Path to Chess Mastery

The Kung Fu of Chess II

2012-02-26T10:06:00.000-05:00

From an interview with Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming at The Combative Corner:

"Art takes a lot of time and the right mind to truly appreciate and enjoy. Many things we do in our everyday lives and careers can be considered very complex and beautiful forms of art. Whether it is martial arts, music, writing, painting, engineering, speaking a language, healing and helping people, playing sports, playing chess, or whatever we concentrate on and dedicate ourselves to, the development and true feeling of the breadth of each art-form can only be felt when practiced diligently, with discipline, with humility, and with the right intentions. Without these things, the art you practice will always be only on the surface. You should continue searching deeper and deeper into your practice. Keep finding resources and people to learn from and help lead you. Don’t get stuck in the same spot. What you will discover is so rewarding. Keep your cup empty and you will always see the beautiful horizon ahead. If your cup is full, then there will be too many clouds obstructing your view. I began training martial arts because I wanted to fight, but from that time until now, after more than 50 years of practice, it has evolved into something so much more."

On keeping your cup empty:

A young Samurai swordsman entered the house of a famous Zen master. He looked at the master, bowed and said, "Master! I have reached a deep level of Zen, both in theory and practice. I have heard you are great so I come here to bow to you and hope you can teach me something." The Zen master looked at this proud young man. Without a word, he went into the back room and brought out a teapot and a teacup. He placed the cup in front of the young man and started to pour the tea into the cup. The tea filled the cup quickly and soon began to overflow. The young man looked at the old man with a confused expression. He said, "Stop, master! The teacup is overflowing". The old Zen master put the teapot down and smiled at him. He said, "This is you. You are too full already. I cannot teach you. If you wish to learn, you must first empty your cup."

Annotated Game #32: A somewhat embarrassing draw

2012-02-25T09:47:00.003-05:00

This next tournament game features an unusual variation of the English Four Knights, where Karpov's 4...Be7 is followed up by Black exchanging knights on d4. White gets a pleasant plus out of the opening, which after a series of subsequent exchanges on d5 rapidly turns into an ending. White's outside passed pawn gives him all the winning chances, but the double rooks and bishops mean that it won't be easy for him. White fails to maintain the tension and exchanges off the outside passer for Black's d-pawn, essentially ensuring the draw for Black, as the resulting bishop ending with 4 vs. 3 pawns on the kingside is very easy to defend.

Useful points from the game analysis:

The early knight exchange on d4 does not appear to challenge White in this variation.
Provoking the series of exchanges on d5 and going into a double rook and bishop ending appeared to be the correct decision, due to the weakness of Black's isolated queen pawn.
White should have developed his rooks earlier and seized the c-file, although Black ultimately lets him do this anyway.
Silly 18th move by White was due to a poor thinking process and not examining his opponent's potential responses (i.e. failure to falsify the candidate move).
Unwillingness to preserve tension in the position on move 30 (a common amateur error) led to the disappearance of White's winning chances.

After my initial look at the game, I'd felt quite embarrassed, since I thought I had thrown away an easy win. In fact, the win was likely there, but it wasn't so easy to realize (at least for a non-endgame expert) and the final position was in fact drawn, despite White's one-pawn advantage. So I'm now just somewhat embarrassed by the draw.

Book completed - Chess for Tigers

2012-02-22T09:12:00.002-05:00

I recently finished Chess for Tigers by Simon Webb (Batsford, 2005 edition). This is something of a "cult classic" due to its ability to both instruct and entertain. The YouTube video review (linked above) is what hooked me into reading the book, although I'd seen several references to it before.

For those not familiar with the book, its 15 relatively short chapters all contain practical observations and tips for players who are interested in being "tigers" and improving their chess performance (i.e. winning more often). This is not as silly as it may sound at first and the animal analogy is cleverly used, rather than being taken too seriously.

The basic premise of the author is laid out immediately:

"You could be a much better chess player than you are.

How? Simply by making fuller use of your natural ability."

The point is that the book is not about improving your chess knowledge - although that should occur as a side benefit if you play through the entertainingly annotated games the author provides as examples - but rather about improving your chess performance. (For those who are unsure about the difference, perhaps a look at the Chess Performance Inventory would help bring home the idea.)

My own observations:

The central theme of the book - how to maximize your existing skills - is one that is often overlooked in chess literature.
Sound advice on self-analysis is given in chapter 3 ("Looking in the Mirror") which may be the section of the most benefit to the average person.
The emphasis on the practical consequences of chess decisions is refreshing and insightful. I found particularly valuable the author's observations on how to optimize your thinking process in different situations for the best possible results.
The author's approach to openings is broadly similar to how I view them, so that was nice to see for validation purposes. He makes a number of useful points in weighing how best to go about your opening study and preparation.
I have some reservations about his chapter on how to take on much stronger opponents ("How to trap Heffalumps"), which presents some contradictory advice for the reader. His central recommendation is to head for complicated positions where neither you nor your opponent know what to do. At the same time, he also recommends that you follow your own openings book, since you are more familiar with it than your opponent (I agree with this approach). He also presents some other sensible advice such as play actively and avoid exchanging down for its own sake. A related discussion occurred in the Ratings Fear and Loathing post.
Perhaps the most useful chapters for me were the ones on "How to win won positions" and "What to do in drawn positions"
As I've mentioned elsewhere, any material presented by strong players (as the author was) which dispels the myth of perfect chess is a useful mental reality check. The author in fact specifically recommends that we play to win (by methods we can understand) and not to attempt to always play "the best move" (which is in any case often debatable).

Book completed - How to Play the English Opening

2012-02-19T07:17:00.001-05:00

I've now finished How to Play the English Opening by Anatoly Karpov (Batsford, 2007). As part of my opening study practice, I decided back in December that I needed something more in-depth to look at regarding playing the English. I've had long experience with the opening (as shown by the links to the annotated games on the sidebar) and it's done well for me. However, I think part of the success I've had in the opening has been due to its surprise value in tournament play and other players' general unfamiliarity with it. In order to gain true mastery over the English and employ it most effectively, I came to the conclusion that I would have to put more work into understanding it.

This book certainly did not disappoint, from the point of view of in-depth study. The title may be somewhat misleading, however; this is in no way an instructional book for opening novices, rather a collection of key games in the English annotated by Karpov, with an emphasis on explaining important move choices in critical variations. In the process, the reader also acquires an understanding of how and why grandmaster practice in the opening has evolved. This excerpt from the author's introduction reflects exactly what I was looking for:

"Be assured that a careful study of the presented games will be more beneficial for mastering the English Opening than the blind memorization and learning by rote of different variations and schemes. As a result you will be able to penetrate deep into the opening and discover its close connection with the middlegame and even the endgame. You will discover strategical plans of struggle, learn some technical devices, and trace the development of various ideas in this opening. Besides this, getting to know the games of famous grandmasters is in itself a pleasant and useful pursuit."

While you can read a summary review by IM Jeremy Silman at the above link, here are my own observations.

The participation by Karpov in a majority of the featured games presented in the book (on both sides of the struggle) gives the material the added dimension of being presented by an experienced practitioner. He is able to authoritatively comment on his own thinking and preparation and also has deep background on the games of other famous GMs that are presented.
This book is not for wimps. It demands your attention and will require effort on the part of class-level players to understand why Karpov judges some positions a certain way. Not all tactical points are explicitly explained, either. However, this is no different from what would be involved in studying other GM-level annotated games and working things out for yourself when necessary is in itself a useful study practice.
Unlike with many opening books on the market, the author has no set point of view on the opening to sell (this isn't entitled Win with the English Opening), so his explanations and evaluations come across as objective.
The level of the material requires the reader to have some previous familiarity with the English Opening as well as a solid grasp of positional concepts.
The formatting was fairly dense but readable, with 1-2 diagrams per single-column page. Due to the large number of side variations (often including complete game scores) presented in each of the 30 main game chapters, I think this was a good choice for how to present the material.
The writing was high quality. I saw at most two typographical errors in the narrative text and only found one game score error, and that only after completing the book and looking up the game in question in a computer database. (The book error did not in fact materially impact the analysis and was from a partial game score.)

I went through the book with a set in front of me, playing through the principal games and most of the side games and variations, resetting each time from the start. This method takes advantage of the repetition required for learning purposes, as well as allowing for more deliberate focus on each line studied. Shorter annotated sidelines were visualized, in order to train board sight and visualization skills. While I use a variety of computer tools, I find working through books with an aesthetically pleasing set to in fact be of more practical use, as it encourages concentration and allows for a physical and mental experience directly related to OTB tournament play.

