Chess Training

The Player's Laboratory

2009-08-14T10:23:00.007-05:00

A.S. Suetin wrote a seminal book titled "Three Steps to Chess Mastery", Pergamon Press, 1982. Here are some excerpts (in some cases, not verbatim) from the section titled "The Player's Laboratory". This book contains some of the best self-training advice you'll find outside a Dvoretsky/Yusupov book.

Working on One's Own Games

For a player wishing to improve, the cold analysis of mistakes is not enough. The problem is simultaneously to establish the psychological cause of these mistakes. Not sparing your pride, you should frankly re-establish the course of your thinking, endeavouring to give answers to approximately the following questions:

What specific variations did you calculate, when considering your moves, especially at the turning points of the game? It is very important to note what you missed in your calculations, and what your opponent showed you in your joint analysis after the game.
What considerations were you guided by in choosing your plan?
When evaluating your positional mistakes, endeavour to understand their cause. Were they a result of an insufficiently deep understanding of the position, or of tactical oversights? After all, oversights can often lead to positionally unfavourable situations.

A commentary on a game, irrespective of its character, should definitely:

show the turning points of the game
disclose the course of the thinking of the two players, and, in particular, show specific calculations
trace the strategic outline of the game
convey the feelings of the players;

Here are a few simple but essential rules: Do not be one-sided in your analysis, by examining only 'your' variations. Endeavour to look into the ideas of your opponent.Each time that you point out a mistake, indicate the correct continuation. Do not forget the analysis is not a practical game. It requires more specific proof than intuitive decisions.

The Study of Master Games

A harmony between evaluation and calculation in your play can be achieved only if you constantly practise analysis. Therefore it is essential to analyse master games, to be able to understand correctly their ideas in their annotations, and also to evaluate the quality of the annotation. There are two main trends in the "Method of Annotation":

Give preference to evaluations of a general nature. Specific variations merely illustrate and confirm the general ideas. A good example of this style of annotation is Bronstein's Zurich 1953 Tournament Book.
Out of variations, you deduce an evaluation of the position, i.e. proceed from the particular to the general. Rarely do you give broad generalizations, but give obvious preference to the detailing of analysis, and the study of latent combinational resources. A good example of this style is Chigorin.

Thus there are two methods of annotation, and both are perfectly lawful. Each reflects chess reality: deductive (from the general to the particular) - the strategic content of a game, and inductive (from the particular to the general) - the tactical content.
The modern way of annotating a game is as though to synthesize both methods, harmoniously combining specific analysis with generalizing evaluations. Alexander Alekhine was a potent example of this synthesized approach to annotation.
The ability to make a critical evaluation of a commentary being studied, the ability to think independently, are essential qualities for an analyst.

Work with Literature

A disdain for the reading of methodological works and especially the study of information is fraught with unpleasant consequences. The 'natural player' will never attain any great heights. On the other hand, the reading of chess books is by no means a simple matter. It should not be forgotten that chess material, in what ever form it is taken, always demands active perception. But this presupposes in particular a business-like, critical study of literature, which is not at all easy to attain. It should be mentioned that an over scrupulous tracing throughout 'from cover to cover' of even the most authoritative books can lead to a loss of lively individual thinking, to a loss of 'taste' for chess. How can some proportion be achieved here? I think that this depends on setting yourself a correct goal of improvement. And this is closely linked with the development of your analytical ability.

The Importance of Active Independent Perception in the Study of Source Material

Nimzovitch wrote in his book "How I Became A Grandmaster":"I took the book of the 1906 Nuremberg tournament with notes by Tarrasch, and gave it to a bookbinder, and asked him to sew into the book blank pages between each two pages of text. Then I began working through the games...Any results found were immediately noted down on the intermediate pages. I always 'played' for one of the two sides--either for White, or Black. I first endeavoured to find the best move, and then looked at the move made in the game. In this way each 'game' lasted at least six hours. I consolidated my learning roughly as follows. In one of Salwe's games, a typical isolated queen's pawn position was reached: white knight at f3 and pawn at d4, black knight at d7 and pawn at e6 (in addition, each side had a mass of pieces). It turned out that White had no reason at all to hurry over the occupation of e5 with his knight, since within a few moves the black knight itself set off to attempt to reach d5, and thus, without any effort on the part of White, the square nevertheless fell into his hands. Such a state of affairs was immediately recorded by me on the blank pages, and, what's more, the point of it was not the purely chess content of the manoeuvre, but, so to speak, its psychological peculiarities. Frequently squares are vacated automatically. The result of my efforts was as follows:

I had a prepared opening repertoire
I became proficient at playing in a slow, waiting style, and I found it quite incomprehensible that formerly I could have sacrificed without an exact calculation...
An important achievement was also the fact that, thanks to careful study of certain games, I began to understand the strategy of closed positions, and, in particular, grasped the principles of the pawn chain, and also partly of centralization."

Whatever chess book we study, we should always be able to separate the important from the second-rate, and disclose the essence of the problems raised, etc. And in studying chess, the art of critical analysis is always especially important.

The Test of Mastery

A player must first master various principles, schemes, and characteristic tactical and strategic devices. At the same time the development of one's thinking is preceded by the acquisition of combinative vision. This is also a complicated process: At first a player notices only simple threats, then he begins to see all sorts of double attacks, and, finally, that harmonic interaction which leads to combinations. Only after going through such a schooling does a player obtain the necessary basis, which allows him to use flexibly his knowledge and skill. The analysis of complex positions, where strategic and tactical factors are closely interlaced, is first and foremost very hard work.For the unprepared it may even be beyond their strength. Therefore, don't try to take too many steps at once. Get to know your true capabilities, each time, of course, setting yourself new problems.Along this path there is much disillusionment, causing annoyance and dissatisfaction. Without these bitter feelings you cannot get by. But remember that if you are dissatisfied, it means you are searching. This is one of the fascinations of the art of chess.

"Chess ennobles man, since it is full of disappointments" - Tartakower

The Analysis of Adjourned Games

The best teacher in mastering the art of analysis is practice: learning comes both during play, and in the subsequent study of a completed game. For the development of analytical skill, very much can be given, for example, by work on adjourned positions (this is currently outdated, but one can take a game and at move 39 or 40 'adjourn' the position and analyze from there for this exercise). The analysis of adjourned positions should be regarded not only from the practical point of view. Each well analyzed position increases the ability of a player. Experience has shown that it is precisely in the endgame that the largest number of mistakes is made by inexperienced players. Perhaps the small number of pieces on the board makes the study of the endgame a boring task for young players. But we can readily see what interesting, tactical variations can arise in the endgame positions.

Don't be Afraid to Take Risks

The most promising players are those who, from their very first steps, display analytical inquisitiveness. While their first attempts may not always be successful, what is important here is the initiative!

Where the Necessary is Combined with the Useful

For a young player, wishing to raise his standard of play, it is important, even essential, to make analysis an integral part of his home training. The starting position for this can (and should!) be most varied (after all, in practice one has to deal with all kinds of situations). But nevertheless, the emphasis should be on complicated middlegame set-ups, full of tactical content. For the most part, such a criterion is well satisfied by positions arising at the transition from opening to middlegame in present-day openings.It is no accident that it is on such problem set-ups that the strongest players sharpen their analytical mastery. In this way a dual aim is achieved: the development of analytical skill, and a penetration into the jungle of a particular opening system, which one can add to one's 'armoury'. What generally happens is that, the deeper you go into the jungle of such positions, not only does the evaluation not become clearer, but often the player is faced with an even more confused picture. But this should not dismay the analyst. A knowledge of highly complicated, practically inexhaustible positions opens up enormous scope for the development of the most varied aspects of chess thinking. The result is that, along with the development of analytical potentialities, the player's genuine understanding of chess grows, without being confined within some formal framework. Also, the deeper your analysis of positions in the transition from opening to middlegame, the greater advantage you gain over your future opponents. And in opening preparation, virtually the most important thing for the practical player is to be constantly ahead in your 'production secrets'. Thus, you should attempt to be a Sherlock Holmes of chess. And remember that each time you can get down to the essence of the problem by a combination of painstaking and inventive work, worthy of a clever detective. It is not all positions, arising on the transition from opening to middlegame, that are full of specific content. But always, after the completion of mobilization, there arise a certain complex of strategic and tactical problems (provided, of course, that in the opening neither side has made some bad mistake, allowing the opponent quickly to gain a serious advantage). Therefore, when studying variations, you should attempt in particular to see the 'physical meaning'- the intrinsic strategic and tactical ideas. In short, when studying an opening (i.e., in essence, a specific middlegame [specialization training]) you should not so much aim to remember the variations, but rather to study the most important critical positions that arise here. Otherwise, for the trees you may not be able to see the wood!

The Technique of Opening Preparation

When working on opening analysis, a player involuntarily encounters a very important problem - the correct organization of this work. Whatever one says, without the necessary order one cannot hope for success in chess. In work on one's opening repertoire, this is reflected in the correct selection of information for analysis. Indeed, without the necessary material on which to make a judgement, it is difficult to imagine and subsequent serious analysis. No less important is the habit of being systematic and orderly in the complex of specific and general chess knowledge. In this collecting of information it is important to have a sense of measure. It must be borne in mind that, in practice, the selection of material for an opening repertoire must be restricted to games which are the most important in the theoretical sense (this is what grandmasters and master do). Otherwise, there is the risk of 'drowning' in the abundance of material. Therefore, initially it is probably expedient to obtain in full games which interest you, with the most important specific comments on the opening and middlegame. Of course, learning to choose the most important games, i.e. the information which deserves complete trust, is not an easy matter.

Practical Advice

The mastery of general principles undoubtedly assists the conscious perception of opening variations, and makes a player's thinking more economical and effective. But even so, a genuine knowledge of opening theory is impossible without the development of a special memory. This memory should be exercised by regular and sensible training. From your first steps you should beware of 'swotting up' multi tome encyclopedias. It can only kill your lively interest in chess, and hence your ability as a player. You can work correctly on the opening only while improving your overall standard of play. You should study the opening together with the ideas inherent in the subsequent middlegame. What should you be guided by in your choice of opening? This is a problem every player has to face. You should not aim to remember as many variations as possible, but equally it is not good to overdo one and the same set-up. For tournament play you should build up a definite opening repertoire, consisting of a limited number of carefully worked out systems. Ways of working on opening theory depend to a great extent on the character of the player. Whether it should be a greater or lesser diversity of schemes, a deep analysis of a narrow range of variations, or play in a variety of strategic systems--this is a matter of taste. There are no general prescriptions. But to make it a rule to learn from your own games and from others', and not to repeat mistakes made earlier--this is an already patent prescription for everyone. In order to avoid such unpleasantness, you should make it a habit to investigate your opening mistakes, consistently accumulating and supplementing valuable experience. And we should point out once again that, in building up his opening repertoire, it is expedient for a young player to adopt systems rich in sharp play.

2009-07-29T20:32:00.012-05:00

An American Hero

Photo courtesy of Johannes Fischer

Hikaru Nakamura, The premier United States Chess Champion, contemplates his next move against the opposition. Players come and go in the USA chess scene, but Nakamura seems to possess a certain staying power, especially across the broad spectrum of chess competition that he calls home. From anywhere to being one of the top players on ICC in bullet chess, to the Chess960 World Championship, Hikaru has shown a desire to compete with the best of the best at all various incarnations of the game we call Chess.

B-Method Self-Examination

2009-07-19T11:28:00.035-05:00

First, let me say that I make no claims to the accuracy of the following analysis of this game. The goal of this article is to articulate and demonstrate 'how' to use the "B-Method" during play. I make many assumptions during this analysis, and the plan I undertook during the game could easily be the incorrect plan given the specifics of the position. However, I do hope that it serves as a fairly clear example of how to implement the "B-Method" in your games.

This game was played from May to July 2009 on an email server, so it serves as a good training ground for using the "B-Method", as I am able to make notes into Chessbase as I ponder my moves over the course of the game. The opponent will remain anonymous, and I will pick the game up at move 27. As is required for using the B-Method, this game is considered from only one side - Black's perspective.

27.Rexc2
Ok, let's begin this exercise with a quick review of the B-Method Squares Strategy.
Essentially, you, as the player of the pieces from whose perspective the position is being evaluated from, in this case, BLACK, have the task of answering, at first, the three vital questions posed by the B-Method:

The Strategy Question (SQ) - the central square from which your strategy focuses from - the specific area you are defending.

The Direction Question (DQ) - Which direction are your pieces cooperating in from your selected Strategy. You generally look at the influence of your pieces here - Pawns, Knights and Bishops primarily.

The Color Question (CQ) - which color squares should you be trying to play actively on? It stands to reason that you can answer this question best by what color squares your opponents' pieces defend the least.

These three questions give you a basis from which to understand which of your opponents' pieces are in conflict with the given strategy chosen -that is, what pieces you need to Put to Question (PQ) to advance the strategy. This should lead you to develop a list of Candidate Moves (CM) - moves that advance the strategy, and analysis and calculation should give you the 'best' move as the Game Move (GM).

SQ: Strategy Question: e5-Strategy. Black has chosen the e5-Strategy as he is defending the e5-area from attack. As a pawn sits on e5, this would also be considered a "Pawn Strategy" from e5. In B-Method shorthand: +S(e5...)

DQ: Direction Question: f4. Here it is important to note what squares your pieces cooperate on. In this position, the Bb7 and the Knight maneuvers Qf5 and Nf4 all place the black pieces in position to attack in the f4 direction. +S(e5>f4,...)

CQ: Color Question: White squares. Black Bb7 and Nd5-f4/Qf5 cooperate on the white squares. It's important to note here, generally speaking, with bishops of opposite colors you would want a strategy that takes advantage of your own bishops' color. +S(e5>f4, wsq)

PQ: Put to Question: Which white pieces defend the white squares that we are attacking? These squares are namely e4, f3, e2, g2 and d3. the White pieces that defend those squares are Pg2, Nf3(to e1), and Qh4. Those are the pieces we want to 'put to question', i.e., attack and divert or trade off. Also note that the white Bishop is essentially invisible to our white-squared strategy. +S(e5>f4, wsq), >> Nf3,Qh4,Pg2

CM: Candidate Move: Queen is threatened, so a queen move is indicated.
CM1: Qf5 attack the light-squares e4/f3/d3 and it cooperates with Bb7 and Nd5-f4.

GM: Game Move: Qf5

27...Qf5 28.Bc5

This time, more briefly:

SQ: e5-Strategy (same)
DQ: f4 (same)
CQ: wsq: (f3, g2,e4,e2,d3); Nd5/Bb7/Qf4 work on wsq; Pg2/Nf3/Qh4 defend wsq;
+S(e5>f4,wsq)>>(Pg2,Qh4,Nf3)
CM: Nf4

28...Nf4 29.Ne1

SQ: e5-Strategy (same)

DQ: f4. Black wants to control/occupy f4,g3,h2 and attack e4,f3,g2. Black's pieces cooperate against g2,f3,e4,d3. Therefore, pursue the e5-strategy towards f4. +S(e5>f4...)

CQ: What color do the white pieces cooperate on?
The Black pieces cooperate on Black squares: Qh4, Bc5 - this shows white-squared weaknesses. The White pieces cooperate on White squares: - wsq: Nf4,Qf5,Bb7; Therefore, Black should strive to attack the white squares and aim for a white-squared initiative.
+S(e5>f4,wsq)

PQ: Black should look to those pieces that are defending the white squares (Ne1,Pg2) and seek moves which tangle them up in play ('Put to Question'). These are your candidate moves.

CM: Candidate Moves
CM1: Ba6: threatens Ne2+ winning the exchange; easily parried by Kh1.
CM2: Be4: threat Bxc2 winning exchange;Red8: occupation of the open file. this seems to froce the Rook to b2, a better square to meet a minority attack by black on the queenside and supports the push b4.
CM3: Rac8: Rook to open file and pinning the Bc5 to Rc2; This may induce white to play b4, weakening his Q-side pawns by the mere fact of their advancement, making them susceptible to a minority attack on the Queenside.

All three lines are analyzed. Your responsibility is to select the move that meets the needs of the position the best.

GM: Rac8 - I chose this move because it brings the out-of-play Ra8 into the game and adds pressure along the c-file.

29...Rac8 30. b4

As you can imagine, if the pawn structures do not change, in general, your strategy would probably stay the same. But always be on the lookout for an improvement in target-setting and strategy!

SQ: e5
DQ: f4 direction
CQ: Black pieces coop on wsq; White pieces coop on bsq; +S(e5>f4,wsq); Pg2 (weak), attack(e4,d3);
CM:
CM1: Be4:attack Rc2, square d3.
CM2: Ba6: threaten Ne2+, winning exchange.
CM3: a5: minority attack on queenside.

GM: a5 - I chose ...a5 because it seemed the most consistent plan at this point as it removed the a-pawn from attack on a7 and will allow an eventual ...Ba6, also consistent with a white-squared strategy.

30...a5 31.a3 [ 31.bxa5? g5 32.Qxh6 ( 32.Qg3 Rxc5) 32...Rc7-+]

SQ: e5
DQ: f4 direction
CQ: Black pieces co-op on wsq; White pieces co-op on bsq; +S(e5>f4,wsq); Pg2(weak), squares e4,d3;

CM: Candidate Moves
CM1: Ba6; pressurizes white squares in white position (d3,e2); threat Ne2+.
CM2: Be4; threatens Bxc2, winning exchange.

GM: Ba6 - continues the attack on the white squares d3 and e2.

31...Ba6 32.Kh1

SQ: e5 (same)
Now here, according to my notes, I changed directions with the advance of e4. Is this correct? I cannot say for sure either way, as both strategies have their plusses and minuses, but the end result bore it out. I felt the change was warranted due to the major weakness of the d3-square in white's camp. It also illuminates the fact that you have to always be ready to change stride if the position presents itself. From a color complex point of view, it seems consistent as Black is still playing on the white squares - squares that White has the most trouble defending.
DQ: d4 direction
CQ: White squares: +S(e5>d4,wsq); Sqs: d3,e2,c2,e4;
PQ: Put to question the pieces Ne1, Rc2;
CM:
CM1: e4 - gains space, attacks f3,d3.
CM2: Ne2 - attacks Rc1

GM: ...e4

32...e4 33.Rd1

White's last move seemed to be not the best, leaving the Rc2 vulnerable, but it is a difficult position to play. He is slowly being squeezed.
SQ: e5
DQ: d4
CQ: wsq +S(e5>d4, wsq); d3,e2,c2;
PQ: targets: Rc2, Ne1,Rd1;
CM:
CM1: e3 - Now possible because Bxe3 cannot be played due to White's last move.
CM2: Red8 - Black can grip the light squares with this move followed by a4 and Nd3.

GM: ...e3 - Black chooses this move as it appears to be more to the point and results in a passed e-pawn for black.

33...e3 34.f3

SQ: e5
DQ: d4
CQ: wsq; White defend the black squares - Qh4, Bc5;
PQ: Ne1; Rd1; Pf3;
CM:
CM1: Bb5 - threaten Ba4, winning exchange.
CM2: h5 - takes the g4-square away from White's queen. White's queen is now in peril.
CM3: axb4 - this exchange is unecessary at this point and is not forcing enough.

GM: ...h5

34...h5 35.Qg3

SQ: e5
DQ: d4
CQ: wsq; White defends the black squares - Qg3, Bc5;
PQ: put to question the pieces Ne1, Rd1, Rc2;

CM:
CM1: Bb5 threat: Ba4; idea axb4, Ra8 occupy open file;

GM: Bb5

35...Bb5 36.Rb2 axb4 Black Resigns [1-0]

Black resigned at this point, probably not looking forward to more moves of tiring defense.

A simple example that was pretty clear-cut from the Black perspective. Black, in a position with Bishops of opposite color, chose to play on the wihte squares (his own bishops' color), and was able to dominate white in the center of the board. Meanwhile, White could not generate any meaningful counterplay on the black squares nor defend his white-squared weaknesses for long.

I hope this simple example gives you some idea of how powerful the Squares Strategy B-Method can be if used correctly (did I use it correctly? Only Bangiev can tell me!). Color complexes play an important role in nearly all chess games, and the B-Method has at it's core a color complex-based strategic system.

Keep on Checking!

Going Stale

2009-07-15T11:36:00.003-05:00

I want to write today about something that I believe every non-professional chessplayer encounters occasionally, and that is "Going Stale." What does that mean?
Specifically, I'm talking about that time when you are approaching the end of a study cycle and you begin to pick up some games to try out your new-found skills in chess, whatever that may be: a new opening, endgame knowledge, middlegame strategy, etc. You soon discover, much to your horror, that you seem to be 'fighting' the board and the pieces at each step of your game. The openings you mis-play, you select offendingly bad plans in the middlegames, and you cannot even hold a Philidor's Position in a Rook Endgame. Simply Horrifying.

Why does this happen?

As you study (not 'play') chess - any aspect of it: openings, middlegame, tactics, strategy, endgames - your mind tends to 'change modes' where the importance of the 'game' slips from becoming something related to the final score to something related to execution of a specific tactic, strategy, or sequence of moves, as in an opening variation. It is as if a switch had been flipped in your mind where the focus of chess has gone from a results-oriented approach (i.e., the final score of the game) to a short-term, solve-this-position approach (i.e., specific positions). This can be illustrated with the simple idea that a position can be reached that, in 'solve' mode, you know you can achieve some short-term goal (win a pawn at the expense of position), but in 'game' mode, you may decide to take a less risky approach to the position and play a variation that offers not quite the same long-term chances, but present less risk to you short-term. I believe that the longer you 'study' without playing actual games that mean something to you (at least psychologically, rating points not withstanding), the more difficult and longer it takes to get your mind to flip the switch back to the results-oriented mode of play.

