Jeet Kun Rook?
Going into the Uber Circles has resulted in some crazy long study hours. I typically am up until 2am, because I can't start on them until my girls are in bed (they like their daddy's full attention). Anyhow, last night I watched a program on Bruce Lee while making it to problem #450 in 1001 WCS&C as part of Uber Circle #1.
Bruce developed a system of fighting that was really no system. He railed upon traditional fighting styles, because they were too restrictive and didn't adapt well to changing fighting situations. His system involved the student discovering his/her own strengths and weaknesses and fight according to these personal constraints. Therefore, as everyone is different, each person would have sort of an individual, customized style of martial arts.
That got my wheels spinning. Can this be applied to chess? I know some people may be better than others at endgames. Others may have a superior memory and therefore able to memorize a lot of "book" lines in several openings. Jeremy Silman already has touted the idea of imbalances in the game of chess. So, one perhaps can and should develop their personal chess style through a sober assessment of their own personal strengths and weaknesses. Then, everything from opening repertoire, to overall approach to the game would revolve around exploitation of one's personal positive imbalances while limiting their negative imbalances.
For example, I enjoy attacking play. However, a sober assessment of my strengths might indicate that I'm actually stronger in another area, say openings. So, my approach to chess improvement should be modified such that I study MCO to death and lay off learning Vukovic's Art of Attack. Also, in another example, when I encounter an opponent over the board who plays with a dynamic style, perhaps I should change what I play so that I limit the effects of this style by using closed games. Then, if I played in a different round an opponent who plays an opening that is more hypermodern, I would oppose it with a classical opening choice, and so on.
At any rate, I think Bruce hit upon something that does have application to chess learning and tournament play. The key will be found in properly defining how to implement his thoughts such that the correct chess style will be no style at all.
Bruce developed a system of fighting that was really no system. He railed upon traditional fighting styles, because they were too restrictive and didn't adapt well to changing fighting situations. His system involved the student discovering his/her own strengths and weaknesses and fight according to these personal constraints. Therefore, as everyone is different, each person would have sort of an individual, customized style of martial arts.
That got my wheels spinning. Can this be applied to chess? I know some people may be better than others at endgames. Others may have a superior memory and therefore able to memorize a lot of "book" lines in several openings. Jeremy Silman already has touted the idea of imbalances in the game of chess. So, one perhaps can and should develop their personal chess style through a sober assessment of their own personal strengths and weaknesses. Then, everything from opening repertoire, to overall approach to the game would revolve around exploitation of one's personal positive imbalances while limiting their negative imbalances.
For example, I enjoy attacking play. However, a sober assessment of my strengths might indicate that I'm actually stronger in another area, say openings. So, my approach to chess improvement should be modified such that I study MCO to death and lay off learning Vukovic's Art of Attack. Also, in another example, when I encounter an opponent over the board who plays with a dynamic style, perhaps I should change what I play so that I limit the effects of this style by using closed games. Then, if I played in a different round an opponent who plays an opening that is more hypermodern, I would oppose it with a classical opening choice, and so on.
At any rate, I think Bruce hit upon something that does have application to chess learning and tournament play. The key will be found in properly defining how to implement his thoughts such that the correct chess style will be no style at all.
posted by CelticDeath at 8:37 AM
7 Comments:
It's really a good idea to excel at some pont. It's logic to strive for excellence in an area that suits you.
But there is more to say. I forced myself to adapt a highly aggressive style with gambits and so. Only for study purposes. I'm not a risktaker of my own at all. I had really to force myself to do so. Even my gambits look orderly and squeezing in stead of chaotic and brilliant. But my original positional play is largely enriched now. Even during a game one is adviced to improve the position of the worsed placed piece.
What's more, my enjoyment of the game has grown enormous. A point what seems a weakness of DLM.
Now I started with endgamestudy, though I really have no feeling for it at all. But I know that when I can get a reasonable level of endgame skills, this will give my a lot of more possibbilities in the area where I assumebly CAN excel.
So it feels a little bit like an encirclement of that area.
First make your weak points reasonable, then make your strong point excel.
Exactly! And to that point must be why the Masters and Grandmasters caution that you really cannot develop style until you reach at least Expert status. It must be because Expert status represents the point of minimum competency in all areas of chess (non-patzer status).
Yes I agree. Same is true in the martial arts. But more importantly so.
Until you reach black belt the instructors INSIST you do the forms in a very specific way. Feet so far apart, elbows scraping your body, stance very very low, etc. All beginners should throw a punch in basically the same way. They stress basics, basics, basics. The reason for this is very simple. If a beginner tries to copy the advanced students without learning the basic way first they will most likely hurt themselves and possibly sustain lifelong injuries. In Shotokan for instance the students are not allowed to spar until at least brown belt, or approx two years of serious study.
Finally, have you read Bruce Lee's book? I have it and it's a really interesting read for a chess player. He has broken down his system into various parts like timing, distance, stances, attacks, defenses, etc. (remind you of anything?). He also eplains what works for him in different situations. For example, if he is fighting an opponent who likes to use a very low stance then he will take a particular approach with stance, speed, certain attacks, etc. For tactics, instead of double attacks, pins, and skewers, he has the forward foot side kick, backhand, and snap kick. He tells you in what situation he uses each.
PS
I haven't read it, Pawn Sensei, but I think I may pick it up this weekend. Everyone talks about his skill, but no one talks about his genius. And that's what he was - a genius!
Interesting idea.
I do think it will work, but not at our level (as noted by CD).
I think that the greatest players of today have their own style and you see their opponents trying to get into a position that doesn't suit their opponents style.
But style is error prone as you are only as strong as your weakest move in a game. And if you aren't reasonable (or strong) in a certain area it could bring you down.
I'm thinking now that i should follow rules strictly and gain experience in when to break them. Nonetheless follow them without playing a particular style until i'm a master (..like never!).
What do you guys think?
A Dutch grandmaster adviced me to play the agressive openings. Just to practice the tactics. My opponents on my level are of two different kinds: the ones (often older ones) who learned positional play from the books of Max Euwe. And the often younger guys who did a lot of tactics, they play agressive to. Developing style comes later,first we have to sharpen our swords, before thinking how you will use it. Besides the style of playing comes by itself as result of your own character, I think.
Post a Comment
<< Home