Chess library

I've played a lot of chess. Have written a lot about chess. Have read few books. Have played more. Got a lot of additional intel. Have analyzed intel I got. And, it's seems now I got firm and comprehensive notion about chess. Thus, my over a year amassed knowledge. Experience. Taking notes of trivia intel. Core centralized intel disassembling, examining, and reassembling. And just overall evaluation and stuff about chess. And it's seems got its final form result, and I posted it on my website. Thank you for taking your time to read it in internet, and not to buy tons of chess books, without knowing worth it or not (I have pleasure to assure you, certain chess books actually worth to buy and to read it. Stuff about which I myself initially had doubts. But it's turns out certain chess books really being good like. About which I've said more scrupulously below). Additional thanks for reading quality true intel of this website, and not wasting your time by reading nasty news, and/or nasty celebrities, and/or other stupid nastiness.

Games like reviews.

Library | Library - Chess.com.

I by now have found a good like option of the chess site which I like, and it's a library list, in which being stored certain games like. And, I myself had a real exemplary game like which is good like to analyze since in it being shown a few of crucial stuff about a chess gameplay which I to explain in this article. And while in the library I got numerous matches, in this article I to analyze and explain just a few matches of the library titled 'Draw achievement of the knights' and 'The scheme of opening development, involving the long range win strat'. The match titled 'Draw achievement of the knights' is even got a certain numbers stats of computer analysis of the match about accuracy of the moves. I actually do not consider like computer's stats being any much correct at all, at least exactly of such computer stats which certain site apply. And I never know how does computer evaluate and rate accuracy of matches, but it's just seems being often wrong. The obvious example is a traps moves, which is mean to do intentionally bad moves which are can cost you a figure material like at first, but for which, if you play it correctly, you to get a better stuff later. Thus, the computer seems like unable to define, evaluate or spot the traps correctly. And just the numbers stats of certain computer analysis about moves accuracy are seems incorrect for me. I myself was doing a past game like analysis, and the numbers of accurate moves stats of computer analysis, and my own analysis of the moves accuracy, are differ from each other. And just anyway, by my opinion, exactly of certain site computer analysis stats ratings about moves accuracy, seems wrong and incorrect for me.

In the match have happened among biggest comebacks and best draws I've ever had. And it's not like I've played vs noob either, to pull out such a good like ending game like (watch on the computer analysis stats of my opponent's accuracy, it's over 90 percent! [since over a 1 month time have passed by now from the day of the match, to the day once I've created the library to which I've added the match, and thus the percent accuracy does not being exhibited anymore, but it really was over 90 percent] which is like among highest levels possible, and then like add the fact like we did a lot of moves, and it's not just a rating of a few initial moves but of a long game like, and you to see my opponent was playing just like a Grand Master human, or like top notch computer on the highest difficulty level, which is did like almost no wrong moves at all). And, actually, by now I have figured out the fact like I do can bring after all those computer analysis stats too, and now it is slightly different than like it was before. Now watch on the stats screenshots images below of the post game like analysis by computer evaluation, while I explain it all.

The ending stage of the game like which is resulted in a draw, and it is actually looks almost impossible to do if you play chess a lot. And just to bring an obvious example of what I talking about. If you got just a 1 pawn advantage closer to an end of a game like once figures are scarce, it is mean like a certain win for you, and it's really hard to get a draw in such occasion. Since a pawn advantage at an end is actually mean like either a queen huge advantage, or a certain crucial exchange of a pawn for higher value of opponent's figure, which is a huge advantage of course. And if you got a 2 pawns advantage closer to an end game like with scarce amount of figures, it is just a total win and you to dominate a game like, and you can do anything with your opponent, and can win even in few different ways. Of course positioning of a figures count too, but just at equal positioning, it is the way I have said it. And my opponent actually had even a better positioning too.

To say few words about my game like opening overall.