The Obvious Remedy

The obvious remedy to this avoidable situation is to play somewhat meaningful games every day, expecially study days. This way, you get the opportunity to apply anything you just studied and you keep your 'chess switch' from spending too much time in the 'wrong' position, i.e., study-mode. Time controls such as G5, G10 and G15 serve this purpose well and do not take up entire blocks of time you may have alloted to playing chess each day. It also serves the purpose of giving you immediate feedback so you can identify what areas of your game are still lacking.

To avoid "Going Stale", play frequently!

Further exploration into the B-Method

2009-06-30T13:08:00.005-05:00

Welcome back and today I want to explore a few more aspects of Alexander Bangiev's "B-Method" Squares Strategy. Today I want to discuss the role of the minor pieces (Bishops and Knights) and some relevent facts useful towards playing with those pieces efficiently with regards to exchanges. Minor Piece exchanges are one of the most important (and misunderstood) aspects of chess with regard to lower rated players. Hopefully we can give you some guidance on making the right exchange decisions, outside of the obvious.

Bishops and Knights are evaluated differently in every position, but dogmatically are set at a value of 3 pawns apiece. Given this, it makes sense to evaluate any trade between these pieces - Bishop for Bishop, Knight for Knight, or, most importantly(!), Bishop for Knight - as an 'obvious' even trade. However, when taking into account the given position, each minor piece on the board needs to be evaluated with the position in mind. This gives rise to 'good' and 'bad' bishops, poorly placed knights, knights without outposts, and 'tall pawns'. This is something that only the esoteric among us do with any consistency at all across our chess careers. So, to delve into the true differences between thes two seemingly equal-but-different pieces, we need to examine the inherent differences between Bishops and Knights. This may seem obvious to some, but you might learn a thing or two that will give you pause next time you plop down your Bishop on g5 to snap off that f6-knight.

The first and foremost observation one can make about Bishops and Knights and their inherent difference is that a Bishop can affect play on only one color square, whereas the Knight can affect play on both colors, but only one color at a time, unlike the Queen or Rook, which can affect play on both color squares simultaneously. As well, the Bishop is considered a long-range piece because it can easily travel from one side of the board to the other in one move, much like the Queen or Rooks, but the Knight would need to clunk along with 6 moves to go from a1-h8. These differences have far-reaching implications with regards to the B-Method and the idea of Color Complexes. But for us, we will specifically deal with the effects of the minor piece exchange.

Everyone has had at one point in their chess career been met with the difficult decision of whether to trade off a minor piece or not, based on the current position. Sometimes it is an obvious choice, or a forced sequence - sometimes it is not. How do you decide?

With regards to exchanging of minor pieces, if one trades a Bishop for a Bishop (of the same color), then it can be said that *both* sides lose control over the color of the squares the traded bishop resided on. But, if one trades a Bishop for a Knight, the player with the Bishop loses control over the color squares it resided on, but the player with the Knight loses control over the opposite color squares that the exchanged bishop (or knight, for that matter) resided on.

Think about it for a moment: A Knight on a white square can only move to black squares and therefore can only affect black squares where he sits. To trade a white-squared bishop for a knight means the knight would have to be on a white square, hence controlling the black squares within reach of the knight. When traded, the knight loses control of those black squares. Did a light just come on?

Now, the alert ones in the audience might say, "But wait! I can just move my other Knight and he now affects the other colored square!" Does tempo mean nothing to you? True, you *might* be able to redeploy your second Knight if still on the board to 'cover' for the just-exchanged piece, but the loss of time (generally speaking, of course) would probably be prohibitive, not to mention the positional characteristics that would most likely be against you, namely the loss of covering the opposite-colored squares with the second Knight. In any event, you'll find that sometimes that manouevre avails itself, many times it does not, and of course, the devil is in the details (in everything, it so seems!).

In the context of the B-Method, note that the third question you MUST answer is the Color Question - which color squares are you going occupy and which color are you going to attack? With the huge assumption that this question is correctly answered, that answer feeds into the next series of questions: Which pieces do I Put to Question (PQ), what moves are a means to that end - Candidate Moves (CM), and which candidate move meets the needs of the position the best - the Game Move (GM).

This is why it is very important to answer the first three questions before you begin seeking out actual moves/variations as it gives you a glimpse into properly evaluating the color complexes that exist in every position stemming from the 4 central squares - e4,d4,e5 and d5. Without even using a board, we can generalize a position in which we wish to play on the dark squares - because our pieces coordinate best against the dark squares and our opponent's pieces defend mostly the light squares. Given that, we would want to eliminate or tie up the opponent's pieces that defend the dark squares, which would be specifically his dark-squared Bishop and any Knight in play that sits on a light square (I'm excluding the major pieces for this example - you'd normally take them into account as well). This is known as active target-setting, and will lead us directly to the next step in the B-Method - Candidate Moves.

Once you have considered correctly the color aspect of the position, moves that would probably never have been considered through the usual brute-force analysis or 'feeling' methods of most players become moves that you *have* to consider, and the number of moves under consideration becomes drastically reduced, as you will see that very few moves support the Strategic Goals you have outlined in your answering of the first questions in the B-Method. All this without any real analysis at all, but with (simple?) assessments into the position from a Squares Strategy/Color Complex point of view.

This is in summary an important piece of understanding color complexes, minor piece exchanges and the long-term effect they can have on a position, and how it relates to the Squares Strategy/B-Method.

Next, I'll take some positions from some of my recent games and make an attempt to use the B-Method in rudimentary form to get a general assessment of the position during the game. I'm sure this will stimulate some commentary from readers in agreement and in disagreement with my analysis of each position, and that can only help all of us to become better chess players. Bangiev takes it way beyond anything I could hope to accomplish in his CD's with regards to his assessments - my goal is to demostrate that Joe FishBlitz has a shot at using this positional assessment process to come up with good moves and even better positional judgments.

Until then - Good Chess!

Chess Art

2009-06-24T12:08:00.000-05:00

This is a repost of "Chess Art" as I neglectd to credit the artist. Sorry!

Art Credit: M.L. Walker

Color Complexes and the Bangiev Method

2009-06-23T12:49:00.003-05:00

Color Complexes and the Bangiev Method

I've been interested for some time in Alexander Bangiev's "B-Method" of decomposing a chess position so that one can find reasonable candidate moves based on (what I find) his unique and innovative system called the Squares Strategy. Here I'll attempt to explain as much as I can how a run-of-the-mill player like myself views this method and if it is something that the average Joe chess player can take advantage of. Bangiev claims that this method targets players rated approximately 1800 in the german rating system, and that is just about where I sit today, give or take 100 points. I will leave out the "B-Notation" - the shorthand symbolic language he uses to discuss the specifics of a position - as that just tends to confuse the new learner. I'll attempt to explain it in laymans english. Hopefully I do not violate any copyrights. If I do, I apologize.

First we must define what it is we are looking at: What is The Squares Strategy? If you were to read the scant reviews about Bangiev's Chessbase CDs on Chess Cafe and other 'reputable' sites, you'd most likely be put off on purchasing these CD's, and that might be justified at some level, but I find that the reviewers missed the mark in attempting to understand what Bangiev's B-Method is all about: Color Complexes.

Everyone knows what a 'color complex' is, even if you are not specifically aware that is what it is called. All chess players have erroneously played g3 in front of their castled king position after trading off their light-squared Bishop, at some point in their chess career, and had the unwanted pleasure of watching your opponent occupy the squares f3, g4, and h3 and proceed to slaughter your King where he stands. Those squares are a 'color complex' of light squares. This is the basis of the B-Method, but don't let the terminology scare you away. Just knowing that is where the ideas are coming from is enough to get us started.

The B-Method begins by asking the same three questions at each move of the game:
1) The Strategy Question (SQ)
2) The Direction Question (DQ)
3) The Color Question (CQ)

After answering those three VITAL questions, we can continue with three more questions:
4) Put to Question which pieces
5) CAndidate Moves
6) The Game Move

Naturally, one has to understand the question before one asks, so lets try and decompose each question in simple(r) terms.

The Strategy Question (SQ)
The Strategy Question is the starting point in Bangiev's B-Method. It seeks to give the player a consistent starting point from which to develop the correct plan from the central pawns based on the players' perspective, i.e., from his point of view. It takes into account only the true center of a chessboard: d4 and e4 (from the white perspective), and e5 and d5 (from the black perspective). Given that, White is restricted to two specific strategies: d4-Strategy and the e4-Strategy. Black, on the other hand, is restricted to two similar strategies: e5-Strategy and the d5-Strategy. Naturally, a different (but similar) strategy manifests itself depending on which square is taken into consideration. For example, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 it makes perfect sense for White to consider an e4-strategy as the e4-pawn controls the white squares d5 and f5. Naturally White will want to occupy d5/f5. A similar idea exists for Black in the same position: he would consider the e5-strategy and direct his efforts along the black squares d4 or f4, and attempt to occupy those squares. As you may see at this point, this leads to the Question of Direction. Which way do I go?

The Direction Question (DQ)
After establishing the SQ and the starting point, you are faced with a decision of which direction you should seek play in. As is well known in chess, you cannot attack in two directions effectively simultaneously. Answering the Question fo Direction properly gives you the most likely and effective direction based on piece and pawn placement in the current position. But, to answer this question, you must make some assessments in the position. Here your task is to determine which direction (in our example of the e4-strategy above) your pieces cooperate the best in, i.e., which direction from e4 do your pieces concentrate their infuence the most in. Given the correct strategy from SQ, there can be only one of two answers for our e4-strategy example: d5 or f5.

The Color Question (CQ)
Once here, we know two things: The strategy (e4), and the Direction (d5). Contrary to the Direction Question in which you ask 'which direction are MY pieces cooperating in?', here we look at the opponent's pieces and ask 'what color squares do my opponents pieces defend?'. If, in our e4 example, Black is defending the dark squares heavily, then you may want to consider a Color strategy on the opposite color, which makes sense because there will be less resistance on that color. Your decision here should be primarily based on the defender's piece placement and your ability to eliminate or neutralize defenders on the color you choose to play on. Also note that Pawns, Bishops and Knights all attack a single color at any one time. Coordination of these pieces and the selection of the proper color to play on is vital to success when using the "B-Method", and is its strength with regard to Color Complexes.

Put to Question (PQ)
The next step we consider is: which opponent's pieces are defending the color squares which we have chosen to occupy/attack from CQ? Here we look for candidate moves that will eliminate or get those pieces entangled or caught up in the action. This is obviously the most difficult part of the B-Method, but given the focus from the previous three questions, this should limit to only a few moves for consideration as candidate moves, the next step.

Candidate Moves (CM)
Your candidate moves are those moves you came up with in the PQ step. Enumerate them and analyze to determine which move meets the needs of the position the best.

Game Move (GM)
The Game move is the move that meets the needs of the position the best from your list of Candidate Moves.

This is, in a very broad nutshell, the B-Method. Is it useful as described above? I think it is, but it will take a certain amount of practice and training to get used to the ideas presented. A good start would be to take a bunch of master games and play the first several moves then do the assessment yourself for both sides, note it, and see how the players follow your ideas. Continue to reassess the position every move or so. Naturally, a better way is to buy all three CDs but I don't want to sound like a Bangiev Shill, but they can be had at the Chessbase Store on the internet.

Happy Chess!

Puzzle

2008-12-27T10:48:00.007-05:00

Highlight below with mouse to see solution:
[ Keres - Kurajica 11.Qxh6+ Kxh6 2.Nxf7+ Kg7 3.Nxd8 1-0]

Pattern Training

2008-11-24T16:12:00.003-05:00

Pattern Training is solving hordes of basic chess positions (2-move and three-move mates, to be exact) as fast as you can. This type of puzzle-solving will train your eye to recognize mating patterns with certain combinations of pieces.

One of the best books to train this method with has to be "Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games" by Laszlo Polgar, father of the Famous Polgar sisters Zsuzsa, Zsófi, and Judit. Start by doing one or two pages a day and increase your solving as much as possible, hopefully getting up to 6 or 7 pages in a day, without too much fatigue. As you progress, you will see that you begin to have 'ah-hah!' moments when you begin to recognize patterns from previous diagrammes already solved.

That is a sure indicator that you are progressing in your tactical, mate-solving training.

Chess Training and Improvement

2008-11-08T08:22:00.002-05:00

Improvement in chess over years is usually related to the frequency of play and the addressing of discovered weaknesses as a result of your losses. One facet that I have discovered is that people tend to get stuck in a method of so-called 'training' and revert back to that method after a series of less-than-spectacular games played on their part. One tends to 'hunker down' and retrain using the same methods they used previously. The unfortunate thing is that those training methods, whatever they were, led to their current predicament, and are thus flawed in some way, were not executed properly, or did not meet the current needs of the player.

One way to address this phenomenon is to make available several
different training methodologies to yourself and rotate from one to
another. This enriches one's chess knowledge and makes available to the player differing perspectives from some of the great chess teachers throughout history. But what does that mean?

Here is a simple example regarding methods of thinking in chess and
how to select candidate moves. I am aware of several methodologies
regarding this process. I list them here:

1) How to Think Like a Grandmaster - Kotov Method
2) How to Choose A Chess Move - Andrew Soltis Method
3) How to Reassess Your Chess - Silman Method
4) B-Method: Squares Strategy - Bangiev Method
5) How to Become an Expert - Purdy Method
6) Chess Praxis - Nimzovich Method
7) Generic Chess Training System (GCTS) - Irina Mikhailova/Author's
method

Chess is an individual game. Because of that, training is almost
exclusively done on one's own. In regards to my own personal chess
training, I developed a hybrid system taken from Irina Mikhailova's
chess articles at Convekta, of CT-ART 3.0 fame. I have also studied
every method above at some point or another, beginning with Chess Praxis by Nimzovich in my chess youth, moving on to Kotov’s famous book, being overwhelmed there, moving on to Silman’s method, and currently engaged in the fourth method, Bangiev's Squares Strategy, which I find the most satisfying to date.

Chess is such a deep game that it requires each individual to become
creative, not only at the board, but also in their training methods,
to keep themselves fresh and their training relevant. This is why having available a rotation of differing methods of training is a must for the aspiring player. Solving tactical puzzles all day long will help you improve, sure, but it will not get you beyond a Category A level of play. True training is required to break that glass ceiling.

Things You Must Do Every Day To Get Better

2008-05-30T09:16:00.002-05:00

Here is a list of chess tasks that should be performed each day if you seek to improve:

1) Review Master Games within your Opening Repertoire
2) Specialization Position Training out of Opening Repertoire
3) Tactics Drills
4) Endgame Studies - R+P(s) vs R+P(s); R+N/B vs. R+N/B; K+P vs. K+P
5) Daily Play - G5, G10, G15. Weekly - At least 1 Standard Time Control Game
6) Review Your Losses!

This list covers all aspects of play: Openings, The Middlegame, Endings, Strategy, Tactics, Play and Review of Games.

#1 will help you develop a sense of the strategical themes in your choice of openings, and what types of positions to expect from those openings. #2, critical positions taken from #1, will help you understand the strategic elements of the opening/middlegame and the transitions into the endgame. #3 will keep your tactical eye fresh - it can get stale. #4 will naturally improve your ability to finish your opponent off and not fear transitioning into a won endgame from an advantageous middlegame. #5 will allow you to test your knowledge and gain feedback from your play. #6 You cannot improve if you do not know your weaknesses!

Efficient Opening Study

2008-05-29T07:37:00.002-05:00

It's no secret here that I am a Chessbase user, and regularly, on a weekely basis, download new games from Mark Crowther's The Week In Chess, probably the best source of current games in the world. Each Monday I take a few minutes to get the new files and import them into Chessbase 8.0.

I recently began reviewing games from the weekly TWIC files in my repertoire, but got tired of setting the filter mask to various ECO codes each time. Out of curiosity, I discovered a really easy method that is virtually instantaneous to gather the games in your customized repertoire for review that I want to share with you. Here is how it works.

The first step you do is create a New...Text document in *any* database. Then, using the menu lists, create search masks for each opening that you have in your repertoire. For example, you might like to play the Ruy Lopez: C60 - C99. Create a search mask for ECO codes C60 to C99 and label it "Ruy Lopez - C60 - C99" or maybe something more specific like "Caro-Kann, Panov-Botvinnik attack". Create as many search masks as you need in this text document and save it into the database.

With this search mask repertiore text file, you have created a template to gather all games that are associated with each search mask. Simply create new blank text documents in each database and copy the original into it and save it into the new database. The search mask applies to the database that the text document is actually in. Therefore, on a weekly basis as the games become available, you can easily copy a previous 'Repertoire Search Mask Text File' into a newly downloaded database and review the games associated with your repertoire very easily.

I hope this helps streamline your study time and helps make chess more enjoyable for all!

Specialization #5

2008-05-29T06:09:00.003-05:00

Here is yet another useful position to play against a computer or another like-strength opponent for practice. It derives from the Grand Prix Attack in the Sicilian Defense:

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb5 Nf6 6.d3 Be7 7.0-0 Diagram

Black to Move

[r1bqk2r/pp2bppp/2n1pn2/1Bpp4/4PP2/2NP1N2/PPP3PP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 7]

Specialization #4

2008-05-17T11:43:00.004-05:00

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.Ne5 Nbd7 7.Nxc4 Qc7 8.g3 e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Bf4 Nfd7 11.Bg2 Diagram

Black has 2 moves here, and both should be investigated thoroughly for some excellent training:

A) 11...f6

B)11...g5

Specialization Position #3

2008-05-11T08:11:00.004-05:00

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 Ne4 7.Qc2 Nc6 8.e3 e5 9.cxd5 Qxd5 Diagram

r1b1k2r/ppp2ppp/2n5/3qp3/3Pn3/P3P3/1PQ2PPP/R1B1KBNR w KQkq - 0 10

Specialization Position #2

2008-05-10T07:29:00.003-05:00

D85

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Nf3 c5 8.Be3 Qa5 9.Qd2 Bg4 Diagram

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/3P4/8/PPP1PPPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq d3 0 1

Specialize the above position for some excellent training. Post any games you played with it here!

Specialization

2008-05-06T05:21:00.007-05:00

Today I want to talk about something called Specialization.

What is Specialization? Online dictionaries carry the definition as "to pursue some special line of study, work, etc.", and that is the definition we mean for the most part. In our chess-world, we want to 'specialize', or study, a fairly common position in chess. By study I mean deeply analyze and play from both sides for an extended number of times until all facets of the position have been revealed. Let's look at an example straight from the Lev Alburt's book "Building Up Your Chess":

Position #1, Black to Move:

[r1bq1rk1/p3bppp/1pn1pn2/4N3/3P4/P1NB4/1P3PPP/R1BQR1K1 b - - 0 12]

This position can, unbelievably, be reached by a whole slew of different openings ranging from Queen's Gambit Declined to The Caro-Kann to The Scandanavian over to the Sicilian Defense and even the Smith-Morra Gambit! It is great practice on the Isolated Queens Pawn and the attack and defending of such a position. It's quite an amazing position to play out and analyze from both sides. It's Steak And Sizzle all in one!

Lev's recommendation here is to analyze out the variations and record them across several sessions, over several hours if necessary. Once you are finished, go over the analysis with a strong computer engine and note where you went wrong. Next, and this is the fun part, set up the position and play an entire series of games from both sides against a stronger opponent or against your favorite computer opponent. G10's are fine for this as the goal is not accurate play but to capture a memory of the types of positions that arise from this configuration, and to see what can happen across several different lines of play from both sides.

Repeat this specialization training with several other positions that arise out of the late opening/early middlegame in GM games that occur within your opening repertoire. Right about now a light has probably gone on in your head - yes! You are actually training for the middlegame and how to handle *types of positions* that can occur in your opening selections.

How cool is that? It's really cool, but even cooler is to use your own games and get to positions (again, late opening/early middlegame is best) in those games and do the same sort of analysis and play from both sides. Being your own games you'll have a better sense of what ideas came to you and you'll be able to better experiment with those ideas in your G10's.

Without a doubt, this training method - Specialization - will be a strong element to any player's training regimen, and it comes highly recommended by GM's and patzers like myself.

For practice, here are two more positions from one of my most recent games.

Position #2, Black to Move:

[r6r/pb2kpp1/1p1bpn1p/1Bq1N3/5P2/8/PPPBQ1PP/2KR3R b - f3 0 17]

Position #3, Black to Move:

[3r1k2/pb3p2/1p2pnN1/2qr2p1/5P1P/2PB4/PP2Q3/1K1R1R2 b - - 0 28]

Review:
1) Spend some quality time analyzing the position out, recording your analysis
2) Review your analysis with a stronger player or strong computer engine
3) Play out several games to the finish from both sides from the given position

Tactics Puzzle

2008-04-08T05:40:00.002-05:00

White to move and win

Highlight for answer:[Khalifman-Ulibin, Sochi 1989 1 Nxe6!! Qxe6 2 Re1 Qe1+(2...Ne5 3 Nxc5; 2...Qf7 3 Re7) 3 Qe1 Bb7 4 Qe6+ ... 1-0]

Idaho Becomes the First to Offer a Statewide Chess Curriculum

2008-03-25T13:05:00.000-05:00

Idaho Becomes the First to Offer a Statewide Chess Curriculum as a Strategy for Learning for All 2nd and 3rd Graders

SEATTLE, WA--(Marketwire - March 25, 2008) - America's Foundation for Chess (AF4C) today announced that Idaho is the first state to approve the use of the First Move™ chess curriculum in all second and third grade classrooms statewide.

