110 ( +1 | -1 ) Novice Nook # 57Back again. This week's article covers a topic that is a major issue for me - the tendency to focus my thinking on positional criteria and not do enough concrete analysis and calculation. (It's bad enough when I do this in OTB games - it excrutiating when I have all the time in the world in GK games and still am surprised by an opponent's move!)
Part of it is, I think, because I'm really not naturally very talented at chess visualization. And part is just being lazy - I haven't methodically developed what talent I have. But I'm changing my evil ways. I've realized for some time that this is a problem for me so for the time being I'm going to focus on developing better visualization skills and applying them to my games.
I've got some ideas about how to do this (Heisman's past articles are certainly filled with them) but if any of you have suggestions as well, (either for study techniques or game discipline).please lemme know!
The article is entitled, "The Principle of Tactical Dominance" and the link is:
69 ( +1 | -1 ) I make this error.But I make it in a different way than Heisman suggests. I don't think I intentionally would give up a pawn to avoid a minor positional disadvantage. But I know there have been times that I thought a particular move was "required" to avoid something like a doubled pawn or loss of a bishop pair, and as a result of that mind set, I didn't look at the tactical situation in the resulting position as carefully as I should have and lost a pawn or worse. Because once I decide that the move is "required" it seems less important to look carefully at what follows. This is non-sense of course, because the move is not required, but I know I have done it.