Annotated Game #31: In which a Caro-Kann becomes a French

2012-02-18T06:36:00.000-05:00

This game demonstrates how a vague familiarity with your chosen opening line can lead to long-term trouble. I had by this point in my career adopted the 3...c5 variation against the Advance Caro-Kann, but had not put much effort into actually looking at it. Black with 5...e6 makes a common error out of ignorance and ends up simply with a tempo-down French Defense. This is amusing to look up in the database, because the position is easily found, but the computer thinks Black should get two moves in a row (if only!)

By move 11 White has a significantly superior position and correctly decides to start operations on the kingside. However, he does not conduct his attack in the most rigorous manner and Black could have fought back and seized the initiative himself on move 16. The position at this point is particularly worth studying, since it illustrates how one side can change the course of a game with bold thinking and active play. I was psychologically on the defensive at that point and not looking for such moves; at the time, I also was more timid in my move selection.

Black nevertheless has a more or less reasonable game, albeit slightly worse and without much counterplay, as he simply tries to respond to White's threats. A characteristic thinking process flaw (not focusing on the full range of your opponent's threats) derails Black on move 24, as he removes a key defensive piece from its square; this also reflects another thinking process flaw, not understanding what your pieces are doing in a position. White immediately spots a way to make multiple threats that cannot all be dealt with and emerges up a piece. Black decides to fight on tenaciously, but after good defensive play by White any counterchances on the kingside are nullified.

Be a Self-Taught Grandmaster

2012-02-15T18:48:00.000-05:00

Actually, I don't think I'll ever be one - I'll be quite satisfied to achieve the master title, if that happens in the future - but the following quote from such a person happens to echo some of my previous posts on training.

"It is possible to draw a clear dividing line between two schools of thought when it comes to chess training. One advocates that you should start by studying simple positions, mainly endgames, before working up to more complicated material. The second school starts at the beginning of the game and works forwards from there. I myself belong to a group of players who had to teach themselves, and I believe the most important thing is to start at the area that interests you the most, whether it be endgames or openings. It should not be forgotten that it is possible to study endgames through openings and vice versa! The most important thing is to study in depth." -- Swedish GM Tiger Hillarp Persson

(Excerpted from the ChessCafe review of Grandmaster Versus Amateur)

Annotated Game #30: English vs. Double Fianchetto

2012-02-11T07:53:00.006-05:00

This next tournament game features an opening which presents major decisions as early as move 3, which I find both interesting and refreshing. Black however seems intent on playing a "system opening" in which he pursues a double fianchetto of his bishops without regard to what White is doing. While the formation is not a particularly bad choice against the English, this sort of rote play starts going off the rails with 5...e6, which might have been a better idea if White had established a traditional pawn center. White grabs the initiative on move 7 and has a strategically won game by move 12, although Black had some tactical counterplay possibilities on move 17 that would have greatly improved his position and chances.

While I've previously identified endgame play as my greatest weakness, the Bishop endgame that arises (which admittedly should be easily won) is played well by White. This is the other side of the coin of analyzing your own games; not only should your areas for improvement be identified, but credit should also be given for competent play when it happens. This is a confidence booster and it is useful psychologically for the improving player to know that they are in fact capable of such play.

February 2012 Chess Carnival - Openings (plus commentary)

2012-02-06T18:33:00.001-05:00

Robert Pearson has the 2012 edition of the Chess Carnival off to a big start with The Best Of! Chess Blogging Part I: Openings. Logical place to begin, right?

One of my own posts is included and openings study has been a recurrent theme of this blog, despite the common advice - which one can find repeated in various places, sometimes with great solemnity - that improving players should not study openings until reaching a relatively high rating threshold (take your pick, anywhere from 1800 to 2400). Openings study is termed a waste of time for lower-rated players and the argument is made that such study will not materially affect their results. (I'll note that sometimes similar advice is given about studying endgames, but that's another topic.) In any case, this advice strikes me as somewhat facile; I wonder if a majority of players giving such advice actually followed it themselves while moving up the ratings ladder.

I do acknowledge the validity of the basic argument, in my experience most clearly articulated by Dan Heisman (for example here), which is that until a certain threshold of playing strength is reached, players lose games mostly because of poor tactical play. Therefore, a player of up to 1400-1600 strength will get a much bigger return on their investment by concentrating on studying tactics and improving their thinking process. This is mathematically demonstrable, not just opinion, so I respect that.

A more general argument is that "opening theory" is useless (see Dana Mackenzie's provocative post referenced in the Carnival) and/or so is memorizing opening lines. Unlike the previous argument, this one is not so clearly provable as a theoretical statement. In practice, however, the point is taken that mindless memorization of move sequences or attempting to keep up with all the 20th-move theory improvements of professional players are not really worth doing. This probably should be common sense, but it seems enough players do these things to generate the "don't study openings" advice. (I confess I began my tournament career as a Class C player memorizing lines from Modern Chess Openings, a practice which I've since broken to good effect.)

This all still leaves the question of when an improving player should begin "serious study" of openings. For example, NM Heisman in the article linked to above noted that he hadn't "learned a great deal about specific opening lines" until he was a Class A player (around 1900), but that's a somewhat fuzzy description of the state of his opening knowledge and study practices at the time. There is also the related question - to my mind, the most important one - namely, what exactly is serious openings study?

The Opening Study Methods post addresses this in more detail (with some practical examples), but the key for me is having openings study fully integrated into one's overall approach to the game. This means achieving a deeper understanding of your chosen opening and how it affects the entire game. This includes a recognition of common early traps, standard middlegame plans, and long-term factors such as decisions affecting pawn structure that can carry through until the endgame. Someone who is a true openings expert will be able to explain both the reasons behind each move and its consequences. (Substitute the word "chess" for "openings" in the above statement and you may find that it's even more to the point.)

One could argue that a deeper level of understanding of the game is beyond the comprehension of (____) rated players (fill in the blank as desired). However, chess improvement (or any skill improvement) is the result of "effortful study" in which a person continually tackles challenges just beyond their current competence (pushing their envelope, in other words). I would argue that any meaningful effort in this direction is worthwhile when it results in greater insight into the game that is practically applicable. Take a look at this recent post at the Prodigal Pawn, for example.

As an amateur chess player, I am under no illusion that my own study practices are comparable to those of professionals, nor are they even necessarily optimal for someone at the Class level. However, I have to say they're working pretty well in practical terms for me and I've had similar positive results in the past when I've undertaken serious openings preparation (see Annotated Game #1). Openings study has been a major contributor to solidifying the foundations of my game and a good method for overall improvement, when pursued in-depth.

Annotated Game #29: Back as Black

2012-02-05T07:19:00.000-05:00

Following the second phase (post-scholastic) of my chess career, which ended with Annotated Game #28, several years passed before I played any serious games. The next one was in fact Annotated Game #6, from the world record simultaneous exhibition in Mexico City. I saw a notice for the event and remembered that I liked to play chess, so why not participate?

Over another year passed, however, before I came back to tournament play. This first-round game showed that I was still capable of hanging with the competition, despite a disappointing final result. In a Classical Caro-Kann, my Class A opponent made two separate attacking demonstrations (on moves 16 and 26) which however ended up being nullfied, due to a lack of a robust follow-up on his part and some good defending on mine. A dynamic endgame then ensues, with a material imbalance of R+R vs. R+N+pawns. After some tense play, I make some judgments which allow White to stop the pawns and then go on to win. No doubt fatigue played a role, as this was a long, hard-fought game. However, the primary factor was probably my weak endgame knowledge.

Some lessons learned from reviewing the game:

Look at getting in the ...c5 break in the Classical Caro-Kann as early as possible (move 14)
In this variation, always keep in mind the potential weakness of e6 and tactical ideas associated with that for White (moves 16, 25)
Look beyond superficial one-move positional analysis when deciding on piece placement (move 19)
Passed pawns must be pushed! (move 41)
Take advantage of concrete advantages when they occur and calculate the consequences (move 48)

World's most influential Grandmaster

2012-02-04T06:22:00.002-05:00

With all due respect to Garry Kasparov, it's probably Ken Rogoff. The Financial Times weekend edition has Rogoff featured in its "Lunch with the FT" column, which is always an entertaining read. (You may have to register at the site to read it.) ChessBase news also has done stories on Rogoff, most recently in December at the London Chess Classic.

Interesting to note that it's the retired GMs that are most influential in the world, but then again the active ones have to play chess for a living.

Simplified Thought Process (that works)

2012-01-27T17:07:00.002-05:00

As I admitted in the last Chess Performance Inventory, my thinking process has been a weak point in my play. Starting out as a self-taught player, I found very little guidance on how to organize my thought process during a game when selecting a move. Books like Kotov's Think Like a Grandmaster offered little practical utility for me, simply being too complex or unrealistic. I found a few useful pieces of advice in the general literature, such as Botvinnik's practice of primarily thinking about positional characteristics on an opponent's time and calculating concrete variations on your own time, but that did not come close to fully addressing my needs.