"We're thrilled to have the enthusiastic support of the State of Idaho and its school officials who recognize the unique value proposition of chess as an education strategy," said Wendi Fischer, Vice President of America's Foundation for Chess. "We have over 25,000 students using the First Move curriculum across 18 states and the reaction from students, teachers and parents has been outstanding as the benefits extend far beyond the classroom."

Teachers in Idaho state schools will have the opportunity to teach the First Move curriculum as part of their standard in-class program. "The reaction to the pilot program has been excellent and we are looking forward to expanding First Move into more schools this Fall," said Tom Luna, State Superintendent of Education, State of Idaho.

About America's Foundation for Chess

America's Foundation for Chess (AF4C) is a nonprofit organization committed to making chess a larger part of America's educational and cultural fabric. AF4C's unique First Move™ program offers a professionally designed, standards-based class curriculum utilizing the game of chess as a learning tool for all second and third grade students. Integrated as part of the standard classroom curriculum, the program is designed to support teachers' existing academic, social and emotional goals for their students. Students learn to make better choices by thinking ahead, thinking analytically, and thinking of consequences: essential life skills. The First Move™ program has nearly 25,000 student enrollees and is rapidly expanding across America so that it will soon become a regular part of every child's classroom experience. AF4C's national office is located in Kirkland, Washington. For more information visit www.AF4C.org

Support Gata's Quest for the World Championship

2008-03-07T06:09:00.003-05:00

March 3, 2008

There is nothing more exciting for U.S. chess than Gata Kamsky's run for the World Championship. Later this year, Gata will face former world champion Veselin Topalov of Bulgaria in a match, while current world champion, India's Viswanathan Anand, defends his title against his predecessor, Vladimir Kramnik of Russia. Victory against Topalov will mean a title match for Gata in 2009. Read Gata's own Chess Life annotations from his World Cup win in the March Chess Life Magazine.

This will be Gata's third attempt to climb the Olympus of chess. In 1993, the rival organisations FIDE and PCA each held Interzonal tournaments. Kamsky qualified from both, and proceeded to wipe out one top GM after another in the two parallel world championship cycles. As FIDE attempted to establish a successor to the title vacated by the formation of the PCA by Garry Kasparov and Nigel Short, Gata decisively defeated Anand, 6-4 (on the Indian's home turf!), and two others in matches before finally succumbing to Anatoly Karpov, 7.5-10.5, in their 1996 FIDE World Championship match.

In the PCA cycle, Gata demolished first Kramnik, 4.5-1.5, and then Short, 5.5-1.5, before Anand avenged the above-mentioned defeat, 6.5-4.5.

Gata needs YOUR help. Preparing properly for his high-caliber match with Topalov is an expensive proposition. Bulgarian support for Topalov has been strong, and our support for Gata will need to match theirs. To that end, the Gata Kamsky International Chess and Sports Foundation has been established, and is in the process of securing 501(c)3 status. Donations can be made to:

The Gata Kamsky International Chess and Sports Foundation,
P.O. Box 204,
Massapequa Park, NY 11762.

The USCF fully endorses the foundation and urges you to donate whatever you can to this effort. Let's help Gata continue Bobby Fischer's legacy!

Grand Prix Participants Announced

2008-03-04T15:38:00.002-05:00

Today, FIDE has published the list of confirmed participants for the first Grand Prix series. Kramnik, Anand, Topalov and Morozevich are not playing, but still the average rating is above 2700.


 Svidler Peter RUS 2763 
 Mamedyarov Shakhriyar AZE 2760 
 Leko Peter HUN 2753 
 Ivanchuk Vassily UKR 2751 
 Aronian Levon ARM 2739 
 Gelfand Boris ISR 2737 
 Radjabov Teimour AZE 2735 
 Carlsen Magnus NOR 2733 
 Karjakin Sergey UKR 2732 
 Adams Michael ENG 2726 
 Kamsky Gata USA 2726 
 Jakovenko Dmitry RUS 2720 
 Cheparinov Ivan BUL 2713 
 Grischuk Alexander RUS 2711 
 Bacrot Etienne FRA 2700 
 Wang Yue CHN 2698 
 Inarkiev Ernesto RUS 2681 
 Navara David CZE 2680 
 Gashimov Vugar AZE 2665 
 Pelletier Yannick SWZ 2600 
 Al Modiahki Mohamad QTR 2569 

Average rating: 2709

Tactics Puzzle

2008-03-04T06:08:00.002-05:00

Black to move and win

King and Pawn endgame

2008-03-01T21:07:00.003-05:00

Can black hold or win this position?

Black to move.

Fischer Videos

2008-02-28T06:35:00.002-05:00

Dick Cavett Interview

Psychology in Chess

2008-02-20T11:11:00.006-05:00

The Psychology of Chess

Napoleon Hill, well-known author of various personal achievement books like "Think and Grow Rich!", expounds on some very clear psychological ideas that can be related to chess training in meaningful ways. This article attempts to make some useful correlations between personal achievement and the progression one makes in chess training and performance.

Definiteness of Purpose
Definiteness of Purpose is the starting point of all achievement. A lack of definiteness of purpose is the stumbling block for about 98% of all people who do not achieve their goals for the simple reason that the never clearly define their goals and start towards them.
What does that mean in the context of chess performance and chess training? Performance in modern chess is depicted in the useful ELO rating scale as somewhat a rough indicator. It is, if you will, the 'money' of chess. If, for instance, you are determined, motivated, and obsessed with reaching a rating of 2000 but are currently sitting at 1600, you have given yourself a definiteness of purpose. you have defined your goal - USCF 2000 rating. Keep your eye on the prize!

At this point, assuming you are a 1600 player, we will want to write down a six-step method of achieving your goal of a rating of 2000:

First - Fix in your mind the exact Rating you wish to achieve. Be definite. "I want to be over 1700." is not definite. " I will be rated 2000." is definite.

Second - Determine exactly what it is you intend to give in return for that goal. "I will train 2 hours a day to achieve my goal."

Third - Determine a definite date by which you intend to achieve this goal. "I will achieve a rating of 2000 by End of Year, 2009."

Fourth - Create a definite plan for carrying out your goal, and begin at once, ready or not. Put your plan into action. "I will do chess-related studies for 2 hours a day to include tactical exercises and endgames. I will play every day and review my losses to address the deficiencies in my play. I will play in at least one rated standard time control event per month."

Fifth - Write out a clear and concise statement of the rating you wish to achieve, name the time limit for it's acquisition, state what you intend to give in return, and describe clearly the plan through which you intend to gain that rating.

Sixth - Read your written statement aloud, twice daily, once just before retiring at night and once after arising in the morning. As you read, see and feel and believe yourself already in possession of that rating! This is important as you are giving yourself reinforcement and impressing your brain with the idea, which will lead to autosuggestion.

With regards to training, a definiteness of purpose may be to perform concentrated studies each day for 2 hours (or, for that matter, any timeframe so long as you stick to it). Our useful GCTS (Generic Chess Training Schedule) paradigm, used in conjunction with a strong psychological approach outlined above, will lead you to improved play and the achievment of milestones and long-term goals such as rating increases and a better understanding of chess.

Here is an example of an action plan statement (section Five) for a 1600 rated player with a goal set at 2000 within 2 years. I have placed the step number to indicate which part of the action plan this portion refers to:

[1-the goal]: "I will be rated 2000."
[2-what you'll give]: "I will train 2 hours a day to achieve my goal."
[3-the date]: "I will achieve a rating of 2000 by End of Year, 2009."
[4-The plan]: "I will do chess-related studies for 2 hours a day to include tactical exercises and endgames. I will play every day and review my losses to address the deficiencies in my opening, middlegame, tactical and endgame play. I will play in at least one (or more) rated standard time control events per month (online or OTB)."

Now it would pay to do a detailed look at what it is you are stating here. You are essentially saying that in about 23 months from today, February 2008, ending in December 2009, that your goal is to increase your rating by 400 points. This might seem insurmountable to some, but let's break it down into smaller pieces, called milestones or short-term goals.

Would it make it more reasonable to say that you could bring your current rating of 1600 up to, say, 1618, by the end of February? And by the end of March 2008 to 1635? Those monthly milestones seem very reachable to you now, don't they? Having some experience in this method, I'd say that if you stuck to your plan for 1 month you'd see a dramatic improvement in your tactical abilities, resulting in improved play, and hence, an increase in rating. As you progress and improve, your confidence will build, and your ability to have faith and believe in your plan will take shape.
It's important to have a clear, concise vision of what you are trying to achieve as well as the steps you have to walk to achieve your goals.

No mountain climber ever got to the top of Everest sipping coffee with a sherpa at base camp just thinking about it.

Tactics Puzzle

2008-02-05T20:03:00.000-05:00

Find the correct winning continuation for Black.

Answer tommorrow.

FIDE Grand Prix Events

2008-02-04T20:14:00.000-05:00

Mark Crowther writes for The Week In Chess:

The winner of the Grand Prix will play with the winner of the 2009 World Cup for the right to challenge the World Champion in 2010. Each Tournament will be a 14 player all play all. 14 players have the right to compete in the circuit and they have to play 4 of the 6 events (there will be local players too), these will be allocated to them. Below are the details as announced. It will be interesting to see who signs up for this event, my bet is that a number of the top players won't. This was supposed to be a held on different continents but the majority are being held in Europe. Secondly the presence of reserve cities suggests that some of these venues are not certain. Of course there is a certain chicken and egg situation, getting sponsors for the events without the players having signed up will be hard (they could end up with a distinct 2nd string) and the players won't sign up without venues being in place. Things will no doubt be easier if they do get this first series off the ground. They'll be nice events if they take place, I'm a big fan of all-play-alls but I've become quite cynical about announcements such as these.

FIDE Grand Prix 2008-9
Baku AZE April 20th - May 6th 2008
Krasnoyarsk * RUS July 30th - August 15th 2008
Doha QAT December 13th - 29th, 2008
Montreux SUI April 14th - 28th, 2009
Elista RUS August 1st - 17th, 2009
Karlovy Vary CZE December 7th - 23rd, 2009
* or other Russian city.
Reserve cities are Istanbul and Teheran.

Grand Prix 2008-9 Qualified Players
No Name NAT YroB Ja08
1 Kramnik, Vladimir RUS 1975 2799
2 Anand, Viswanathan IND 1969 2799
3 Topalov, Veselin BUL 1975 2780
4 Morozevich, Alexander RUS 1977 2765
5 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyaz AZE 1985 2760
6 Shirov, Alexei ESP 1972 2755
7 Leko, Peter HUN 1979 2753
8 Ivanchuk, Vassily UKR 1969 2751
9 Aronian, Levon ARM 1982 2739
10 Gelfand, Boris ISR 1968 2737
11 Radjabov, Teimour AZE 1987 2735
12 Carlsen, Magnus NOR 1990 2733
13 Karjakin, Sergey UKR 1990 2732
14 Kamsky, Gata USA 1974 2726
Reserves
1 Adams, Michael ENG 1971 2726
2 Svidler, Peter RUS 1976 2763
3 Polgar, Judit HUN 1976 2707
4 Grischuk, Alexander RUS 1983 2711

Grand Prix 2008-9 Prizes Each Event
Place EUR Points
1 30,000 140 + 40 bonus
2 22,500 130 + 20
3 20,000 120 + 10
4 15,000 110
5 12,500 100
6 11,000 90
7 10,000 80
8 8,500 70
9 7,500 60
10 6,000 50
11 5,500 40
12 5,000 30
13 4,500 20
14 4,000 10

Grand Prix 2008-9
Prizes for Final Standings
(Best three events)
Pl Prize (Euros)
1st 75,000
2nd 50,000
3rd 40,000
4th 30,000
5th 25,000
6th 20,000
7th 18,000
8th 16,000
9th 14,000
10th 12,000

Useful Observations

2008-02-02T18:59:00.000-05:00

Here are some useful observations for those of you out there trying to complete the Seven Circles tactical training suggested by De La Maza. I not so much discovered these, but rather suffered in their absence.

Observation #1: Stay true to the number of puzzles you solve each day AND the amount of time you take to solve them.

For example, for the first 64 days, you are asked to solve 16 tactical puzzles each day with the puzzles getting more difficult as the days go by. Now 16 tactical puzzles can be completed in a matter of minutes if they are the garden variety 2-move mates and such. But as you get through your problem set and they become more difficult, you'll find that it takes longer and longer to truly solve the 16 puzzles. My advice is to not fret and have the answers handy to be disclosed to you. This is not *cheating* because, and remember this, you are training your tactical eye, and that is the entire purpose of these drills. It does you no good to sit and dwell over a puzzle for 5 minutes. Look up the answer and move on.

You essentially want to try and solve each puzzle in the same amount of time, no more. My advice is to give yourself at most 1 minute on each puzzle. That way, you'll be solving all of them for that day in under 20 minutes, then in about 30 minutes, then in about an hour, etc.

Observation #2: Play at least three blitz each day.

Blitz is essentially all tactics, for the most part. Play on a rated server like ICC or Playchess so your rating is tracked. Hopefully You'll begin to see improvement as you advance through the Seven Circles in your blitz play.

Good Training and Good Luck!

Is the United States Chess Federation in Trouble?

2008-01-31T15:16:00.000-05:00

Is the United States Chess Federation in Trouble?

By Dylan Loeb McClain

A statement from a meeting about the finances of the United States Chess Federation was posted over the weekend on the federation’s Web forum by Bill Goichberg, the president of the federation. In the statement, Goichberg talked about the federation’s finances, saying they are not in good shape and the federation is projected to run a significant deficit (significant from the federation’s standpoint as it does not have much in the way of financial reserves and its revenues are about $3 million a year).

Full Story Here.

The Seven Circles (of HELL)

2008-01-30T13:08:00.001-05:00

I have embarked on completion of the Seven Circles of Hell - the tactical marathon recommended by Michael de la Maza in "Rapid Chess Improvement". I do not possess CT-ART 3.0, so I am using a good old-fashioned paperback book to complete this hell race called "Sharpen Your Tactics" by Anatoly Lein and Boris Archangelsky.

The book is structured in a manner that the problems start off relatively simple with obvious 2-move mates and increase in difficulty to more complex tactical ideas. The number of problems in the book is 1125 - more than the 1000 that is necessary. They are also all positions taken for real games, yet another requirement met.

Why am I doing this?

If you saw my blitz play you'd not be asking me that question...

In any event, I am also doing the Chess Vision Drills as well. I marked a deck of cards a1 through h8 on one side and the square color on the other side for that drill, as well as doing the Forks and Skewers, Knight Flight, and Pawn Grab drills daily for a couple weeks. I just need the practice.

Future Event: The hotel is booked so I hope to see you at me next event - The Eastern CLass Championships in beautiful Sturbridge, Massachusetts.

[RANT ON]
I figure with McCain winning *as a republican* (excuse me, I think I threw up a little bit in my throat) in Florida, anything can happen...I best spend my money now, 'cuz if that nutjob gets in (or any OTHER Democrat, for that matter), they will be taking more and more from me to 'redestribute' across this great country...

God help us...socialism is alive and well in America.
[RANT OFF]

There. I feel better now. Better take my meds...

Interactive Chess TV - ChessVista

2008-01-30T12:58:00.000-05:00

ChessVista News

DGT and UEP in Interactive Chess TV

30.01.2008 While Anand and Kramnik were playing their last serious game (Corus Chess 2008, round 13 on Sunday 27 January) before the World Chess Championship Match to be held in October 2008 in Bonn, DGT (Digital Game Technology) and UEP (Universal Event Promotion) have signed a declaration of intent to develop Interactive Chess TV. The signing and the celebration took place in Café De Moriaan, fifty meters from the Anand vs Kramnik fight, in Wijk aan Zee (Netherlands). The expected amount to invest is ranging from 250 thousand to 300 thousand euro. It is a first next step in bringing chess to the people. ‘We expect to attract a new group of chess public’. DGT and UEP want to broadcast the World Chess Championship Match via Interactive Chess TV. ‘We need a 5000+ audience who on Pay per View basis will be witness of this chess event’. Report by Frits Agterdenbos.

Full Article here.

Corus Photos by Fred Lucas

2008-01-29T07:03:00.000-05:00

At Chessbase there is a wonderful photo collection from Corus by Fred Lucas. Put some faces to those famous names in the international chess newsreel!

Enjoy!

Chinese Invade Gibraltar!

2008-01-28T07:40:00.000-05:00

The Chinese have taken over the 6th Gibtelecom Chess Festival.

GM's Xiangzhi Bu (5.5/6) and Hao Wang (5/6) currently sit atop the leaderboard after 6 rounds in this strong event. American Hopeful GM Hikaru Nakamura, who lost in round 4 to IM Zong-Yuan Zhao, sits in 24th at 4/6.

Live games here.

2008 Gibtelecom Chess Festival

2008-01-24T09:05:00.000-05:00

2008 Gibtelecom Chess Festival

The 6th edition of Gibraltar's Gibtelecom Chess Festival takes place from 22-31 January 2008 at the Caleta Hotel, one of Gibraltar's best hotels. Live games can be seen here.

Several USA players are present, including GM Hikaru Nakamura, GM Varuzhan Akobian, IM Joseph Bradford, and FM Michael Langer in the Masters Section.

A Perfect Tribute to Bobby Fischer

2008-01-22T12:21:00.000-05:00

I find the following tribute to Robert James Fischer the single most relevent thing you could ever say about the man, given all the circumstances of his life, his mental illness, and his confrontation with self:

Tim Krabbé (Tim Krabbé's Open Chess Diary):

If chess is still played ten thousand years from now, Bobby Fischer will be the only player of our times who matters.

Gary Kasparov on Bobby Fischer

2008-01-22T11:39:00.000-05:00

With the death of Bobby Fischer chess has lost one of its greatest figures. Fischer’s status as world champion and celebrity came from a charismatic and combative personality matched with unstoppable play. I recall thrilling over the games of his 1972 Reykjavik world championship match against Boris Spassky when I was nine years old. The American had his share of supporters in the USSR even then, and not only for his chess prowess. His outspokenness and individuality also earned him the quiet respect of many of my compatriots.

Fischer’s beautiful chess and his immortal games will stand forever as a central pillar in the history of our game. And the story of the Brooklynite iconoclast’s rise from prodigy to world champion has few peers for drama. Apart from a brief and peculiar reappearance in 1992, Bobby Fischer’s chess career ended in 1972. After conquering the chess Olympus he was unable to find a new target for his power and passion.

Fischer’s relentless energy exhausted everything it touched – the resources of the game itself, his opponents on and off the board, and, sadly, his own mind and body. While we can never entirely separate the deeds from the man, I would prefer to speak of his global achievements instead of his inner tragedies. It is with justice that he spent his final days in Iceland, the site of his greatest triumph. There he has always been loved and seen in the best possible way: as a chessplayer.

Garry Kasparov
Moscow – January 18, 2008

Strategic Planning - Knights and bases of Operation

2008-01-21T18:00:00.000-05:00

Knights and Bases of Operation

Knights like to reside centrally, immune from attack by enemy pawns. A centrally placed knight protected from such attack could be considered as good as a Rook in many positions. In contrast, the poor positioning of a Knight can be an important detriment strategically as the well-placed Knight. Of course, poor-placed pieces naturally seek to improve their standing as soon as possible, but taking advantage of your opponent's misplaced knight is as important a strategic idea as finding squares for your own pieces.

Here the great Alekhine demostrates the strategic importance of centrally-placed Knights and the strategic detriment of poorly placed Knights:

Here alekhine proceeds to improve his Knight placement methodically with
15...Bxg3 16.hxg3 Ne7 17.b4 Qd7 18.Nc2 Ned5 19.Na3 b5 20.axb5 axb5 21.Qe2 c6 22.Nc2 Qf5 23.Rfc1 h6 24.Ra5 Rec8 25.Na1 Ng4 Diagram

And the end came swiftly:
26.Kf1 Re6 27.Rxb5 Rf6 28.Rcc5 Nxf2 29.Ke1 Nd3+ 30.Kd1 Qf1+ 31.Be1 Rf2! Diagram
0-1

This is a good example of contrast between well-placed and poorly managed Knights.

Strategic Planning - Minority Attack

2008-01-21T17:56:00.000-05:00

Let's begin first with a definition of what a Minority Attack is. No - it is not Knights and Bishops ganging up on pawns, or Rooks beating a Bishop back to a1. A Minority Attack is when one side has less pawns on the wing in question and proceeds to advance those pawns in an effort to attack the opposing pawn majority. This is the basic idea behind the Minority Attack.

Classical Goals

From a purely classical point of view, the Minority Attack was somewhat nonexistent up until the 1920's where mechanical methods mostly decided what strategic ideas were possible in a position. Once the usefulness of the Minority Attack became evident, things changed for both sides. These things were, given the Minority Attack on the Queenside from White's perspective:

Weakness of c4, and sometimes e4

When White, the Minority, advances his b-pawn to b4, this leaves a distinctive hole on c4 begging for a Black Knight to come and perch. Black would then strive to: a) exchange the light-squared bishops, and b) attempt to place a Knight on c4 via b6 or d6 (or both). White would, of course, try to counter those plans. Black, by playing a6 to prevent b5, has some problems as well. It weakens the square b6 directly and c5 indirectly, given that if black proceeds with b6 (to strengthen c5), then the a6-pawn could come under assault. As is said, "All pawn moves create weaknesses".

