[All] . London 1922

Some of you may know that I've done a bit of work editing and typesetting for Hardinge Simpole, and my first project for them was pulling together everything I could find about the tournament in London in 1922 (which gave its name to the London System). It would have pleased me to be able to include some splendid cartoons that I've just come across: enjoy...

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter14.html#3937._Comic_strips

[C] Charlie's notes. My notes on Charlie's game

Just to complete the story; were they anything like yours?

Complete game without notes for you to annotate:

• C. Keen - G. Ward 1-0 [B50]

Complete game with notes for you to compare:

• C. Keen - G. Ward 1-0 [B50]

[C] . 22nd Feb 2008: A planning challenge

With my usual arrogance, I was offering Charlie some notes on a game, and he remarked afterwards:

"The move I sweated over for so long, you passed over without comment, as though it was the most natural move in the game!"

What would you have played?  Make your mind up (that is, write it down) before reading on!

White to move

Sicilian B50 C. Keen G. Ward Exeter vs. Met. Office 2008 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d3 g6 5. Be2 Bg7 6. O-O O-O 7. Bg5 Re8 8. Re1 Qb6 9. Qc2 Nc6 10. Nbd2 Be6 11. h3 Rac8 12. Rad1 a5 13. Be3 Nd7 14. Ng5 Nf8 15. Nxe6 Nxe6 16. Nc4 Qc7 17. a4 b6 18. Bg4 Ncd8 19. Na3 h6 20. Nb5 Qd7 21. Be2 Rf8 No. 1 (White to move) ... 1-0 (42) 1-0

OK, so, how do you go about making a decision like this?  We haven't followed Charlie's thought processes move by move, so we need to warm up a little, get ourselves into the game... A quick once-over the available tactical ideas tells us that the position cannot be 'solved' by a combination, so we have to see what is our proper strategy here.

Jeremy Silman talks about a pawn-pointing rule, saying you should look to expand or attack on the side where your pawns are pointing.  I don't think pawns always point quite so obviously as this suggests, nor is it a rule that cannot be broken, but if you are stuck it will give you a shove in the right direction.

Charlie's game, for example, seems a very good example of the pawn-pointing rule.  White's pawn chain c3-d3-e4 points forward towards the King's-side, and Black's e7-d6-d5 chain points to the Queen's-side.  This is quite clear and also rather cheering, for it seems that Black's earlier manoeuvring on the Queen's-side has resulted only in a weak square on b5, which is occupied by the piece which benefits most from such outposts, the Knight.  So,

So, to play on the King's-side... White can try to attack mainly with pieces with moves like Qd2 or moving both Bishops (er, somewhere) and playing Re1-e3-g3 and maybe (groan) Na3-b1-d2-f1-h2-g4... I can't see that going anywhere at all, certainly not at that speed.  Imagine putting those pieces there now, what threats would White have, even if Black did nothing for 10 moves? However, there is a familiar plan here of playing f2-f4-f5 and opening a King's-side file, where Black has less space.  So, f4 seems a very natural, even an obvious choice.

The trouble with the march of the f-pawn is that White's pieces don't fit in with that right now.  I would rather prefer the Re1 to be on f1, and the Be2 to be on d3, and the Nb5 to be on g3, to lend their weight to a discussion of the f-file.  So, pointing pawns notwithstanding, I wouldn't be pushing the f-pawn to f5. 

Let's see if we can go through this from scratch.  First, make a quick comparison of the two positions: compare pairs of pieces, see which one is better.  Then have a go at the pawn structures, what are they telling us?

Both Kings are castled and secure.  The positions of the Queens seem equivalent, centralised and poised but not yet active.  White's Rooks are on good squares but on closed files; so that's our first hint, White's Rooks will need an open or half-open file to work on before long.  Black's Rooks on the 'bishop' files are not badly placed but I don't know what Black is planning to do in order to open a file (the c-pawn cannot be moved and perhaps the f-pawn should not be).  And the minor pieces: White's good Knight and Black's good Bishop are very much more active than the rest, which look rather tame at the moment.  If the position opens up, White's Bishop pair will enjoy life much better. 

If we want to (half-)open a file, where can White look?  Black's advanced a- and c-pawns allow White to lever open either the b-file or the d-file by advancing and exchanging the pawn on those files; Black, faced with b2-b4 or d3-d4 may choose to (half-)open the a-file or the c-file by exchanging his pawns on those files instead.  All Queen's-side files, I note.  Now, at the moment, most of Black's pieces look well-placed to take advantage of open lines on the Queen's-side: they're either on that side or pointing that way.  Nonetheless, I can imagine someone pointing to the weakness of b5 and that handsome knight, and declare, White should be attacking on the Queen's-side.  There are prospects there, I expect, but I can't see it happening very quickly.  I'd want to get the Be2 into the weak light squares, maybe the Queen... I have a feeling that by the time I'd arranged all my pieces for attack (Rb1 Bf3 Qc2-c4 maybe) Black would have re-arranged their pieces for defence (...Nc7 threatening to exchange on d4 is one immediate idea).  Hmm, Na3-c4 and b2-b4 might make the backward b6-pawn feel sorry for itself... OK, let's not forget all those ideas, but nothing there is compelling.

