![]() |
Article 9288 in rec.games.chess.misc:
Subject: Re: Best Quick Study?? From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) Date: 22 Jun 1996 15:00:58 -0500 Organization: Dept of CIS, Univ. of Al at Birmingham Annotate your last 20 tournament games. -- Kenneth Sloan |
I think you must look at your games as a whole bunch. It's no use playing over your best games and looking to see what else needs to be improved, you have to look more at your losses. I know some players who will screw up a score sheet when they lose to a weaker player, when what they should do is go over it move by move, however painful. Soltis' classification of errors is given below.
You actually can get a lot of informal, qualitative evidence about your play from your opponent in a "post mortem" after a game. Don't ever use these to brag, or show how much more you saw - the idea is to learn, not play another game!
Even better is if you can persuade your local 'expert' to have a look at a couple of games that you really didn't understand - perhaps games where you were sure you were better at some stage but lost.
In Exeter we often use our own games as the basis for discussion in our coaching sessions - we aren't experts but a second or third opinion can be very illuminating.
I hope you get the idea.Taking stock of your openings
Draw up a table of your games, showing firstly, the outcome of the opening (e.g. +/- or =), and secondly, the outcome of the game (1-0, 1/2 etc.).
_ Opening Game Result All _ +- = -+ 1-0 1/2 0-1 Ruy Lopez 3 4 2 2 4 2 8 Petroff 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Open Sicilian 2 5 3 5 3 2 10 Closed Sicilian 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 French 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 Pirc/Modern 2 1 0 3 0 0 3 Alekhine 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 TOTAL 8 14 5 9 11 7 27
Conclusions:
- Ruy Lopez not too successful - maybe try something sharper?
- Play well in open Sicilians but must learn more theory
- Don't understand French - must find decent line
During middle-game
type my position: improved a lot improved a bit remained about the same got a bit worse got much worse total Positional Open 1 2 5 2 2 12 _ Semi-Open 4 7 17 4 1 33 _ Closed 0 4 9 3 3 18 Tactical Attack on King 5 9 7 6 6 33 _ Defence of King 1 3 5 4 2 15 _ Wild tactics 3 4 2 3 1 13 Middle-game without Queens _ 0 2 7 1 0 10 Late middle-game _ 1 4 9 7 3 24
N.B. one game may feature as more than one type as it progressesConclusions:
- Semi-Open positions and tactical positions in general seem to suit me: when there's an attack on the King or a melee I can often outplay my opponent.
- However, in simpler positions and positions without Queens I seem more likely to lose the plot; this is also true of closed positions.
- I must study the strategy of the closed positions I get into more thoroughly, and during play must not get complacent in apparently simple positions.
Endgames
N=22
_ Estimated theoretical result Actual game result _ 1-0 1/2 0-1 1-0 1/2 0-1 All King and Pawn 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 Rook 3 1 1 3 2 0 5 Rook and minor piece 2 2 2 1 2 3 6 Knights only 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Bishops only 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Bishops and Knights 1 2 3 1 1 4 6 Queen 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Conclusions:
The basic King and Rook endings seem handled well, but endings with minor pieces (with or without Rooks) look suspect. Moreover, half the Bishop/Knight endings were probably lost before I had a chance to play - I must see these situations coming earlier.time-trouble table:
N where i was in TT = 22
who what happened _ my position got worse normal result opponent's position got worse me 3 6 2 opponent 4 2 2 both 2 5 4
Conclusions:
I play OK in time-trouble and the % of games where I get in TT is not too bad. But I am not getting any benefit from my opponent's time trouble - am I trying to rush them into making mistakes, instead of paying attention to the position?
N.B.
statistics like these can be enhanced by consideration of grades,
if you have enough games. In BCF terms, you should turn in an extra
10% of avalable points for every 10 points your grade exceeds the
average of your opposition. So, scoring 4/5 against 120-grade
opposition is no more than a par performance for a player of grade
150. Equally, if you are outgraded by an average of 30 points a game,
but make a 40% score, this is a very good performance, as you could
have fairly expected only 20%.
For ELO, I think a superiority of 400 points should yield a harvest of an extra 25% of points viz. 75%.
This document (assess.html) was last modified on 2 May 97 by
Dr. Dave