Prevention of b4-b5 by black via b5; followed by the placement of a Knight on c4

This method of countering the Minority Attack has a very simple precept: b5 should not be played by Black until White has commited his b-pawn to b4. Black's main task in these positions is to occupy c4 with a Knight to block major-piece assaults on the c-file. White can attack with a Knight on e5 and an eventual e4 push, and a Bishop on f3 perhaps. You can clearly see here that the focus for White is the c6-pawn, the weakness Black created by playing b5. To say the least, this is a dangerous way to play, and Black must be sure he can defend all his weaknesses or obtains compensation in some order for this plan to materialize positively for him.

The transfer of the d5 pawn by black to e4 via a Knight exchange.

In this type of position, Black's new pawn formation somewhat cramps white on the kingside, offers attacking chances to Black, and gives him a nice outpost on d5 for a piece. On the other hand, Black relinquishes control of c4 - a vital point for him in the Minority Attack on the queenside. White will attempot the advance b4-b5, potentially obtaining a passed d-pawn after Black plays c6xb5. Obviously, Black will have his best chances with piece-play because of the pawn structure and the potential of a kingside attack, otherwise, White will make good on his advantage on the queenside advance. Pachman goes so far as to give piece combinations and who stands better, in a very general sense:

White: Q, 2R, N vs Black: Q, 2R, B (white squared); White has good chances
White: Q, 2R, N, B vs Black: Q, 2R, N, B (white squared); White has good chances
White: Q, 2R, N vs Black: Q, 2R, N; Black has better chances

I hope this little summary of the Minority Attack whets your appetite for strategic thinking. Being aware of basic strategic themes and how to handle them will take you a long way in finding the correct plan in a position. Often it becomes a matter of who 'knows' how to handle a strategic element in a game that can get the advantage over their opponent. Being aware of the ins and outs of the Minority Attack is important in that regard.

Robert James Fischer, Dead at 64

2008-01-19T09:59:00.000-05:00

On January 18th, 2008, Robert James Fischer, the greatest Chessplayer and Grandmaster the world has ever known, passed away. He was 64.

In memoriam, I'd like to post some uTube videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR7IWI4Rh1w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht-OqiuWVMk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZedhMvtsiXI

Bobby's Chess was both a boon, in presence, and a bane, in absence, to the world. I am one of the thousands of young chess players in the early 70's to catch fire from this enigma of a man, a hero to me in my youth, living in a suburb of Boston. I keep those memories and do not allow them to mature past the early 70's into something diseased, as it were.

His chess will always be remembered by me, and nothing else.

Back from a 3-month Layoff

2008-01-17T16:11:00.000-05:00

Hi all,

After a Chess Hiatus for 3 months, I hope to get back to contributing to this blog on a semi-regular basis. It's good to step away from the game for a short time to refresh oneself when needed, and I needed it after some grueling studying and some disappointing performances at the board.

I want to kick this off by asking readers/bloggers what methods they use to train with when they use a computer opponent like Fritz8 or something similar.

Comments Welcome!

2007 FIDE World Cup entries

2007-10-01T08:45:00.001-05:00

Here is the list of current entries to the 2007 FIDE World Cup to be held from the 23d of November to the 18th of December 2007, in Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia:

a) From World Championship Tournament 2007:

* CURRENT WORLD CHAMPION from MEXICO - 1. V. Anand (IND) - is replaced from the FIDE average rating list 7/2006 & 1/2007
2. A. Morozevich (RUS)
3. P. Leko (HUN)
4. L. Aronian (ARM)
5. P. Svidler (RUS)
6. B. Gelfand (ISR)
7. A. Grischuk (RUS)
* The 8th player - V. Kramnik - is replaced from the FIDE average rating list 7/2006 & 1/2007.

b) Women's World Champion 2006:
8. Xu Yuhua (CHN)

c) Junior World Champion 2006:
9. Z. Andriasian (ARM)

d) From FIDE Rating List, 21 players (20 qualifiers + replacement of GM Kramnik), average 7/2006 & 1/2007:

10. S. Mamedyarov (AZE) 2738,00
11. M. Adams (ENG) 2733,50
12. T. Radjabov (AZE) 2728,50
13. R. Ponomariov (UKR) 2722,00
14. D. Navara (CZE) 2719,00
15. J. Polgar (HUN) 2718,50
16. A. Shirov (ESP) 2715,50
17. V. Akopian (ARM) 2706,50
18. E. Bacrot (FRA) 2706,00
19. G. Kamsky (USA) 2701,00
20. L. Nisipeanu (ROM) 2692,50
21. K. Sasikiran (IND) 2687,50
22. N. Short (ENG) 2683,50
23. M. Carlsen (NOR) 2682,50
24. L. Van Wely (NED) 2679,00
25. D. Jakovenko (RUS) 2679,00
26. S. Karjakin (UKR) 2678,50
27. P. Harikrishna (IND) 2677,50
28. R. Kasimdzhanov (UZB) 2677,00
29. F. Vallejo Pons (ESP) 2676,50
30. V. Malakhov (RUS) 2676,50

e) 45 players from the European Championships 2006 & 2007:
31. Z. Kozul (CRO) 2006
32. V. Ivanchuk (UKR) 2006
33. Kir. Georgiev (BUL) 2006
34. A. Naiditsch (GER) 2006
35. Z. Izoria (GEO) 2006
36. E. Inarkiev (RUS) 2006
37. P. Nikolic (BIH) 2006
38. V. Belov (RUS) 2006
39. B. Macieja (POL) 2006
40. D. Baramidze (GER) 2006
41. R. Mamedov (AZE) 2006
42. L. Fressinet (FRA) 2006
43. Cs. Balogh (HUN) 2006
44. M. Gurevich (TUR) 2006
45. Em. Berg (SWE) 2006
46. M. Gagunashvili (GEO) 2006
47. V. Tkachiev (FRA) 2007
48. E. Sutovsky (ISR) 2007
49. D. Pavasovic (SLO) 2007
50. I. Cheparinov (BUL) 2007
51. K. Sakaev (RUS) 2007
52. A. Iljin (RUS) 2007
53. A. Volokitin (UKR) 2007
54. J. Gustafsson (GER) 2007
55. E. Tomashevsky (POL) 2007
56. Z. Almasi (HUN) 2007
57. A. Galkin (RUS) 2007
58. V. Laznicka (CZE) 2007
59. V. Nevednichy (ROM) 2007
60. K. Landa (RUS) 2007
61. S. Volkov (RUS) 2007
62. N. Vitiugov (RUS) 2007
63. P. Eljanov (UKR) 2007
64. B. Avrukh (ISR) 2007
65. M. Roiz (ISR) 2007
66. A. Iljushin (RUS) 2007
67. A. Motylev (RUS) 2007
68. R. Markus (SRB) 2007
69. S. Tiviakov (NED) 2007
70. B. Socko (POL) 2007
71. E. Najer (RUS) 2007
72. G. Gajewski (POL) 2007
73. M. Rodshtein (ISR) 2007
74. A. Khalifman (RUS) 2007
75. V. Georgiev (MKD) 2007

f) 19 players from the Zonals and Continetal of Americas:

76. A. Shabalov (USA) Zonal 2.1
77. A. Onischuk (USA) Zonal 2.1
78. G. Kaidanov (USA) Zonal 2.1
79. Y. Shulman (USA) Zonal 2.1
80. J. Becerra Rivero (USA) Zonal 2.1
81. L. Dominguez Perez (CUB) Zonal 2.3
82. L. Bruzon (CUB) Zonal 2.3
83. G. Milos (BRA) Zonal 2.4
84. R. Leitao (BRA) Zonal 2.4
85. D. Flores (ARG) Zonal 2.5
86. J. Hobaica (ARG) Zonal 2.5
87. J. Granda Zuniga (PER) Continental
88. A. Ivanov (USA) Continental
89. V. Akobian (USA) Continental
90. D. Lima (BRA) Continental
91. E. Iturrizaga (VEN) Continental
92. F. Peralta (ARG) Continental
93. E. Matsuura (BRA) Continental
94. I. Zugic (CAN) Zonal 2.2

f) 19 players from the Zonals and Continental of Asia/Oceania:
95. S. Ganguly (IND) Zonal 3.2
96. Le Quang Liem (VIE) Zonal 3.3
97. Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son (VIE) Zonal 3.3
98. Bu Xiangzhi (CHN) Zonal 3.5
99. Wang Yue (CHN) Zonal 3.5
100. Z. Zhao (AUS) Zonal 3.6
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.

h) 6 players from the Continent of Africa:
114. R. Gwaze (ZIM) Continental
115. P. Aderito (ANG) Continental
116. E. El Gindy (EGY) Continental
117. B. Amin (EGY) Continental
118. A. Adly (EGY) Continental
119. K. Abdel Razik (EGY) Continental

i) 5 nominees of the FIDE President:
120. S. Rublevsky (RUS)
121. E. Bareev (RUS)
122. S. Zhigalko (BLR)
123. Z. Rahman (BAN)
124.

j) 4 nominees of the local Organising Committee:
125.
126.
127.
128.

Total = 128 players

Vishwanathan Anand crowned World Chess Champion!

2007-10-01T08:06:00.000-05:00

And "the argument" has started already, and I will give a piece about both sides of "the argument" later, and explain why it matters not to either side.

Congratulations to Vishy Anand for a tremendous tournament. Congrats also go out to Gelfand for a strong performance, and Vladimir Kramnik for some great late-tournament chess to capture second place.

The Finer Points of the World Chess Championship

2007-09-28T16:32:00.000-05:00

Here is how the cycle will work through 2009:

The Winner of the World Chess Championship 2007 in Mexico ("MEXWinner") is crowned the current champion. The winner of The World Cup 2007, November 23 to December 16 the city of Khanty-Mansyisk, Russia, ("CUP2007Winner") plays Topalov in a "Challenger's Match". We will call the winner of this match the "CMWinner".

If MEXWinner is NOT Kramnik:
Kramnik plays MEXWinner in World Chess Championship match in 2008, known as "WCWinner". This satisfies the rematch clause for the former champion. In 2009, WCWinner plays CMWinner for the World Chess Championship of 2009.

If MEXWinner IS Kramnik:
Topalov plays Kramnik in a World Chess Championship match for 2008 ("WCWinner"). In 2009, CUP2007Winner plays WCWinner for the 2009 World Chess Championship.

Subsequently, the challenger for the world championship will be determined in a match between the winner of the FIDE World Cup and the new Grand Prix series.

Source: ChessBase

WCC2007: Round 12 - Kramnik Awakens

2007-09-28T06:35:00.000-05:00

"Only he, who penetrates into the depth of the game, can express his personality in it."

-- Vladimir Kramnik

Round 12 at the WCC2007 saw no less than 3 of 4 games decided. Vladimir Kramnik, whom apparently reads this blog and my semi-scathing remarks on his 13-mover in round 11, found his cajones for round 12 and defeated Leko in a Closed Catalan. Unfortunately for the champ, Gelfand defeated Aronian via the Semi-Slav, to maintain his 1-point lead over Kramnik for 2nd place. Morozevich defeated Grischuk with an English Four Knights, and Svidler - Anand ended in a draw out of an Anti-Marshall Closed Ruy Lopez.

Mathematically, Gelfand (-1 off the lead) and Kramnik (-1.5 off the lead) are still in the hunt should Anand somehow lose both his remaining games. Today will see a defining game between Gelfand and Kramnik that will most likely decide 2nd place. Grischuk - Anand will probably be a flacid draw - Anand not willing to further risk anything for the Championship. Hopefully the other two contests will live up to the hype of the event!

Chessbase Express Report

Components of Positional Evaluation

2007-09-27T10:31:00.000-05:00

Our Goal is to try and answer these questions:
"how to acquire a firm knowledge of the basics of chess strategy: How a position's evaluation is developed and what are its components"

The actual answers are simple enough:

"White is better."
"Position is unclear."
"Black has a slight advantage."
"The Position is equal."
etc., etc.

These are all evaluations of a chess position. Each one of these assessments carries with it both short-term and long-term components. Examples of short-term components (components you need to address each move) are the placement of pieces, of pawns, and the construction of a reasonable plan ("I want to mate my opponent" is an example of an unreasonable plan). Examples of long-term components are open/closed positional decisions, queen-trades, material, do you trade into an endgame, where to place your king, exchange sacrifices, when and where to attack your opponent, to name several.

Strategic considerations also come into play such as minority attacks, isolated queen-pawns, open files, weak/strong squares, color complexes, initiative, dynamism, etc., many of the things we outlined when talking about 'classic' strategic theory vs. 'modern' strategic theory.

All these components, taken collectively, allow one to arrive at an evaluation of the position.

But *how* do you evaluate a chess position? I'd love to hear from you and how you evaluate positions at the board. Please also post your rating category.

Source: Chess Cafe

WCC 2007

2007-09-27T07:33:00.000-05:00

After a rest day on Wednesday, September 27th, the eight contestants enter into the final leg of the World Chess Championships for 2007. The final three games are to be played Thursday, Friday and Saturday, with tiebreaks on Sunday if necessary. It would be of great surprise if Sunday is necessary to decide anything, as Vishwanathan Anand leads the tournament with a score of 7.5/11, a full 1.5 points ahead of Boris Gelfand with three rounds to play. Short of a total collapse by Anand, or 3-0 finale by Gelfand, we will be crowning a new World Chess Champion come Sunday evening.

Disappointment

Being a vocal Kramnik fan (I was smitten during his match against Leko for reasons still unknown to me), I can only express disappointment over his 35-minute, 13-move draw Tuesday against Alexander Grischuk. Given the circumstances of the standings Tuesday, a quick draw was the furthest thing that should have been from Kramnik's mind, even at the risk of 'insulting' a fellow countrymen. Grischuk, having just lost to Levon Aronian the round before, cannot be faulted for offering the draw. However, Kramnik, defending World Champion, must be scolded for accepting the offer. The position was hardly 'dead', with weaknesses in White's queenside with isolated doubled pawns and bishops of the same color, there was certainly something to play for, given the current standings. This is another example of contestants not giving it their all in the public arena of competition. It's very unfortunate to witness such weak-willed play from one of the top players in the world - and current reigning World Champion.

Kramnik will now need to prove something to us all and capture second place outright over the final three rounds. Anything less makes even a bigger mockery of the current W.C.C. cycle and puts no arguments to rest whatsoever. It will be hard to justify - regardless of contracts and FIDE obligations to the contrary - having Kramnik play Anand next year in a match for the W.C.C., even as much as I'd like to see it happen (it will). This was the glaring fault of having a tournament to determine the World Champion - with the current champion participating - instead of having it be the final test for a challenger to take Kramnik on in a match. But, business as usual for FIDE - live and don't learn - appears to be the creed.

The Tsar’s Opponent

2007-09-27T07:30:00.000-05:00

The Tsar’s Opponent
Garry Kasparov takes aim at the power of Vladimir Putin

by David Remnick
On a recent summer evening, the greatest player in the history of chess, Garry Kasparov, wrapped up an exhausting series of meetings devoted to the defeat of the Kremlin regime. After days of debate, a motley pride of unlikely revolutionaries – bearded politicos, earnest academics, and multigrained environmentalists – collected their cigarettes and left Kasparov’s apartment, divided and worn out. Little had been accomplished. Crumpled drafts of fevered proclamations lay scattered on the kitchen table. Puffy-eyed and unsmiling, Kasparov grunted a curt farewell to his comrades and went off to make yet another urgent telephone call.
Kasparov is forty-four. He was the world chess champion for fifteen years. Until his retirement, two years ago, his dominance was unprecedented. Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer – none came close. Chess has outsized meaning in Russia, and Kasparov at home was a cross between the greatest of athletes and a revered intellectual. Now he has volunteered for grim and, very likely, futile duty. As the most conspicuous leader of Drugaya Rossiya (the Other Russia), an umbrella group of liberals, neo-Bolsheviks, and just about anyone else wishing to speak ill of Vladimir Putin.

Full Story

Recent Game

2007-09-22T13:29:00.000-05:00

Black to move

Here Black played 55...Rxa2?? 56.Qf8+! Kd7 57.Qf7+ Kd8 58.Bb6+ 1-0. Black could have prolonged the game with the simple 55...Qg4+ but it seems that White's bishop pair will eventually succeed.

Ubisoft Announces Chess Instruction Games

2007-08-10T15:49:00.000-05:00

Ubisoft Announces Chess Instruction Games
Learn how to play chess, or people will laugh at you.
by Ryan Geddes
August 10, 2007 - Two chess instruction games are on the way from Ubisoft - a portable version for the Nintendo DS as well as a PC version.

Chessmaster: The Art of Learning for the DS and Chessmaster: Grandmaster Edition for the PC are scheduled for an October release.

Both games feature Josh Waitzkin, International Master and eight-time National Chess Champion, who teaches the fundamentals of the game and walks players through chess courses and tutorials.

The DS version will include multiplayer wireless modes and six original minigames, including the mildly disturbing-sounding "Fork My Fruit."

Players will also have access to 900 of the world's most important chess games, which are analyzed to help players improve their tactics.

Moving On...

2007-08-10T07:52:00.000-05:00

Today I want to throw some thoughts out on selection of your Opening Repertoire and when you might want to consider changing your selection of openings based on results and perceived style. At the end of this short discourse I have listed a few links that might be interesting to those who want to pursue this subject further.

As you may know (Or no know if you are not a reader of this blog), my current repertoire consists of 1.e4 heading towards a Ruy Lopez or a Bb5(+) Sicilian or a Kings Indian Attack against 1...e6 and the various hypermodern systems out there. From the White side, this is how I roll.

From the 'Dark Side', I currently employ a (safe, boring, drawish??) combination of the Caro-Kann and the Slav/Semi-Slav Defense setups that tend to have alot of common strategies between them. It is because of that fact that I made those choices, along with having a good book on this idea of an opening repertoire for Black by Andrew Soltis (a bit dated, but still generally valid, especially at my current level). Against something like the Reti (1.Nf3), I go for a Caro-like setup with d5/c6/Nf6 and bring the QB out to f5/g4 as required and try and get in e6/Nbd7. A simple and solid development scheme.

Most people measure the success of their opening choices based on the results and the level of playable positions they obtain from that opening. I am no different. My current (and soon to be changed) opening repertoire was a result of *years* of layoff from active tournament OTB chess, and a willingness to "protect that which I hold" - yes, I'm talking about rating points - to get myself back into the chess scene, so to speak, without decimating my rating. It is no wonder that I selected the Caro-Kann/Slav setup. It is a very solid system that is tactically sparse compared to other systems. Yet, in the past, I played very active, fighting openings such as the Sicilian Dragon, which tends to become a knockdown, drag-out racing, fighting game from the get-go. You just gotta love Rxc3...

So, why change now?

I have to go back to the reasons I selected my current repertoire to answer that question, and it is clear to me, as a player, that my current repertoire is good for times when I want to play close to the vest, as I did, in coming out of so-called retirement, and to avoid disasterous results and a major blow to ego. SO, at present, I have a opening repertoire that I can use to basically secure a draw with black when needed, and put *some* pressure without too much risk, on Black when I am White.

What is missing terribly from my repertoire now - the hole that is being filled - is an opening schema I can use when I need to play for a win as Black or White. To make this more clear, let's enumerate it here (it would benefit you to do the same - you might be surprised):

As White:
Calm: Exchange Ruy Lopez
Solid: Bb5(+) Sicilian, Closed Ruy Lopez
Attacking: ???

As Black:
Calm: Slav/Caro-Kann
Solid: Slav/Caro-Kann
Attacking: ???

As is evident, I have no real attacking style openings at my disposal at present. This is the hole I speak of right now in my Opening Repertoire.

Attacking Opening Selections from Both Sides

As Black, I am going to revert to my older opening selections that I played in a previous (life? career? decade?) configuration. To this end, against 1.e4 I am to play the Sicilian Defense and attempt to steer the game toward an Accelerated Dragon or Dragon. Against 1.d4, I am to dust off the Dutch Defense and give that a whirl. Both these openings are edgy, fast and dangerous for White if he does not know what he is doing, and do not tend to lend themselves to half-pointers. They also are a good compliment to my current opening repertoire. Of course, it pays to have alternatives in each category, so I will also employ the NimzoIndian against 1.d4. It will come as no surprise to the reader that I already have Everyman Press's "Starting Out" books on all these openings except the Dragon, which is in the mail today.

As White, I am going to follow the advice at first from the article below at chesspublishing.com, and go for:

vs French: Exchange Variation
vs Caro-Kann: Panov-Botvinnik Attack (I already play this)
vs Sicilian: 6.Be2 systems
vs 1...e5: Scotch (this will be totally new to me - I have always and forever been a Ruy Lopez guy)
vs Scandinavian: 3.Nf3
vs Pirc/Modern: 4.Bg5
vs Alekhine's: 4.Nf3

I hope this gives everyone some ideas on what you should be doing to improve your game. As a final word on the subject, there is a reason why I am deciding to do this today. Yesterday I probably had the worst day of chess ever in my history, simply dropping pieces, bad moves, missing simple tactics, etc., etc., probably due to complete fatigue due to a taxing work schedule lately. However, it got me thinking about the openings and how I really did not like the styles I was playing and needed a change of pace, so here it goes.

Web Resources
ChessPublishing.com: Repertoire Suggestions
ChessClub.com: A Question of Personality
Chessit.net: How to Become a Chess Master
Chessville: What Makes a Strong Player Strong?

