"What’s changed in your chess life as you got older? I’d love to hear some stories from readers of this Substack—let me know in the comments."
In 2018 I wrote about how chess preparation changed in the previous decades for myself see http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-non-sense-of-blitz.html
Since then more developments happened of course like
http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2020/09/regression-tests.html (I started to redo old analysis with new stronger engines)
http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2020/12/the-non-sense-of-blitz-part-4.html (I started to deeply analyze some selected online blitz-games)
schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2020/12/de-beneliga.html (I founded the Beneliga)
schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2021/01/de-belgische-online-schaakclub.html (I founded the Belgian online chessclub)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2021/05/partijen-becommentarieren-deel-2.html (I commented live games for the first time)
schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2021/06/gebruikersnamen.html (I started to stream / hand+brain games)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2021/05/de-tornooiorganisator.html (I organized my first open tournament)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2021/07/hybrid-schaken-deel-3.html (I tried out hybrid-chess)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2021/10/tablebases-deel-2.html (I started to use less and less tablebases as an engine like Stockfish can handle most of the tablesbases perfectly without assistance).
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2022/01/sofia-regels-deel-2.html (Introduction of sofia-rules in more and more tournaments)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2022/04/de-partijvoorbereiding-deel-2.html (I started to massively use online accounts in preparation of otb games)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2022/07/increment.html (I started to play online with increment)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2022/09/camouflage-deel-2.html (I started to divert from my standard repertoire solely when I know in advance the game will be stored in the databases)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2023/01/partijpublicaties-deel-2.html (I started to link old games with online accounts)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2023/04/databases-gebruiken-deel-3.html (I stopped searching for an advantage in mainlines)
In fact I can go on and on with things which changed in my chesslife since I started to play chess somewhere around 1990. Just scrolll through my blog.
In 2018 I wrote about how chess preparation changed in the previous decades for myself see http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-non-sense-of-blitz.html
Since then more developments happened of course like
http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2020/09/regression-tests.html (I started to redo old analysis with new stronger engines)
http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2020/12/the-non-sense-of-blitz-part-4.html (I started to deeply analyze some selected online blitz-games)
schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2020/12/de-beneliga.html (I founded the Beneliga)
schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2021/01/de-belgische-online-schaakclub.html (I founded the Belgian online chessclub)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2021/05/partijen-becommentarieren-deel-2.html (I commented live games for the first time)
schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2021/06/gebruikersnamen.html (I started to stream / hand+brain games)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2021/05/de-tornooiorganisator.html (I organized my first open tournament)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2021/07/hybrid-schaken-deel-3.html (I tried out hybrid-chess)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2021/10/tablebases-deel-2.html (I started to use less and less tablebases as an engine like Stockfish can handle most of the tablesbases perfectly without assistance).
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2022/01/sofia-regels-deel-2.html (Introduction of sofia-rules in more and more tournaments)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2022/04/de-partijvoorbereiding-deel-2.html (I started to massively use online accounts in preparation of otb games)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2022/07/increment.html (I started to play online with increment)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2022/09/camouflage-deel-2.html (I started to divert from my standard repertoire solely when I know in advance the game will be stored in the databases)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2023/01/partijpublicaties-deel-2.html (I started to link old games with online accounts)
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2023/04/databases-gebruiken-deel-3.html (I stopped searching for an advantage in mainlines)
In fact I can go on and on with things which changed in my chesslife since I started to play chess somewhere around 1990. Just scrolll through my blog.
I love this blog
It really seems that the whole of chess at very high level is about repertoire philosophies? via the opening moves?
Are not ways to survive with a wide but sparse set of opening moves that could cover many aspects of chess, that one could master from ability to read the position features irrespective of the how one got there.
Is that impossible for real competitive chess which the role models are all about. I find the topic of player evolution with respect to all aspect of chess very interesting though.
I got that maybe the "scandinavian" was a system and hence getting closer to my question.
But i suspect that being competitive very early comes with preparaed advantages and knowledge of who might be opponent, and their own current signatures of opening moves preferenes.
This kind of confort my understanding that systems (if the name is not itself becoming a trend applied to some sub-repertoires, but possibly renaming many differient early phila generally all having room to get to some positional prototypes that might be covering of the tree not in a depth first tradition.. ) might be where i should look as an amateur to tame the opening knowledge monster.
I am an amateur of chess. real curious about the whole of chess. I will never compete. But i like to understand things like the book is asking.. Also for any type of player level.. but one has to start somewhere right? so the top professionals then. We have more data about them. Not really criticizing the professional angle. I find that maybe more diverse study strategies about how to open games might need chess to change either its time controls, or its advance knowledge of who is going to be their opponent, or, ... have more than one initial position, enough for the strategy of confining one self a whole life to few opening moves and long sequences surprises and fleeting secrets would be hopeless, or not rewarding.
Because beside the system example of change with age, it seems to be about the preparation game of chess with repertoire defined by the few opening moves prefixes, the whole focus of the book. Maybe that is what chess is actually to many at that level.. Good to confirm.
Are not ways to survive with a wide but sparse set of opening moves that could cover many aspects of chess, that one could master from ability to read the position features irrespective of the how one got there.
Is that impossible for real competitive chess which the role models are all about. I find the topic of player evolution with respect to all aspect of chess very interesting though.
I got that maybe the "scandinavian" was a system and hence getting closer to my question.