Well, if neither side is quite appealing, White can turn to the centre.  The 'crouching' white central pawns do suggest a central expansion with d3-d4.  That immediately gives a sniff of the wild to three of the currently tame White pieces, namely, the Rooks and the Be2, all of whom suddenly have new prospects.  An argument against d4, of course, is that Black has sensibly parked a Rook on the same file as the White Queen, so that after d3-d4, ...c5xd4, the white c-pawn is pinned against the Queen... Currently, White still has three other units covering d4, so d3-d4 doesn't lose anything, but it would be nice to threaten to take over the centre by d3-d4 and be able to recapture c3xd4 with two pawns abreast.  Having had this idea, I can see that I can get the white Queen off the c-file with gain of tempo:Qd2 forces some sort of response from Black, like Kh7, when most of our earlier options are still available.  After which, I think taking space in the centre with d4 seems very logical.  I also think that is White's best short-term goal; long-term, it is hard to tell what a general space advantage can lead to, but this push seems to put pressure on Black's game and gives a definite (modest) advantage to White.  Medium-term... well, I can imagine playing d4-d5 (again with tempo) squashing Black even more; I can imagine playing e4-e5, opening lines in the centre... Just at the moment, White doesn't have enough covering e5 to make that much of a threat, but Bf4 or f2-f4 would definitely make it a contender.

Charlie's actual move was f4.  So far, I've listed two separate if not overwhelming reasons for this move: to open a file with f4-f5, and to support a pawn advance after d3-d4 and e4-e5.  Having thought of playing it, I can see another virtue in the move: parking that fidgety light-squared Bishop on f3, waiting for the liberating e4-e5.  This is the Bishop without an opposite number on the Black side, it's the Bishop which make use of the weakened light squares on Black's Queen's-side... so it should be doing more in life than getting in the way of the Rooks!

Overall, then, 22.f2-f4 was probably worth more comment than I gave it, but it was plausible, unobjectionable and had more than one point... And there were more important things to mention!  If you fancy a go yourselves, what would you comment on this whole game?  I'll show you what I sent Charlie in a week or two.

22.f4 Nc7 23.d4 cxd4 24.Nxd4 Nde6 25.e5 Nd5 26.Qe4 Nxe3 27.Qxe3 Qxa4 28.Bb5 Qa2 29.exd6 exd6 30.Nxe6 fxe6 31.Bd7 Qxb2 32.Qxe6+ Kh8 33.Bxc8 Qxc3 34.Bb7 Qc5+ 35.Kh1 Rxf4 36.Rc1 Qb5 37.Qxg6 Rf6 38.Re8+ Rf8 39.Rxf8+ Bxf8 40.Be4 Qd7 41.Rc8 Qxc8 42.Qh7# 1-0

[C] 14th August 2007.  Your actual mistakes (or, Towards Bona Chess)

Richard Fredlund wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> Would it be possible to look at the kind of mistakes we all tend to make in 
> practice in our actual games?
>   

Of course.  I'll have a think...


D

So, here's some thoughts: first, some cherry-picking...

1. Before we got to tonight, I had a look at the Elements of a profile and thought that the only thing I hadn't done justice to was the opening.  It's interesting to look at people's comments there: most people just said they wanted to improve 'openings' without being at all specific (viz. 'I need an answer to the Sicilian Defence' or 'What's the best line for a solid Black player against the Trompovsky?').  Nigel Davies has identified a tendency for people unfairly to blame their lack of opening knowledge for losses and says, 'Don't blame the opening' (rather, blame your chess sense, or your misunderstanding of the resulting structures).
   

2. Andrew Soltis once wrote a whole book about chess mistakes: his classification is to be found elsewhere on the website.

3. Jonathan Rowson produced a list of The Seven Deadly Chess Sins:
   thinking (unnecessary or erroneous);
   blinking (missing opportunities; lack of resolution);
   wanting (too much concern with the result of the game);
   materialism (lack of attention to non-material factors);
   egoism (insufficient awareness of the opponent and his ideas);
   perfectionism (running short of time, trying too hard);
   looseness ("losing the plot", drifting, poor concentration).

4. Chris Baker's Learn from your chess mistakes lists:
   Openings:
   poor opening preparation,
   being over-prepared and getting 'stale',
   being caught by your opponent's preparation,
   choice of openings/learning new lines and styles,
   understanding standard and re-occurring themes,
   being caught by move orders and transpositions
   Middlegame:
   Losing the 'thread' of the position,
   miscalculation,
   confidence and playing against stronger/weaker opponents,
   middlegame judgement,
   losing the initiative,
   missing your shot
   Endgame:
   Endgame technique,
   forming a plan,
   having too many choices and missing tricks,
   understanding 'good and bad pieces',
   control

5. Dan Heisman thinks that he has identified the 13 Most Common OTB mistakes, among which is not playing appropriately for the chess state that you're in:

   1) playing too fast because of overconfidence   
   2) not recognizing the critical moment   
   3) playing too fast because of carelessness   
   4) being overcautious   
   5) guarding instead of moving   
   6) miscounting   
   7) allowing a removal of the guard tactic   
   8) not adjusting from one phase of the game to another, or not playing differently when way ahead or behind   
   9) counterattacking a guarded rook when an unguarded minor piece is attacked   
   10) not developing all your pieces   
   11) making threats that are easily parried   
   12) overlooking that your move can be easily refuted by a check, capture, or threat   
   13) not asking yourself, "what are all the reasons my opponent made that move?

1. The nearest I got to doing some serious statistics was showing 111 local games from the East Devon Premier and Major sections to Fritz for a typology of blunders (examples of each).  The single biggest category in terms of tactical theme was an attack on the king, by way of a thinking error was an unmet or overlooked threat, but by way of psychological theme it was simple blindness: not seeing, probably because of not looking.  Dan Heisman calls this 'Hope Chess'; if you are not certain that every one of your opponent's threats can be met on every move, you are merely hoping that you can meet them, and so every move you have to be lucky.  I promise, it won't last.
   

2. What I haven't done is a typology of errors other than tactical ones.  I haven't got time to do that before Tuesday, but I'll have a go one day. 
   

3. Don't forget where we came in: you're the person best placed to know what mistakes you make in practice.  Take a bona vada at your own games, share your conclusions. I'm pretty good on my own mistakes, Brian's mistakes and some of Jon's; I tried looking for common themes but I think we've all got distinctly individual ways of playing badly... So, Brian has a tendency to let his opponent have the centre and makes odd decisions about who is winning, Jon is inclined to change horses in mid-stream, and I often get muddled with my move order.
   