The result of this lack of a structural thought process was most obvious in how I would regularly miss seeing good candidate moves, both for myself and my opponent, when examining a position. My play therefore lacked a broad awareness of tactical opportunities and I was particularly weak in falsifying my own candidate moves. Training games played since this blog was started had reinforced the idea that this was a key area that I needed to work on (nothing like blundering won games to a computer opponent to get you motivated).

But how to work on this area? There has been a lot of material published on the chess thinking process, ranging from the superficial to the incredibly detailed and theoretical. After a few months of absorbing material and deliberately working on testing my thinking process using the Chess Tactics Server, I was reasonably satisfied that what I had put together was a significant improvement. (I've been studying tactics as well, so my overall tactical awareness has also improved.) The combination of improved thinking process and tactical study has raised my accuracy on CTS from 80% to 90%.

The real test, however, comes in slow games and over-the-board (OTB) play. I was fortunate to have the chance recently to participate in an OTB tournament, where despite some early round tiredness due to hotel issues, I was able to significantly raise the level of my overall play. This included my best win to date in terms of my opponent's rating (2100+). In large part, I credit the improvement in performance to the simplified, structured thinking process I've developed. Here's the outline:

What did the opponent's move change about the position?

Examples include: new threats from the piece moved; new threats from other pieces uncovered by the move; squares weakened; new opportunities for checks, captures and threats on my part.

Checks, Captures, Threats (CCT)

Examined in the most forcing order of move types; look at all of the possible checks and captures to avoid eliminating possible good candidate moves and to build up ideas of potential future tactical threats.
Calculate until quiescence (no more forcing moves).

Update Plan / "To-Do list"

Do my current objectives still make sense in light of my opponent's move and CCT?
Are there new possibilities in the position for tactical or positional exploitation?
In the absence of a clearly superior/winning plan, how do I best improve the placement of my pieces?

Finalize Candidate Moves and Falsify Them

Look seriously at each move, to avoid dismissing a better move too early.
Look for overlapping ideas that can be applied from different variations (tactical themes and key in-between moves such as checks and threats).
Put effort into "switching sides" mentally and attempting to destroy your position after visualizing the selected move.

The usual caveats to thinking processes apply. The sequence is generally followed rather than rigidly applied on each move and some elements will be emphasized more, depending on the nature of the position (e.g. highly tactical vs. closed). It doesn't include everything I will think about during the game, especially strategic and positional considerations, but does represent what needs to be accomplished on each move in order to have it be sound.

Some annotated references:

"A Generic Thought Process" by Dan Heisman. This was useful to read through and draw on for ideas, although I found it too broad and complex as something to remember and apply each move.

"Think Like a Strong Player" by the International Chess School. Although I'm not an ICS student at this time (perhaps in the future), I greatly appreciate their approach to study and their willingness to put some of their foundation material on their site, which of course is a good way to attract interested people.

"Going in circles, so I'm making progress" and "Blown away by the idea of Checks, Captures and Threats" by Temposchlucker. His long-term theoretical research and experience did a lot to validate CCT in my eyes.

"How I won my section at the Portsmouth Open" by Blunderprone. His paragraph-long description at the end is a good example of practical thinking.

"Real Chess, Time Management and Care: Putting It All Together" by Dan Heisman. The lead quote by the author ("Your game is only as good as your worst move") sums things up nicely.

"My chess thought process" by Blue Devil Knight. A lot of good points to consider.

Annotated Game #28: End of a Second Era

2012-01-27T10:52:00.004-05:00

This game marked the close of the second phase in my chess career, similar to how Annotated Game #12 highlighted the end of my first, scholastic phase at the Denker Tournament of Champions. After this tournament was completed, I was away from competition for several years and did not give much real thought to continuing with chess as a pastime.

At least the game was a win, a good way to head into semi-retirement. It illustrates well the types of positional mistakes that Class players are subject to making, in this case on both sides of the board. I pick a solid but unremarkable defense to my opponent's King's Indian Attack setup and quickly obtain equality, but without much active play. After neglecting development of my queenside and allowing my opponent to gain space with the d5 push, however, I find counterplay and go about undermining my opponent's queenside pawns. After he permanently passes up control of the b4 square, my otherwise neglected knight soon establishes itself in that outstanding outpost, where its exchange only leads to my opponent's demise.

One of the tendencies I've noticed in play at the Class level is that opponents will often opt for a much quicker road to a loss by sacrificing material for nonexistent counterplay, rather than try to defend an inferior position under pressure. This type of sacrifice occurred at move 24 in the below game. This doesn't seem to be the best approach in terms of maximizing one's results, although I respect the attempt to play for a swindle in a losing position; at some point in the future I'll post my best one. Most of the time, however, there is not enough of a threat to warrant a swindle attempt and the material is simply lost. That said, it is certainly more difficult psychologically to suffer for a longer period of time in the hopes of your opponent making a mistake, rather than just hoping for the best and then getting it over with quickly.

Peace = Victory

2012-01-21T12:13:00.001-05:00

Here's something that caught my eye in the mental martial art category (i.e. the Kung Fu of Chess), as a very high-level example of the importance and efficacy of mental calmness:

Right from the opening [GM HIkaru Nakamura] obtained an edge, and after a couple of mistakes by the Czech [GM David Navara], it was sac-sac-mate. When asked whether the rest day had been the source of the pixie dust, he responded that in fact it was his game against Anish Giri. For some inexplicable reason he had left that game feeling at peace, in a mood where chess just seems easy, and even regretted the rest day, anxious to play then and there.

(The original article on round 5 of the 2012 Tata Steel tournament in Wijk aan Zee can be found here on the ChessBase site.)

Annotated Game #27: English/Queen's Indian

2012-01-20T20:01:00.000-05:00

This short draw has little in the way of middlegame fireworks, but was useful to look at for opening study purposes. This game, which took place in the same tournament following Annotated Game #26, is from a much earlier phase of my career (pre-database) and I didn't have the line in my current opening repertoire system, which I've now updated accordingly.

I correctly remembered to pursue the basic idea from the relevant English/Queen's Indian Defense illustrated game from Nigel Povah's How to Play the English Opening, which features Romanishin's counter-intuitive development of Bd3. However, at the time I evidently didn't recall the basic idea behind the move, which is a classic openings goof by less-developed players: studying a line without knowing the why of it, which makes it much less effective (or even dangerous) in practice. My follow-up was therefore sub-par and my opponent was able to immediately equalize. His own threats were in turn quickly neutralized, however, and the position became mostly closed and apparently quite drawn, although if anything with a slight plus to White (as Houdini evaluates in the end).

Morpheus/Neo Chess Training

2012-01-16T16:07:00.002-05:00

Loading chess training program...

Tank: "Now we're supposed to start with these endgame studies first...that's major boring shit. Let's do something more fun, like opening preparation."

Neo: "I know the Dutch Defense."

Morpheus: "Show me."

Morpheus: "How did I beat you?"

Neo: "You calculate too fast."

Morpheus: "Do you believe that my being stronger or faster has anything to do with brute force calculation? Again."

And the program continues...

"Best of" Chess Carnival now open for nominations

2012-01-07T12:12:00.000-05:00

Submissions for the "Best of" the chess blogosphere are now open at Robert L. Pearson's chess blog, for the next Chess Carnival in February. This is naturally quite appropriate, with Carnival/Mardi Gras taking place the week of February 20th this year.

Thoughts on my contribution are posted here.

Annotated Game #26: Nemesis; Caro-Kann Classical

2012-01-07T09:07:00.003-05:00

The following game was against the same opponent from Annotated Game #23, who despite being listed on the crosstable with a rating of around 400 points lower, as Black bamboozled me into a draw in that game (which occurred during the previous tournament) and then in this tournament, defeated me with White. A true nemesis!

Before posting, I looked up his ratings history on the U.S. Chess Federation site. This made me feel somewhat better, as he was only provisionally rated and his excellent result in the previous tournament had jumped him from Class C (where he actually was at the time in the live ratings) to Class B. Another useful example of why players should ignore ratings.

My opponent deserves credit for his excellent opening preparation, as he avoids the main line of the Caro-Kann Classical but plays his sideline quite well through move 12. At that point, I pursue an idea from the main line variation (the thematic ..c5 break) which however lands me in trouble, due to the differences in White's setup. The remainder of the game is a complex and remarkable seesaw where my opponent repeatedly gets in strong moves, but I either find defensive resources or (more often) he fails to follow them up and put me away. I note the following key sequences:

Moves 12-18: White punishes ..c5 by creating a strong advanced passed pawn in the center and opening lines for his pieces, but lets up the pressure enough for Black to set up a blockade of the pawn and free up his forces.
Moves 20-22: Black recovers from a sequence where he moves away a key defender, not seeing White's threat.
Moves 25-29: Black finds a key defensive idea, but then fails to resolve White's outstanding threats.