But i suspect that being competitive very early comes with preparaed advantages and knowledge of who might be opponent, and their own current signatures of opening moves preferenes.
This kind of confort my understanding that systems (if the name is not itself becoming a trend applied to some sub-repertoires, but possibly renaming many differient early phila generally all having room to get to some positional prototypes that might be covering of the tree not in a depth first tradition.. ) might be where i should look as an amateur to tame the opening knowledge monster.
I am an amateur of chess. real curious about the whole of chess. I will never compete. But i like to understand things like the book is asking.. Also for any type of player level.. but one has to start somewhere right? so the top professionals then. We have more data about them. Not really criticizing the professional angle. I find that maybe more diverse study strategies about how to open games might need chess to change either its time controls, or its advance knowledge of who is going to be their opponent, or, ... have more than one initial position, enough for the strategy of confining one self a whole life to few opening moves and long sequences surprises and fleeting secrets would be hopeless, or not rewarding.
Because beside the system example of change with age, it seems to be about the preparation game of chess with repertoire defined by the few opening moves prefixes, the whole focus of the book. Maybe that is what chess is actually to many at that level.. Good to confirm.
how can you paste an image in the title?
I guess when you play one opening a lot, your philosophy/style merges with the opening's. We all play chess in a different way, so a lot of people get quite attached to their openings because it's something they feel like can control a little from the knowledge they have of it, they identify with it as they play it more, rather than middlegames or endgames where they're more in an unknown zone and you can't rely on just some variations and things you know but requires a lot of other skills and problem solving.
The book isn't so much about openings, just for me the chapters focusing on how some of the role models worked on their repertoire over time were especially illuminating and instructive for me.
For amateurs, depends also on the level and what you play chess for in the context of 'taming the opening knowledge monster', but there are many resources now to learn not only openings but also how to think about openings and how it ties into chess overall too.
@dboing said in #4:
> It really seems that the whole of chess at very high level is about repertoire philosophies? via the opening moves?
>
> Are not ways to survive with a wide but sparse set of opening moves that could cover many aspects of chess, that one could master from ability to read the position features irrespective of the how one got there.
>
> Is that impossible for real competitive chess which the role models are all about. I find the topic of player evolution with respect to all aspect of chess very interesting though.
>
> I got that maybe the "scandinavian" was a system and hence getting closer to my question.
>
> But i suspect that being competitive very early comes with preparaed advantages and knowledge of who might be opponent, and their own current signatures of opening moves preferenes.
>
> This kind of confort my understanding that systems (if the name is not itself becoming a trend applied to some sub-repertoires, but possibly renaming many differient early phila generally all having room to get to some positional prototypes that might be covering of the tree not in a depth first tradition.. ) might be where i should look as an amateur to tame the opening knowledge monster.
>
> I am an amateur of chess. real curious about the whole of chess. I will never compete. But i like to understand things like the book is asking.. Also for any type of player level.. but one has to start somewhere right? so the top professionals then. We have more data about them. Not really criticizing the professional angle. I find that maybe more diverse study strategies about how to open games might need chess to change either its time controls, or its advance knowledge of who is going to be their opponent, or, ... have more than one initial position, enough for the strategy of confining one self a whole life to few opening moves and long sequences surprises and fleeting secrets would be hopeless, or not rewarding.
>
> Because beside the system example of change with age, it seems to be about the preparation game of chess with repertoire defined by the few opening moves prefixes, the whole focus of the book. Maybe that is what chess is actually to many at that level.. Good to confirm.
The book isn't so much about openings, just for me the chapters focusing on how some of the role models worked on their repertoire over time were especially illuminating and instructive for me.
For amateurs, depends also on the level and what you play chess for in the context of 'taming the opening knowledge monster', but there are many resources now to learn not only openings but also how to think about openings and how it ties into chess overall too.
@dboing said in #4:
> It really seems that the whole of chess at very high level is about repertoire philosophies? via the opening moves?
>
> Are not ways to survive with a wide but sparse set of opening moves that could cover many aspects of chess, that one could master from ability to read the position features irrespective of the how one got there.
>
> Is that impossible for real competitive chess which the role models are all about. I find the topic of player evolution with respect to all aspect of chess very interesting though.
>
> I got that maybe the "scandinavian" was a system and hence getting closer to my question.
>
> But i suspect that being competitive very early comes with preparaed advantages and knowledge of who might be opponent, and their own current signatures of opening moves preferenes.
>
> This kind of confort my understanding that systems (if the name is not itself becoming a trend applied to some sub-repertoires, but possibly renaming many differient early phila generally all having room to get to some positional prototypes that might be covering of the tree not in a depth first tradition.. ) might be where i should look as an amateur to tame the opening knowledge monster.
>
> I am an amateur of chess. real curious about the whole of chess. I will never compete. But i like to understand things like the book is asking.. Also for any type of player level.. but one has to start somewhere right? so the top professionals then. We have more data about them. Not really criticizing the professional angle. I find that maybe more diverse study strategies about how to open games might need chess to change either its time controls, or its advance knowledge of who is going to be their opponent, or, ... have more than one initial position, enough for the strategy of confining one self a whole life to few opening moves and long sequences surprises and fleeting secrets would be hopeless, or not rewarding.
>
> Because beside the system example of change with age, it seems to be about the preparation game of chess with repertoire defined by the few opening moves prefixes, the whole focus of the book. Maybe that is what chess is actually to many at that level.. Good to confirm.