. A plan of how you are going to develop them will offer you a strong advantage.
Think of your primary chess pieces as sleeping soundly in the comfort of the barracks before the war begins. If those most powerful soldiers remain there, they cannot thwart your enemy during the war. Develop these primary pieces in the manner that the game progresses. Typically this means that bishops move from the back row quickly followed by knights, the queen, and finally the rooks. The rooks typically move out when the middle game is starting, or the midpoint of the match.
Too often inexperienced chess players do not get their primary pieces off of the back row soon enough and those pieces are rendered ineffective. A worse scenario is that they are trapped on the back row and left rather defenseless. Think of the rook being in its opening position with a knight beside it. If the pawn in front of the knight has moved forward your opponent's bishop easily, and freely takes that rook through the semi open file. Allow the powerful pieces from your back row to work for you, not against you. Allow them to be offensive as well as defensive and you will have moved towards achieving that all-important balance in your chess game.

MENGAPA AKU MEMILIH INI...

Assalamualaikum...

Mungkin ada yang tertanya-tanya mengapa aku memilih tema “CATUR” sebagai tema utama laman blog aku. Tidakkah pemilihan tema ini hanya akan menghadkan golongan pembaca? Mungkin ada yang beranggapan aku begitu obses dengan catur. Obses? Jawapanku, “Ya dan Tidak”.

Sebenarnya, pemilihan tema ini adalah kerana minat aku terhadap permainan ini begitu menebal. Aku bukanlah seorang pakar untuk menceritakan tentang selok belok permainan ini. Tetapi, hakikat yang sebenarnya aku sekadar berkongsi cerita. Jika diamati secara mendalam, setiap tips yang aku poskan boleh diaplikasikan dalam kehidupan seharian kita.

Contohnya satu pergerakan yang aku gemari iaitu “CASTLING”, telah mengajar aku tentang erti ‘saling bergantungan’. Mengapa begitu? Jawapannya adalah kerana, pergerakan ini memerlukan kerelaan untuk ‘bekorban dan melindungi’.

Bagaimana cara ini berguna dalam kehidupan seharian kita?
Baiklah, dalam perhubungan kita secara umum, sebenarnya kita tidak harus hanya memikirkan kepentingan diri sendiri. Ada ketikanya kita perlu merasai apakah perasaan jika kita berada di tempat orang lain. Terutama sekali ketika orang itu dilanda masalah. Kerelaan kita untuk berkongsi perasaan ini secara tidak langsung akan menambahkan lagi rasa saling bantu-membantu dan saling melindungi. Aku merujuk pergerakan ini lebih kepada perhubungan antara diri kita dan masyarakat di sekeliling kita. Ada waktu kita senang, dan ada waktunya kita akan menghadapi kesukaran.

Cuba kalian amati setiap tips yang aku poskan dan kalian bayangkan semuanya berkaitan dengan kehidupan kita. Hidup ini umpama sebuah percaturan. Setiap gerak geri kita akan melibatkan orang lain. Bukan semua orang akan menyukai kita, dan bukan semua orang membenci diri kita.

Bagi aku, setiap pergerakan bidak menggambarkan tentang kehidupan. Masalah itu adalah kehidupan. Bagaimana perancangan kita menguruskan perjalanan hidup ini. Meramal setiap tindakan bukan hanya di sebelah pihak. Secara tidak langsung, semua tips ini bukanlah sekadar untuk permainan catur tetapi juga amat berguna untuk diaplikasikan dalam kehidupan seharian.

Sekian untuk kali ini, kepada pembaca yang lebih gemar penceritaan berbentuk cereka, silalah ke sebuah lagi blog yang telah aku bina.

http://yusenzetouch.blog.com

Akhir kata, tidak semua yang kita rancang itu akan terjadi dengan jayanya~~~

Wassalam...