4. I've just whizzed through a few dozen games from the three of us, and, if there is a theme, it's something I've written about before: it is necessary and desirable to set problems and put your opponent under pressure. 
   

   • And its corollary: when you're under pressure, you need to play twice as well.
   • Without putting your opponent under pressure, you cannot expect them to make mistakes. 
   • If you are the one under pressure, you are more likely to make mistakes. 
   • And so there is nothing more dangerous than 'playing safe', allowing your opponent to build up as they wish.

Tom and Richard were having a look at this game:

• Anthony Miles - G Garcia Gonzales 1-0 [A65]

Can't imagine Miles overlooked it, but what made him choose something else?  Fritz rather fancies Richard's idea... Any thoughts?

D

[C] . 7th August. Minor piece endgames

The minor pieces are bishop and knight (and the major ones are rook and queen).  They are of roughly equal value (3 pawns, we often say), but have such different powers of movement that they have very different uses in the endgame.

In the struggle of bishop against pawns compared with knight against pawns, the superiority of the bishop is plain, the knight being more easily overstretched or herded away.  However, there are some neat mates available to the knight when the side with the king has a rook's pawn, which should be known.  And there is a quirk of chess, that a rook's pawn which will queen on the opposite colour to its supporting bishop, cannot be forced through against a defending king.  But, on the whole, we would sooner go into an ending with a bishop than a knight.

Knight endings remind us of King and Pawn endings, because knights are similarly slow across the board, and are subject to zugzwang.  They can also run out of manoeuvring space at the edge of the board, and hate to chase rook's pawns.  When knight battles knight, it is often hard to calculate how many moves it will take a knight to eat up a group of pawns, because a knight takes three moves before it can attack the next square on a rank, and then the pawn might move...  With a bishop, if the pawns cannot escape, it's very easy to count your way through a sequence.

Endings with opposite coloured bishops are notoriously drawish, because the defender can so often set up a blockade. 

Endings with bishops of the same colour have some interesting features.  You are usually better off with a pawn at the edge of the board, so it's easier to squeeze the defending bishop off the defence of the queening square when the defending king is distant. 

The battle of bishop(s) against knight(s) in the endgame is worth studying.  When there is play on each side of the board, the bishop is superior -- so much so that you can play for a win based just on that advantage.  However, when the play is all on one wing, the capacity of the knight to control squares of each colour can make it the preferable piece.

If you share Simon's affection for studies, a very nice collection of simple studies is Chernev's Practical Chess Endings, and this includes dozens of minor piece endings.  However, if you actually want a guide to practical chess endings, then I think Paul Keres' title of the same name is the best.  (I haven't seen Silman's or Dvoretsky's manuals.)

[B/C/D] 31st July. Endgame ahoy!

A couple of members were struck by Simon's discussion of the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation during his talk about King and Pawn endgames.  That's the best example of endgame thinking arising in the opening, but it's not the only one. 

There are endgame openings, where the queens come off early and the players forget about mating attacks, as recommended by Edmar Mednis. There is one more opening where we see an early queen swap: Lasker's Petroff exchange variation of the Petroff.  Far from choosing a drawing variation, Lasker played it to win against selected opponents, like Frank Marshall who might be expected to over-egg it.  One simple win from him was:

• Emanuel Lasker - Richard Teichmann 1-0 [C42]

Much more commonly, we see endgame thinking arise in games where there is a pawn structure which will definitely get better and better for one side as we approach the endgame -- a familiar example is the Isolated Queen's Pawn. 

"Before the endgame, the gods have placed the middlegame." -- Tarrasch.  Couldn't agree more, but accepting a pawn weakness for attacking chances immediately gives your opponent a winning plan, namely, survive, swap and win the endgame ...

• Emanuel Lasker - Siegbert Tarrasch 1-0 [D34]

I've found a comparable example from the French Defence ...

• Hartman - Yanofsky 1-0 [C09]

,  and was immediately reminded of the same sort of issue with the Backward Pawn you get in the same opening ...

• Hunt Harriet - Song Yi 1-0 [C03]

The minority attack in the Queen's Gambit Declined Exchange Varation is all about saddling Black with a weakness that will persist into the endgame:

• Evans - Opsahl 1-0 [D36]

In the games of Rubinstein and Capablanca we often see opponents lured into losing endgames, lost because of weaknesses acquired, if not in the opening, then certainly long ago; I gave a couple of examples...

• Jose Capablanca - Abraham Kupchik 1-0 [C49]
• Jose Capablanca - Milan sr [New York Vidmar 1-0 [C98]

...a couple of sessions ago, and offer today another from Rubinstein ...

• E. Cohn - A. Rubinstein 0-1 [D29]

• flohr - moscow capablanca 1/2 [D62]

[all] 24th July. Learning opening lines.

Lots of things to say about this...  Here's half-a-dozen or so little nuggets to ponder, and a bit more practical advice.

"Of my fifty-seven years I have applied at least thirty to forgetting most of what I have learned or read.  Since then, I
have acquired a certain ease and cheer which I should never again like to be without.  (...)  I have stored little in my memory, but I can apply that little, and it is of use in many and varied emergencies.  I keep it in order, but resist every attempt to increase its dead weight." -- Emanuel Lasker

1. Is opening preparation mostly wasted in practical play?  A four-board match played away at Exmouth one Saturday...

The top boards each made a mistake on move 5: 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 f5 4.Nc3 Nf6 now 5.e3(?) was possibly inaccurate, allowing 5...d5!? (highly recommended in Kosten’s book, although NCO suggests White can still extract an advantage here) but Black didn't play it, preferring 5...Be7.  Did the players know better?  I had the idea they didn't know it at all, and were making it up as they went along.