My game like opening goes according to what opponent is doing. I just doing a lot of pressure and attack on a king and on figures which is defend a king's weak spots, and I may to do a figures exchange early, since certain of such can bring advantage later (as an obvious example, in certain conditions, to do exchange of a bishop for a knight, later to allow you to take out an enemy rook by check fork). Thus I usually try to get initial momentum and to bring out a huge forces of figures into a strong position and into attacking mode. And I pressure a king. And I doing defense in decisive places. And I assemble and consolidate army good like for long range extensive battle too really. Once I unleash my initial attack on a king, it is actually leaves to an opponent very little room for mistake or bad moves, and it's not let an opponent to do whatever they would like to at the start, since my early attack is force opponent to play on my condition and defend, otherwise it is result in an early checkmate of opponent, or result in a loss of figures for opponent. And in the process of me attacking a king, I can switch attack on a figure of opponent, once I to see a potential weak spot in opponent's army. Usually people do able to defend their king vs my initial attack, and yet I often being able to checkmate king too, later in a middle game like. Or an opponent's army troops defense often crack and I stop pressing a king, and start attacking a certain weak spot troops of opponent. And once defense of opponent crumble, I getting a figure advantage, and usually once you have a figure advantage, you like most possibly to get a win at an end if you to play okay without blunders and mistakes, and unless if you got into certain trap like. Since more figures mean more control of territory and more space. And since all figures troops being dependable and connected with each other, and it's visible especially closer to an end of a game like. And just overall, I use few of slightly different game like openings.

My opening make me the destroyer of noobs players, intermediate players, and of advanced players too. I checkmate and taking out opponent's figures really fast and early. And certain advanced players may defend good like initially by doing a typical good like moves based by chess book of good like play, but which is in the long run, result in certain loss of their, and win of me. I myself like my opening and start to use my opening in the first place, not because I like to destroy noobs and intermediate players early, but because I've considered it is leaves to an opponents very little room for mistake and almost no freedom for moves of early prepared strats at all, since it's force opponents to defend. Otherwise they to take heavy casualties or to get checkmate early. And my opening is good like to defeat advanced players. And my opening is good like to defeat experts too like.

Now actually I to tell about match itself in chronological order and what is really have happened in the match.

The match have started by me giving up 2 pawns (1 opponent's pawn I was able immediately to take by my next move) for queen's quick and strong move out to the crucial board place, which is together with bishop's back up, are threatening the king on the initial stage of the game like, and it is force opponent to react on it immediately (it's a move which I ain't use anymore really. It was kind of me just start playing and learning. I do knew I ain't play it best by such a move, by giving up material. Thus time ago, I was playing such bad move since I was learning and experimenting really). And in this exactly game like occasion, my opponent have shown how to react on it in the good like way and what can be done vs my bad move. And just anyway, this initial stage just shows how you usually can attack and pressure a king early, and shows the way like by which you can get a significant advantage initially, by watching and analyzing what is going on, and by doing certain kind of moves.

I to skip the middle stage of the game like, and to talk about the ending stage of the game like. And just as you may see, at the end of the game like all I had was just a 2 knights. And it is impossible to get a win by 2 knights and a king, thus the draw was the best I could get like. Thus I had overall like a 6 points of my army strength score (the knight is 3 points each). While my opponent had more than 2 times bigger and better army strength by his score points, and by his actual army too. And I have played by knights good like and it's the game like which is have shown a potential and strength of a knights, and what knights ever can do in a game like, if you play knights correctly. It is usually being said knights are good like at a start and a middle of a game like, on short distances, and once there is a lot of stacked figures in a middle of a board, and stuff alike. And yet this game like have shown knights can be very good like and at an end of a game like too, and on long distances too. And this game like have shown what a tremendous forker a knight is. And how much you need to watch on a forking huge potential and abilities of a knight. And like you could see, the opponent actually, despite a near perfect rating which is computer analysis have attributed to him (lolol), and the opponent obviously have done a lot of mistakes to say the least, at the ending stage of the game like, since he could not use his tremendous advantage he had over me by his army strength, quantity, quality and positioning . The opponent actually had an extreme advantage over me in ending stage of the game like in all aspects. He had a lot of pawns in a stacks on different sides of the board. Had a rook which is strong by itself, and very strong at an end of a game like. And he had a 2 knights just like I had too. And a knights closer to an end game like indeed often being kind of useless. Thus the opponent could win easily just by using a rook and a 1 pawn, and without using a whole stack of pawns all over the board and without knights. And yet my knights have done the epic achievement and was able to pull out the draw in very uneven ending part of the match, where they was extremely outnumbered and outpowered. The knights was able to do it all, since the knights have shown a huge potential and strength of a forkers.