After some more nail-biting back and forth, Black can be said to be equal as late as move 40, but then defends shallowly and inaccurately and White gets in the final blow.

The problems I faced with the game dynamics were largely psychological. White was pressing for the entire game, while objectively Black achieved equality multiple times, recovering from White's initial threats. However, I felt like I was on the ropes and always having to struggle against superior forces, which clouded my judgment. Failure to look for more active options (a key point from my games in general) was also a common theme. All in all, an instructive game to analyze.

Annotated Game #25: English (Irregular); playing on while down material

2012-01-02T08:50:00.002-05:00

This second-round game followed Annotated Game #24 and was against a Class D player. The opening started off in an irregular fashion on move 4 with ..Bd6, although White cannot usually immediately punish these types of positional errors in the English. In this case it led to a loss of tempo by Black, which White could have exploited better on move 8 with more active play; this was one of the useful points found in analysis that will help inform my future play. White also could have played more actively on move 10, seizing the outpost on d5 for his knight, which is a key theme in the English.

My opponent goes astray with moves 10 and 11, where he evidently thought he could get in the central break ..d5. A tactical point instead allows White to win a piece and then work on consolidating his advantage. In Class-level games, however, a piece advantage in and of itself is not an automatic win, especially if there is no glaring weakness in the position of the player who is down material. This point was made in Dan Heisman's ChessCafe article "When You're Winning, It's a Whole Different Game". By coincidence, I happened to read this just before analyzing the game, which illustrates the point nicely - I missed at least one neat way to wrap up the game (see move 31) and on move 32 missed a pinning tactic that gave back the piece. Luckily when the dust cleared I was still up two pawns in a winning endgame and went on to convert the point with careful play.

The overall lesson here is to not put the brain on automatic in the opening (instead look for more active play and to exploit opportunities, even in familiar setups), nor when winning and up material where there is still play left in the position.

Thoughts on "Best of" Chess Carnival posts

2011-12-30T15:40:00.001-05:00

Been doing some thinking about the upcoming "Best of" Chess Carnival for January 2012, with my intended submissions arranged from the easiest to hardest category to decide on.

1. Best Game?

I'll go with my final round game from the Denker Tournament of Champions. Several reasons: the tournament result mattered personally (by winning I achieved a 50% score for the tournament); the overall game quality is high (for someone at the Class level); and I was able to find an original, winning idea while also calculating how to avoid a series of threats from my opponent which could have turned the game around. Accurately calculating and evaluating my opponent's potential moves has been a traditional weak point in my thought process, so this game is an example of what I am capable of on a good day (with the idea of emulating it in the future to create more such good days).

2. Best Post?

This is of course highly subjective; objectively speaking, this would best be determined by the readership's opinion, if that were really possible. That said, the "best" post in terms of it being the most meaningful/useful one for me was in fact the first blog post, Setting the Scene. The creation of this blog and its inaugural post both signified and manifested a new commitment to a serious program of chess training. We'll see where it leads.

Separately, from the potentially meaningless statistics department: the most read post as of today is Openings Selection - Initial Considerations, which is also in a multiple-way tie for the most commented post.

3. Best Post on Another Blog?

(Also known as the "Best Post EVAH" category)

Gotta go with the largest pseudo-flame war ever on chess improvement blogs: Shy Guest Blogger (from Elizabeth Vicary's blog). Note the ironic post title.

Plenty of other internet wackiness and mayhem of course exists on blogs/sites devoted to chess politics and other controversial developments involving the sport/game/art. The chess improvement community isn't usually a good match for this sort of thing - there really aren't very many things to potentially argue forcefully about and everybody agrees that improvement is a good thing. Nonetheless, a wide range of interesting folks showed up to the above highly entertaining and sometimes informative exchange (90 comments as of today).

Annotated Game #24: Kingside attack in the Slow Slav

2011-12-24T09:39:00.000-05:00

This game took place in the first round of a five-round weekend tournament, following the previous tournament completed in Annotated Game #23. My opponent chose the "Slow Slav" variation (4. e3), which leads to a game of maneuver and is normally quite level. Rather than pursue a completely equal game with no winning prospects, I elect to create a positional imbalance and initiate a kingside attack, somewhat reminiscent of a Dutch Defense formation. The attack in fact goes well, until I miss an elementary pinning tactic due to "tunnel vision" (focusing on one of my opponent's possibilities without considering other ones). A useful game nonetheless to look at, with some improvements found for both sides in the maneuvering phase. I now much better understand the importance of piece placement and activity, for example, which was neglected for both sides in this game.

Mindfulness and Effortful Study

2011-12-23T17:18:00.000-05:00

In looking for further parallels to serious chess and martial arts training, I came across the below excerpt, taken from a Scientific American article and posted on a martial arts site. The term "mindfulness" is often used for meditation and other mental exercises, which essentially means that your mind is present in the moment and concentrating on your task, as in Focusing on the Path. The term used below is "effortful study" which is less aesthetic, but conveys more precisely the process involved, i.e. constantly thinking critically and taking on new challenges. Note also the comparison with musical study, which shares similar characteristics regarding the attainment of mastery.

"...What matters is not experience per se but 'effortful study,' which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence. That is why it is possible for enthusiasts to spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur level and why a properly trained student can overtake them in a relatively short time. It is interesting to note that time spent playing chess, even in tournaments, appears to contribute less than such study to a player's progress; the main training value of such games is to point up weaknesses for future study.

Even the novice engages in effortful study at first, which is why beginners so often improve rapidly in playing golf, say, or in driving a car. But having reached an acceptable performance--for instance, keeping up with one's golf buddies or passing a driver's exam--most people relax. Their performance then becomes automatic and therefore impervious to further improvement. In contrast, experts-in-training keep the lid of their mind's box open all the time, so that they can inspect, criticize and augment its contents and thereby approach the standard set by leaders in their fields."

Annotated Game #23: English Four Knights (4. e3 Be7)

2011-12-20T10:43:00.000-05:00

This next game followed Annotated Game #22 and was the last round of the tournament. My opponent was rated at the upper end of Class D and played the opening well, coming out of it with a space advantage, well-placed pieces and control of the center with a hanging pawns structure on the c/d files. However, he apparently did not understand the requirements for subsequent dynamic play that the structure required, allowing me (despite some weak moves on my part) to eventually successfully target the pawns and then achieve a dominating position with a material plus. Incredibly, at this point I dithered and allowed a draw, at the time being too passive and afraid of nonexistent threats on the kingside. It is exactly this type of play (and attitude) that should be avoided on the path to chess mastery.

How Kramnik makes us feel better about chess

2011-12-10T08:47:00.001-05:00

The ongoing London Chess Classic 2011 is, as its predecessors were, an outstanding tournament filled with interesting personalities. However one chooses to follow it, it's what used to be called a "chessic feast".

One of the excellent features this year is the post-game internet video commentary by the participants, which usually lasts from 15-20 minutes. Kramnik's thorough description of his win over Adams in round 5 I think is particularly valuable for us non-GMs. His commentary is very frank and includes a great deal of talk about uncertainty regarding his evaluation of positions and plans. I found it very accessible and instructive on a practical level, which is not always the case with GM explanations.

The takeaway from this is that if super-GMs regularly are unsure which plan is best to follow or which side stands better in a position, the rest of us should not be striving for perfection either. All too often annotated games at high levels don't include the thought process of the players and are presented in a mechanistic way which doesn't reflect how games are really won and lost. Kramnik's candid lessons should make us all feel better about what playing chess is really like.

Annotated Game #22: English-KID (plus quickest win)

2011-12-10T08:29:00.001-05:00

This post resumes the annotations of my past tournament games following Annotated Game #18: Comeback (Round 3). This game actually was the second one played in the next tournament, as the first round game was the shortest win of my chess career (10 moves) and did not warrant annotation. It is included afterwards, however, mostly as a warning to those players who don't find it necessary to think in the opening.

Returning to the second round game, an English opening versus a King's Indian Defense setup, it features an all-too-typical pattern of an opening advantage in space and time squandered by too-slow play, then the selection of an incorrect plan based on a lack of appreciation for my opponent's possible threats. This points to the need for deeper study of the middlegame transition point, in this case moves 10-13, where improvements were found for White.

Below is the first round game, for amusement purposes.

December 2011 Chess Carnival

2011-12-07T18:45:00.001-05:00

The Carnival lineup is now out on Blue Devil Knight's Confessions of a chess novice blog.

Normally I comment on an early favorite among the Carnival offerings. This time, however, I'll instead mention BDK's blog itself, which with this entry may be making its last update. It's a highly entertaining, often instructive and very human look at an amateur chess career and its theory and practice. The journey through it is therefore well worth taking, in addition because of the major impact it had on the chess blogging scene for several years.