Board 2, the players scampered along in the French Tarrasch: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ne2 cxd4 8.cxd4 Qb6 9.Nf3 f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.0-0 Bd6  This is the tabiya, where the real first choice lies for White, who followed the old main line: 12.Nc3 0-0 13.Be3 Bd7 14.Re1 Be8.  Now here all the books give this position as equal; although it is unbalanced I don't know why White wants to learn and play this line, Black has so much counterplay...  [GMs at the time were playing 12.Bf4.] We than had 15.Ng5 (a very important move) and then 15...Bh5? which was the first deviation from theory... White can now get an instant plus with 16.Bxh7+! e.g. 16...Nxh7 17.Qxh5 Nxg5 18.Qxg5 Nxd4? 19.Nxd5! but it was not refuted by White's chosen 16.Qb1?!  So White played into Black's hands, Black didn't know it and  made a mistake, and White couldn't take advantage of it...

Board 3 was a bit less theoretical, although it has been played before: 1.Nf3 g6 2.e4 c5 3.Bc4 Bg7 4.0-0 e6 5.c3 Ne7 6.d4 cxd4 7.cxd4 d5 8.exd5 after which Black surely should not have played 8...exd5(?) but 8...Nxd5, when there is some sort of plan against the IQP instead of a 'normal' White small plus with no prospects for Black.

And Board 4 had the unlikely start 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.h3... Not a GM move, but an attempt to play the opponent, and not the GM author of the opponent's latest book purchase.

So, opening preparation can be a complete waste of time!

2. We are often told: "Learn ideas not variations".  This is a good starting point: there's nothing sadder than watching a player trot out a move from a book in the wrong position, or even a move that leads to the right position, but the player doesn't understand what to do in that position when the moves run out. [Common examples include: playing c2-c3 in the Colle [1.d4 2.Nf3 3.e3] when you aren't forced to by Black's ...c7-c5; playing the Giuoco Pianissimo in every game but not having a clue what to do after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.O-O O-O 7.Be3 Bb6, and then playing a3 or h3 or even b3; playing the Fried Liver sacrifice 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 6.exd5 Nxd5?! 6.Nxf7!? rather than the superior 6.d4!]

I got more out of reading Fine's "Ideas behind the chess openings" than reading any number of more detailed books; it's terribly out of date now, but to anyone taking up the Queen's Gambit or French Defence, I'd certainly recommend starting with Fine's discussions there.  Tracing the history of ideas-led opening books, I can remember enjoying How to Play the Caro-Kann (Keene et al., RHM), where literally every move is discussed at some length, and How to Play the Sicilian Defence (Levy & O'Connell, Batsford), which emphasised systems over variations.  Many modern opening books for club players use ways of explaining I associate with Bellin and Ponzetto in their 'Mastering the...' books, showing themes and piece placements related to structures as well as to variations.

3. "It may sound like a platitude, but openings have to be studied in accord with your own tastes. Another point is a little less obvious: in constructing an opening repertoire, you need to take your own powers of memory into account.  (...) I know from my own experience what an excruciating labour it is to memorise 'theory' before a game.  You have it all written down in notebooks, you have gone through it ten times before starting play, and you still can't remember it.  If this is so, it may well be better to concentrate on what I call 'opening schemes' -- logical systems with a smaller amount of theory, in which it is more important to understand the position and know about typical ideas and resources than to memorise specific details and precise move-orders." -- Mark DVORETSKY

At a minimum, you should have some key games in your memory: the most simple wins for each side, the central ideas, the most common tactical patterns, and, vitally, any traps that are around in your opening.  Dvoretsky says, keep a card index, but these days I guess you would use a computer.  Although modern computers have a huge capacity, treat them like Lasker treats his memory: keep any databases small and well-ordered.  Just having the games saved on your computer won't transfer them magically to your brain; you need to go through them and see what is typical and untypical of each game, and what reason if any might explain the differences.

4. "Some players learn a lot of variations by heart and repeat them in play whenever possible.  But their opponents may by so  ignorant or unkind that they step 'out of the book' long before that wonderful advantage-for-me sign has been reached.  I remember a young player who said he lost three years of his life studying the Najdorf!  He realised that he had learned variations, not chess."

"On the other hand, it is perhaps overly simple to say that you must learn the ideas behind the openings ... But the trouble with chess is the opponent: if you know only the 'ideas behind the variations' and he knows the ideas and a lot of variations, he is likely to beat you." -- Bent LARSEN

5. "As Victor Korchnoi points out in his book of best games, when you study openings you don't remember the variations. What
happens is that the strategic motifs become familiar to you at a deeper level - which means getting the kind of positions in which you know what to do." (...) "...It's really better not to try to memorize anything - the only stuff that will stick are things that can be hung on hooks of deep understanding. If you have good abilities in calculation and vision, much can be worked out during the game; what is 'theory' anyway other than a collection of imperfect games which have, for the most part, been analyzed rather badly." ... "You're best forearmed by understanding the middlegame structures that come from your openings." -- Nigel DAVIES

I think the other significant 'hooks' to hang things on are your own games.  Make a card index or a database of all your own games, find out where you or your opponent diverged from what your book says, decide if it was a mistake or an improvement or just as good.  You should find that each time you play a line, the 'tree' of moves that you can recall grows.