GCTS Relevant Posts

2007-08-01T10:24:00.000-05:00

Here is a summary of the GCTS items I have posted here at the Chess Training Blog that relate to self-training chess methods:

Systematic Study:
CTS Study Guide
Generic Chess Training Revisited
How I use GCTS
Thrashing, Tweaking, Holes, Feedback
Captures, Checks, Pins, Forks
Theory
Frequency Of Play
Talk Exercises
Fighting Frustration and Disappointment

Opening:
How to Study an Opening: An Amateur's Perspective

Middlegame/Strategy/Game Studies:
One way to study annotated games
Middlegame Training
Middlegame Training, Part 2
Common Plans

Endgame:
Corresponding Squares and Triangulation

Tactics:
Thinking Tactics
Calculation Skill Exercise
The Importance of Being a Good Tactician

As usual, feel free to leave comments!

Repost: Generic Training Schedule

2007-07-31T10:23:00.001-05:00

Putting together a training schedule for yourself sounds like an easy task. No problem! I'll just study openings on Monday, do some middlgame strategy on Tuesday, then perhaps some endgames on Wednesday, and sprinkle some online games here and there. But in reality, if you are like me, it's difficult to do because we, as chessplayers, are averse to doing anything that is not really fun. Half way through your opening sessions you find yourself suddenly emmersed in a bullet tournament on ICC or Playchess. Endings? Bah! I know Lucena's - good enough.

It is a lack of discipline in our non-playing activities that keep us right were we settle in the rating scale. ANY player can steadily improve if they apply a basic schedule to their studies and become persistent in executing those studies. In fact, I would venture that outside of any extraordinary talent, any player can see improvement up to the 2100-2200 rating level using this study plan as a guide.

This 4-day study plan encompasses all facets of chess study as well as playing blitz and rapid games on a steady basis, which is important if you want to get feedback from your play for obvious reasons. The study plan rotates on this 4-day schedule. After you complete Day4, revert back to Day1 the next day.

Day1 - SO2, VT1, SG1
Day2 - VE2, PL1, VT1
Day3 - SG1, VG1, PL1, VT1
Day4 - SO2, VE1, VT1

Key:
S = Study
V = Solve
G= Strategy
E = Endings
T = Tactics
O = Openings
PL= Play (4x 5min, 3x 10min, 2x 15min games)
# = Units of Time

The first step in any study plan is to know how much time you have to spend doing it. This is where the # of units comes into play. If, for example, you can devote 4 hours a day to studying chess, then your Study unit of time would be 1 hour, as each day contains 4 study units of time. On Day1 you would:

Study Openings - 2 hours
Solve Tactics - 1 hour
Study Strategy - 1 hour

Of course, not everyone has 4 hours to put aside to study chess each day. If you have an hour a day, your time unit = 15 minutes. In this way, you can automatically customize your schedule depending on how much time you have. An alternative is to make the unit of time 30 minutes, and simply run the schedule as time permits. For example, you set 30 minutes of time as your unit:

Study Openings - 1 hour
Solve Tactics - 30 min
Study Strategy - 30 min

In this method, it does not matter that you complete all the activities for a particular day on that day, but it is important to maintain the order in which you do that activity. It may take you 2 days to complete the Day1 program, so be it.

To implement this study program effectively, we need to have at our disposal some good chess books on each subject. Consider obtaining a good Opening, Strategy, and Endgame book, as well as a tactical puzzles book.

For openings, I personally like the "Starting Out" series by Everyman Chess. For strategy, Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy or Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy by Watson are good books. For endgames, A Guide to Chess Endings by Euwe and Hooper, Fundamental Chess Endings by Muller and Lamprecht, or Just The Facts by Alburt are all good books and all very readable. You might prefer other books. These are just suggestions.

For more details, see the source of this summary at ChessOk.com

GM Maxim Sorokin dies after traffic accident

2007-07-03T09:32:00.000-05:00

GM Maxim Sorokin dies after traffic accident 03.07.2007 – The chief trainer of the Elista Grandmaster School, and second of Candidates finalist Sergei Rublevsky, was on his way from the Kalmykian capital to the airport in Volgograd when his car was involved in a traffic accident. Max Sorokin was taken to hospital and diagnosed as having non-life threatening injuries. But a week later, just as he seemed on the path to recovery, he suddenly passed away.

See link above for complete story.

Summertime, Summertime, Sum-Sum-Summertime!

2007-06-28T12:38:00.000-05:00

Even hard-working chess-playing bloggers get some time off!

I'll be posting less frequently over the summer months. My idea is to get into a weekly update on Sundays as time allows. Meanwhile, if anyone would like to share their training experiences, ideas or thoughts, feel freel to add comments to any of the relevant posts here.

Good Luck and Good Chess!

Position of the Bulgarian Chess Federation

2007-05-30T09:54:00.000-05:00

Position of the Bulgarian Chess Federation

The forthcoming tournament for world championship in Mexico starting on 11th September 2007 represents the end of one cycle that extends over the period after the tournament in San Luis (Argentina). As it is well known, Veselin Topalov became World Champion there. Considering the great interest in the world he accepted to play a match with Vladimir Kramnik in Elista even though he was not obliged to do so. Moreover, Veselin Topalov agreed that the loser of that match would not be allowed to play in Mexico because, according to FIDE regulations, adopted on 10th January 2006, every former World Champion or a chess-player with a coefficient over 2700 could, under certain conditions, challenge the World Champion to a match.

On the basis of this position, the Bulgarian party asked for a new match for the world title and provided the required amount of two million US dollars for the purpose. The arguments FIDE submitted against playing a match for the world title, for which all requirements were met, were not convincing. Arguments of the kind that the bank guarantees were from a bank FIDE doesn’t recognize and later on that the time was short for organizing and performing such a match demonstrated that FIDE would compromise its own decisions lead by interests that may differ from those of chess. In order to substantiate its position, in the meantime FIDE approved a new system for electing the World Champion, which goes contrary to the rules, because the regulations may not be modified within one cycle. In this way, Veselin Topalov was definitely deprived of the possibility to take part in the competitions for the world title.

A new system for organizing the world championships should be adopted only after a thorough discussion with the participation of a maximum number of national federations; this new system has to be voted on a FIDE congress and to come into effect during the following cycle. Any other action and decision is a breach of democracy, it is intended to favor certain interests and doesn’t contribute to the development of the chess game.

The Bulgarian Chess Federation believes that with its last actions FIDE shows a bias attitude toward Veselin Topalov – one of the strongest chess players in the world. Depriving him of the possibility to participate in the competitions for world championship substantiates this belief.

Since Veselin Topalov was not allowed to play with V. Kramnik in 2007, it is most evident that he should be permitted to take part in the World Championship tournament in Mexico. In this way an injustice will be remedied – at least in part – and FIDE will prove that the world chess interests are its priority and that the World Champion should be elected in a competition between the best chess players in the world. Any argumentation for the non-admission of V. Topalov is deprived of any logic. The second, the third and the forth players from St. Louis will play there but the first one will not! The second in the world ranking list, the chess player who won seven super-tournaments during the last two years will not be allowed to play there! Why? Only because FIDE has changed its system in the meantime?!

We suggest a FIDE resolution is passed for nine participants to play in the tournament in Mexico. The organizers have no objections and they will be happy because Veselin Topalov is very popular not only in Mexico but in the whole of Latin America as well.

29 May 2007, Sofia
BULGARIAN CHESS FEDERATION
Stefan Sergiev, PhD.
President

Fighting Frustration and Disappointment

2007-05-28T11:31:00.000-05:00

Every club player occasionally has to battle frustration and disappointment in his play and results. Part of the solution to this recurring problem is to examine your losses and discover, in a practical sense, what the biggest flaws in your game are at that moment. To simply think that you get beat by 'tactical tricks' is a cop-out. It avoids answering the tough questions about your own play - something that humans, in general, have difficulty doing. In our own selfish way, people generally overlook their own flaws. Being self-critical is an important step to improving your game and creating a realistic assessment of your chess skills.

For example, I recently played a game in which I, as black, managed to get an advantageous position. Everyone knows the ideas behind the Poisoned Pawn variation of the Najdorf and the inherent risks involved in that variation. Of course, I was very much aware of it, and even though the actual opening was not the Sicilian, the same themes and ideas were present in this line of play. Temporary chess blindness led me to snap off the b-pawn and as my opponent slid his King Rook across the board to attack and trap my Queen, fear and anger gripped me immediately. How could I miss such a simple tactic? I had simply not assessed the specifics of the position and had (incorrectly) assumed he would move the *other* rook. Resignation followed soon, not to mention some chess books hurled across the room in anger.

Now, dropping your Queen happens to everyone on occasion, especially if you are not careful. But the real focus of this game had to be looked at closer - I had a winning position, my opponent was on the ropes, and I blundered after playing a pretty good opening. I had to take the positives from this game and *forget* about the negatives, *forget* meaning to not dwell on the actual blunder but to identify and address the reasons behind my fallacious play.

I did several things wrong prior to this real boner of a move:

1) I *fell in love* with a pawn grab idea that was superfluous to the position.
2) This love affair led me to assimilate the idea to a well-known opening variation.
3) Knowledge of that idea made me lazy in looking at the specifics of the position.

The specific position is not important here: suffice to say that doubling of my Rooks on the e-file was probably sufficient enough pressure on my opponent's position to gain the full point. That really simple strategic idea - nothing fancy mind you - instead of pawn-grabbing on a side of the board that I had no advantage, was the correct path to take.

Examining positions in chess to gather together information about the imbalances consistently leads to better play. In this instance, I got drawn into grabbing material away from the theatre of battle (the Center/Kingside). This could be the first chapter of any novice book on how not to play chess.

How to Recover?
So, I've gathered back the books I flung across the room, with minimum damage, luckily (I had the presence of mind not to hurl the signed Kasparov #4 My Great Predecessors copy I have), but a couple of Everyman Chess 'Starting Out' tomes did not fare so well. Live and Learn.

So, how does one recover from such impetulant play? My first reaction was to drop out of the next round in Team Play and spend the week gathering my thoughts and trying to figure out how a Cat. A player can foresake one's Queen so blatantly in an otherwise winning position. After doing that, I replayed that game half a dozen times up to the point of blunder to make sure I understood why I would make such a terrible, hasty move. Many players would just soon forget thier bad moves, but if you forget history, you are doomed to repeat it, so I self-tortured for several roundtrips on the game then moved on to assess what I actually did right in the game. Here I found that I played fairly well during the opening against a somewhat similar strength opponent (if you believe online ratings - who does?), as far as Fritz goes (-/+).

The point here is that for every loss you must:

1) Feel good about the things you did right
2) Be honestly critical about the things you did wrong
3) Fix the problem

Copping out with the excuse of being the victim of a tactical trick only underlines a flaw in your play and a lack of understanding of the tactics in the position you were in. Take those positions and play them out from both sides against the computer until you exhaust all the possibilities. It can only help.

Chess is forever a game of small tweaks and adjustments to ones' play. When you cease to adjust your play based on the best feedback mechanism in the game (your losses), you cease to improve in any capacity.

Take your lumps, and take your losses. But be sure to take something FROM your losses. This is vitally important for improving your play.

Recent Result

2007-03-26T19:48:00.000-05:00

I had the pleasure of playing in the Category A section of the Eastern Class Championships this past month in Sturbridge, Massachusetts. This was the perfect opportunity for me to see if my self-training methods have come with any meaningful results. Being rated at 1819 entering the tournament, I was in the slightly unfortunate position of being rated just high enough to play in this category, so I knew I was in for some tough games throughout the event. I wanted to prove that I had improved enough over the past couple months of training to belong in this group of players, and being a fairly large event for this part of the country, there were going to be some tough fights ahead - I was ranked about 20th in a field of 29 players for this section.

First, let me recap how I trained the past couple of months.

I focused on the two areas I felt I needed the most help - plan construction and endgames.

Plan Construction
In reviewing my past several tournaments over the course of the previous months from July 2006, with results of +1=2-3 (U2000), +3=3-0 (U1900, 2nd Place), +1=1-1 (U2100), and +0=2-1 (Open), for a total of +5=8-5, it was plain to see that during the transition into the middlegame on many occasions my play lacked consistent plans. I often found myself in reasonable positions in the middlegame but clueless as to how to proceed. On several occasions I felt I had an advantage convertable to a win but failed to do so.

I used a combination of two books to improve my middlegame/plan construction. The primary guide used was "Reasses Your Chess" by Jeremy Silman, and my secondary reference was "How to Choose a Chess Move" by Andrew Soltis. I highly recommend both of these books. The Silman book is great for strategic thinking and decomposing a chess position into it's elements and imbalances, and the Soltis book will help you with your thought processes during a real game and how to use a practical method to select reasonable, practical moves. I think both books complement each other nicely, and are my primary study guides to date.

Within the framework of the Silman book, I did a fairly lengthy study of minor piece comparisons during actual games and how and when to trade, when to avoid a trade, when to recognize good, bad and active Bishops, useful, permanent outposts for Knights, and how to compare the different minor pieces between the Black and White armies. This really helped me get a good handle on the respective values of each minor piece in any position. If you find it difficult to sit and read a chess book completely, the best thing you can do for your game is to at least review the Silman Book and how he handles minor piece comparisons. This was the one area that helped me the most in my recent games and is higly recommended.

I also did a cursory examination of all the other elements of a position covered in the Silman Book - Pawn Structure, Space, Control of Files/Squares/Diagonals, Material, Development and Initiative.

Endgames
My endgame play was not stellar in my past recent tournaments so I sought out to fix and repair this phase of my game as much as I could within the timeframe I had. I felt I had a decent understanding of minor pieces as a carryover from the Silman Book, so I concentrated on Rook Endings and Pawn Endings. I examined various positions that related to Philidor's and Lucena Positions, and practiced those until I could not get it wrong. I also examined Outflanking, Opposition, and Triangulation techniques in Pawn Endings.

In addition, I played in several online, slow time control (G60, G45+45) tournaments the past couple of months, and avoided ALL blitz play.

Results
Happy to say, I scored 3.5 of 5 (+2=3-0) and finished in a tie for Second Place at the Eastern Class Championships, Class A, this year, and gained about 65 rating points in the process. The main difference in my play was my refusal to give up in endings that were objectively lost in two games. In the penultimate round, I was in a lost Rook ending when my opponent dropped a Rook *then* resigned in a drawn endgame! In the final round, I managed a draw in a losing minor piece endgame where I refused to give up and kept fighting. I managed, in time pressure, to secure a N vs. B + RP of wrong Color endgame.

Luck does play a good part in chess sometimes, and in this tournament, I was lucky. I turned two losses into 1.5 points in the final two rounds, and was also able to hold a tricky endgame in the first round against a mid-1900's player for a draw. But, my training gave me the confidence to do that, and I never gave up. That is what training is for.

Talk Exercises

2007-03-24T08:22:00.000-05:00

Here is a useful training technique you can do with your chess partner as suggested by Jacob Aagaard in his great book Excelling At Chess.

Using a position from a master game, talk about the position in general terms to try and find the correct plan of action. Ask questions about the pieces and the pawn structure, open files and diagonals, outposts for knights, etc. It is important to vocalize these thoughts as, in general, we listen to ourselves much more than someone else (no surprise there, eh?).

A good methodology is to start with comparing the pieces. Select a piece from each army by deciding which ones will be likely traded for each other and compare them objectively. Is the bishop 'good', 'bad', or 'active'? Does the Knight have potential good outposts? Which files are likely to be opened and can any Rooks take advantage of them? Continue on to discuss plans of action, ideal squares for the pieces, which is your worst piece and how to improve it (as Aagaard says, this is the 'Russian Chess Secret'...they talk to their pieces...), and only then move on to discussing concrete action.
Vocalizing these ideas will build the foundation of your intuition in chess.

Good Luck and Good Training!

Kramnik - Aronian Rapid Match

2007-03-13T19:31:00.000-05:00

Kramnik - Aronian Rapid Match

The Week In Chess reports World Champion Vladimir Kramnik plays World Cup Holder Levon Aronian in a rapid match May 4th-6th, 2007 in Yerevan, Armenia. Two games will be played each day. The time control will be 25 minutes for the whole game with an increment of 10 seconds per move. The match is organized by the Armenian Chess Federation.

Anti-Draw experiments

2007-03-08T11:28:00.000-05:00

See what anti-draw measures result in the tournament in the fifth Breizh masters in Guingamp (France) between at Lyceum Le Restmeur a Pabu. The women's section had a total of 7(!) draws throught 9 rounds of play, for a draw percentage of 15.55%. The men's section resulted in 16 draws for a draw percentage of 33.33%. Although the men's section was more than twice the women's draw rate, it is still far below the usual ballpark 50% draw rates we see at IM/GM tournaments.

Players were required to play a minimum of 30 moves prior to a draw offer.

Breizh Masters

Statement by Randy Bauer for the USCF election

2007-03-02T06:48:00.000-05:00

As a 30-year life member, I love the USCF. Please help me save it. With your support, I believe we can.

We face many important issues, including securing our finances, fostering chess interest in the US, and building and serving our membership. We must address these, but no Executive Board member is going to constructively change things based on our current circumstances -- we cannot make progress while our leadership is divided and divisive. We must focus on electing a Board that can collectively work to improve our organization.

Lately, the Board has been distracted from the work it needs to do. Important discussions and decisions have been sidetracked by internal dissension. We can no longer afford this politics as usual -- we need a change.

Change has to start with the people we elect. We must elect Board members who are honest, effective and accountable.

Our Board needs to convey and demonstrate professionalism, collective competence, teamwork and good judgment. We need to get beyond decisions based on the ability to get a majority vote on any one issue and move to a willingness to cooperate and communicate with all, an understanding of group dynamics and how to work collectively for the larger goals of the USCF.

Make no mistake -- this is a lot harder to accomplish than it sounds. There are candidates who can make it work, but others who cannot. We need Board members who are able to work with others: Lone Ranger types need not apply. We need Board members of sound judgment: people you can trust to make reasoned decisions, even under pressure. We also need a Board guided by a sense of service, not motivated by a desire for attention or to create a spectacle. Finally, we should elect people of solid character -- those who will act ethically and honestly toward each other and the USCF.

I’ve spent much of my professional career leading teams dedicated to improving finances and services for large, complex organizations. These have included balancing a $5 billion state budget without raising taxes, creating strategies that improve results and reporting, and supporting award-winning initiatives that cut bureaucracy and create innovative change. We can do the same for the USCF.

Two years ago, I was elected to a one-year term on the Executive Board. I am proud that during that year we balanced the budget (only the second time in nine years). We also voted to move the USCF office and successfully implemented that change. While I didn’t originally support the vote to move, I did everything I could to make it successful, and it was implemented without negatively impacting member services.

That is the focus I will bring to the Board: I will approach each issue on its merits – as an independent voice. However, once the Board has decided, I will work with all members to successfully implement those policies. Together, we can make a difference. I ask for your vote for constructive, positive change.

Middlegame Lab

2007-03-02T06:37:00.000-05:00

White to move and win: Execute a nice series of moves here to reach a winning endgame.

USCF Executive Board

2007-03-01T18:08:00.000-05:00

There has been a great amount of talk and pandering around the upcoming vote by membership for the USCF Executive Board. Any attempt to summarize the past 4 years on this blog would require weeks of due diligence and hard work, and would serve to only infuriate current board members of the USCF, should I be so lucky they read this. I think it is sufficient to state that the membership has reaped what it has sowed in the election of certain board members and the (perhaps not) unanticipated behavior said members have engaged in the past 4 years. A quick perusal of the usenet news groups and USCF boards paints a broad picture of the real trouble our federation is in. Recent troubles with sponsorship of the US Championship only highlight a small portion of the underlying problems the USCF has endured recently.

In short, it's time for a change across the board, 'board' being taken in a literal and figurative sense here.

We, as the Voting USCF membership, have a great opportunity to put into power a new set of Executive Board members that bring to the table a long list of previous experiences in finance, organization, scholastic education of chess, and a great love for the game that the current Executive Board seem to not possess and act in an indifferent manner towards. How else could one rationalize some of their actions over the past few years, actions that hurt the USCF and it's membership directly and indirectly, and financially strapped the federation?

It's inconceivable.

I have been involved, as a member on and off, with the USCF since I was in my mid-teens, which makes that somewhere around 30 years. I have personally seen the USCF go through the ebb and floe all businesses go through due to economic circumstances generally beyond their control. As members, we feel for the corporation in those times of financial and 'chess environmental' difficulties. But to see an organization self-destruct from the inside, as has been the case over the past several years with the USCF, is something that we, AS VOTERS, need to step forward and make our voices be heard and make a much needed change.

There is much talk about the current failings of the executive board; the mistakes they have made, the (few) good things they (some would say) fell into. Being objective, it would be hard to hold them accountable if the reasons behind the current state of the USCF were out of their hands. But no matter how you spin, slice, dice or talk it in a Clintonesque manner, it IS their fault. They should be responsible, and it is up to us to speak loudly together with single votes and bring in a new group of administrators who possess a vision that is, at worst, fresh and restorative in nature to the USCF, and hold the current Executive Board responsible for their actions in the only way we can: removal.

If you are happy with the way the USCF has been run, then go ahead and vote to keep the current Executive Board in power. That is your right, your privilege, your responsibility as a member.

If you, like many, many members, are disgusted with the soap opera that has continued on and on, the bickering, the back-stabbing, the poor decision-making, the politicizing of those decisions, regardless of the damage it does to the federation, regardless of the damage it does to the membership (YOU), then I strongly urge you to cast your vote for any candidate that is currently NOT on the Executive Board.

There comes a time when change is something that is necessary, good and the right thing to do.