Annotated Game #21: Modern Stonewall Hero

2011-12-01T13:18:00.001-05:00

As part of learning the Dutch Defense, I'm currently working my way through Win with the Stonewall Dutch (Sverre Johnsen/Ivar Bern/Simen Agdestein, Gambit, 2009). I'll post my thoughts on the book when it's complete, but one of the more innovative things included is an exercise in each chapter. In Chapter 5, the reader is directed to research and choose a "Stonewall Hero" from internationally recognized players, while in Chapter 6 the exercise is to analyze and annotate at least one of their games, only using an engine after you have looked at the complete game yourself.

Although for practical reasons I generally prefer using computer-assisted analysis for my own games (i.e. looking at them with the aid of an engine, but not just feeding a game to one), I stuck to the authors' guidance in order to maximize the learning experience. It turned out to not be as much of a chore as I thought it might be. The "bare-brained" analysis process did especially help to identify and figure out some of the "roads not traveled" (variations not played) due to tactical or strategic considerations; when looking at positions with an engine, the computer won't offer up moves it considers inferior, although their drawbacks may not be initially obvious. I also found that I could get something out of the analysis process while looking at an unannotated GM-level game, which had also been a point of doubt for me. After all, what could I bring to the analysis of such a high level game? Enough to make it worthwhile, it seems.

I selected Artur Yusupov (alternate spelling Jussupow, which is how he appears in the database I have) as my "Stonewall Hero" because of his breadth and depth of experience playing the Dutch over a number of years. He of course has also been a close collaborator with Mark Dvoretsky on a number of chess instruction books, including Opening Preparation, which I own. As luck would have it, I opened the first game of his in the Dutch and it was a win in the Stonewall. I found the game itself to be quite interesting, following a major sideline of the Modern Stonewall and featuring a number of thematic ideas in the opening, which are commented on below.

Annotated Game #20: Training Game (Symmetrical English)

2011-11-26T11:38:00.001-05:00

This training game isn't a miniature in fact, but essentially is one in spirit. White makes a big strategic error on move 13, prematurely moving ahead with b4 and prompting exchanges which leave all of the chances with Black. This is in large part due to my unfamiliarity with the Symmetrical English structures, so the game was at least valuable from the perspective of opening preparation and learning. Moves 10-13 are particularly instructive in this regard, with some very different paths to follow.

As a little bit of background, I had just hung a piece in a "normal" training game and decided that this behavior should be punished somehow, the mechanism to deliver said punishment being a training game against the full-strength Chessmaster. Its opening book is both good and varied, taking me out of normal practice around move 5. With my limited experience, I am however finding that the Symmetrical English is not particularly dangerous for White as long as he doesn't try to get too much out of it. Reasonable moves were sufficient through move 10 and even the sub-par continuation I chose after that wasn't bad, until move 13. After that, a classic bind and squeeze is conducted by Black.

The Kung Fu of Chess

2011-11-19T11:06:00.001-05:00

Kung Fu literally translated from the Chinese means "energy-time" and in fact is best translated as "skill", since it refers to any capability that requires time and effort to master. Outside of China, Kung Fu is commonly used to refer only to Chinese martial arts (of which there are in fact many disciplines). But playing an instrument is also kung fu. Dance is kung fu. Chess is Kung Fu.

Examining chess through the prism of Kung Fu lets us apply its time-tested training philosophies to our own mental martial art. The concept of martial morality (wude in Chinese) is fundamental to Kung Fu training and performance. While the popular image of Kung Fu is largely limited to acrobatic displays of physical power, the internal aspect of the art is at least as important, even more so for those disciplines such as Tajiquan (Tai Chi Chuan) where mental techniques and soft body mechanics are used to defeat hard force. The classic saying is that "a force of four ounces deflects a thousand pounds" - here is the full quote from the Taijiquan classics, which I believe is relevant to any mental martial art:

"There are many fighting arts. Although they use different forms, for the most part they do not go beyond the strong dominating the weak, and the slow resigning to the swift. The strong defeating the weak and the slow hands ceding to the swift hands are all the results of natural abilities and not of well-trained techniques. From the sentence 'A force of four ounces deflects a thousand pounds' we know that the technique is not accomplished with strength. The spectacle of an old person defeating a group of young people, how can it be due to swiftness?"

The significance for the improving chess player is that natural ability will only take you so far and must be supplemented by technique. Superior technique, achieved through deep understanding and training, will in turn defeat those who only rely on untrained strength. Natural ability of course varies greatly, as some players may even attain Expert strength without much study, while many others will at first achieve around Class D strength. In either case, true mastery can only be achieved through sustained study, practice and understanding of the art/game/skill we call chess.

As chess is a martial art of the mind, I will close by presenting the martial morality of mind. A fuller discussion of the concepts and practice of martial morality can be found here.

Will is reflected in a sincere, deep commitment to a goal. You will not turn aside.
Endurance, Perseverance, Patience are all necessary to achieve mastery, which is never easy or quick.
Courage is required to accept challenges, with the full understanding that you may lose, which in turn is necessary to win.

For other, world-class players' views of the parallels and synergies between chess and martial arts practices, one can refer to IM Josh Waitzkin's Art of Learning or GM Nigel Davies' The Chess Improver.

Annotated Game #19: Training game (Symmetrical English)

2011-11-19T09:20:00.001-05:00

The following training game was played against Chessmaster (CM) personality "Dylan", rated Class B on my system, and is instructive and amusing, if not high-quality. This line of the English was unfamiliar to me but I employed a standard idea from other Symmetrical English (c4/c5) positions with the 7. d4 break in the center. This actually worked much better than I realized during the game, as the threat of d5-d6 (which was not obvious to me) in fact is quite strong without correct play from Black (7...d5). So that was one useful takeaway from this game for my opening understanding.

After some maneuvering a dynamically equal position is reached, but then Black allows White to go for a strong attack in the center and up the f-file. I have previously identified my attacking play as an area where improvement is needed, something which was reinforced by the sub-par conduct of this attack. The move f6! is available for quite some time, but is never actually executed, to White's detriment. White's attack peters out into a won endgame position where I was unable to find the key to make progress, allowing Black to sneak in a draw by repetition.

This is the first game published here using the latest Aquarium update.

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H

ChessAdmin - Dylan

1/2-1/2, 2011.11.11.

[#]1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 c5 3.Nf3 e6 +0.18 4.g3 Nc6 5.Bg2 h6 the most common fifth moves by far are:

[5...d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.d4 Bg4 8.Ne5 cxd4 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Qxd4 ...0-1, Psakhis Lev 2582 - Polgar Judit 2700 , Benidorm 2002 It (cat.13) (active);

5...Be7 6.O-O d5 7.cxd5 exd5 8.d4 O-O 9.Bg5 Ne4 10.Bxe7 ...1-0, Karpov Anatoly 2780 - Wuerfel Christian, Hockenheim 1994 Simultan]

6.O-O Be7 7.d4 a6 +1.17 N now truly out of book.

[7...d5 would have been interesting. 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Qc2 Qe7 11.a3 and White has a reasonably comfortable game.]

8.Bf4 +0.52 is Houdini's second choice.

[Its first is 8.d5 which although it doesn't appear so at first glance, is in fact a very forcing move. The double threat of dxc6 and d6 forces Black to lose a pawn or suffer a massive positional bind. 8...exd5 (8...Na5 9.d6 Bf8 10.e4 g6 11.e5 Nh7 is similarly painful) 9.cxd5 Nd4 (If Black for example tries 9...Na5 10.d6! Bf8 11.Qd3 now the best Black can do is grab the d6 pawn in exchange for a piece, otherwise 11...Nc6 12.Qe3+) 10.Nxd4 cxd4 11.Qxd4 +1.17]

8...Nh5 9.Be3 Nf6?! +1.27

[9...cxd4!? 10.Nxd4 O-O]

10.dxc5 +0.98 again, second best to d5!

[10.d5 exd5 11.cxd5 Nd4 12.Nxd4 cxd4 13.Bxd4 +1.27]

10...Ng4 11.Bd4?! +0.22 I had seen the ..e5 push earlier but forgot about it. 11...e5 12.Be3 Nxe3 13.fxe3 Bxc5 the position is now equal. The doubled pawns are compensated for by the semi-open f-file and greater piece activity due to White's lead in development. As will be seen, the extra e-pawn can even be useful. 14.Kh1 +0.00 done in order to get the king off the a7-g1 diagonal occupied by Black's bishop and offer a pawn sacrifice. With Black's underdeveloped position, taking the pawn on e3 would be rapidly punished. 14...d6

[14...Bxe3 15.Qd5 was what I had in mind, with the principal threat of Nxe5 or Ng5 with a discovered attack on f7. 15...d6 16.Ng5 Qxg5 17.Qxf7+ Kd8 18.Rad1 with a healthy attack.]