6. "What do most readers look for in an opening book? Unfortunately, something that they won't get. TWIC readers, for example, apparently want pretty much what my own students keep asking for: a book which explains all the 'ideas' of an opening, but isn't cluttered up with all sorts of nasty variations which one will never run into over the board anyway. I'm sorry to report that this is just a fantasy. Learning an opening by accumulating abstract ideas is a little like learning a language by reading a grammar book. Worse, actually, because generalizations in chess don't apply with nearly the consistency or predictability of grammatical rules. If a chess opening could be learned by absorbing the opening's 'ideas' (whatever those might be), the opening phase of the game would be universally mastered and of little interest. The fact is, no verbal description of what squares are important or where the pieces 'usually' go can describe the dynamic interplay of tactics and positional factors in any major opening. Whereas, by contrast, the straightforward study of enough examples will lead to a nuanced and practical knowledge of how to play that opening. In addition, by studying in context, you will automatically get a much better grasp on how those important squares and typical manoeuvres work than you would have from reading a general description." (...)

"To summarize this lengthy review, then:

(a) openings can only be learned by study of numerous examples and variations, not by learning abstract 'ideas';

(b) books can use either the tree structure or the illustrative-game approach successfully, but the second choice often leads to the omission of key material;

(c) watch out for books which fail to attribute analysis--there's a good chance that the material is copied from elsewhere;

(d) before you purchase a book, if you get the chance, compare a few variations in it (preferably ones you play) with what you have in your database. If a simple collection of database games gives you more information than what's in the book, try to assess whether other qualities of the book (line selection, instruction, guidance) outweigh its lack of original information. Barring that approach, your best bet is to go by the company's and author's reputation, and hope for the best!"

-- John WATSON

Well, Watson is an IM, and is perhaps telling us what we might need if we want to be an IM who plays 'major' openings.  Club players who don't know much about any openings, major or minor, can't acquire a lot of opening knowledge at once.  I would expect that we have to lay in the broad, rough pencil outlines of understanding before we can paint in each finesse.  I think all of the above quotes are probably true for different levels of player, with different amounts of study time available; what are your ambitions, what can you manage?

7. "Reading and nodding is not learning", says Jonathan Rowson (after Nigel Davies), and he's absolutely right.  You have to do something more deliberate to get the information in, and you have to practise getting it out, too.  Read and nod, yes, but put a line in the margin beside everything that is important, then take some notes, and see if you can get all the main points of a chapter down on one side of a piece of paper.  Shut the book and read your notes and see if they still make sense.  Then put aside your notes, get out a set and a board (or an empty game in a database) and see what you can recall.  Wait a day, then try writing it all down from memory, or, even better, explaining it to someone else and see when you dry up and which questions you can't answer; go back to the book to patch up what you know.  Wait a week, and do the same.  Play a bunch of 15-move games, write the moves down, see where you or your opponent went wrong, see if there was a better way to take advantage of any mistakes. 

8. Whatever the green lobby tell me, I always think that the natural resource in shortest supply is time.  There are ways to cut down the amount of theory you need to know:

Choosing non-confrontational openings: Purdy once said (re-published in Action Chess) you can learn all the opening theory you need "to get by" in 10 hours.  He recommended the Colle System (1.d4 2.Nf3 3.e3) as White, and the Rubinstein French (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2/Nc3 dxe4) as Black against 1.e4.  Against 1.d4 and other closed openings, he recommended you aim for a standard formation of ...d5/...e6/...Nf6/...Be7/...b6/...Bb7/...c5, which, against the Queen's Gambit, is called the Tartakower variation (first seen at the London 1922 tournament).  He didn't say these were great openings, just systems where there was a decent trade-off between strength and ease of use.  If you want to do more than "get by", maybe you need to study more, but Purdy was very clear that spending 10 hours studying the middlegame or endgame would do more for your chess results than any 10 hours on the opening.

Choosing early deviations: "Is it possible to play the Ruy Lopez with just strategical ideas? Probably not. Is it possible to memorize all the lines? Probably not." -- Alexei SHIROV.  I liked Andrew Greet's championing of the Worrall Attack in the Ruy Lopez, a deviation from the main line by 5.Qe2.  [He then rather spoiled things by writing a book large enough to act  as a shelter during inclement weather (or even nuclear attack), but  the  approach is sound.]  Retracing his steps, we might recommend the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation (4.Bxc6), or the Scotch Game (3.d4), or Bishop's Opening (2.Bc4), or even Bird's Opening (1.f4) as ways of making it more likely that the battle takes place on ground of your choosing.  Then you have to learn less.

White and Black: You can adopt similar systems as White and Black; obvious examples include the King's Indian Defence and the King's Indian Attack, Bird's Opening and the Dutch Defence, the English Opening and the Sicilian Defence, and so on.

Sister openings: You might think about playing the Semi-Slav (...d5/...e6/...c6) as Black against 1.d4, and perhaps the Caro-Kann (1...c6) or Scandinavian Defence (1...d5) as Black against 1.e4.  These openings share some features in common, and your pieces will often end up on similar squares.  These would form a decent set of openings to use if you play the Colle System as White.

Moving in the same street: rather than taking up an entirely new opening, you are better off using as much of your existing knowledge as possible, and moving to a different variation of the same opening.  So, if you already play the Ruy Lopez, you might prefer on move 5 to play the Centre Attack (5.d4), the Four Knights' (5.Nc3), the Andersson-Steinitz line (5.d3), or some other variation where a lot of your homework will still prove useful.

Traps: I have no problem if people include lines in their repertoire where traps arise.  But you shouldn't choose an opening just because it has a trap, and you may find that none of your rehearsed traps ever arise in practice.  Ask around... I know Ray has had some success with 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.c4 e6!?, getting in a few standard tricks, while although I like very much to play the MacCutcheon French (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4), I never get to play it, because White nearly always plays 4.e5 or 3.e5...  So everything I know about this line is just 'dead weight' in practice.

Wacky openings?: Grob's Attack (1.g4 e.g. 1...d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4 3.c4) will always have a fan base, but it's only a surprise once and antidotes can be found.  The trouble is, while any opening can be played with shallow ideas or deep ones, it's easier to find a layer of deeper ideas in a mainstream opening.  You are then faced with learning the whole of a new opening, with your hours of study of the obscure lines of the Grob being wasted.  "...kids need to move on to real openings as quickly as possible..." opines Nigel Davies.

