Thanks for watching! My basic material playlist is ua-cam.com/play/PLRWUHVsN-mIIucdqIXin-VduImYawsiti.html. You can purchase the "Checks, Captures & Threats" hats via Cafe Press at www.cafepress.com/+chess_black_cap,10656013 (no, I don't get a commission!) :)
Now that I think of it, there's a type of forcing chess maneuver which doesn't necessarily check, capture, or threaten: Zugzwang. If you're getting really technical about it, some sorts of repetitions may "threaten" a draw when one player clearly has the advantage, forcing him to retreat.
Yes, zugzwang is a type of ultimate forcing move (which may or may not have been preceded by a check, capture, or other type of threat) forcing someone to move when it's disadvantageous. A good book on that is "You move...I win" by Angos. See also ua-cam.com/video/e50ol6k9W50/v-deo.html.
I've also come to understand that mastering, or at the least, bring attention to checks, captures and threats, are essential to get better at chess. I own many checkbooks, quite a few written by you, but havn't still made any real progress. Knowing strategy and theory is almost useless if you're not paying attention to these three things, on EVERY move! Every combination/tactic, no matter how complicated, involves these things. The late C J S Purdy wrote about this topic long ago. For example in my latest over the board game against a 1650 rated club player I had the better position, I hade more space and more active pieces. Then I made a move that fit well into my strategic plan but I didn't took the time to see what threats my opponent had if I were to make that move. I made the move and that allowed my opponent to make a knight fork that won him the exchange! Needless to say, I lost the game. The lesson learned, look at all the checks, captures and threats for both sides, otherwise you may miss a win for yourself or for the opponent which is a loss for you.
Happy yes, thanks. So two things: 1 - Tactics dominate strategy. I say "Strategy is the tiebreak of equally safe moves" 2 - When you study tactics it is usually for your side to play and win, but in actual practice you more often use tactics to see if your move is safe (in other words, if you make that move, make sure your opponent cannot "play and win"). I've written about that latter concern many times.
Happy, I will check it out but I tell all those who email me about lines: if you give it to a strong engine like Stockfish 11 and it says you are correct, then you are! :)
OK, I checked it out. Sure, but the idea was to show what are checks, captures, and threats. The lines I gave won, so I did not try to find all the lines which win. In an actual game if you see a line that wins easily, you don't look for better lines. "When you see a good move, look for a better one" is a great principle, but you don't need it if you see a line you are sure wins easily :)
@@danheismanchess That's true and I see your point but a line that wins a rook in just 4 moves is worthy to consider. I think many weaker players easily could miss the principle of the square and take back with the pawn and in by doing so failing to queen the pawn. I do have the book "Looking för trouble" written by you, an excellent book by the way, which addresses this topic. The book makes you think more defensivly. That's my biggest weakness, I'm decent looking at what tactics I have to disposal against my opponent but too often don't take his/her tactics into consideration and thereby allowing a threat that can't be met. This has been dragging down my chess for years and given me very inconsistent results. I've beaten a 2100 rated player only to loose to a 1500 player the next game. I've actually played a draw against Ulf Andersson, a swedish grandmaster that once were among the best players in the world. But to be honest, he's a true gentleman and had been lecturing about the Queens gambit declined the day before. In the blitz game we got just that opening and when I played c5 as black and managed to equalize he offered me a draw, I think as a "price" for paying attention to his lessons. Of course he would have won if he had just kept playing on, he is still strong. My friend who is rated 2200 tried to play hard and beat Ulf but was beaten mercilessly by him. Any way, it's a nice memory. I think my next book will be "Is your move safe" which I think can some what help me with my drawbacks in chess. By the way, my rating is some where around 1500 and that just shows that you'll never be better than the worst move you make and as long as you play "hope chess" even for just a fraction of your moves you'll never be any good at chess. Thanks for your great videos (and books), keep on making them.