Tulus dari hati ini,

~~~Tips of the Day~~~ (7)

Castling

Well guys, this is my favorite move when I am in emergency situation. Lets see how will this move help U to
avoid danger.
 
Castling is a move that you should not overlook when playing chess. Generally it is better to have castled within the first twenty moves in a game. Castling helps protect your king from intruders. Some think of it as actually the king retreating into the castle where he is safe. By castling you do not have to be as concerned about the kings vulnerability. A king is a very poor offensive piece and a king copes poorly with direct attacks. Castling offers the king the protection that he so desperately needs.
Another good reason for castling is that it allows your rook to develop more quickly. Often without castling, it takes a long series of movements to simply develop your rook. Exercise caution though not to move the rook to far away from the protective role it has with the castled king. The downside of castling is that if you attempt to move your rook out for an attack and you have not yet moved any of the three pawns in front of your kind, he can be trapped into a back row checkmate. Always try to have a piece that can go in and block a check if the king is trapped behind the three pawns.
If, after castling, you find that you need to move your protective rook, then it is a good idea to move the pawn that is closest to the edge of the board up one space. This allows an escape route for your king to prevent the back row checkmate after castling. The side that you choose to castle on usually depends more on opportunity than preference. Choose wisely and evaluate the side that seems least vulnerable to your opponent's attacks. Use castling as a defensive method, just does not allow it to trap your king without protective help.

~~~Tips of the Day~~~ (6)

Skewering and Pinning

Skewering and pinning are essential and favorite moves for many chess players. These are rather basic strategies that often lead to a win. Knowing how to utilize them will help you to improve your game. Your opponent will be forced into situations of either losing their highly valued piece or being placed in check. This gives you the advantage because you are now dictating the game and your opponent is simply trying to survive your advances.
The skewer refers to threatening a highly valued piece such as the queen. Your opponent will likely move that queen and leave a free and open attack to a lesser-valued piece such as a bishop or knight. Picture placing a protected bishop so that it threatens a queen, if that queen moves out of danger the knight is exposed. Your opponent will almost always move that queen, thus allowing you a free victory over the knight. Always take advantage of this. Do not skewer unless you do in fact intend on taking the piece with lesser value.
Pinning refers to threatening a piece that is blocking a file to the king. In other words that piece cannot move, because if it does so the king would be in check and that would be an illegal move. Imagine you have a rook in the same file as your opponent's king, but your opponent has a knight in the file. That knight cannot move because again that would be an illegal move. You are not allowed to place yourself in check. Now you have a choice to take that knight with either your rook or with another piece. Always take advantage of this and capture your opponent's piece. This is a strategy that experienced player's use to successfully win games on a consistent basis.

Best regards,

My Rapid Chess game againts Mr.Crank~~~ (My Buddy)

Example for Rapid Chess Move...
Click the link below, click start to view the movements~~~

Please leave your comment after watching...

http://www.chessmaniac.com/webchess/analyze.php?whocolor=white&game=8068483


Best regards,

~~Another Legend~~

Anatoly Yevgenyevich Karpov (Russian: Анатолий Евгеньевич Карпов Anatolij Evgen'evič Karpov; born May 23, 1951) is a Soviet and Russian chess grandmaster and former World Champion. He was world champion from 1975 to 1985, played three more matches for the title from 1986 to 1990, then was FIDE World Champion from 1993 to 1999. For his decades-long standing among the world's elite, Karpov is considered one of the greatest players of all time.
His tournament successes include over 160 first-place finishes. He had a peak Elo rating of 2780.
Since 2005, he has been a member of the Public Chamber of Russia. He has recently involved himself in several humanitarian causes, such as advocating the use of iodised salt.

Early life

Karpov was born on May 23, 1951 at Zlatoust in the Urals region of the former Soviet Union, and learned to play chess at the age of four. His early rise in chess was swift, as he became a Candidate Master by age eleven. At twelve, he was accepted into Mikhail Botvinnik's prestigious chess school, though Botvinnik made the following remark about the young Karpov: "The boy does not have a clue about chess, and there's no future at all for him in this profession." Karpov acknowledged that his understanding of chess theory was very confused at that time, and wrote later that the homework which Botvinnik assigned greatly helped him, since it required that he consult chess books and work diligently. Karpov improved so quickly under Botvinnik's tutelage that he became the youngest Soviet National Master in history at fifteen in 1966; this tied the record established by Boris Spassky in 1952.

International career

1967-1969

Karpov finished first in his first international tournament in Trinec several months later, ahead of Viktor Kupreichik. In 1967, he won the annual European Junior Championship at Groningen. Karpov won a gold medal for academic excellence in high school, and entered Moscow State University in 1968 to study mathematics. He later transferred to Leningrad State University, eventually graduating from there in economics. One reason for the transfer was to be closer to his coach, Grandmaster Semyon Furman, who lived in Leningrad. In his writings, Karpov credits Furman as a major influence on his development as a world-class player. In 1969, Karpov became the first Soviet player since Spassky (1955) to win the World Junior Chess Championship, scoring an undefeated 10/11 in the finals at Stockholm. In 1970, he tied for fourth place at an international tournament in Caracas, Venezuela, and was awarded the grandmaster title.

