Okay Mr. Z, I did like ...c3!, it is so fun to see a simple pawn bully its way through superior forces. Is the pgn available? I have the flu right now and would like to view otb, it was in interesting game.

I am in agreement with you about lower rated players playing 'waiting' or 'do-nothing' moves, they need to have the attitude of "I can beat this guy" and play the strongest moves. That is the only way I am able to beat much higher rated players. Take heart lower rated players, I have beaten people 500 points above me, but be aware, I have also lost to players 500 points lower (ouch).

I think that this is a good topic, Master vs. Amateur. I think that the biggest thing that I see in lower rated players is that they often try to steer the game away from the main lines. The stronger players know the off-beat lines as they have a good understanding of the main lines. In the case of the off-beat lines the stronger play looks for what might appear 'out of place' or for a key square that is neglected, much as you presented in your video when your opponent played Qc2 and then later g4.

When I encounter someone who plays off-beat lines I ask them why they play that system and the answer is always "I don't have time to learn all the theory of the main lines." Personally, I think they have it backwards. I feel that you should take the time to learn the main lines with the mind-set of 'why' it is the main line, this will enable a player to understand the intricacies of the positions that unfold, and possibly invent a novelty (or rediscover an old move) that fits the theme of the main lines concerns. It really hurts me to see a talented player, who plays good positional and tactical chess, lose time and time again simply because they refuse to study theory. Is the study of theory all that time consuming? I've been playing for over 30 years, so most of my knowledge is from this experience, but I thought computers were supposed to make that easier.

Very instructive. Perhaps my favorite video so far.

I, too, like the Master vs. Amateur format. Amateurs *frequently* play plausible yet inferior moves that most masters wouldn't even think of. Consequently, these moves are frequently ignored in GM analysis. Nice to see a strong player discuss these weak moves, what makes them weak, and how to exploit them.

According to Greg Shahade, lower rated players get themselves in trouble by trying to force things to happen and according to Zibbit, they do nothing and don't play actively enough. Why don't we just cut through all this "what they do/don't do" talk and just say the lower rated players don't make accurate moves as often as higher rated players. When I analyze my own games with Deep Rybka 3, I am amazed at the number of moves Rybka says were not accurate, thus I am a lower rated player. It is not about doing or not doing, but instead about making accurate moves!

But don't you think both are right? I often am passive when I shouldn't be and do too much when I should do less.

Now I'm also intimidated against much higher rated players, but Nb1???. Fridgeirsson, you are a Pussy! Personally, I just play my regular game. Sure I lose, so what? I lose with my head held high.

"It really hurts me to see a talented player, who plays good positional and tactical chess, lose time and time again simply because they refuse to study theory."
Why? You said it yourself: "I don't have time to learn all the theory of the main lines."

Truth be told: at some point memorization is the only way to improve. Chess has become a game of memory.

You have a good point Bullrock, and computer analysis will help, but use it as assistance - not as an authority.

Just so that you are aware that stronger rated players can play an occasional bad game as well, then I agree with you... to a point.

Be mindful to use computers as assistance in learning, not as an authority. If the silicon monster is saying your move was bad by a couple tenths of a point, don't be terribly upset. If, all of a sudden your move moves the scale a full point or more, then go back and look for a better move. I have more than a few misjudged positions I have run through both Fritz and Deep Junior where the human intuition proved correct. BTW, I've had programs running while going through GM games and have seen many powerful players play less than accurate moves if judged by the computer's valuations.

I think to an extent it is about doing or not doing. Not doing something constructive will naturally limit the accuracy of your move choices. Therefore, doing 'something' with some sort of plan gives you a 50% shot at finding the right move (I know that is an overly simplistic statement, but I hope the point gets across). Someone once said 'a bad plan is better than no plan at all.' Personally, I cannot start selecting candidate moves until I have determined some sort of plan. If my candidate moves do not promote my plan, I may look for an alternate plan and look for new candidate moves to support the desired plan.

Greg is right, often we amateurs try to force the issue, this is because we don't properly build up the position that will help up to 'force' issues in our favor. So Zibbit is also right, a move that doesn't add to the growth of the position in some manner gives the opponent a free move. In Zibbit's video you saw White play g4 weakening his king-side. Add 'do-nothing' moves to the 'forcing the issue' type move of g4 and you've got a powder keg ready to blow. They go hand-in-hand.

Trust in yourself, learn from your games through postmortems with your opponent and through your computer.

"Truth be told: at some point memorization is the only way to improve. Chess has become a game of memory." - fonz

Hi Fonz,
I have a slight disagreement about memorization being the only way to improve. Understanding theory and memorization are not exactly the same thing. There are certain openings you need to have good memory on in that an incorrect move order could cause trouble. But for the most part, conceptualizing the ideas behind a given opening allows one to play (at least at slower time controls) the correct moves because the theory (conceptualization) is understood.

Speaking for myself, I have a terrible memory - absolutely horrible! I would miss half of my appointments if I didn't have a PDA scheduler.

Also, I wouldn't get so down on Zibbit's opponent, he was playing against a Benoni (stretching the limit of my memory already ) and that is not an opening I would recommend for a 1700 player, so facing it with White had to be difficult.

Hello, nice interesting discussion!

Note I didn't say "amateurs"/lower rated players ALWAYS played nothing-moves or did nothing, just that it was one of their weaknesses and this Nc3-b1-d2 plan instead of e5 was one of those instances.

I am happy that this game has gotten some good discussion because I wasn't sure if it was interesting as it is supposed to be rather one-sided rating wise. But I am glad that people liked how I tried to focus more on my opponents mistakes rather than my own play.

Steve sorry but I have had sporadic internet access the last week or so, here is the pgn:

Hidden Text Below - [Show it] - [Hide it Again]

Well, when it comes to computer-authority I always think about the greatest patzer of all time: M.Tal. and it makes me smile again
I also like sfarmer's view of things. I see it the same. I dont give much about computer analysis....it's only a "what if...." postmortem scenario without any real game impact - at least if I am allowed to exclude Super-GM-Opening-Match-preparation, which didnt help Kramnik anyway =P
Forcing the issue when the position isnt ripe for it is also a very nice concept.
I came across a very similar idea in Rowson's book "Chess for Zebras". He calls it "being" vs "doing"

That reminds me. I believe the Tal quote is "I observe for the one thousandth and first time: minutes of play and hours of analysis are not the same".

It's also interesting what happened in the Anand win over Radja in Linares. It looked like Radja had a position in his computer and trusted the engine that the position was ok, while no older player would've dared to play that Knight vs Bishop position. So using an engine seems to be only advisable as a double-checking mechanism, nothing more.

What is so interesting to me is that a weakie like me might consider some plan for several minutes, when a master can dismiss such an idea in about 10 seconds... lots of examples of that in this game.

Quite a sharp finish for such a lopsided pairing. Thanks Zibbit for making this video, i appreciate it.

Amateur against a Master-

Not only did I find it interesting, I found it more helpful than some of your other games.

In some of your other videos, especially the live commentary, you comment by saying "I think this move is artificial," which is helpful. Because of the time format, you really have don't have the ability to elaborate the same way you were able to in this video. I'm glad to see both styles of videos from you, because they each have their own benefits.

I don't play the Benoni and I have no immediate plans to start, but I was able to take away a lot from this game and the opening. In particular, the pawn advance and creating a square for your knight were very enlightening. This is a concept that I have struggled with ever since I started chess. A lot of the amateur mistakes you talked about are bad habits I have developed as well.

Thank you.

Very good indeed. It's knowledge like this that can immediately make one a better player. Thanks zibbit, you're the man.