That time is NOW at the USCF.

I'll be back with a mixture of chess and USCF E.B. candidate statements over the next several weeks.

Let's tell them what we really think.

Tactics

2007-02-17T08:47:00.000-05:00

BLACK TO MOVE AND WIN

Highlight below to see solution:[

Levitt (2455) - Martin,A (2420), Great Britain (ch)

1...Be2!! 0-1]

ACP Draws Offers Survey

2007-02-06T21:23:00.000-05:00

The Association of Chess Professionals is conducting a survey about draw
offers it started on the 10th of January 2007.

They would like to thank everybody who has already taken part in it. As the
issue is very important, the deadline for sending back the completed survey
has been extended to the 5th of March 2007.

Questions:

1. A draw offer should be:
a) allowed at any stage of the game (current FIDE rules)
b) allowed after 30 moves of the game are completed
c) allowed after 40 moves of the game are completed
d) allowed after 50 moves of the game are completed
e) not allowed at all (Corsican rule)
f) abstain

2. A draw offer, at the stage where it is allowed, should imply a time penalty in the case it is rejected:
a) yes
b) no
c) abstain

Just add your name at the bottom.

ACP Members as well as all chess players having the FIDE title of
International Master (IM or WIM) or International Grandmaster (GM or WGM)
can send back the completed survey to the ACP Secretary Bartlomiej Macieja
at gmbartek@gmail.com

ACP members can do it online here.

Endgame Lab - The Rule of Square

2007-02-06T21:12:00.000-05:00

White to move and win!

Highlight to see solution: [1.f6! gxf6 2.Kxg2! Kg5 3.a4 bxa3 4.bxa3 Kf5 5.a4 Ke5 6.d6! cxd6 7.c6! dxc6 8.a5+-]

White has the seemingly impossible task in this position of queening a pawn. Show how he can do it!

Common Plans

2007-02-05T18:30:00.000-05:00

Reverting back to our original Training Article:

"familiarize with about 15-25 common plans from the chess classic examples"

Perusing any chess book on Chess Strategy will give you a good list of Strategic Elements (elements of a plan) one needs to be concerned with so you can develop a reasonable, effective plan. Planless play lacks consistency from move to move and tends to be like solving a series of one-move chess problems - it lacks coherency.

Below is the listing of Common Strategic and Dynamic Elements from Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy:

Common Strategic Elements

Minority Attack

Bishops and open diagonals

Good vs. Bad Bishop

Knights and bases of Operation

Superior Bishop vs Knight

Superior Knight vs Bishop

Creation of Open Files

Open Files in an Attack against the King

Open Files in the Center and on the Queen's Wing

Active Rooks in front of the Pawn Chain

The Passed Pawn

The Blockade

The Isolated Pawn

The Backward Pawn

The Isolated Pawn-pair

Doubled Pawns

The Classical Centre

The Little Centre

Tension in the Centre

Piece Centralization

Control of Central Squares

The Partly-Blocked Centre

Pawn Majority on the Wing

Piece Concentration on the Wing

Space superiority on the Wing

The Blocked Pawn Chain

The Flank Attack and the Centre

Forward Pieces

Advanced Pawns

Weak Squares in the Pawn Chain

Dynamic elements

Lead in Development

Gain in Time at the Cost of Material

Co-operation of Pieces and Pawns

The Positional Sacrifice

This list enumerates 30 strategic elements one NEEDS TO BE FAMILIAR WITH to build a plan around.

As an exercise, in a perfect world with no work to go to(!), it would benefit everybody to take their last 20 games and review the plans listed above involved in those games and try and enumerate them.

What is a plan?

Several definitions exist across the web for a chess plan. Here is one that fits for us:

Plan - A method or line of play designed to improve a position. A chess player should always have a plan. Your plan often lasts only as long as it takes for your opponent to make a move.

Jeremy Silman thoughts on finding a viable plan:

Take note of the differences in the position (imbalances)

Determine which side of the board you wish to play on. You can only play on the side of the board where a favorable imbalance exists or the possibility of creating a favorable imbalance exists.

Find Candidate Moves. A Candidate move should always be directed at your positive imbalances unless you're being forced to play a purely defensive move.

Calculate Candidate Moves.

Pachman articulates it in this manner:

Material Relationship

Power of individual pieces

Quality of individual pawns

Pawn Structure

King Position

Piece and pawn cooperation

So, the key to finding good plans in chess MUST exist in knowing what strategic elements exist in chess. Easy, eh?...

Let's take a simple example, the Isolated Queen Pawn Strategic Element.

If you, as white, own the IQP, there are several things you need to be aware of:

Avoid simplification

Arrange your pieces favorably to advance the pawn or to tie down the opponent's pieces in preventing the advance.

Occupy e5 with a Knight and launch a Kingside Attack or occupy c5 and launch an attack along the c-file.

This is basic, classical IQP stuff you can look up in any decent classical strategy book, and can qualify as a 'plan' framework. The difference between the classical and modern view of the IQP is that the modern view does not stress so much about the simplification rule if other factors in the position exist that make it tenable. That is 'Rule Independence' for you...

When encountered with an IQP, these simple rules should immediately become aware to you perfectly.

Here I have fleshed out (barely) the strategic elements that a player needs to be aware of and can identify perfectly in order to come up with the proper plan in a chess position. Note I said 'position'. Chess is a very complex game and your plans can switch several times over several moves, and usually do in some positions. The ability to recognize when the pursuit of one plan over another (or the pursuit of an integrated plan) is a skill that we, as students, need to work on with vigor.

You'll note that Day1 and Day3 have SG1's assigned to them. This gives us a good, solid 2 segments of study per training cycle (of the 16 total) to study strategic elements.

What to study first?

With over 30 basic strategic elements, how do we know which ones to study first? As usual, we will let our own games determine this. If you have decided to play a few correspondence games, then you can use those games as catalysts to figure out which strategic elements to study first off. Most of these 'studies' are fairly simple in nature and can be completed superficially in an hour. Of course, deep understanding comes with experience. But it will be valuable to us to perhaps scan over each strategic element and define it with a simple example. If time permits me, I will attempt to articulate such a thing in the near future. Now, I'll give you one example from the Pachman Book:
White: Material Disadvantage; Active Q, N and B; Rooks ready to go to open files.

Black: Material Advantage; Behind in development; passivly placed pieces.

This enumeration of the strategic elements gives each side great clues in what their respective plans will be:

White: Use his better placed pieces and create tactical threats and launch an attack against the black king

Black: Parry any immediate threats, complete development, convert material advantage by simplification.

This may seem simple to alot of players and it really is in most positions. Often when one watches games at tournaments we see players completely disregard the strategic aspects of a position. We want to eliminate that type of play from our games and concentrate on creating good strategic-based plans we can execute.

I hope this helps everyone get a better grasp on what strategic thinking is and do use your "SG" time to address these flaws in your game.

As usual, please post and comments here at the blog!

2007-01-31T21:39:00.000-05:00

White to move and win.

Black appears to have all the bases covered in this nice tactical shot.

The Importance of Being a Good Tactician

2007-01-31T21:11:00.000-05:00

Here at the Chess Training Blog, we like to think that we can, in some small way, help sub-2000 chess players improve their game by helping them focus on the weak areas of your game. Invariably, this leads us to Tactics.

Books have been written (Rapid Chess Improvement, for one) on how to construct a training program to improve your tactical vision. Often this leads to a deficiency in other areas of your game: Opening Repertoire, Plan Construction, Endgame Play, Strategical considerations, etc. But the reality is, how important are those other aspects of play when compared to tactics, or lack thereof?

I've said, and repeated here, the common phrase that 'Chess is 90% tactics'. Some famous GM originated that phrase. Who it is, I have no idea. But the truth still exists within it. One only needs to go back and look over your own games and take note how each game was won or lost by you or your opponent. Were you to write in plain english each critical error, your log would read something like this:

Game 1: Missed a pin, dropped the d-pawn. Never recovered.
Game 2: Opponent missed my Knight Fork. Won Exchange and Game.
Game 3: Pawn Stormed his king position forcing the loss of a piece.
Game 4: Opponent missed a Rook Skewer. Won a piece for a pawn and game.
...

Look familiar? Try an experiment and do the same with your last 10 games. I can almost (I said ALMOST) guarantee your log will be very similar. What you WON'T see in your log in majority is stuff like this:

Game 1: Strategically squeezed opponent on Q-side. Won long endgame.
Game 2: Had Good Bishop vs. Bad Knight endgame. Could not convert. Draw.
...

You get the idea, I'm sure!

Back to my original Question: how important are those other aspects of play when compared to tactics? Well, if tactics decide 90% of chess games, then it stands to reason that tactics are, at LEAST, 9-times more important than any other aspect of chess. Put another way, a player that plays sound tactical chess will need to be defeated in another manner. Are you with me?

Introducing Pareto's Principle - the 80/20 Rule!

Pareto's Principle essentially reminds us to focus 80 percent of your time and energy on the 20 percent of your work that is really important. In chess, what is 'important' is results - wins, or a lack of losses. Since 90% of losses are attributed to inferior tactics via our quote from above (the actual number may vary, but we are dealing with ballpark numbers here, and is highly subjective in any event), it stands to reason that, following Pareto's Principle, chess students at our level should focus 80% of their time initially on tactics improvement as this will result in a reduction of losses due to an improved tactical sense. In actuality, what this means is that you may lose just as many games, but you should find that your losses via missed tactical shots will be reduced substantially. Fix your biggest weakness first then move on to the next....!

What this will do is give you the biggest bang for the buck in improvement in your game. Tactics, unlike positional sense, can be learned. It is mostly pattern recognition and having solved a similar problem in the past.

So, what to do?

I will repeat what I do to get the juices flowing on a daily basis. In general, I will go to the Chess Tactics Server and solve puzzles for at least 30 minutes during AM, or during lunch if I do not get to it in the AM. The Chess Tactics Server gives puzzles that are really straight forward tactical shots involving pins, forks, skewers, double/discovered attacks, etc., that are at most 3 moves deep in most cases, and theyt expect you to solve them within seconds. Think Blitz! In the evening, I like to solve more difficult puzzles taken for game play via Intensive Course Tactics by George Renko (Chessbase), or the book Imagination In Chess. I additionally will use Polgar's 5334 Chess Puzzles book as well.

The point of this all is that Tactics in Chess is like taking Ground Balls in the infield, shagging flies in the outfield, or batting practice. It is something that we NEED to do every day so that when we are in a game situation, we do not have to THINK about how to do it: we simply know.

Pattern Recognition.
Familiarity with tactical shots.

Remember our creed:
AMATEURS PRACTICE UNTIL THEY GET IT RIGHT
PROFESSIONALS PRACTICE UNTIL THEY CAN'T GET IT WRONG.

Good Day and Happy Solving!

Short Draws

2007-01-23T21:29:00.000-05:00

Short Draw

Hi all,

Let's get a discussion rolling about the current status of short draws in chess. I define short draw as a draw under 30 moves for this discussion. I want some constructive discussion here, and not a plethora of whining and crying. If you have a SUGGESTION, articulate it. If you seek to just slam GM's for short draws, save your fingers the work as I will delete any post that does not make at least one suggestion to resolve the *growing* problem of the short GM draw in chess. Also, be sure that RULE CHANGES as to how the game is played are not acceptable as we all know that is not going to happen. The Rules of Chess are firm and unwavering, including threefold repetition.

For me, the short draw short-changes the viewing public in two ways. First, we are robbed of ideas and strategies that need to be pursued in even/near-equal positions from some of the finest players in the game. Second, in allowing short draws, sponsors may feel they are not getting their money's worth from the Chess Athletes they invite to these high-profile, invitational tournaments. Please note: INVITATIONAL. I have NO PROBLEM with short draws in tournaments where you are footing the bill, so this does not apply to your run of the mill Weekender.

I personally believe no offer of a draw should be allowed prior to the 31st move. This means both players must make 30 moves on board before either can offer a draw.

Let me hear your ideas!

Bobby Fischer - Greatest Chess Player of All Time?

2007-01-17T19:00:00.000-05:00

By Errol Tiwari, Stabroek News

The debate was already raging when I joined the small group downtown, well-wishers of chess who enjoy discussing the literature of the game, and the people who play it. The question was: Who is the greatest chess player of all time?

I could not answer the question then and I cannot do so now. The argument is futile. Some would say Fischer, some would say Kasparov. Before Fischer, the last supermaster was Alekhine. Preceding him, in reverse order, were Capablanca, Lasker and Steintz, all world champions who comprised a magic circle of greatness. Players like Tal and Spassky have touched the perimeters of the circle and even entered it on occasion, but were never card-carrying members. Bobby Fischer is.

There is a mystique about Fischer which continues to fascinate people who are not even remotely connected to chess. No other chess player alive or dead has succeeded in capturing the imagination of people around the world like Fischer did.

He did more to popularise chess than any other player who has ever lived. His tantrums and inexplicable actions were front-page news wherever he went. Bobby Fischer the eccentric, the rebel against authority, the monomaniac, the enfant terrible, the ego-crushing titan of chess whose intransigence approached sublimity, the brilliant, temperamental, self-centred genius from Brooklyn who singlehandedly broke the Soviet hegemony on chess -- he was already a legend before he even played for the World Championship.

US champion at 14; Grandmaster at 15, at the time the youngest in the history of the game; US champion eight times; winner of tournament after tournament; and, finally, chess champion of the world after beating Boris Spassky in Reykjavik, 1972. In his march to secure the World Championship title, Fischer lost five games,(one of them a forfeit because playing conditions did not suit him), out of sixty-five.

At the rigorous Interzonal tournament at Palma de Majorca, where the strongest Grandmasters in the world were present with the exception of the World Champion, Fischer crushed the opposition with 15 wins, seven draws and one loss--to Bent Larsen. Russia's Yefim Geller was 3/Â½ points behind in second place. Then Fischer started his series of candidates' matches. He had to play the three top finishers of the Interzonal. The rest is history. Fischer mauled the opposition in an unprecedented manner. In Vancouver he blanked Russia's Mark Taimanov 6 to 0. In Denver, Fischer shut out the Dane Bent Larsen who had beaten him in the Interzonal, 6 to 0. Even the Russians at the time hailed the feat as a miracle. Fischer had accumulated a streak of nineteen consecutive victories in Grandmaster play. This was unheard of in the history of chess.

The Fischer-Petrosian Match was held in Buenos Aires in 1971. Tigran Petrosian was arguably the best defensive player in the world at the time and was known as 'The Rock.' Fischer smashed the rock in the first game taking his tally to 20 consecutive victories. But Petrosian, the immovable object, retaliated in the second game and claimed victory giving Fischer his first loss since the Interzonal. He had accomplished what the finest players in the world had been unable to do on twenty occasions in the previous nine months: he had won a game from Bobby Fischer. Three draws followed. Then the mighty Fischer struck back. He took the next four games and won the match handsomely at 6/Â½ to 2/Â½. His next stop was Boris Spassky and the World Championship. Did Fischer falter against Petrosian by losing a game and drawing three in the light of his shut-outs over Taimanov and Larsen? Maybe if he had succeeded in winning all his games against Petrosian, his match with Spassky would have been easy to predict. If the tightrope walker slips just a little, it makes his performance that much more believable.

The commotion generated over Fischer's conquest of the awesome Soviet chess machine was unprecedented. A genuine chess renaissance occured practically overnight. Sales of chess sets increased. Virtually every major newspaper and magazine at the time carried a story about Fischer. The New York Times published a news story on its front page the day after the match ended complete with a diagram of Fischer's final position against Petrosian. Chess had rarely been so honoured. Besides becoming a national hero in his country, Bobby Fischer had become a household name.

For over a decade, even longer, Fischer, like another American original, Mohammad Ali, had boasted that he was the "greatest." Fischer told the world the Russians had his title and he wanted it back. People were amused. Imagine a 28-year-old chess upstart from Brooklyn challenging the awesome Soviet empire. But still, the whole world, not only the chess world, was eager to see if he could beat the Russians, especially against such a formidable opponent as Boris Spassky.

The interest of people who knew nothing of chess rose to such an extent that they made efforts to learn the game, perhaps to better understand Fischer. They were impressed by his pure individualism, fascinated by his charisma and attracted by his vitality. Those who did not know the difference between a pawn and a ping-pong ball felt impelled to appreciate fully the artistic expression of the young genius from Brooklyn.

Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland, was the location for the encounter between Fischer and Spassky. For over two months the attention of the world was focused on that tiny city in that island. Reykjavik had suddenly become the capital of the world. Termke Poisoned Pawn, the Sicilian Defence, and the Queen's Gambit entered the international consciousness. All over the world moves were relayed by the wire services and through the air to radio and television stations. In Guyana we got results and details of the games from the radio and newspapers.

As the match was being played, the Guyana Chess Federation was established. The year was 1972. Fischer had brought the match to fever pitch and made of it a thrilling drama that far transcended a mere chess match, first by not showing up in Reykjavik; then by appearing and starting his usual round of demands (he wanted sole use of his hotel's swimming pool in Reykjavik), threats and complaints; by being party to the most hysterical theatrics ever witnessed in a sporting event; and by losing the first two games (the second on a forfeit), yet coming from behind and completely smashing the champion. Of such deeds are legends made.

For a delirious period of time, chess was front-page news in the civilized countries of the world. People sat entranced while two great players fought each other, tried to outmanoeuvre each other, tried to dominate and psychically destroy each other. The match between Fischer of the United States and Spassky of the Soviet Union became much more than a match between two players. It became an international incident, a struggle between two societies, a symbol of confrontation between East and West. Both players denied any political implications. But the world ignored their remarks. America and Russia were facing each other in the persons of the two players.

More than anybody else Fischer seemed to know what he represented in relation to the spirit of the time. No one paid attention to chess before Fischer. When Spassky won the World Championship title in 1969, he received US$1400 as his prize money. Before his match with Spassky, Fischer let it be known that he would not play unless the purse was at least US$50,000. There was tolerant laughter. Everybody thought Fischer was out of his mind. US$50,000 for a chess match? Who on earth would be willing to put up that sum?

But when it was all over and he was declared chess champion of the world, Fischer walked away with the winner's share of a purse of US$250,000. It was, prizefight purses excepted, the largest single purse for a sporting event ever recorded. For the first time in the 2,000-year history of the game, chess had entered the Age of Opulence.

Fischer's 21 games that he played with Spassky to this day are beauties to behold. Fischer played the Queen's Gambit Declined as White in Round Six of the championship for the first time in his life. Fischer had senselessly wandered into Spassky's milieu. But the result was a total defeat for the Russian. Experts felt Fischer kept the improvements he worked out in this game for 10 years to unleash it at the right moment and at the right time. Harry Golombeck, covering the match for the Times of London likened the game to a "Mozart Symphony," so perfect was it in its execution.

Fischer possessed an extraordinary memory. It is said he has never forgotten a game he has played or an analysis he has read. He had the ability to merely glance at a chess position and grasp its nuances and difficulties. In a flash he knew what was true and should be absorbed, and what was false and should be ruthlessly discarded. Frank Brady told a story of Fischer's extraordinary mental capacity.

In 1963, at age 20, Fischer won the New York Open State Championship. Fischer glanced momentarily, Brady said, for about five seconds at a difficult ending he was playing with Frank Meyer. Months later Fischer met Brady in his office and inquired how the game turned out. Brady said he won but with difficulty. Then Fischer asked if he had played Q-B5. Quite frankly, Brady said, he could not remember what he had played. Fischer immediately set up the exact position to 'help' Brady remember and demonstrated the variation he should have played to gain the most economical win.

Fischer could also recall most of his speed games in which both players are limited to five minutes to make all the moves. After the World Speed Chess Championship at Yugoslavia in 1970, which he won, Fischer replayed all 22 of his games which he had played in the tournament from memory. Not only did he remember speed games directly after a match, he remembered them for years and could replay a particular game at a moment's notice. Fischer met the Russian chess player Vasiukov and showed him a speed game that the two had played in Moscow 15 years before. Fischer recalled the game move by move.

Fischer's IQ was in the range of 180, genius level. But this is not exceptional to Fischer alone. Brilliant chess players have been known to have high IQ's. However, there is probably no topic that intrigues chess players as much as the inner machinations of the mind of Bobby Fischer. Chess players universally feel they can improve their own game by understanding how Fischer's mind operated.

But Fischer's enormous memory, and his incredible retention was not limited to chess alone. One day when he was in Iceland, Fischer called Frederick Olaffson, Iceland's only Grandmaster. Olaffson's Icelandic-speaking daughter answered the phone and explained her parents were out and would return at suppertime. Fischer understood nothing that was said because he did not know the language. But he listened, apologized and hung up. Later that day Fischer met with another Icelandic player who spoke English. He explained what had happened and repeated every Icelandic word he had heard on the phone, imitating the sounds with perfect inflection. The Icelandic player translated the message word for word for Fischer.

Following his match with Spassky, Fischer had achieved the highest rating of any player in history. Professor Arpad Elo's International Rating System, a thoroughly reliable system that is used to this day, rated Fischer at 2810. He was the only player in the history of the game to have reached the magic 2800 mark. Rating points are given for wins against strong Grandmasters and are taken away for draws and losses. Fischer's record remained unbroken for twenty years. And to this day only two players have succeeded in reaching 2800--Garry Kasparov and Veselin Topalov. Although he is the current world champion, Vladimir Kramnik is rated at 2750 and Viswanathan Anand is rated number two in the world at 2779. Kasparov has retired from chess and is not active so he is currently not rated. And by the way, Professor Elo had correctly predicted that Fischer would beat Spassky by a 12/Â½ to 8/Â½ margin and the contest would end on the twenty-first game.