Since I've mentioned a knight now, thus I just to say like my own favorite figure in chess are actually none, and different chess figures have different good like qualities obviously. A queen and a rook are the best, after it a bishop and a knight, and after it a pawn. And a king being said worth zero, lolol. But closer to an end of a game like, a king getting really strong actually and bring a lot of use like.

And it's just it. I have finished my analysis of this particular match. And I've said certain intel about chess, and about the way I myself have played. And I to analyze and explain another match below.

In the match being exhibited the fact like exactly memory and knowledge of schemes of the game like opening development, are being decisive for the game like. Now you see, throughout starting stage of the match, it was looking like opponent ain't done any mistake at all really. Moreover, opponent was able even to get the advantage by the fact like the opponent took few of my figures and had a great positioning. The opponent have breached my rear line, and was posing way more of a troubles for future too like. But, it's all was irrelevant, since I've done a checkmate. Since exactly this scheme of development, however beneficial and good like it could look like for the opponent as a short range strat, in fact was a certain loss for the opponent as a long range strat. Thus, it is a great example about how being decisive memory and knowledge about exactly the schemes of development of a games like openings. And very similar by its huge benefit and as a concept of a scheme knowledge about game like openings development (which is not necessary always lead to an early checkmate, but it can lead to taking out opponent's figure, or it can lead to great positioning, or it can lead to any other advantage for you, once you apply it right, the scheme knowledge about game like openings development), exist a lot of other schemes of game like openings which you need to memorize and know, to play good like. And you can see how it is being decisive, the memory and knowledge about game like openings. Of course if you real clever or got AI alike brain, you could calculate it all early, many turns before checkmate have happened, about checkmate, and thus to avoid it from a way back, without need to know this scheme itself. But if to use a typical logic of the way people usually think, it's all was looking like going on good like for my opponent since my opponent had certain advantage. But in the end opponent have lost, since opponent did not know this scheme of game like opening development. You can say like it is all just about the fact like I was posing a serious hassle for opponent's king, and opponent just did a little mistake about underestimating the danger of being checked by me. Since the opponent wrongly have considered it is not being lethal to be checked. But it's not the point really. The point is, once opponent made his initial moves, it is have made a foundation for a whole game like, and it was the wrong moves by the point of view of a long range strat scheme game like development. Since after opponent did few initial moves which is looked like not a big deal initially, and it is in fact was a big deal by the long range strat scheme game like opening development. Since eventually, the opponent does not had good like options for moves at all. Since like whatever move opponent would do, it would bring certain troubles to opponent. Thus opponent did a risk and tried to attack me, and thus opponent have lost early by checkmate. All because I applied good like, the long range scheme game like opening development.

I by doing speedruns of computer games like time ago, have used to figure out the best strats, tactics and ways to do World Record play. And computer games like had at least slight diversity and required a certain plan strat by analyzing mechanic and intel about games like to do okay World Record play. While chess have it all too, like certain strats, tactics, analyzing mechanic and stuff alike, and it's seemed like such a one sided game like initially to me. Figures are very scarce and board is not thus wide at all. By first look for me, once I got real about chess, it's looked like very narrow game like since it's easy to memorize the few figures moves development to be good like at chess. But I was wrong about it of course. And I recently have read like the best chess AI StockFish have analyzed chess, and played and memorized chess by a lot of positions and development and stuff like, for nothing less but for 6500 years of play non stop. And can be even now too it's learning more like. It's just mean in chess exist a lot of moves, versatility and stuff like, and chess is a deep game like. As it is usually actually being considered by all like.

Chess literature.

I've been greatly pleased, and I had bestowed upon me a privilege, to read clever books about chess, from International Master.