Top-Class Grandmaster

He won the 1971 Alekhine Memorial in Moscow (equal with Leonid Stein), ahead of a star-studded field, for his first significant adult victory. His Elo rating shot from 2540 in 1971 to 2660 in 1973, when he shared second in the USSR Chess Championship, and finished equal first with Viktor Korchnoi in the Leningrad Interzonal Tournament, with the latter success qualifying him for the 1974 Candidates Matches, which would determine the challenger of the reigning world champion, Bobby Fischer.

Fischer's opponent in 1975?

Though a world championship match between Karpov and Fischer was highly anticipated, those hopes were never realised. Fischer insisted that the match be the first to ten wins (draws not counting), but that the champion would retain the crown if the score was tied 9—9. FIDE, the International Chess Federation, refused to allow this proviso, and FIDE declared that Fischer relinquished his crown. Karpov later attempted to set up another match with Fischer, but all the negotiations fell through. This thrust the young Karpov into the role of World Champion without having faced the reigning champion. Garry Kasparov argued that Karpov would have had good chances, because he had beaten Spassky convincingly and was a new breed of tough professional, and indeed had higher quality games, while Fischer had been inactive for three years. Spassky thought that Fischer would have won in 1975 but Karpov would have qualified again and beaten Fischer in 1978.

Rivalry with Kasparov

Karpov remained a formidable opponent (and the world #2) until the early 1990s. He fought Kasparov in three more world championship matches in 1986 (held in London and Leningrad), 1987 (held in Seville), and 1990 (held in New York City and Lyon). All three matches were extremely close: the scores were 11.5 to 12.5 (+4 -5 = 15), 12 to 12 (+4 -4 =16), and 11.5 to 12.5 (+3 -4 =17). In all three matches, Karpov had winning chances up to the very last games. In particular, the 1987 Seville match featured an astonishing blunder by Kasparov in the 23rd game. Instead, in the final game, needing only a draw to win the title, Karpov cracked under pressure from the clock at the end of the first session of play, missed a variation leading to an almost forced draw, and allowed Kasparov to adjourn the game with an extra pawn. After a further mistake in the second session, Karpov was slowly ground down and resigned on move 64, ending the match and allowing Kasparov to keep the title.
In their five world championship matches, Karpov scored 19 wins, 21 losses, and 104 draws in 144 games.
Karpov is on record saying that had he had the opportunity to fight Fischer for the crown in his twenties, he (Karpov) could have been a much better player as a result (in a similar way as Kasparov's constant rivalry with him helped Kasparov to achieve his full potential).

FIDE champion again (1993-1999)

Karpov in 1996

In 1992, Karpov lost a Candidates Match against Nigel Short in 1992. But in 1993, Karpov reacquired the FIDE World Champion title when Kasparov and Short split from FIDE. Karpov defeated Timman – the loser of the Candidates' final against Short.
The next major meeting of Kasparov and Karpov was the 1994 Linares chess tournament. The field, in eventual finishing order, was Karpov, Kasparov, Shirov, Bareev, Kramnik, Lautier, Anand, Kamsky, Topalov, Ivanchuk, Gelfand, Illescas, Judit Polgar, and Beliavsky; with an average Elo rating of 2685, the highest ever at that time, making it the first Category XVIII tournament ever held. Impressed by the strength of the tournament, Kasparov had said several days before the tournament that the winner could rightly be called the world champion of tournaments. Perhaps spurred on by this comment, Karpov played the best tournament of his life. He was undefeated and earned 11 points out of 13 possible (the best world-class tournament winning percentage since Alekhine won San Remo in 1930), finishing 2.5 points ahead of second-place Kasparov and Shirov. Many of his wins were spectacular (in particular, his win over Topalov is considered possibly the finest of his career). This performance against the best players in the world put his Elo rating tournament performance at 2985, the highest performance rating of any player in history. Jeff Sonas considers this the best tournament result in history.
Karpov defended his FIDE title against Gata Kamsky (+6 -3 =9) in 1996. However, in 1998, FIDE largely scrapped the old system of Candidates' Matches, instead having a large knock-out event in which a large number of players contested short matches against each other over just a few weeks. In the first of these events, the FIDE World Chess Championship 1998, champion Karpov was seeded straight into the final, defeating Viswanathan Anand (+2 -2 =2, rapid tiebreak 2:0). In the subsequent cycle, the format was changed, with the champion having to qualify. Karpov refused to defend his title, and ceased to be FIDE World Champion after the FIDE World Chess Championship 1999.