Fischer had produced an energy on the chess board that apparently disturbed his opponents. Some people called it the Fischer "aura," implying that, like Tal, Capablanca and Alekhine before him, he virtually hypnotized his opponents by striking fear into their hearts, thus making them play below their usual standard.

It is hard to describe the Fischer aura. Harold Schonberg described it in the New York Times: "â€¦the Fischer aura is the will to dominate, to humiliate, to take over an opponent's mind." When the Fischer aura enveloped an opponent terrible things happened. Combinations turned out faulty. Exchanges were lost. Players ended up in Zugzwang (chess term for a hopeless position). Well tested openings developed flaws and outright blunders were made.

No one really knew what the Fischer aura was but it terrified seasoned Grandmasters. It was relentless, merciless and pitiless. It was the aura of a killer. Some accused him of psychic murder. He took the Alekhine Defence as Black in Game 13 of his championship match against Sapssky, chess champion of the world, the player supposedly without nerves, the suave gentleman admired by all who came into contact with him, and destroyed him. The Alekhine Defence was unplayed in World Championship matches and was considered a weak defence against the White King Pawn. The loss of that game produced a psychological shock from which Spassky never recovered. He was finished forever, psychologically ground down by a deadly ego-crusher from Brooklyn.

In 1992, Fischer violated a US ban to play chess in Yugoslavia. It was reported he was offered a US$5 million purse to play a return match with Spassky which he won again. After the match he took up residence outside the US. In 2004 he was detained in Japan. He currently resides in Iceland.

Fischer refused to defend his title against Anotoly Karpov in 1975. He had become a recluse. If he had continued to play, chess, I believe, would have remained a glamorous, intoxicating, internationally publicized sport/art/science/game.

It was Bobby Fischer who had singlehandedly made the world recognize that chess on its highest level was as competitive as soccer, as thrilling as a duel to the death, as aesthetically satisfying as a fine work of art, and as intellectually demanding as any other form of human activity. It was Fischer and Fischer alone.

When Fischer disappeared in the seventies, people were devastated. Some cried openly when they spoke of him. He lost his title by default after refuting the playing conditions set out by FIDE. There was something ignoble about his refusal to play and something pathetic about it. Slowly, sadly, people came to the realization that he would never play again. Fischer, possibly the greatest chess player who has ever lived, had retired not only from chess. The Prince had retired from the human race.

Paul Keres Memorial

2007-01-16T21:00:00.000-05:00

Hi all,

It's been a while since I have been able to post due the busy holidays. I hope all of you enjoyed Christ*mas 2006 and had a great New Year!

One of my all-time favorite players, Paul Keres, had his namesake memorial tournament during the first couple weeks of 2007. GM Timoshenko won the event with a score of 6/9.

Paul Keres, along with David Bronstein, must be considered as the two best players ever to not win the World Championship.

What other players do you think should be part of this group historically?

Calculation Skill Exercise

2006-12-21T07:37:00.000-05:00

Here is an exercise, promoted by Jeremy Silman in "How to Reassess Your Chess - The Complete Chess Mastery Course", to practice and improve your calculation skills. A Word of Warning: this exercise is difficult and time-consuming! However, I think it is one of the most useful and improving exercises you can do.

Take an annotated game from one of your favorite players and play out the first 10 moves or so until you reach the beginnings of the middlegame, stopping when it is your move (your favorite players move, that is).

Now, cover up the moves and figure out what is going on, using your thinking technique (or Silmans', if you prefer, by recording the imbalances, etc.) and derive your candidate moves. Write down all your candidate moves! Now, without moving the pieces, analyze out each candidate move in your head. Analyze each branch as far as you think you need to.

After you are done with this move, make the move in the game and the response and do it all over again. Continue to do this until you complete the game.

Afterwards, go over the game annotations and compare them to your annotations, paying attention to the logic and the tactics in the game and how close you came to the actual play. Play over the correct analysis when it presents itself different from your own.

This method should help you in developing your calculation and tactical skills and plan development.

Enjoy and Merry Christ*mas to everyone, Christian or otherwise!

Thinking Tactics

2006-12-09T18:15:00.000-05:00

Thinking Tactics - An Amateur's Perspective
"A famous chess coach Mark Dvoretsky considers the tactical skill of a chess player to include two main components - the combinative vision and the calculating technique. In his opinion, in order to develop one's chess imagination one should solve tasks aimed at finding (not calculating out!) a correct tactical idea."

"It is important to remember a 'golden' rule when calculating variations: in any position, you should first see if there are any checks, then any captures and if they work or not, - then calculate the threats (Pins, forks, etc.). We call it 'checks - captures - threats'."

It is important to organize your thinking process in this manner as most games are decided by tactical shots. We should get used to looking at all:

1) Checks
2) Captures
3) Threats (Pins, Forks, Double Attacks, etc.)

as we process a position in our inner minds. It pays to try and develop a repeatable and efficient thinking technique when looking for tactical shots. One of the best ways to do this is to conciously walk a checklist when solving tactical chess problems during your training session. This will translate well into your games because chess is 90% tactics at the end of the day.

One exercise that you may find helpful is to take any GM game and play through it until you get to the middlegame. Now, without moving the pieces, play the next several moves in your head and then write down all the Checks and Captures the side to move can make at that new position. Play the next move on the board and do the same. This will help you visualize checks and capture in analysis variations you come up with in your head.

Checks, Captures, Threats - Pins, Forks, Double Attacks.

The big THREE.

GCTS Study Guide

2006-12-09T18:01:00.001-05:00

Here is a list of our various study and solving routines and some suggested reference materials that can be used to implement those routines:

Key: N - Novice (<1600) A: Advanced (1600+)

SO - Opening Studies
N: "Starting Out" Series, Everyman Chess; A: Any good opening intermediate/advanced book on your chosen repertoire line.

SG - Strategic Studies
N: My System - Nimzovitch A: Modern Chess Strategy - Pachman, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy - Watson

SE - Endgame Studies
N: A Guide to Chess Endings - Euwe/Hooper, A: Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual - Dvoretsky, Fundamental Chess Endings - Muller/Lamprecht

ST - Tactical Studies
N: Winning Chess Tactics - Seirawan A: Secrets of Chess Tactics - Dvoretsky

VT - Tactical Problem-Solving
N: 1001 Brilliant ways to Checkmate - Reinfeld, Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations and Games - Polgar, A: Sharpen Your Tactics - Anatoly Lein

VG - Strategic Problem-Solving
A: Imagination in Chess - Gaprindashvili

VE - Endgame Problem-Solving
N: Chess Endgame Quiz - Evans
A: Informants

Please feel free to post a comment if you think another book is well suited to a certain category.

Frequency Of Play

2006-12-09T09:40:00.000-05:00

The act of playing good competitive chess is, of course, the primary goal of the GCTS. Every player will transgress at some point the various classes of chess skill as his understanding and competency of the game increases. Let's discuss for a moment the Frequency of Play within, and outside, the framework of the GCTS.

Play As a Training Tool
Playing chess as part of the trainig environment (The "PL" Sessions in our GCTS) is not the same as competitive chess. The differences are subtle. When you play as part of your training, typically games less than G30 or so, you are playing games to evaluate your understanding of your current knowledge of opening theory, the implementation of middlegame plan construction, strategic decision, etc. Training games typically are shorter and more relaxed as it is more important to display a wide set of ideas in your games, and to play more games, and not so much the end result. Of course, we want to win all games, but the focus is not on winning exclusively. The focus should be on applying what one has concentrated his studies on.

Playing Competitively
When you play competitively, these ideas hardly enter your mind, and the focus is primarly on winning the game. You do not risk by experimenting with openings you are still in the process of learning; generally you stick to what you know. In addition, the time limits on competitive chess are usually at least 40 moves in 2 hours, so the quality of play is better overall. For example, I personally usee to play the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian Defense faithfully if given the opportunity. Since my re-emergence back into the local chess scene, I don't even play the Sicilian against e4. For several months prior, I prepared an opening repertoire around the Slav and the Caro-Kann Defense - both very similar pawn structures with similar ideas (e5/c5 breaks, q-side expansion, etc.). I will, however, experiment with the dragon in short training games until I bring myself to the point where I feel comfortable playing it in a longer, competitive game.

This is very important because every chess player has certain openings they dislike; types of positions they loathe. Until you feel comfortable with those positions, you should avoid competitive games that lead to such positions. In my case, the Dragon was a great opening for me as it was sharp and led to quick victories (and losses) for both sides. In my age, I now seek out more solid opening choices. My experimentation continues with the Dragon, however.

Playing is Working
For most, getting down to their local chess club might seem like a journey on foot across the Alps. But playing at your local club has several advantages that you cannot get on the internet. There is the socialization, immediate commentary after the game (how often does that really happen online?), making of friends, and the discovery of others like yourself who love this game that are local to you. The USA was made infinitely better by the Fischer Era in the early/mid 70's regarding chess clubs and the availablility of places to go to hang out with your friends and play this great game. Rantings aside, he did bring chess to the mainstream public in the USA, however briefly.

Socialization
I think it is important for chess players who take the game seriously (we all do here, right?) to get to a local club and play and mingle with other players if you can physically do so. Placing your personal pride on the line in the flesh is a great motivator. You can't simply click the big 'X' in the upper right corner and disappear when you are in a chess club. Facing your conquerors again and again will make you a stronger player and a better person. We learn how to deal with loss and victory when we play chess; some people never get to experience this strange facet of chess because they simply play online exclusively. Actively seek out players in higher classes at local clubs and ask for a game. As Susan Polgar says, 'Win with Grace, Lose with Dignity'.

It is my belief that any serious player must play one major local tournament per month to improve his competitive play. Nerves, conduct of the game, rest, fatigue - all these aspects of competitive play come into being at a good tournament. Playing 4 G15's is not the same as playing 2 rounds of 40/2 G60 on a Saturday.

After your tournament, you MUST take the time to correctly evaluate your games, identify where your weaknesses are, make adjustments to your training, and continue working toward the NEXT tournament. It is important to have that next tournament in mind as soon as you complete the current tournament, if for nothing else than motivation to do better.

Frequency of Play is an important part of the GCTS training. Without a reasonable playing schedule, your newfound ideas may dissipate from non-use and be forgotten. Try and play as frequently as possible.

Topalov vs. Polgar

2006-12-08T09:53:00.000-05:00

This match has begun. It is a blindfold contest.

http://www.ajedrezbilbao.com/

How is your progress?

2006-12-04T21:52:00.000-05:00

Hi all - feel free to post your ideas and your progress so far if you are using the GCTS in any form, and especially if you have other ideas about self-training methods you'd like to share with everyone here!

Bobby Fischer Article

2006-12-01T15:40:00.000-05:00

Eric Talmadge has written a piece on Bobby Fischer that is mildly interesting Here.

How to Study an Opening - An Amateur's Perspective

2006-11-28T19:05:00.000-05:00

For many players, the study of openings, besides the lengthy arguments for and against, is a difficult item in our study program to address. Before we get into this discussion, let's be sure we know at least one thing: what opening we want to study. This is not an article about opening repertoire selection. That is a personal choice and is highly stylistic. We simply want to try and articulate proven, efficient methods of how to study the opening of your choice. What that opening is will make virtually no difference here.

Part I

Phase 1: General Ideas/Specific Goals
I have always believed that when you decide to play a certain opening, it should correlate well with your personal ideas of how the fight should be conducted. Not everyone feels comfortable on the black side of the Sveshnikov Sicilian, or the White side of the King's Gambit. But what you do feel comfortable in is an understanding of the basic ideas for that particular opening. Here I am talking about opening-specific ideas, and not general opening concepts such as speedy development, castle early, etc., but more like 'Black will seek a quick c5-break in this variation of the Caro-Kann', or 'White strives to restrict black's development of his light-squared bishop'.
These General Ideas help guide and point the improving player to correct plan construction/selection and move choices in this particular variation of the opening of choice. Grasping these general ideas early in the study of an opening is beneficial to the player overall, and usually improves his consistency in move and plan selection during the opening.
All openings have specific goals they try to accomplish - this is what sets this opening apart from all other openings. For example, in the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian, a specific goal for Black is to advance his queenside pawns against white and opt for an exchange sacrifice on c3 as quickly as possible - it is a race against White's kingside pawnstorm.

It is FUNDAMENTAL to understanding an opening that you grasp these General Ideas and Specific Goals and keep them in the forefront of your mind.

My personally favorite books for this kind of information is the "Starting Out" series by Everyman Press. They generally do not overdo it with copious amounts of variations, instead focusing on the ideas behind the opening and what your goals are. For example, in "Starting Out: The Dutch Defense" one axiom for black is stated that 'if Black can put a pawn on e5 in the Classical or the Lenigrad Dutch without being punished then he almost certainly have a good game.'. this knowledge alone, if you play the Dutch Defense, gives you at least a usable amount of information from which to derive useful moves and plans from. It's my belief that the Starting Out series was designed for players like you and I!

Phase 2: Blitz Chess
Huh? Blitz? Isn't Blitz bad for our OTB play? Sure. Well, bad? Maybe not. But it certainly does not help you in OTB play. But here we are discussing strategies on opening study, and Blitz Chess, as a TOOL, is exactly what the Doctor ordered. You NEED blitz games to try out your new opening as well as get some miles underneath you in the transitions into the middlegame, and to see those middlegame positions and how the plans you choose work or fail. And by Blitz, I mean Classical Blitz - 5 minute games, no shorter, even better with a 3-second increment, which is my favorite, as the increment virtually eliminates time forfeits. If you have a chess-playing friend and you both have computers, play against each other online and agree to play the basic opening each game. You want to play online because the moves are automatically recorded and games saved for you, which is VERY IMPORTANT for the third phase of our opening training. Otherwise, really try hard to enlist an online friend. Be flexible - agree to play a certain opening against them for their benefit and share in your training exercises this way. You can even agree to use an opening book for his sake and yours when either of you are playing an opening you are unfamiliar with for the other players sake. And, you make new chess friends this way. Alternatively, some chess playing programs have opening training in them - use that as well.

I would say a minimum of 25-30 games are needed to get a decent feel for the opening you are studying at this phase, no less. An average 5'3" game takes about 10 minutes to play, so you might get in 6 an hour, so that is about 5 hours worth of playing. Try different variations within your opening as well. No matter, after each playing session of "Opening Blitz", it's time to review your opening play and fix the holes in your opening knowledge.

Phase 3: FORD
Not the Car - Fix Or Repair Daily, but Fix Openings, Replay Daily. In this phase, we want to pull out our opening sources and review our opening play in our last group of blitz games using those sources. We want to also have some idea what plans seemed to work well (I know it's only blitz but it is something) and which plans did not seem to work well. We are not trying to annotate these games - they are blitz. We are simply trying to identify opening mistakes, correct them, and identify plans that seemed to work and plans that seemed to fail, and, just as importantly, identify plans yet untried. In the meantime, we are gaining some invaluable experience in this new opening on how the game transitions into the middlegame and what plans are generally available to us. This you cannot get out of any opening book alone. You have to PLAY the opening and experience the middlegames for this knowledge.

Rinse and Repeat
Our next step is really simple: Do it again. Iteration is the cornerstone of active chess training.

AMATEURS PRACTICE UNTIL THEY GET IT RIGHT
PROFESSIONALS PRACTICE UNTIL THEY CANNOT GET IT WRONG
Work this simple cycle of opening study and play until you feel at least comfortable when you play it in a Blitz game. Once you reach that stage (at least 25-30 games of blitz, however!), move on to Part II.

Part II
Phase 1: Annotated Games
As I have said many times in this blog, there is no better way to improve at chess than with well-anotated games from GM play. In our second part of opening training, we will use these games to full effect to fine tune our limited experience we gathered during Part I of our opening training.
Here, we want to gather about 25-30 well-annotated games of GM play in our opening. "Well-Annotated" does not mean Informant-Style annotations. We are seeking Alekhine and Botvinnik-style annotations that explain what the player was thinking, what plans he considered, why he liked certain moves, and what underlying strategies he considered in selecting his moves during the game, things only a GM can do. No symbology can replace this 'textual' annotation, so seek out GM games that are annotated in this manner. My favorites include "Alekhines Best Games" and Botvinnik's 100 Best Games" to name two. Also consider The Bronstein book about Zurich 1953 - excellent annotations.
Now we want to methodically and consistently review these GM games each evening on this opening, and review the games well. Don't simply scan over them, glancing at the notes. Play the game through on a board or on a computer. When you reach an annotation that has a variation, DO NOT MOVE THE PIECES but attempt to visualize the variation in your head on the board, then continue to the next note. Pay particular attention to plan development, ideas and goals the annotator talks about in the opening and in the middlegame.

Phase 2: Speed Chess
At this point you have managed to suffer through about 30 or so blitz games, and perhaps 30 or so annotated GM games. Are we ready to test ourselves in tournament play? Not quite yet...
At this point you could run out to your local tournament and jump into the fray and try your hand at your new opening, but what is the hurry? I firmly believe this phase is where you discover if you can actually play the opening or not: Speed Chess.
Speed chess is defined here as G30 - a game you can finish in an hour. Again, having a compliant partner will help you considerably. Try to get in at least 10 games of G30 before you venture into the tournament arena with your new opening. If you do not have a compliant partner, try to enlist someone online to help you out and reciprocate if you have to. Again, you'll make a new chess friend and be a better person for it!

Phase 3: FORD
Yes, you guessed it: Fix Openings, Replay Daily. After each playing session, actively annotate the G30 game and pay particular attention to the opening play and middlegame play. Fix any opening errors you made (consult you opening books/software!), and understand what plans worked or did not work in the middlegame, ans what plans should have been pursued but were not.

Rinse and Repeat.

I hope that this gives everyone a fun and efficient way to train in the opening phase of the game. It's a nice mix of Theory and Practice along with Assessment and Reevaluation techniques that are useful in patching up any holes in your new repertiore.

Good Luck!

Blitz Chess Theory

2006-11-28T09:15:00.001-05:00

I have added a new link to an interesting article on Blitz Chess Theory under Useful Links to the right.

Endgame Lab - King and Pawn Endings

2006-11-24T17:53:00.000-05:00

Here is yet another excellent example of corresponding squares from Dvortesky's Endgame Manual and the process one must use to figure them out.
f4(w) and f6(b) are in obvious correspondence, for if 1...Kg6 2.e7 Kf7 3.Kxf5 Kxe7 4.Kg6 wins. When White's king is on h4, Black's king must be on g6, and not f6, because of Kh5. So h4(w) and g6(b) correspond. Using these pairs or corresponding squares, we can surmise a third pair by the adjoining squares principle:
White: f4 and h4 adjoin g3
Black: f6 and g6 adjoin g7
Therefore, g3(w) and g7(b) correspond.

Let's examine f3: f3 Adjoins f4 and g3, whose corresponding squares are f6 and g7. f6 and g7 adjoin to g6, therefore f3(w) and g6(b) correspond.

Let's examine h3: h3 adjoins h4(g6 corresponds) and g3(g7 corresponds), and it's corresponding square is f6, which adjoins g6 and g7. Therefore, h3(w) and f6(b) correspond.

So far each square we have examined has a single corresponding square for black. Let's go further back one rank and investigate g2:

From g2, white can move to f3(g6), g3(g7), or h3(f6). The three corresponding squares (g6,g7,f6) connect to f7 - a square guarded by the white e-pawn on e6. Therefore, black cannot occupy f7 when White is on g2. Hence, the solution presents itself. White will retreat his King to g2 and see where Black's king is played in response, and go to the corresponding square of Black's new King position. In summary, the corresponding squares are:

f4(w) and f6(b) - ok
h4(w) and g6(b) - ok
f3(w) and g6(b) - ok
g3(w) and g7(b) - ok
h3(w) and f6(b) - ok
g2(w) and f7(b) - illegal!

1.Kf3 f3(g6)... 1...Kg6! 2.Kg2! Now black must choose his poison. Whichever square he moves to, White will occupy the corresponding square... 2...Kf6 f6(b) h3(w)... 3.Kh3! Kg7 g7(b) g3(w)... 4.Kg3! Kf6 f6(b) f4(w)... 5.Kf4 Kg6 6.e7 Kf7 7.Kxf5 Kxe7 8.Kg6+-

Middlegame Lab

2006-11-24T17:04:00.000-05:00

White to move and win
[
1.Rd8+ Kf7 2.Bc6 Rec7 [ 2...Rbc7 3.Be8++-] 3.Rdd1! 1-0 and Black loses the exchange.
]

Chess Turkey

2006-11-22T17:12:00.000-05:00

Everyone has done it - dropped a 'Chess Turkey' during a tournament, or been the recipient of a 'Chess Turkey'.

A Chess Turkey is a game where you or your opponent played terrible and got blown off the board handily, usually in under 20 moves.

Do you have a chess Turkey you want to share?

Post the pgn here so everyone can enjoy your 'Chess Turkey' for Thanksgiving Day! Be SURE it is properly formatted so others can simply cut and paste it into their chess readers and enjoy!