Thanks for watching! My basic material playlist is ua-cam.com/play/PLRWUHVsN-mIIucdqIXin-VduImYawsiti.html. You can purchase the "Checks, Captures & Threats" hats via Cafe Press at www.cafepress.com/+chess_black_cap,10656013 (no, I don't get a commission!) :)
Now that I think of it, there's a type of forcing chess maneuver which doesn't necessarily check, capture, or threaten: Zugzwang. If you're getting really technical about it, some sorts of repetitions may "threaten" a draw when one player clearly has the advantage, forcing him to retreat.
Yes, zugzwang is a type of ultimate forcing move (which may or may not have been preceded by a check, capture, or other type of threat) forcing someone to move when it's disadvantageous. A good book on that is "You move...I win" by Angos. See also ua-cam.com/video/e50ol6k9W50/v-deo.html.
I've also come to understand that mastering, or at the least, bring attention to checks, captures and threats, are essential to get better at chess. I own many checkbooks, quite a few written by you, but havn't still made any real progress. Knowing strategy and theory is almost useless if you're not paying attention to these three things, on EVERY move! Every combination/tactic, no matter how complicated, involves these things. The late C J S Purdy wrote about this topic long ago. For example in my latest over the board game against a 1650 rated club player I had the better position, I hade more space and more active pieces. Then I made a move that fit well into my strategic plan but I didn't took the time to see what threats my opponent had if I were to make that move. I made the move and that allowed my opponent to make a knight fork that won him the exchange! Needless to say, I lost the game. The lesson learned, look at all the checks, captures and threats for both sides, otherwise you may miss a win for yourself or for the opponent which is a loss for you.
Happy yes, thanks. So two things: 1 - Tactics dominate strategy. I say "Strategy is the tiebreak of equally safe moves" 2 - When you study tactics it is usually for your side to play and win, but in actual practice you more often use tactics to see if your move is safe (in other words, if you make that move, make sure your opponent cannot "play and win"). I've written about that latter concern many times.
Thanks again!
Thank you for watching! Pass the word about ua-cam.com/users/danheismanchess to your chess friends :)
See time 10:20, what about the line Rxb7 cxb5 2. Rb8 ch. Ke7 (To protect the rook) but then 3. Bb4 ch. and white wins the rook anyway?
Happy, I will check it out but I tell all those who email me about lines: if you give it to a strong engine like Stockfish 11 and it says you are correct, then you are! :)
OK, I checked it out. Sure, but the idea was to show what are checks, captures, and threats. The lines I gave won, so I did not try to find all the lines which win. In an actual game if you see a line that wins easily, you don't look for better lines. "When you see a good move, look for a better one" is a great principle, but you don't need it if you see a line you are sure wins easily :)
@@danheismanchess That's true and I see your point but a line that wins a rook in just 4 moves is worthy to consider. I think many weaker players easily could miss the principle of the square and take back with the pawn and in by doing so failing to queen the pawn. I do have the book "Looking för trouble" written by you, an excellent book by the way, which addresses this topic. The book makes you think more defensivly. That's my biggest weakness, I'm decent looking at what tactics I have to disposal against my opponent but too often don't take his/her tactics into consideration and thereby allowing a threat that can't be met. This has been dragging down my chess for years and given me very inconsistent results. I've beaten a 2100 rated player only to loose to a 1500 player the next game. I've actually played a draw against Ulf Andersson, a swedish grandmaster that once were among the best players in the world. But to be honest, he's a true gentleman and had been lecturing about the Queens gambit declined the day before. In the blitz game we got just that opening and when I played c5 as black and managed to equalize he offered me a draw, I think as a "price" for paying attention to his lessons. Of course he would have won if he had just kept playing on, he is still strong. My friend who is rated 2200 tried to play hard and beat Ulf but was beaten mercilessly by him. Any way, it's a nice memory. I think my next book will be "Is your move safe" which I think can some what help me with my drawbacks in chess. By the way, my rating is some where around 1500 and that just shows that you'll never be better than the worst move you make and as long as you play "hope chess" even for just a fraction of your moves you'll never be any good at chess. Thanks for your great videos (and books), keep on making them.