15.Nd5

[The immediate 15.Nd2 with the same idea of repositioning the knight on e4 would take advantage of the d6 weakness and not block the d-file.]

15...Be6 16.Nd2 a5 17.Ne4 f5?! +1.12

[17...O-O]

18.Nxc5 dxc5 19.e4 +0.68

[19.Qb3!? appears somewhat stronger, as White creates a threat to the b7 pawn while clearing d1 for the Ra1 to move to. 19...O-O prudently moves the king to greater safety 20.Qxb7 Rc8 21.Rad1 Rf7 22.Qb5 +1.12]

19...Nd4?? +3.75

[19...O-O 20.exf5 Rxf5 +0.68]

20.e3 the doubled pawns dominate! 20...Nc6 21.exf5 Bf7 the threat of f6 now looms. 22.Qg4 Kf8 23.Rad1

[23.f6 g5 24.Rad1 is a superior continuation with the same idea, having already dominated squares around Black's king.]

23...h5 24.Qe2 h4 25.g4 h3 26.Be4 Bxd5 27.Bxd5

[I did not even consider 27.cxd5 since it shut off attacking lanes for the pieces. However, Houdini likes it best, with a sample continuation of 27...Nb8 28.f6 gxf6 29.g5 Nd7 30.d6 Qe8 31.Qg4;

27.Rxd5 also appears better than the game continuation, allowing the rook to penetrate into Black's position, cause direct threats, and allow for the queen or rook to go to d1.]

27...Qc7 28.Qf3 Nb4 29.a3

[29.Bxb7 I looked for a while at this, but then decided it gave Black some counterplay, while a3 did not. Houdini gives 29...Rb8 30.Be4 a move I hadn't considered 30...Nxa2 31.f6 g6 32.Bxg6 and White has nothing to worry about.]

29...Nc6 Unfortunately Nimzovich's dictum "the threat is stronger than the execution" only goes so far. Here's where f6 should have been executed (again). Instead, the attack starts petering out. 30.Be6 e4 31.Qxe4 Qe5 32.Qxe5 Nxe5 33.Rf4 White is still winning, although the double rook and minor piece endgame looks nowhere near as easy as the attack did several moves ago. 33...a4 34.Rd5 Nc6 Here the simple Rxc5 should seal the deal, with Rd5 available as a follow-up to hold the d-file. 35.Bd7 Nd8 36.e4 Rh6 37.e5 Rb6 38.Rf2 +2.63 Rb3 39.Kg1 the idea being to avoid future back-rank mate issues. 39...Re3 40.Rfd2 Nf7 41.Kf2

[Here I avoided the obvious 41.e6 Ne5 42.Rxc5 due to the knight fork 42...Nf3+ but 43.Kf2 handles things nicely.]

41...Rxe5 42.Re2 Re7 43.Rxe7 Kxe7 44.Be6 Nd6 45.Ke3 b6 46.Rd3?! +1.45

[Now was the time for 46.Kf4!? in order to march to g5.]

46...Rf8?! +2.88

[46...Rd8!? 47.Bd5 b5 48.cxb5 Nxb5 49.Ke4]

47.Kf4 Rh8 Here I failed to come up with a good idea to make progress. 48.Kg5 +2.38

[48.Ke5 Rd8 49.Bd5 would have allowed the king to improve its position and seal off the d-file from any threats from the Rd8.]

48...Ne4+ 49.Kf4 Nd6 50.Ke5 Rd8 I still needed more time to find the key to the position, Bd5 not occurring to me. Unfortunately... 51.Kf4?! +1.17

[51.Bd5!? Nf7+ 52.Kf4 +2.88]

51...Rh8 +2.88 is a sneaky three times repetition, which Black seizes. [1/2-1/2]

Generated by Aquarium

Focusing on the Path

2011-11-15T06:21:00.001-05:00

This is taken from the martial arts site ShouyouLiang.com and presages an upcoming post on the Kung Fu of chess.

Focusing on the task at hand.

Zhuan Xin Zhi Zhi

QIU was a famous chess player. Nobody in the whole country could beat him on the chessboard. Two students came to learn chess from him. One of them always concentrated his attention to learn from him with all his mind. The other also sat there and listened to him, and his eyes were also on the chess pieces. But he was more interested in bird-shooting. His mind was always on the wild geese flying in the sky and on how to shoot them with bow and arrow. One student learned it very quickly, while the other did not learn as well as the first student. Why? Was one student more clever than the other? Of course not. It was only because one of them did not concentrate his attention.

The Book of Mencius

Annotated Game #18: Comeback (Round 3)

2011-11-11T07:27:00.001-05:00

This is the final game from my "comeback" tournament (previously shown in Annotated Game #14 and Annotated Game #16). Against a strong Class A player, I face the London System for the first (and only) time in tournament play. My lack of familiarity with the position-type shows, as I try to apply some standard ideas from the Slav and other d4/d5 openings with poor results. White seizes the initiative with 8. g4! but fails to put Black away, while at the same time creating some weaknesses in his own camp. Black shows tenacity by continuing to look for counterthreats and then seizes the moment after White overlooks a mating pattern with two bishops.

In this tournament I scored 2/3 against an opposition with an average 2026 rating, resulting in a 2149 performance rating. Statistically that is not meaningful across a whole career. However, it at least showed that I am capable of playing level with Expert rated opposition in a tournament. Certainly my opponents helped me achieve this result, but that's all part of the performance aspect of chess. In that context, it's worth noting that I played at a much higher level in the loss (#16) than I did in this win.

For future annotated games, I intend to have them be a mix of past tournament games, starting chronologically from this point on in my career, and contemporary training games. I find it encouraging that my chess knowledge has increased to the point where I can easily recognize common flaws in my play, including certain types of positional understanding and patterns of thinking. This game again demonstrates a past ignorance of the relative value of minor pieces and how/when it is best to exchange them, for example the key role of the White knight on e5. My contemporary play also reflects a "hangover" of these past practices - it is very hard to eradicate bad habits - but acknowledging the problem is the first step to fixing it.

November 2011 Chess Carnival released

2011-11-08T19:08:00.003-05:00

TommyG's blog is the host of the November 2011 Chess Carnival, out now after being somewhat delayed due to inclement weather in the U.S.

One of the early standouts is Rachel Gologorsky's post, from one of the United States' top junior players. I'd be interested to see more from her in the future, especially on what kind of a difference she believes her different coaches have made in her play.

BlunderCats

2011-11-06T13:36:00.000-05:00

This is a serious chess blog...but today, not so much.

What do you get when you mix blunders and the ThunderCats? BlunderCats!

(In part inspired by the Blunderstanding post from BDK and by the old/new ThunderCats series)

1. Lion-Oh-S&!%

Symptom: Player makes his/her move and as the fingers leave the piece, he/she immediately sees the crushing move their opponent can make.

Remedy: Sit on your hands before making your move. Sometimes literally. (The technical term is "falsifying" your move.)

2. Cheat-ara

Symptom: Player makes rapid-fire moves confidently, hoping to cheat their opponent into trusting they are all correct.

Remedy: If you're their opponent, don't let them cheat you into believing they're right, calculate and make your moves normally. If you're the one being Cheat-ara, maybe it is in fact the best way to try to swindle someone.

3. Snarf-er

Symptom: Takes all material possible, especially pawns. What could be better? And what could be wrong about it?

Remedy: The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal.

4. Chess for Tygra

Symptom: Underperforming. Don't have that competitive fire I need.

Remedy: Chess for Tigers by Simon Webb

5. Wily Kids

Symptom: Your toughest opponents are half your size and/or a third of your age. Dag-nab-it!

Remedy: How to Beat Younger Players by GM Nigel Davies. (My two cents: if you have tried-and-true openings, play them and also aim for middlegame and endgame structures that you're experienced with.)

6. Panic-thro

Symptom: There's absolutely no way I can take this guy. Nooo wayyyy.

Remedy: Don't Panic. Higher ratings aren't everything. Enjoy the thrill of getting in the ring with the Big Bad. Play your best game - you might even win.

Annotated Game #17: Training Game (English-KID)

2011-11-05T10:15:00.003-04:00

The following game was played against the Chessmaster (CM) personality "Charles", a high Class C on my system. Sometimes CM's handicapping function results in silly material giveaways in the opening, but this time it followed a reasonable, if sub-par, course in a King's Indian Defense (KID) setup versus the English opening.