Towards retirement?

Karpov's outstanding classical tournament play has been seriously limited since 1995, since he prefers to be more involved in politics of his home country of Russia. He had been a member of the Supreme Soviet Commission for Foreign Affairs and the President of the Soviet Peace Fund before the Soviet Union dissolved. In addition, he had been involved in several disputes with FIDE and became increasingly disillusioned with chess. In the September 2009 FIDE rating list, he dropped out of the world's Top 100 for the first time.
Karpov usually limits his play to exhibition events, and has revamped his style to specialize in rapid chess. In 2002 he won a match against Kasparov, defeating him in a rapid time control match 2.5-1.5. In 2006, he tied for first with Kasparov in a blitz tournament, ahead of Korchnoi and Judit Polgar.
Karpov and Kasparov played a 12-game match from September 21-24, 2009, in Valencia, Spain. It consisted of four rapid (or semi rapid) and eight blitz games and took place exactly 25 years after the two players' legendary encounter at World Chess Championship 1984. Kasparov won the match 9-3.

Style

Karpov's "boa constrictor" playing style is solidly positional, taking no risks but reacting mercilessly to any tiny errors made by his opponents. As a result, he is often compared to his idol, the famous José Raúl Capablanca, the third World Champion. Karpov himself describes his style as follows:

"Let us say the game may be continued in two ways: one of them is a beautiful tactical blow that gives rise to variations that don't yield to precise calculation; the other is clear positional pressure that leads to an endgame with microscopic chances of victory.... I would choose the latter without thinking twice. If the opponent offers keen play I don't object; but in such cases I get less satisfaction, even if I win, than from a game conducted according to all the rules of strategy with its ruthless logic."

Best regards,

~~~Tips of the Day~~~ (5)

Middle or sides?

There are many different opening strategies in chess that you can use. Much of this depends on how you approach your chess game, whether you are aggressive or more defensive in your play. Two of these opening strategies are called open or closed. An open strategy refers to beginning the game with your pawns that are located in front of your king and queen. A closed strategy refers to using the pawns on the sides, in front of your rooks or knights.

An open strategy is a much more offensive strategy. Using this strategy you and your opponent will begin to trade pieces rather rapidly. You and your opponent will have many open lanes that can be used to attack one another. This can lead to a quick defeat, for you or your opponent. If you are a risk taker and like offense more than defense, then this is a strategy for you to consider.

A closed opening strategy is just the opposite. A closed opening of moving the pawns on the sides of the board result in a defensive game play by both you and your opponent. A closed strategy also limits much of the movements that you can make with your more versatile pieces.

Perhaps if you are a beginner to chess you should utilize the open strategy to help you learn how the offensive game works in chess. If you are a more experienced player, then the closed strategy may serve you well since you already know the offense. If you are a more experienced player a good defense will lull the inexperienced players right into your traps. Regardless of whether you are new to chess or have been playing a while, continue to focus on finding a good balance for yourself in regards to offensive and defensive strategies.

~Rapid Chess~

Rapid Chess @ Fast Chess
Definition : A form of chess in which all moves must be completed during a fixed time, usually 30 minutes per player.

Fast chess, also known as blitz chess, lightning chess, sudden death, speed chess, bullet chess and rapid chess, is a type of chess game in which each side is given less time to make their moves than under the normal tournament time controls of 60–180 minutes (1–3 hours) per player. Lets have a look at the video shot. Enjoy and learn it!!!





Best regards,

~~~Tips of the Day~~~ (4)

