Blind Chess

I know that there are discussion points in month 2 about "blindfold chess" I was just interested in how "Blind" are we really in chess and how much do we really think for ourselves. Your rection to the point below would be interesting. It really is a good indication of our chess visualisation.

In month 1 there is the "Making decisions module" where they talk about whites "space advantage", increasing it by playing f5, Rf1-f2 etc.... How many of us blindly followed all of this guidance without taking the time to properly study the position? I have gone through it about 15 times and only now - my last day on Month 1 noticed that all of the above is probably irrelevant.

White is a whole piece down!! (Anyone who assumed the missing piece was a typo may be even worse in terms of being blind to what is really in front of us

Good one. I wonder if white's space and activity makes up for blacks material superiority. I'd need to look at it more closely.

Blue Devil Knight wrote:Good one. I wonder if white's space and activity makes up for blacks material superiority. I'd need to look at it more closely.

At my current level I'd definitely take the material. Fritz 10 gives it over 3.5 to black.

The real point of my post is I wonder how much we ( & clearly I include myself are paying a cusrory glance at the chessboard/pices and memorizing the material rather than really understanding the positions). Is that why we are at our grades & the guy setting the course is 2650+. I certainly will focus more on the positions than the words in future!!)

hoopy wrote: I certainly will focus more on the positions than the words in future!!)

I think that is really important. Indeed, I wrote a long-ass post about it yesterday (post here).

That's, in large part, the main point of Rowson's book Chess for Zebras.

One danger with this strategy-focused course is to lose perspective on the fact that tactics and material trumps all. A weak Knight is better than being down a Knight!

I guess this is a mistake by the 2650 GM. Probably gave black a bishop to much in the diagram. Did you email the ICS about this?

But still it shows that space is important for developping you pieces. While white is fully developed black still has problems to find suitable squares for his pieces.

Thanks CT. Not yet. I was too busy laughing at myself for missing this so many times.

Anyway there are a couple of things on Month 1 that I'll send them. I asked a on another page if maybe we should collectively catch "errors" or issues and send them together. As I had no takers I'll send mine when I start month2. Ithink it is only fair that the ICS is enhanced for whoever comes next.(Just as long as they don't overtake us!!)

I don't remember you suggesting that, as it is a great idea. It would be great to have an 'ICS errata' thread for people to come and check on each month, best place is probably the General course discussion. I'll start it now.

Thanks do we include educational ommissions.

By this I mean if there is an opening line & the opponent say has two captures but only one is commented on but not the other. There was a line in the French I played against an opponent who did not take with the "correct" pawn. All I could see was that I was a pawn down & did not know what to do next!
I reckon we should seek advice in such cases

Yes, those don't seem to be errata but oversights.

oversights. A much better word than "educational ommissions" maybe I should learn to speak English.