10. Learning from what?

Dvoretsky recommends building up your own card index; most of us I think would prefer to take a pencil and a stack of sticky notes to a book.

Books: There are different levels of book with different styles which might suit different levels and styles of player.  There are excellent books about things I couldn't have imagined when I starting reading chess books... I guess there's a ladder of difficulty which can be hinted at in the title: "Starting Out..." "Explained..." "Winning with..." "The Complete..." and even "The Ultimate..." represent some sort of hierarchy, and depending on your grade, memory and study habits, I expect you could decide what's appropriate for you.  Some books have key ideas, some use a tree structure, others are based on complete games, some use a mix of approaches. Complete games undoubtedly help you remember themes, but are also undoubtedly used as padding.  It's not enough that a book contains detail, it needs to be useful, organised and well-explained detail with a point.  So, even if you see detail, don't assume it will do you any good.  As a rule, more elementary books use illustrative games, and more advanced books use 'trees' of variations, but Lev Psakhis arranged all his material in his monumental tetralogy on the French around illustrative games.

Show and tell: I've always thought that videos, DVDs and so on, however memorable, have a terribly small amount of content.  I've had to transcribe every video I've ever owned because (a) such a transcript wasn't packaged with the product, and (b) it's essential to compare the lines given with other sources, otherwise you have to keep zipping back and forth to find the position you are interested in.  And when you do this, you might find a video costing £15 has about a page of variations in it.  They really have to have a substantial accompanying booklet to be worth it.

Software: Most databases have all the features you need to organise a repertoire: trees, sort functions, training modes and so on.  There is even software (BookUp) which is designed specifically to help you organise and test yourself on the openings you play, and boasts a transpositional feature which I haven't heard about elsewhere.

Hybrid DVDs: The latest development seems to be a DVD bearing a database linked to videos of talking heads.  I haven't seen many of these but if the talking heads are telling you important things, then it's the same pain as with a video finding the part where they talk about the position you are interested in, and if they're not telling you important things, well, it does beg the question, why the talking heads...

[all] 18th July. Do chessplayers think?

The late Simon Webb had a wonderful idea a while ago, to record chessplayers of different strengths for 10 minutes while they considered a chess position.  He published them in Barry Wood's old CHESS magazine in the 1970s, and I've used them before with groups.  We tried this last week; I gave them all this position:

Fridrik Olafsson Svetozar Gligoric Los Angeles (1) 1963 No. 1 Position for analysis from Simon Webb * [Webb]

Black to move.  [Take 10 minutes yourself, if you like.]

Without being able to record them all, I asked people to write down their thinking while they were doing it.  I then asked people to describe, not what they were thinking about (specifics), but how they were thinking about it.  If they found this difficult, I got them to just say their moves, then I tried to re-describe their thinking in terms of process, as follows.

Here are their comments:

Now, there's nothing to say that a different 7 players might have come up with something totally different, nor that the same 7 players might not do something totally different when faced with a different position. Also, I don't know if they would recognise the descriptions I gave them... Anyhow, all good food for thought:

1. Of the 7, 4 didn't mention looking for White's threats.  Ever get surprised by a blow of your opponent?  Often?  Is that because you don't routinely check for threats?

2. I think you can put these 7 in order of organisation, but, without wishing to embarrass anyone, I think this order would be different to order of playing strength.  I suspect that if the strongest players were more organised, they would be better, rather than concluding that thinking organisation is irrelevant.

3. From the various models given in the session, I think a couple come close to Purdy... if we listened long enough, maybe we would discover they were doing a lot of what Heisman says too.

4. I rather warmed to player B: once they get some error-checking in, they have the basic survival kit for beginners down pat.

5. Player C was just awesome... Lots of appropriate questions used in sequence.

Fridrik Olafsson Svetozar Gligoric Los Angeles (1) 1963 No. 2 Position for analysis from Simon Webb * [Webb]	Rudolf Teschner Leonid Stein Stockholm (9) 1962 No. 3 Position for analysis from Simon Webb * [Webb]
Mikhail Tal Paul Keres Curacao (2) 1962 No. 4 Position for analysis from Simon Webb * [Webb]	Victor Kortchnoi Fridrik Olafsson Stockholm 1962 No. 5 Position for analysis from Simon Webb * [Webb]
Miroslav Filip Efim Geller Curacao (25) 1962 No. 6 Position for analysis from Simon Webb * [Webb]	Pal Benko Paul Keres Curacao (27) 1962 No. 7 Position for analysis from Simon Webb * [Webb]

[all] 17th July. A thinking process.

I often think, only a correspondence player has the luxury of adopting a genuinely consistent thinking process. The rest of us have to contend with the clock, our emotions, our laziness...

I have struggled with this issue all my life, it seems. There has to be something which balances the thorough with the realistic.

For juniors, I have been playing around with a THINking scheme, which was really driven by the need to correct some common errors; it goes:

Beginners, I'm happy if they do just 123 and 5.  If they can't manage that, then just 1 and 5 will do.  If they can't manage that, then just do 3...    Anyone who regularly does every step between 1 and (*4) can probably outplay me.

Purdy suggests:

Purdy adds: "Being unmethodical by nature, I have never been able to train myself to use my own system throughout a game!"  Although he adds, having made a list of errors after a tournament, he was convinced that at least half of them would have been avoided had he done so.

Dan Heisman regards organising your thinking as one of the Big Five things to get right.  He also, helpfully, provides us with an example, described in a dozen pages, which I summarise:

This is quite a lot, for sure, but he reassures us that a lot of it becomes automatic -- it's not something you go through like military drill.