Chess books which I've read are quality chess play material. I've got a wise knowledge, which the man have amassed and honed throughout numerous years of his play and throughout his career, and have said it in clear and conceivable ways in his book. I had grinded through it, with good like grasp of its intel. Even though, I have to say, visualizing location of figures, sequence of moves, and just whole board overall and what is going on, just by reading few numbers and letters like h5, rb8, etc. And initially it wasn't been much simple to do, to visualize it all. But later it's got more simple and obvious. And it's being best to use actual chess board and figures and practice, and to use it with chess books, for better conceiving and visualizing book's material.

Chess books have a lot of intel about basics strats and tactics of chess, such as: Board reading and knowledge of decisive location on the board for each specific figure. Knowledge about structures of pawns and what does it mean and how to apply it for strats and tactics play. Forks. Discovered attacks. Skewers. Etc. End games like intel. And more.

It's turns out exist a lot of chess 'trainers'. I actually prior to reading books about chess, was quite pessimistic about applicability and usefulness of its intel. Before reading books, I actually have read site of chess teacher, and have seen online teaching course lessons on the chess.com site, and it wasn't been the best, since their advices was actually limited in use, and had a narrow range applicability even at best (2 hogs on the 7th is being among obvious examples of it. Since strat of 2 hogs on the 7th, being widespread known among chess trainers and it's being mentioned a lot by chess trainers, which are say it's a good like strat moves. But, it's actually good like to apply, just in certain specific conditions, and it's have narrow applicability and use. While usually chess trainers say as if 2 hogs on the 7th, just a good like strat to use. But it's wrong since in certain conditions it can harm to use it. And such conditions actually seems happen more often than good like conditions, for 2 hogs on the 7th).

Exist a need to differentiate between applicable strats and tricks, and between other short range strats tricks which have limited and narrow scope of applicability, and which in certain occasions may even harm and bring disadvantage and to be a bad play moves to do really. Since in chess most decisive stuff is to adapt to each specific condition exactly. And different conditions require different strats and moves obviously. Thus, I wasn't been a big fan of chess trainers and advises. But actually indeed exist good like strats and tricks which are universal, it's do help a lot, and it's good like knowledge to know and to apply in game like. And about chess trainers and books and just about chess learning, need to differentiate between such stuff as:

Bad chess teachers and bad advices and intel. Because, either advices just plain bad. And/or being pushed certain strats and tricks, which are by first look may seems useful, since in certain occasions it was useful. But it's even harmful and bring a lot of disadvantage and to result in a loss, if to apply it in certain other occasions.

Strats and tricks which are useful by limited ways and have a short scope applicability, without actually being harmful in other conditions and occasions.

Overall strats and tricks which you need to know and which are basic and useful and good like. It's actually simple to find and to recognize it, since it's usually have specific names, and involve chess lexicon. Among those being 'Forks. Passed pawns. Etc.'

Strats and tricks which are useful universally. Among those universal by its applicability strats and tactics, are specific openings, and certain end games like strats. It's universal and always useful, since it's always specify, specific moves, to specific opening development, and/or to specific end game like conditions. For example, seemingly narrow topic about rook vs rook and pawn end game like, are actually not narrow of course, it's divided into numerous sections, and it's have about 5 schemes strats ways of play developments (without considering wide array of subsections, which are deals with different moves of opponent in each specific conditions), which differ by pawn rank advancement and location. By rook location. By amount of files of how far in relation to other figures, a king is. And more.

Flexible, diverse, strats and tricks.

Best strats and tactics ever is to be able to calculate like 100 moves ahead all the way to checkmate, alike able to do it AI.

With due respect to chess writer. His books took a lot of time to amass thus much intel as he have about chess play. And took additional time to write tons of letter number combinations by doing scrupulous job by writing all moves accurately and good like, and covered tons of alternative moves too really. But, in real game like vs AI of 3200 level, have happened certain moves which wasn't been covered in a book, and which I had to figure out by myself. It's have happened in a game like of rook vs rook and 2 connected pawns on rook file, with enemy king in front of it. Initially it could look like it's a drawn position. I did research about such specific position, and it's turns out such stuff have happened to certain tournament players with big rating too really, which resulted in a draw. And others never was mentioning such position at all (position being not insignificant, but decisive about which depend whole result of game like. The fact like I was unable to find intel in internet about it, besides few tournament players with big rating having a draw about it, just mean all have waited for me to spot it, to bring it, to figure it out and to say my verdict about it, in my historical impact on all chess game like). And, I've played such position, and I actually was able to figure out how do not let opponent to draw.