Keep from Blocking Yourself

In the game of chess it is very possible to beat yourself and to block your pieces in with poor planned moves. While this is a simple concept that may seem obvious, many players will make this error. For example, moving your bishop in front of your pawn in the very early stages of the game will generally result in retreating that bishop so that the pawn can be freed. This is a waste of precious moves. Any move that has no purpose or strategy is a bad move. You only have so many opportunities to move pieces throughout the game so it is important to make each move count and for each move to be a part of your overall strategy. Waiting for you opponent to make the first mistake is your first mistake.
Another blocking error is when you have two pawns next to each other and you use one pawn to take a piece that is in front of the other pawn. Now you end up with one pawn directly in front of the other. The opens a file (vertical spaces) on the board and seriously weakens both of those two pawns. Your level of vulnerability to attack has just increased dramatically. In addition to this, the pawn that is the furthest forward is most likely undefended. This has created a sort of traffic jam for your pieces on the board and will haunt you as the game progresses. An experienced opponent will exploit this open file that you have created.
Always try to be thinking ahead as to what your next few moves should be. Thinking ahead will help keep you from blocking yourself in and from making the avoidable careless mistakes.

~~~Tips of the Day~~~ (3)

Bluffing

Bluffing is generally thought of in relation to playing poker, not chess, but it does apply to the game of chess albeit ineffectively applied at times. Many opponents will attempt to place pieces in an open space on your side of the board with no real intent of sacrificing the piece. This is particularly true towards the beginning of the game when your opponent is trying to feel you out. An opponent may run a bishop or knight out to your side of the board as an attempt to establish an offensive front.
If you ignore this piece and allow it to sit out there while executing your own plan, then you are giving your opponent an advantage. Find out if your opponent is simply bluffing and trying to feel you out. Many times if you challenge this piece, your opponent will retreat quickly instead of standing to fight. Similar to a game of poker, your opponent wants to see what type of player you are. They are trying to see if you are an aggressor or a protector of your pieces. Call this bluff from your opponent to find out how badly they want to keep this piece out in the middle of the board.
If you simply allow this piece to sit in waiting as an aggressor, then you are giving your opponent the advantage. In a worst-case scenario you will simply trade a bishop for a bishop, or a knight for a knight. This is still a good protective move by you because leaving that piece sitting out there unchallenged will prove to be a thorn in your side throughout the game. Challenge every piece that comes onto your side of the board and determine how strongly your opponent feels about keeping that piece there, or if they will simply cower and retreat.

~~~Tips of the Day~~~ (2)

God Save The Queen?

The old saying of "God save the Queen" does not always apply when playing chess. While some would argue that keeping the queen at all costs will be the difference between winning and losing, there are others who will tell you that a winning game of chess is all about sacrifice no matter how painful. Some players will spend the whole game trying to protect their queen and will never consider sacrificing this piece during the game. Being ultra protective of your queen can lead to your downfall in a game of chess.
It is important to allow some of your other pieces to begin the attacks and to keep the queen in reserve until an opportunity arrives, but keeping her at all costs is a mistake that many players make. Being the most versatile piece on the board the queen can lead to great offensive attacks. Willingness to sacrifice and trade a queen for a queen will help you to achieve the bigger goal of winning the game against your opponent.
Allow your other pieces to initiate the attacks and bring the queen in to limit the possible movements of your opponent. Try to not waste moves by being overprotective of your queen, because ultimately you only get so many moves in a game and it is important to make each move count. Wasting movements of your queen, or any other pieces will provide your opponent with an advantage. Try to make every move count during your game and do not be afraid to sacrifice the queen for a queen, or to sacrifice other pieces when it will provide you with an advantage. The phrase "God save the Queen" applies in politics, but does not always apply when playing to win in a game of chess.

~~~Tips of the Day~~~ (1)

Offense or Defense?

If you are new to the game of chess you need to understand that a balance between attacking and defending needs to be achieved. Many inexperienced players are quick to go on the offensive and look for the quick crushing defeat of their opponent. While being able to pull this off is impressive and good for the ego, the likelihood of a quick offensive win against a more experienced opponent is unlikely and a bad decision.
The flaw with the all out offensive assault is that an experienced opponent will see the gaping holes in your own defense. Experienced players sit and wait for this type of inexperience to show itself. Think of chess as a war in which you must defend your capitol (your king) while at the same time taking your opponents capitol. An army that simply runs into battle with bravery and no defensive protection may appear as courageous, but they also often suffer a crushing defeat quickly.
A balanced approach is the best when playing chess. Depending on your playing style you will likely lean in one direction, either offensive or defensive. Try to focus on this balance and keep your king protected while slowly applying your offensive strategy. At times the best offensive strategy is to wait for your opponent to begin an offensive front and to find the flaws in their attack. Doing this gives you the wonderful advantage of finding their gaping holes in their defense, instead of them finding your gaping holes. Keep working on improving your defensive skills, as this will lead you to victory more often than an all out offensive assault. Allow your opponent to make the mistakes instead of you and you will find a great deal of success in your game.