OK, this all may be too much advice by now.  How can you respond to all that?  In particular, how do you make sense of three overlapping but contradictory schemes?!

Some suggestions:

1. Reflect on how you decide on a move in various positions. That sort of translates as: try and notice yourself thinking while you're thinking. Also, reflect on your mistakes.
   
• If you're keen, make a recording of yourself thinking what to play
  
2. What do you do when you are thinking?  Is there any order to it at all?  Could you organise it better?
3. What's missing?  Are there things suggested above that would be useful to include, for example, routine blunder-checking?  Try including one or two steps at once, get them rehearsed, build up your habits until your thinking process is complete.
4. Write down some sort of organised scheme for yourself to follow.  Compare it with the schemes above: what steps might you be missing out?  Don't make it more complicated than you need.
   
5. Try and stick to this scheme in as much of as many of your games as you can manage.
   
6. Go back to 1 after a month or three of practice, see how you sound now.

[A/B] 16th July.  The Logic of Chernev

I've just come across two splendid swipes at Irving Chernev.

Here is John Nunn, in the introduction to his Grandmaster Chess, Move by Move. He quotes a very illuminating annotation by Alekhin, and then goes on to say:

"Lesser annotators are often fond of propounding grand general principles, but these are often totally misleading.  A typical example occurs in Logical Chess, Move by Move (Simon and Schuster, 1957) by Irving Chernev (I have converted the descriptive notation to algebraic).  His Game 3 ...

• Scheve - Teichmann 0-1 [C53]

... goes 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 e3 and we read "Generally, it is dubious strategy to release one Bishop while shutting in the other".  After 3...e6 he says "This deserves censure because it is a routine developing move which seems to take no thought of crossing White's plans".  Yet a little later Game 8 ...

• Colle - Delvaux 1-0 [D05]

... went 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 ("Black releases his King Bishop and does not commit himself to any specific line of defence.")  3 e3 d5 ("Black plants a pawn firmly in the centre.")  Now there is no censure for Black's play, only approval, but we have reached exactly the same position as the earlier game.  What then, can we make of Chernev's general principle on developing Bishops?  Basically, it's wrong.  Many common openings flout it, such as the Queen's Gambit Declined, the Closed Ruy Lopez, the French and several lines of the Sicilian.  Even in 1957, these openings were played by many World Champions.

"If you are unlucky, the 'general principle' being put forward may not even apply to the specific position under discussion.  Referring again to Logical Chess Move by Move, Game 12 goes ...

• Pitschak - Flohr 0-1 [A29]

[Help]

... 1 c4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 g3 d5! 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 Bg2 Nb6! (his exclamation marks) and now we read "There is another bit of subtlety in the Knight's move, one which the modern master frequently utilises.  The Knight takes advantage of the Bishop's fianchetto development and bears down heavily on c4, a square weakened by the Bishop's absence."  The italics are Chernev's so he obviously considered this point important.  However, it is absurd.  White will inevitably play d3 (or possibly b3) to develop his c1-bishop, after which the knight cannot move to c4.  Even if it could, it wouldn't attack anything and would be instantly driven away again.  The game continued 6 Nf3 Nc6 7 0-0 Be7 8 d3 0-0, reaching a standard position.  The d3-pawn covers c4 and did so for the remainder of the game, so this isn't even a case of annotation by hindsight.  Chernev was trying to formulate a general principle, this time on the defects of the fianchetto development, but it's not one that has any contact with reality.

"A player of his strength is unlikely to discover new general principles which somehow eluded great chess thinkers such as Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch and Reti.

(...)

"Every chess move adheres to some general principles but contravenes others."

Ouch.

Exhibit B: here is Master Ron Wieck, in his Foreword to Purdy's Action Chess:

• Scheve - Teichmann 0-1 [C53]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Qe7 5. O-O d6 6. d4 Bb6 7. a4

"... Here Chernev writes,

"A tricky move, but an illogical one.  White threatens an attack on the bishop by 8.a5.  If then 8...Bxa5, 9 d5 strikes at the Knight protecting the Bishop.  After the reply 9...Nd8, White captures by 10.Rxa5, winning a piece.  Should Black, after 8.a5, play 8...Nxa5, the continuation 9.Rxa5 Bxa5 10.Qa4+ nets White two pieces for a Rook." 7...a6.  "Prepares a retreat for the Bishop." (...) 8.a5 "There is just a wee chance that Black will be tempted to take the pawn." 8...Ba7 "But Black does not bite!"

"All very charming.  It's as though an affectionate uncle took you by the hand and made sure you didn't miss anything.  

"Later, however, you happen to pick up a copy of Tarrasch's book on the great tournament, St.Petersburg 1914.  The game, Gunsberg-Alekhine, repeats these moves, but on move 8, Alekhine bit:  8... Nxa5 9. Rxa5 Bxa5 10. Qa4+ b5 (Oops.  Maybe he was doing more than prepare a retreat) 11. Qxa5 bxc4 ... And White did not have enough for the exchange. 

"We return to Logical Chess where Scheve had just played 9.h3.  Chernev devotes half a page to castigating this move:

"A coffee-house move! (...)"

"He goes on and on, quoting Tarrasch and Alekhine, delivering a sermon on the certain damnation that attends any pawn move in front of a castled King."

(...)  

9...Nf6 10. dxe5

"White exchanges, and opens lines for his pieces. Unfortunately, this reacts in Black's favor..." 

"10...Nxe5 11. Nxe5 Qxe5 12. Nd2 Bxh3 13. gxh3 Qg3+ ... and the finish should be fairly obvious.