Get ready to get your mind glad now, since I about to start talk amazing stuff of letter number combinations, about chess winning strat tactic moves.

I've done exclamations throughout my moves which I've transmitted in typing form below, since I like chess writer which I've read, and he did a lot of such exclamations. It was cool to do it since it's really is thus cool and epic, all those moves, it's require an exclamation. Thus I did exclamations too really.

re7! rf5! kg4! rf1! g6! rg1+! kf5! rf1+! ke6! re1+! kd6! rd1+! kc5! rc1+! kd4! rd1+! kc3! rd8! kc4! kh8! kc5! kg8! kc6! ra8 (decisive move to draw a game like)!! kb7 (counter respond, decisive and winning move)!!! rd8! rc7! kh8! rc8! rxc8! rxc8! kg8! Later follows basic winning end game like of 2 connected pawns vs king, intel about which exist by tons and you easily can find it.

Have to say exist slight diverse possibilities of development, but the main idea and winning tactic are this which I by now have said, and which you of course could visualize and understood really.

Book review.

I've finished few chess books overall. And I've finished chess book, about endgame like, called "Silman's complete endgame course." I to say review about it.

Good like stuff about book:

Book have overall good like friendly narrative, which is make you see the man is a real teacher, and he know what he doing really. He is being nice and say stuff in obvious ways. And he have developed as friendly as possible attitude to students, and as simple as it gets his narrative about stuff you need to learn. And even though he say stuff in friendly and simplified ways, and yet however, it's of course do not lose any useful values of it.

Readers was encouraged and complimented once certain chapters was finished, and was given cool ratings and names such as 'Advanced', 'Expert', 'Master', etc, and it was quite nice actually to read it. And ratings was sectioned into different parts of a book. Which is nice way to section different chapters and articles.

Was listed few puzzles to solve it. I myself of course have not solved it. But it's good like puzzles exist. It's useful for newbies, for young students learners, etc.

The stuff have rules defined in few brief sentences listed, and additionally, it's in informative ways sum up material in the end of each chapter/section too really, prescribed to certain rank rating like. And it's emphasize and highlight overall material intel briefly quite good like.

Book really does cover aspects of end games like, and got a lot of useful material.

Drawbacks about book:

Author does not published certain additional material which really would have been useful, since he seems just was lazy for it. The book claim you to get good like and say you have achieved certain ratings and names, such as 'Advanced', 'Expert', 'Master', and stuff, all just to refuse to teach you about lots of additional stuff of endgames like, by saying it's for really good like players. And what is meant by good like players, why it's better than Master, and why not to make you such a good like player by saying additional useful intel which have those good like players, and it's all know just the author. Book lack intel about stuff as: Knight with bishop checkmate. Deeper look into rook vs queen endgame. Diverse developments of rook with pawn[s] vs rook with pawn[s] plus extra pawn. And additional stuff really.

Exist certain conditions development which wasn't been covered by author. I've mentioned it on my website above.

Exist misleading and wrong intel about trebuchet. It's do not mention main idea about trebuchet which are mined squares. And it's say wrong intel as if such player which is to contact enemy pawn first, to get a winning condition about trebuchet, and it's not always true, since exist such stuff as mined squares. Those mined squares are actually main idea about trebuchet, which you need to analyze and act relying on its intel, to try to get a winning condition about trebuchet really.

And it's are it. Verdict. Although the name of a book being not Completely honest, and it's have slight drawbacks, but overall, it's good like book. I have read chess material on sites. Have seen few vids about chess. Have read few other books. And just got more of intel about chess. And I have to say a book "Silman's complete endgame course" is good like chess book and material really.

Additional intel about chess.

Chess.

Strats and tricks about chess.

AI about chess.