I used to not appreciate this kind of play for training purposes and would grumble to myself that the computer should stay in book, otherwise it wasn't a real test of the opening. However, I now better appreciate these kinds of moves, since they do replicate what can occur with unprepared opponents, while the moves themselves are not immediately refutable. Sometimes they can even be rather tricky to deal with, introducing unfamiliar tactical possibilities at an early stage. Because an important part of a player's opening preparation consists in being able to take advantage of opponents' missteps, I find this type of experience valuable, especially because of its out-of-book nature.

Black's time-wasting play allows White to build up an advantage, although White's alternatives to the actual game, found in analysis, are instructive in how to better exploit Black's weaknesses. Essentially, White should have accelerated the queenside play or more directly challenged Black's moves. Black eventually drops the b7-pawn, but White's follow-up play was not optimal and on move 24 Black starts generating some threats of his own. White had some fantastical thoughts of penetrating on the kingside with queen and knight, but Black easily disposed of this possibility. My thinking process deteriorated and in the next sequence of moves the advantage disappeared and Black could have achieved a winning game, but instead gifted White a won N+P endgame.

Some specific points to take away from this game, both related to the KID setup against the English and in more general terms:

Do not dismiss the possibility of playing d4 if it leads to an advantage (move 8)
It is better to get in Rb1 and the b4 push early (move 9)
Look to activate the queen on the queenside to generate additional threats (move 18)
Do not underestimate the strength of a centralized black knight; in this game, it tied me to the defense of e2, while in Annotated Game #15 a similar situation occurred with an attack on e3. Exchange the knight off soonest or consider a prophylactic move to take away its central outpost.
Concrete calculation rather than limited intuition is necessary to the planning process. I began seriously drifting as of move 26 (just after the missed threat from Black to e2, which however was easily dealt with) and did not calculate properly.
I must reduce the psychological impact of unexpected moves; proactively I need to better examine my opponent's possible candidate moves for threats

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H

ChessAdmin - Charles (CM Class C)

1-0, 10/23/2011.

[#]1.c4 g6 +0.22 2.Nf3 +0.15 Bg7 3.g3 Nc6 +0.18 4.Bg2 +0.15 Nd4 +0.37 typical handicapped CM move in the opening, one that loses time but is not directly refutable. 5.O-O c5 +0.41 6.Nc3 +0.29 Ne6 +0.52 7.d3 either e3 to prepare d4, or the immediate Rb1 and b4 push, are perhaps stronger. 7...Nf6 8.Bd2 +0.22

[8.d4 would take advantage of the blocking of Black's Bg7 8...cxd4 9.Nxd4 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 and Black has no useful discovered attack moves with the Nf6, while White has a lead in development.]

8...Ng4 +0.52 another time-wasting move. 9.Qc1 +0.37 this does not seem to be the most effective plan (idea is to exchange off the Bg7).

[9.h3 Nf6 10.Ng5 would take direct advantage of being able to kick the Ng4; a subsequent ..h6 would give White a target on the c1-h6 diagonal.;

Simply getting on with queenside expansion by 9.Rb1 O-O 10.b4 also looks superior.]

9...h6 +0.72 Black seems to be deliberately not castling.

[9...O-O 10.Rb1 a5 11.h3 Nf6 and Black doesn't appear to be badly off, since it will take time for White to get in a3-b4.]

10.Rb1 d6 +0.80 11.b4 cxb4 12.Rxb4 Nc5 13.Nd5 with the idea of Bc3 and trading off the Bg7 again. Simply withdrawing the awkwardly-placed rook to b1 may have made more sense. 13...e6 14.Ne3 +0.68 Nf6 15.Bc3 a5 +0.80 16.Rb1 Bd7?! +1.02

[16...O-O also loses a pawn after 17.Bxf6 Qxf6 18.Ng4 Qd8 19.Nxh6+]

17.Nd2 e5 18.Bxb7 +0.85 this obvious capture is in fact not optimal.

[18.Qa3!? activates the queen and threatens the e5 pawn with a tactical deflection theme. 18...O-O 19.Bxe5 Bc6 20.Bc3]

18...Ra7?! +1.45 another handicapping move by CM.

[18...Nxb7 19.Rxb7 Bc6]

19.Bg2 O-O finally! 20.Nd5 Here I began playing largely by rote, simply looking to exchange down pieces, rather than looking to exploit the queenside advantages, although this should still work out fine for White.

[20.Nb3 threatens to exchange off the Nc5, a strong blockading piece for Black. 20...Na4 21.Bd2 Qc7 22.Qe1 and the a5 pawn falls.]

20...Nxd5 21.Bxd5 Qc7 22.Ne4 Be6 23.Bxe6 Nxe6 24.Bd2 Nd4 I missed this threat to e2, which reflects a similar-looking threat by a centralized knight that also appared in another recent game, so this is definitely a tactical theme to watch. 25.Re1 h5 26.Bh6

[26.Be3 is preferred by Rybka, with the idea of exchanging off the Nd4. Black's Bg7 is not an effective piece, so getting rid of the dominating knight is worth White's dark-square bishop.]

26...f5 this counterblow puts an end to any White fantasies about a kingside attack. 27.Bxg7 Kxg7 28.Nc3 Qc6 29.Nd5

[29.Nb5 is more effective and forces the exchange of the Nd4. 29...Nxb5 30.cxb5 Qb6]

29...Rb7 At this point my thinking process started deteriorating. The clock wasn't running too low, so it was largely self-inflicted. 30.Rxb7+ Qxb7 31.Qb1?! +0.72 this starts a downward slide where White throws away most of his advantage. Kf1 to protect e2 looked dubious due to the Qb7-h1 threat, effectively pinning my Nd5. I did not see that

[31.Qd1!? Qb2 32.e3 Nc6 33.Re2 would have saved White's advantage.]

31...Rf7?! +1.12

[31...Qxb1!? 32.Rxb1 Nxe2+ 33.Kf1 Nd4 34.Rb6 Rd8 +0.72]

32.Qxb7? +0.15 when in doubt, simplify...is wrong.

[32.Qd1! Qb2 33.e3 Nc6 34.Re2 again works.]

32...Rxb7 33.Nc3 Rb2 34.Rb1?? -1.75 the key error that should lose the game.

[34.Kf1! Rc2 35.Nb5 Rxa2 36.Nxd4 exd4 37.Rb1 +0.00]

34...Rxb1+ 35.Nxb1 a4?? +2.38 but CM's handicap function saves me.

[35...Nxe2+! 36.Kf1 Nc1 37.Nc3 Kf7 38.Nb5 Ke6 -1.75]

36.Kf1 and with e2 now guarded, the rest is a matter of technique. 36...g5 37.Nc3 Nc2 +2.88 38.Nxa4 Nb4 39.Nc3 g4 40.h4 gxh3 41.Kg1 Na6 42.Kh2 Nc5 43.Kxh3 Kf8 44.Kh4 Kg7 45.Kxh5 Kg8 46.Kg6 Ne6 47.e3 f4 48.a4 Kf8 49.Nb5 fxg3 50.fxg3 Nc5 51.Nxd6 Ke7 52.Nc8+ Kd8 53.Nb6 Kc7 54.d4 Ne6 55.Nd5+ Kb8 56.dxe5 Nc5 57.Kf7 Ne4 58.e6 Nd6+ 59.Ke7 Nxc4 60.Kd8 Ne5 61.e7 Nc6+ 62.Kd7 Nxe7 63.Nxe7 Ka7 64.g4 Kb6 65.g5 Ka5 66.e4 Kxa4 67.e5 Kb5 68.Nc6 Kc4 69.e6 Kd5 70.e7 Kc4 71.g6 Kd3 72.e8=Q Kd2 73.g7 Kc2 74.g8=Q Kc3 75.Qe4 Kd2 76.Qg3 Kc1 77.Qe2 Kb1 78.Qg1# [1-0]

Generated by Aquarium

Annotated Game #16: Comeback (round 2)

2011-10-28T22:52:00.000-04:00

This game followed Annotated Game #14 in my "comeback" tournament and was played against Expert-level opposition. The game is rather simple in structure and easy to understand, which makes for some clear analytic lessons as a result.

Black quickly equalizes out of the opening, a Colle System with 3..c5. Although I'm not an expert in facing the Colle setup (d4-Nf3-e3) I've never had any problems with it from the Black side as long as the light-square bishop isn't locked in prematurely with 3..e6. I realize the Colle is popular with a number of players, but unless Black plays an early e6, which seems to lead to a sustained slight advantage for White, I'm not sure what White can expect to get out of it.