I'll start it off with a classic from my library of 'Chess Turkeys'. The names are changed to protect the guilty and the innocent alike:

White: Turkey Reuben
Black: Sausage N. Pepper
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qb6 5.Nb3 Qc7 6.Bd3 a6 7.Nc3 b5 8.0-0 Bb7 9.Be3 Nf6 10.f4 b4 11.e5 [ 11.Na4 Bxe4 12.Bxe4 Nxe4 13.Qd4 f5 14.Nb6+/=] 11...bxc3 12.exf6 cxb2 13.Rb1 gxf6 14.Bd4 Ke7 [ 14...Rg8 15.Rf2 f5 16.Qe2 Nc6 17.Bxb2=/+] 15.Qg4 [ better is 15.Nc5+/-]
15...d6?? [ 15...h6 16.Nc5 Bd5 17.Rxb2 Ke8+/-] 16.Bxf6+ 1-0

If 16...Kxf6 17.Qg5#. Otherwise, black will be a Rook down with no compensation.

Gobble Gobble!

How I use the GCTS

2006-11-21T19:02:00.000-05:00

Here is a brief synopsis on how I am using the GCTS detailed at ChessOk and summarized here on the blog, modified and altered to fit our needs. I'd also like the readers to post comments on how they use the GCTS and what thier experiences have been so far.

Time
Being a full-time employee for a non-chess company, my 'chess day' is broken into two parts: My pre-work routine and my evening routine. Between these two study segments I try to get as much done as possible, and on occasion I cannot do anything during my Post-work Routine because of other prior commitments. So my pre-work routine is essential in keeping myself fresh with regards to chess.

Originally I had tried getting in 4 time units a day, as called for my the breakdown, by shortening the time unit itself. For example, if I had 2 hours of study time available for the day, my time unit would equal 30 minutes that day. If I had 1 hour, then it would equal 15 minutes. After a while, I found that this resulting in a higher rate of thrashing, so I decided to standardize the time unit to one hour and not stress over getting in 4 units of study a day. For me, it is more like a 16 unit study cycle that I step through, starting with Day1 and progressing, as time permits, through the schedule. The standard schedule looks like this:

Day1 - SO2, VT1, SG1
Day2 - VE2, PL1, VT1
Day3 - SG1, VG1, PL1, VT1
Day4 - SO2, VE1, VT1

(see this post here for what this all means)

The 4-Day routine gets translated into a 16-unit cycle:
SO2, VT1, SG1, VE2, PL1, VT1, SG1, VG1, PL1, VT1, SO2, VE1, VT1

Further, I have made some modifications thanks to feedback from jaxter here (because your input is vital to the collective):
VE2 = SE1 + VE1

I have also broken up each of the SO2's into two SO1's each so they are more manageable in my cycle.

The end result is:
SO1, VT1, SG1, VE1, SO1, PL1, VT1, SE1, SG1, SO1, VG1, PL1, VT1, SO1, VE1, VT1

I list these on a whiteboard and check them off as I do them. I am not married to the order, so if the opportunity comes to play, I play and mark off 'PL1', or if I'm feeling kind of 'endgamey', I'll study or solve endgames. I do make sure I hit each segment before I begin a new cycle. This ensures homogeneous studying across the chess spectrum. I periodically review the cycle every couple months or so based on feedback from my losses and my chess coach.

Pre-Work Routine (non-cycle training)
I have discovered very recently that actually reading a chess book in the early morning hours is not a good way to awaken from my dreams! With that in mind, I avoid any study routines that require written materials. I have gotten into the habit of doing about 30 minutes of tactical problems at the Chess Tactics Server each morning. This gets me thinking about chess right off the bat in the morning, and after a couple of problems my head is clear and I am thinking as I should. These problems are generally not too difficult. However, the trick to scoring well is solving them in under 3 seconds! I try and concentrate on recognizing ideas and getting the tactics correct, even if I lose a point or two in the process. I have noticed that I sometimes go into a 'funk' in my solving abilities, missing several in a row at times. This can really kill your rating on the site. I have found that I think better if I do not know what my rating is at that moment, so I tape an index card to my screen to cover my rating that is displayed below the board. It helps.

Remember, It is more important for us to solve the problem correctly than to rush a move and get it wrong, so I would aim at higher rates of solving than rating points. The site is primarily for tactics training as it pertains to blitz chess, so for that reason the 3 second limit is used. I would guess that the better blitz player you are, the better score you'd get at this site.

In Summary, I am able to do 1/2 unit of Basic Tactics Solving each day. I refer to this as non-cycle training as it is not included in my Cycle. It is in addition to any training I do in the Cycle.

Post-Work Routine (Cycle Training)
My Post-Work Routine includes all of my other study routines that require sit-down, book in hand, board in front studying, including Openings, Strategy/Middlegame Theory and play, Endgame theory and play, and intense tactical training on difficult positions (remember that my non-cycle training is all about basic tactical drills). This is the meat and potatoes of my studying. It includes at least one weekly G60 game played on ICC (PL1), and one simul against an IM or better (PL1) on weekends if I can get it in. Otherwise, I play a bunch of G5, G10, or G15's. I inherently get in about 30 minutes of strategy/middlegame studying due to my ongoing correspondence games, and this helps me recognize and develop useful plans during these games. If you are playing correspondence games, you'll agree it is a great way to train your analysis skills and strategical sense. Otherwise, I consult my cycle and decide if I want to study the next item on the list, and go from there.

I hope this helps give other players an idea of how I use the GCTS to promote good, homogeneous study in chess. It's important to concentrate on all aspects of the game when you are in training at the sub-2200 level, and the GCTS gives you that.

Please post your ideas, comments, and criticisms here at the chess training blog and good luck to everyone!

Corresponding Squares and Triangulation

2006-11-18T16:06:00.000-05:00

Here is a classic example of Corresponding Squares and Triangulation:

Pairs of Reciprocal Zuzwang exist:

d6(w) and d8(b)
c5(w) and c7(b)

The black zugzwang squares, d8 and c7, border c8. The white zugzwang squares, d6 and c5, border d5. Therefore, d5(w) and c8(b) are also corresponding squares in this position. This essentially means:

If White moves his King to c5, Black must be able to play Kc7

If White moves his King to d6, Black must be able to play Kd8

If White moves his King to d5, Black must be able to play Kc8

The sets of squares are said to be in correspondence.

Black must avoid moving into a corresponding square without white already occupying the other square in correspondence:

If Black plays Kc7, White can win with Kc5

If Black plays Kc8, White can win with Kd5

If Black plays Kd8, White can win with Kd6

So, the goal for white is to force Black to move in the current position, because c8(b) and d5(w) are in correspondence. Unfortunately, it is White's move.

White must lose a move with Triangulation.

With the Black King on d8, white will move from c4 to d4 (or reverse) to force black onto c7 or c8. White only then occupies the corresponding square which black moves to:

1.Kc4 [ 1.Kd6 Kd8 d6/d8 correspond and white cannot make progress with this move.; 1.Kc5 Kc7 c5/c7 correspond and white cannot make progress with this move.]

1...Kd8 Kd6 would now win for white, as d6/d8 correspond, but he cannot play that...

2.Kd4 distant opposition as well as zugzwang. Now Black is forced onto c7 or c8 and White wins by occupying the corresponding square.

2...Kc8 3.Kd5! because d5 and c8 correspond.

3...Kd8 [ 3...Kc7 4.Kc5(.) followed by Kb6+-]

4.Kd6 because d6 and d8 correspond.

4...Kc8 5.c7 and white wins.

Go over this fine example several times until you fully understand it perfectly. It is one of the most important endgame positions to know. Below is another example of Corresponding Squares. See if you can identify the corresponding squares in the same method as above. The key is to identify mutual zugzwang pairs of squares and identfy common squares between them that lead to additional corresponding squares.

Highlight below to see answer
[White needs to break through at e3. The obvious corresponding squares are

d2(w) and f3(b)
c3(w) and e3(b)

Looking at adjoining squares:

d2(w) and c3(w) adjoin c2(w)
f3(b) and e3(b) adjoin f4(b)

Therefore:
c2(w) and f4(b) correspond.

But white has the similar additional resource of triangulation using b2 and b3 squares, as both those squares correspond to the single square f3 for black, and that is key to the win, allowing White to triangulate at an opportune time to place black in zugzwang.
]

Corus 2007

2006-11-18T15:28:00.000-05:00

Check ou the Corus 2007 tournament here.

Endgame Lab - Rook vs. Bishop

2006-11-16T07:21:00.000-05:00

Black to move and win:

Endgame Lab - Knight vs Pawns

2006-11-14T15:25:00.000-05:00

White to move and Draw

Endgame Lab - Rook Endings

2006-11-13T07:39:00.001-05:00

Black to move and win

Endgame Lab - Rook vs. Bishop

2006-11-13T07:39:00.000-05:00

White to move and win

Endgame Lab - King and Pawn Endings

2006-11-12T12:04:00.000-05:00

Instructive Endgame
Here is a very instructive endgame from the U.S. Chess League Wildcard Round. Thanks to NM Arun Sharma for the analysis. The entire article can be seen at the U.S. Chess League site.

Black to move: Can you hold the draw?

Highlight below for solution:

[
Mikhailuk - Kuljasevic [A29], U.S. Chess League, 2006: 65...Kd7? Black made a big mistake with 65... Kd7? as will later be shown, 65... Ke7 was much better.[ 65...Ke7! 66.Kd5 Kd7 opposition 67.a5 bxa5 68.Kxc5 Ke7! 69.b6 ( 69.Kb6 a4=; 69.Kd4 Kd6 70.c5+ Kc7 71.Kc4 b6 72.c6 Kd6=) 69...a4 70.Kb4 Kd6 71.Kxa4 Kc5 72.Kb3 Kxb6=] 66.Kd5 Ke7 67.a5 bxa5 68.Kxc5 After 68. Kxc5 as shown by the game itself, it appears that Black may be lost since the moving of his King to the d-file allows 69. Kb6 followed by Kxb7 and the advancing of the c-pawn where, due to the location of the Black King, White Queens right after Black and because of his extra b-pawn and better King placement, the ending is then winning for White. However, despite his error on move 65, Black still had a real chance to save the game with the incredible move....
68...Kd7? [ 68...Ke8!! 69.b6 ( 69.Kb6 a4 70.c5 a3 71.c6 bxc6 72.bxc6 a2 73.c7 a1Q 74.c8Q+ Ke7=) 69...Kd7 70.Kb5 a4 71.Kxa4 Kc6 72.Kb4 Kxb6 73.c5+ Kc6 74.Kc4 Kd7 75.Kd5 Ke7 76.c6 b6 77.c7 Kd7 78.c8R Kxc8 79.Ke6 b5 80.Kxf6 b4 81.Kg7 b3 82.f6 b2 83.f7 b1Q 84.f8Q+ Kd7 85.Qf7+ Kd6 86.Qxh5= is a theoretical draw.] 69.Kb6 a4 70.Kxb7 Kd6 71.b6 a3 72.Kc8 a2 73.b7 a1Q 74.b8Q+ Kc5 75.Qb5+ Kd4 76.Qd5+ Kc3 77.c5 Qa6+ 78.Kd7 Qa7+ 79.Ke6 Qg7 80.Qd7 Qg8+ 81.Kxf6 Qf8+ 82.Kg6 Qxc5 83.f6 Qg1+ 84.Kxh5 Qg3 85.f7 Qf3+ 86.Kg5 Qg3+ 87.Qg4 Qe5+ 88.Qf5 Qg7+ 89.Kh5 1-0
]

Endgame Challenge

2006-11-11T15:58:00.000-05:00

An excellent example of outflanking and opposition - White to move and win:
Highlight below to see solution [1.Ka6 Kb8 [ 1...f4 2.b6+-] 2.g3! [ 2.b6? Kc8 3.b7+ Kb8 4.g3 c5 5.Kb5 Kxb7 6.Kxc5 Kc7 7.Kd5 f4! 8.gxf4 Kd7= siezing the opposition] 2...Ka8 [ 2...Kc8 3.Ka7 Kd8 4.Kb8! opposition 4...Kd7 5.Kb7 Kd8 ( 5...Kd6 6.Kc8+-) 6.Kc6 outflanking 6...Kc8 7.Kd5 Kb7 8.Ke5 Kb6 9.Kxf5 Kxb5 10.g4 c5 11.g5 c4 12.Ke4 decoy 12...Kb4 13.g6 c3 14.Kd3 Kb3 15.g7 c2 16.g8Q++-] 3.b6 Kb8 4.Kb5! [ 4.b7? c5 5.Kb5 Kxb7=] 4...Kb7 5.bxc7 Kxc7 6.Kc5 Kd7 7.Kd5+- because White has the opposition, f4 does not work.]

Chess Corps

2006-11-10T12:15:00.000-05:00

Chess Corps is having an Ice Cream Chess event at a local mall in the Boston area this Sunday.

Book List

2006-11-10T10:04:00.000-05:00

I have added a link to an Amazon Book List I will maintain for this blog. Books on this list I will consider as 'must have' books to properly implement the GCTS we articulate here.

Again, I encourage everyone to post comments, suggestions, and criticism of the system here at the blog. Your participation is what drives this blog and the user feedback of the GCTS will make it more efficient and better for all!

Typical Chess Endings

2006-11-10T06:57:00.000-05:00

Item 4 in our GCTS training framework (See "Theory , Theory and More Theory") calls for the "evaluation, plan of play and standard tactical methods for approximately 250 endgame positions". Keeping this in mind, where can we get these 250 or so positions? Are they documented? do they even exist?

I introduce GM Mark Dvoretsky...

Precise Positions
In his book "Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual", the author states that "one should study relatively few positions, the most important and most probable, but study and understand them perfectly...Our basic theoretical knowledge must be easy to remember and comprehend."

Dvoretsky calls these Precise Positions.

In this great book, there sits 213 Precise Positions, indicated by being printed in blue ink. Dvoretsky goes on to say that "these positions should be memorized and which will serve as guideposts again and again in your games". This practical view, enumerating the positions and supplying the ambitious student with the actual positions, suits our training purposes perfectly. This is one of the most vital and important 'russian chess secrets' revealed to us by Mr. Dvoretsky.

This number is certainly ballpark of 250, and given the source of this information, I'm willing to risk my chess future that the study of these 213 positions will result in improved play in the endgame. I also believe that this is an efficient use of study time, and it is important for us to be efficient in our studies, and avoid 'thrashing'. This is one of the primary reasons behind the 4-day training schedule.

Our goal is to take the mystery out of chess self-training and make our job as clear to us as possible. Articulating Precise Positions with regard to chess endings, I hope, gives readers a better idea on what to study and where to get those study materials from. Dvoretsky's book can be had at Amazon.

Middlegame Problem

2006-11-09T06:39:00.000-05:00

White to move and win:
Highlight to see solution[Rozentalis (2565) - Terreaux (2300), Biel (open), 1990
1.Nhxf5!! gxf5 [ 1...Bxf5 2.Qxe7+ Kxe7 3.Bxf5+-] 2.Bxf5 Qf6 [ 2...Bxf5 3.Qxe7+ Kxe7 4.Nxf5++-] 3.Qh5+ Ke7 4.Bxe6 Kxe6 5.Re1+ Kd7 6.Bxd6 Kxd6 7.Qxh6! Ng6 [ 7...Qxh6 8.Nf5++-] 8.Qh2! 1-0]

Theory, Theory, and More Theory

2006-11-08T06:37:00.000-05:00

What Is Chess Theory and why is it important?

As outlined in a previous post, the GCTS ("Generic Chess Training System") that we are trying to develop here attempts to outline useful self-training methods for each stage of the game as a student progresses. In a recent post, a blogger commented on the lack of Endgame Theory included in the program. Opening and Middlegame 'studies', as opposed to solving problems, make up a fair portion of the program, but there was a lack of endgame study-time alloted. We further went on to elaborate on this missing piece to our chess training puzzle, defending it as being 'included' in the generic Endgame portion of the program. But that does not answer our question: What is Chess Theory?

Let's try and define this simply by defining it's components. We all know what 'Chess' is, so:

the‧o‧ry Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

I've highlighted in bold the two definitions (you may disagree - that's ok) that I believe apply directly to Chess Theory.

A simple(?) example may help here: Philidor's Position is not theoretical in nature as it can be drawn in all cases with correct play. That is an actual fact, not a theory. On the other end of the spectrum, from a theoretical point of view, Rook endings, in general, are drawish, but it is not a fact that all Rook endgames end in a draw with correct play. The same can be said for a myriad of opening variations that 'in theory' are good for white. White has lost hundreds of games from those positions, and it can not be said as a statement of fact that white is winning or is better. It is conjecture or a statement of opinion, that is all. There are many examples (none come to mind) of 'theory' being completely wrong in the opening. Hence, the 'guess or conjecture' aspect of theory.

Semantics perhaps.

Referring back to the article that we summarized this training on at ChessOk, we find the following paragraph, which I think is a very interesting assessment of what it takes to become a 2200 ballpark chess player, called the 'base line':

"The chess player must master tactics (60-70 per cent of a success rate solving problems of an intermediate difficulty), acquire a firm knowledge of the basics of chess strategy, ie. How a position's evaluation is developed and what are its components, familiarize with about 15-25 common plans from the chess classic examples, know typical chess endings: evaluation, plan of play and standard tactical methods for approximately 250 endgame positions."

Let's dissect this paragraph into it's components and we will try and address each one separately in this and in posts to be written later:

1 - The chess player must master tactics - 60-70 per cent of a success rate solving problems of an intermediate difficulty
2 - acquire a firm knowledge of the basics of chess strategy: How a position's evaluation is developed and what are its components
3 - familiarize with about 15-25 common plans from the chess classic examples
4 - know typical chess endings: evaluation, plan of play and standard tactical methods for approximately 250 endgame positions

I'm no literary genius but I would say that paragraph pretty much lays out what you need to know before you can expect to achieve a rating in the 2200 range!

Here we have specifically described 4 areas of chess knowledge/theory that is required to be known by a student if he expects to progress into the 2200 range. Naturally, there will be students that will do it without achieving this 'base line' knowledge, but for our generic purposes, our goal will be to meet this base line and focus our studies on achieving this.

I will examine the first item today: Tactics

Chess Tactics
Our base line states "The chess player must master tactics - 60-70 per cent of a success rate solving problems of an intermediate difficulty". This is a very simple, direct statement, but the only problem may be what we define as 'intermediate difficulty'. My opinion on this is that any tactic that is 1 move deep can be considered a basic tactic, 2-3 move combinations are intermediate, and complex tactical problems of 4 moves or more are advanced. For example, recognizing a simple Knight Fork or Pin would be considered a simple tactic. An intermediate tactic may be the removal of a defender/deflection to win a pawn. A complex tactic would be anything more complex than an intermediate tactic. Topalovian, for sure.

To practice simple to intermediate tactics problems, you can try the Chess Tactics Server or get any good book on tactical problems. There are many, many tactical books out there that can help you with this phase of the game.

In our next blog entry we will examine the second item in our list of baseline knowledge: "acquire a firm knowledge of the basics of chess strategy: How a position's evaluation is developed and what are its components." and try to get a better grasp on what that sentence means to us mere mortal chess players who strive to become better at a game that, for centuries, has eluded many.

As always, your comments are actively sought and pass along this blog URL to all your chess playing friends!

Captures, Checks, Pins, Forks

2006-11-07T06:41:00.001-05:00

It has happened to everybody. You play a seemingly beautiful move and your opponent drops a capture, check, pin or fork on you that you overlooked. Your first reaction is "$%#^&%!" and your second reaction is "how in the world did I miss that?".

This is a frequent occurrence for many lower class players and occasionally happens to upper class (B/A/Expert) players.

Here is an exercise to get your mind used to looking for these kinds of moves right off the bat (after all, they are basic tactics and you need to see these first and foremost in a position):

Take any GM game and pick a side. Begin to replay the game one move at a time. After each move, write down all the captures, checks, pins and forks that can be made as a next move. Record:

Captures: Bxc5
Checks: Bb5+
Pins: Bf5/R/Q (Bishop to f5 pinning Rook to Queen)
Forks: Nf5/K/Q (Knight to f5 forking King and Queen)

Usually you will be amazed how many of these moves need to be accounted for. The benefit of this exercise is to give your mind capture/check/pin/fork pattern recognition. It is also somewhat of a chess vision drill as well.

Try this for several games. It may take a bit of time off your studying, but if you have a problem missing these moves in your mind's eye, this will help you out in a big way.

As usual, keep the comments coming and all opinions are welcome!

Knight Endings - Botvinnik's Rule

2006-11-07T06:41:00.000-05:00

White to move and win:
Keep in mind Botvinnik's Rule of Knight endings: "Knight endings are really pawn endings". If you could win this with knights removed, you should be able to win this with the knights on the board.
Highlight below to see solution:[Bagirov (2475) - Simic,R (2505) Dieren, 1990 - 1.Nc5 Nb5 2.a4 Nd4 3.Kg2 Ke7 4.Kf2 Kd6 [ 4...f5 5.Nd3 -- idea 6.Ne5 Xg6] 5.Ne4+ Kd5 6.Nxf6+ Kc4 7.b5 Kb4 8.Nd5+! Ka5 [ 8...Kxa4 9.b6 axb6 ( 9...a6 10.Ne7! idea b7) 10.Nxb6+ Kb5 11.Nd7 Ne6 12.Ne5+-] 9.g4! idea 10.f5 gf5 11.gh5 [ 9.Ke3 Nf5+ 10.Kf3 Nd4+ 11.Ke4 Nf5 12.Ke5 Nxg3 13.Kf6 Nf5 14.Kxg6 Nxh4+ 15.Kxh5 Nf5] 9...hxg4 10.Kg3 Nf5+ 11.Kxg4 Nd6 12.Kg5 Nf5 [ 12...Kxa4 13.Nc7 Nxb5 14.Nxb5 Kxb5 15.Kxg6 a5 16.h5] 13.h5 1-0]