As it is, I am left with no idea what "attacking the king in the midgame" really meant to him. Did it mean sacrificing material for a mate, or a more standard development?
Most midgame analysis use the concepts of force, space, and time, and he didn't even mention these terms, so I was left confused.
I am not sure what my level is, but pretty much all I did in my two years in prison was play chess, and in my relatively short stay, I became around the 5th best player "on the yard" and was able to play at the specific table where only the best players could play.
There were over 1500 inmates at the facility I was at, and at least half of them played chess as it was one of the only board games readily available, so playing at that table was no mean feat.
We would play for $1 a game and it became my "hustle" (a hustle in prison is something that allows you to make money doing something of value, like making some else's rack (bed), or sneaking food out of the kitchen etc).
Anyway, I digress...I try to play at coffee shops when I can these days but I find often the existing players seem snobbish and its hard to find a game with the better players.
"At the very very highest levels winning with black is really quite an impressive achievement, and black will often go into a game playing for a draw. The advantage of the first move is very pronounced, and sets the tone for the entire game, with white generally calling the shots. Attempts by black to generate active counterplay are often very risky. "
"So the aim when black is to survive and make sure you're doing enough sensible things to not get exploited because of the disadvantage of moving second."
"The white ball dominates everything. Knocks the shit out of the yellow ball, the red ball, right? And the game's over when the white ball drives the black ball completely off the table."
One main thing I found in my experience is, majority of the games in amateur level are decided by blunders. I am not talking about small positional bad moves. These loose pieces are get mated in one move. If you are an amateur first focus on avoiding them by studying tactics before memorizing anything else.
I'd say I have a few decent tactics that I sort of lean on, but, like you pointed to, if my opponent does something to break me from that memory, my game is shot and I'm flailing around trying to recover (which rarely works).
Not sure if I'll ever dedicate enough time to reach "decent" status but I definitely enjoy the game.
EDIT: I dislike studying openings too, (I started playing 1. g3 to avoid theory while still getting into some fun positions)
Beyond the basic "stupid mistake" level of play, chess centres around forcing your opponent into a situtation where they have two different risks that they need to defend against and only one move to do it, while not allowing your opponent to do the same to you.
Not all computer chess programs behave like this, some of them, at the easier levels make stupid mistakes, or don't take advantage of my own oversights. I try to avoid these. Playing against other amateur players that don't always take full advantage of your stupid mistakes doesn't train you well enough for this.
I'm one of the founders of Taaalk and also the person interviewing my knowledgable friend Robert Heaton on this one.
We'd love anyone who might be interested in being talked with or talking to someone else (either someone we'd set you up with, or someone you know) to reach out to us. Please email firstname.lastname@example.org or hit us up on twitter at https://twitter.com/gotaaalk.
Please don't be too modest in terms of getting in touch! We've found that when someone starts asking you questions you become more interesting than you realise!
Thanks very much for the chess discussion. Great to learn even more.
I love the format too.
It's really a conversation, a chat, but with solid content and serious people. So following is really easy, and satisfying. (unlike audio/videos of interviews here you can go back and reread lots of times a passage you lost - which is good.)
So Kudos also to the Taaalk team for the great design and format.
Imagine explaining it to a friend or prospective user.
"Yeah it's called Taaalk, just go to taaalk.co"
"No, you need 3 As."
user types 3 more As
"Taaaalk.co is giving me a 404."
"Sorry, you needed 2 more As, let's start over."
"Just google 'talk'. Actually, wait, don't do that..."
And for that matter, what is the official pronunciation? "Talk"? Or do you have to elongate the vowel? How long should you elongate it for?
Seems like they should decide on a new name before they invest too much into this one.
"Just go to playlistful.com and..."
"Urgh, can't you just send me a link?"
I have no affiliation with him, but he is a brilliant trainer and he is a very lovely game narrator.
I feel it is appropriate to talk about this channel, because I have not played serious chess in decades but just watching this guy go through these famous games, gave me such insight that reading this article (the on from OP) sounded rather naive.
It'd be interesting to see some statistics for this.
The winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake.
Games like Starcraft are pretty much the exact same - there's a defined early game, a midgame and endgame.
all things with defined start and finish criteria can be conceptualized this way.
careers: education is early game setting you up for success, job/career is midgame, retirement is end game.
relationships: dating is early game, engagement/marriage is midgame, death/divorce is end game.
software development: envision project/write requirements is early game, coding/developing/testing is midgame, shipping and bug patching/customer support is end game.
... I could go on and on, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader
disconnect on our understandings is that I didn't define the game ending criteria for each example. in chess, it's either a checkmate or a draw that ends the game.
for my examples, my criteria are death for the career, the relationship ending, and the software product reaching the end if it's supported life.
Endgame is a part of the game, the late stages. It comes after the midgame.
It doesn't go "early game, midgame, checkmate."
Same for all of your examples, where you note the endpoint, not the endgame.
everything has a starting point. (you decide what career you want)
then an early game phase. (you go to school to get a degree)
than a midgame phase. (you start work and collect paychecks during your career)
than an end game phase. (uou live the retired life using the resources you earned during your career )
than the game actually ends when predefined conditions are met. (you die or whatever)
we are literally arguing in circles because we are not conceptualizing the problem the same way and not communicating clearly.
Retirement, on the other hand, is the equivalent of the time between games (or after you quit playing games) when you have a static ranking from your previous play (maybe you're a retired world champion, say), that other people treat as a milestone in their own development—something to reach or to pass.
Now, if you said life, then sure, the endgame phase of that is retirement. But the early-game phase of that is when your parents are providing for you, and only extreme incompetence (or genetic bad luck) can cause you to "lose."
There really aren't different definitions. It's a "work life", it doesn't include retirement.
But that's an "if". I thrashed a mate in about a dozen games in a row, including one where I called 'Checkmate in 8' which drove him mad. And then the following game he 'pantsed' me, drove through to a checkmate without me even taking a single of his pieces.
Is there a point here? I guess you'll rarely win a match in the Opening, but you can lose it. And maybe more people should practice end game positions instead of just playing lots of games from the start and researching Openings because of the literature volume dedicated to those.
The thing is, if two amateurs are playing, neither of whom deeply know openings, then the starting position (or 4-5 moves in) is essentially new territory, like what might arise for a Grandmaster 15-30 moves into the game. Does this make sense?
Fundamentally with the exponential fanout of the moves but a relatively small set of choices initially, there's always going to be a point where the game transitions from "likely to be an exact position I've seen before" to "likely to be something new, but similar to previous games".
But you had better know the main openings and a lot of sidelines fairly deep or you're toast.
Of course, my memory is next to useless, so for me, to really "know" the openings means I understand them. When my opponents plays weak moves "to get me out of my memory" that's when I really dominate.
Honestly, sometimes chess strategies are like rock-paper-scissors. Guys with great memory can sometimes trounce me, but people who use this "play weak moves to confuse my opponent" oh yeah, I eat that for breakfast.