Key points from the game:

A consistent weakness shown by my older tournament games is the failure to understand the positional consequences of piece exchanges, as occurs on move 10 here. My positional knowledge has improved so that such exchanges are no longer automatic, as seemed to be the case here.
Black picks the correct strategy (queenside play down the c-file along with pressure against d4), but gets too cutesy with a queen exchange on b3, which would have allowed White to trap Black's Na5. The simple, clear follow-up of exchanging on c4 would have given Black a fine game.
White goes astray on move 18, missing a key intermediate capture which saves Black's knight and allows Black to perfectly execute his strategy and gain major pressure with his rooks.
After a defensive inaccuracy by White, Black could have put away the game on move 25, but instead failed to calculate that doubling rooks on the second rank would not in fact lead to a decisive advantage.
Black manages to find a needlessly complicated way to achieve a losing position, then fails to put up as much resistance as possible by deciding to exchange down to a more obviously lost endgame.

Despite the loss, the game at the time reinforced the idea that there was no need to fear higher-rated opposition and served as a useful psychological stepping-stone to the last game in that tournament, which will be annotated in the future.

Chess Performance Inventory

2011-10-22T15:53:00.000-04:00

I've decided that it's worth the time to take stock of where I am regarding my chess performance. I considered calling this a "skills inventory", which would be mostly correct, but I think some of the below categories (particularly tenacity) don't reflect what we would normally call a skill. I also think that calling this a "performance inventory" is a useful approach, as it inherently makes the distinction between skill level (which is objectively demonstrated during play) and knowledge level (which is not necessarily manifested during play).

It's worth noting that there are a number of formal self-evaluation tests out there, two of the more popular ones being Igor Khemelnisty's Chess Exam and Training Guide (link is to a review at Wang's Chesshouse), which is comprehensive in nature, and the more narrowly focused Bain Rating Tactics Quiz at chesscafe.com. While I may at some point tackle one or both as an improvement tool, by this point in my chess career I have a good insight into my performance strengths and weaknesses, in part stemming from recent analysis of both my historical and contemporary play (covered in Annotated Games #1-15 as of this post).

I give an overall grade in each of the below categories, with explanations and narratives that are designed to help guide subsequent training. The grade is based on the standard A through F scale, with F being 59/100 or below. In practical terms, an A (95/100) implies that there is little or no need for improvement, while the grades below that increasingly reflect either a significant performance gap between skill and knowledge level in the category, or simply a lack of knowledge. For each category, I also give intended improvement steps ("Way Forward"). The first three categories look at performance during the traditional phases of a chess game (opening/middlegame/endgame), while the last three cover concepts that are more functional or universal in nature and tend to affect all phases of the game.

Opening: B
This category covers openings selection and the evolution of an opening repertoire. The criteria for openings effectiveness I discussed more at length in the latter post, but for me the essential, objective test is whether a player consistently is able to use their opening knowledge and understanding to reach favorable (or at least equal) middlegame positions against opposition of any strength.

This is one of my relative strengths as a player, with two solid, tested defenses against 1.e4 and 1.d4 (Caro-Kann and Slav) which also can answer almost any alternative setup by White. The English opening (1. c4) as White has also been an effective weapon against players of all levels, although not one which is likely to score quick wins. I have little experience or preparation in some of the more offbeat Queen Pawn openings, probably the largest hole in my repertoire. With some English lines I also have very little practical familiarity, due to their lack of use by my opponents to date.

Way Forward: Continue to analyze my historical and contemporary games; examine little-used but major theoretical lines and transpositional possibilities more closely in the English; play additional training games to highlight holes in the repertoire; complete initial study of the Dutch Defense; review selected repertoire lines in the database to improve memory and position recognition.

Middlegame: C
This phase of the game covers a lot of chess skill area and is generally not fully defined, but the two major subcategories I will address here are:

Strategic planning and evaluation. This involves recognition of key positional factors, understanding of the typical plans available in different position-types, and knowing when to focus on attack or defense. Here there is definitely a performance gap, as I am better able to understand a position analytically than to conceive and execute a fully correct plan. This is also reflected in a tendency to have an advantage out of the opening phase, but then mishandle it into a more equal or even losing position; Annotated Game #15 is an excellent contemporary example. One also needs to be aware of more sophisticated concepts such as prophylaxis, which I apply inconsistently. My attacking play is also relatively weak.

Tactical sight and calculation. This refers to being able to see the tactical possibilities for both sides in a position and then calculate the resulting sequences (whether forced or not). For some reason I have historically been weaker at visualizing counting sequences (i.e. when a series of material exchanges occur), so that is a needed area of improvement. Board sight, including the problem of tunnel vision (focusing only on one area of the board), is also a recurring issue. I am now much better acquainted with typical tactical and combinational ideas than when I began this blog, but still need further exposure to them.

Way Forward: Play more training games; continue working through The Art of Attack in Chess; continue regular practice with the Chess Tactics Server; continue reviewing annotated games from various sources.

Endgame: F
Pretty self-explanatory score. I have given very little study to the endgame, so this is the one area where there is no performance gap; I simply lack the requisite knowledge. I would give myself a "high" F since I know some basic ideas, especially from K+P endings, and some other fundamental concepts - for example, that piece activity is the most important thing in rook endings - but 50/100 is still failing. It's interesting to observe that this weakness has not had a major impact on past tournament performance, since almost all of my opposition has been nearly as bad in this category. However, relying on performance that is only good in relation to similarly poor opposition ("grading on a curve") is not helpful to longer-term improvement.

Way Forward: Once current opening and middlegame books are completed, start introductory endings book.

Thinking process: D
This is the first of the "universal" categories and is often considered to be bound up with tactics, but it of course literally affects every move we make. There are plenty of cases of people thinking for 10-15 minutes in the first few moves, for example, when they are uncertain of which opening to pursue or if an opponent takes them immediately out of their opening knowledge.

There are various different thinking processes described in the chess literature and blogosphere, often passionately argued over. Here I'll focus on three sub-categories which should cover most of the substance necessary:

Candidate moves. Can I see all of the reasonable candidate moves in a position? Can I narrow them down efficiently for calculation purposes? When do I calculate one more deeply? Having too narrow a focus in the candidate move selection process is a traditional weakness of mine, although computer-assisted game analysis and annotation is helping address this.

Falsifying moves. This is closely allied to tactical sight and calculation ability, but does require additional thought and focus. For those unfamiliar with the concept, it refers to the process (not unlike the scientific method of attempting to disprove hypotheses) of attempting to refute your selected move. This involves seeing your opponent's potential threats in the current position and in the future positions that would result from your move. A basic example is that your opponent has a mate in one threat on your back rank, which would falsify any move that did not protect against it. This is a new concept for me and better incorporating it will go far toward addressing my failure to see and calculate my opponent's threats.

Consistency. Thinking well on half of my moves is not enough, it must be done on all of them, at least to the minimum standard of reviewing my opponent's possible threats in a position. This is probably the most simple idea in this category, but also one of the most difficult to apply in practice, due to the ups and downs of a game that have a psychological impact. I am not consistent in my thinking process.

Way Forward: Play more training games; institute a minimum baseline thinking process on all moves ("checks, captures, threats"); consciously broaden search for candidate moves prior to determining which should be calculated; aggressively attempt to falsify each candidate move being calculated.

Time management: A
This is the only category for me where there is no improvement needed. I almost never have entered into unilateral time trouble (i.e. when the opponent still has significantly more time on their clock) and very rarely end up in mutual time trouble, for example in the last few moves of a time control. (I tend not to think of the latter as a time management issue, as a player should theoretically use up nearly all of their time before a time control, in order to maximize their thinking.) My relative strength in the opening phase has greatly helped in this regard, since as a result I normally have a significant amount of extra time to think during the middlegame, where I perhaps play somewhat slower than average.

Tenacity: C

This is something of a wildcard category, but nonetheless a very important one for performance purposes. (See Braden Bournival's player profiles for another example of its use.) How many times have we been hit by an unexpected move from our opponents that completely throws us off our game? When a winning advantage is lost, it is also very common for the player on the downswing to make additional unnecessary mistakes and end up losing; see Annotated Game #13 for an example of this. This kind of psychological effect is not limited to chess, as momentum and a positive/confident outlook (or its opposite) are powerful forces in other team and individual sports. I would also put into this category a player's willingness to play a game out to the end, rather than take an easy draw while they believe they still have an advantage.

I can't think of another factor which so greatly affects our final win/loss results, but has nothing to do with our base chessplaying skills. (Our overall health - both physical and mental - is of course also very important, as if we have the flu or are dealing with major personal problems, our ability to concentrate on a chessboard will be impacted.) Some of my recent Chessmaster training games helped me understand how a lack of tenacity was affecting my results. It was eye-opening to see that the majority of times that I blundered while having an advantage, I was in fact still at least objectively equal in the resulting position. However, in one case I resigned outright, while in several others went down the slippery psychological slope and lost afterwards. Since then, in training games I have gritted my teeth and refused to go down easy, with improved results to show for it.

Way Forward: Mentally resolve before a game starts that I will not give up or panic after a blunder or an unexpected move by the opponent; do not accept easy draws when possessing an advantage.