"You buckle down to some study on the Italian Game and discover that 7.a4 is a perfectly good space-gaining move, and the blunder 8.a5? is best replaced by the coffee-house 8.h3, a strong move which preserves the tension in the centre to White's advantage by preventing ...Bg4, which would strike indirectly at the square d4.  White stands well after 8...Nf6 9 Re1, so in retrospect it is apparent that Scheve's 10.dxe5 was a terrible howler.  The problem is, Chernev was utterly clueless about the reason for White's defeat, leaving the definite impression that h3 was the culprit.  You end up wishing your patient uncle would take a hike and learn something about chess.

"I have been terribly harsh with Irving Chernev ... but I must insist that you can't teach what you don't know.  This is where Purdy is different: he really understands the positions he discusses."

Ouch squared.

1. Specifics

a. Well, we all know people who can't teach even what they do know, so I'm happy for people who can teach to have a go.  Chernev was far from a dead loss as a player (he scored 6/15 in the US Championship in 1942, national master strength), and if you want to find holes in published analysis, Chernev isn't the strongest player ever to leave one. 

b. In the context of the game given, the move 7...a6 does seem to have been made to provide a retreat, just as Chernev said (and just as von Scheve, Teichmann and Gunsburg likely thought).

c. What did Alekhin say, exactly, that he could be quoted by Chernev in support of his criticism of 9.h3?

"Always try to keep the three pawns in front of your castled king on their original squares as long as possible."

And indeed, when Alekhin had this position as White, twice, he did not play 8.h3, but 8.Be3.  So this would not be an example of Chernev inventing a general principle that Alekhin overlooked, but Chernev quoting and explaining what Alekhin wrote and played.

d. I'm happy to think that Ron Wieck knows players who might seek out Tarrasch's tournament book, or who might buckle down to research this unusual line of the Giuoco Piano.  But I have a feeling that Chernev is instead addressing beginning players who might play as follows:

• 1 h3...
• 1 a3 2 h3...
• 1 e4 2 h3...
• 1 e4 2 Nf3 3 h3...
• 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 d3 h6 5 Nc3 d6 6 h3 a6 7 a3 Nf6 8 b3...
  

And if Chernev wants to spend half a page shouting about this habit, I'm sympathetic, even if it was mistimed. My most detailed information about the Giuoco Piano is the Batsford offering from Gufeld and Stetsko, who, after trundling down the main line, comment:

"The h3-pawn is a reasonable place for Black to start organizing an attack on the king..."

e. Oh, and let us quote the whole of Chernev's comment after dxe5:

"White exchanges, and opens lines for his pieces. Unfortunately, this reacts in Black's favor, in accordance with the rule in these cases:
Open lines are to the advantage of the player whose development is superior."

Maybe mistaken, but not "clueless".  [Selective quoting isn't fair.  If I wanted Chernev to look better, I would have left out all of Nunn's stuff about the English Opening in Game 12.  But that wasn't the whole of the argument.]

f. Similarly, with regard to Nunn's discussions of Chernev's comments on the Colle: Chernev's full comment on Game 8 was

"Black plants a pawn firmly in the centre.  This move, together with ...e6, blocks in the Bc8."

• 1 e4 2 Nf3 3 d3 4 Be2...
• 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 d6...

g. With this in mind, I too would prefer to see my clubmates, after 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 e3, play a move like  3...Bf5, crossing up White's clockwork plan of Bd3 Nbd2 and e3-e4.  [In the other move order, in Game 8, the issue doesn't arise.]

2. General

"I remember chancing upon it as a frustrated, fumbling teenage chess novice and being happily amazed to learn that chess actually had underlying principles I could learn and use. This process was aided by the simplicity and clarity with which Chernev explained myriads of previously mystifying master moves and maneuvers. Reading it was like a having a blindfold removed, waking up from a confused daze, or having a light turned on in a dark room (not to mention having several hundred points added to my rating)." – Taylor Kingston

I had exactly the same experience, and so have many others.  I think Chernev's book was only the second chess book I had read (the first one being David Pritchard's The Right Way to Play Chess); and as a second chess book, it was wonderful.  I ordered the book hoping to get maybe a catalogue of chess principles which I could then apply.  When the book arrived, I was actually frustrated for a moment that this was nothing of the sort, because the book seemed so flippant and unmethodical, but I was soon delighted and charmed by what I read.  Chernev is so engaging and enthusiastic, and I have had so much pleasure from reading this and others of his books and enjoying his selection of games and positions.

"Nimzowitsch became then for me more or less the author of the only book which could help me get away from these Euwe books, which, I admit, are very good for the ordinary club player. But once you've reached a certain strength you get the impression that everything that Euwe writes is a lie." -- Bent LARSEN, in KEENE, Nimzowitsch: a reappraisal.

I think that's the heart of it; Chernev is even more careless with the truth than Euwe, but you have to start somewhere.  It took Chernev yelling "Get your pieces out!" six times a game for 33 games for me to remember it, and he did so with such variety, with such a sense of wit and good humour, that I didn't realise I was being shouted at.  You might say that if I hadn't started with such enthusiasm for Chernev, I would be better than the barely-2000 ELO I am now, but GM Maurice Ashley still recommends Logical Chess and describes it as his favourite book. (See also a review of Chernev's Logical Chess; there are many other positive reviews online, and Dan Heisman can't stop recommending Chernev's books.)

I don't know the Grandmaster way to coach beginners out of playing 1 a4 2 Ra3 and 1 h4 2 Rh3, but I do try and discourage it.  You learn this, but in fact you overlearn it... so that later (as Larsen pointed out), you overlook opportunities to develop rooks in this way, when it may be the most appropriate method.  But you can get over these over-generalisations. [I'm reminded of going into a science lesson for 11-year-olds, and the teacher saying, "All matter is made of atoms, but the atom also has a structure; here is the nucleus, here are electrons going around it like the Earth goes around the Sun"... If you have a more sophisticated education in science, each statement is enough to reduce you to tears, but that was my first picture of how atoms work, too, and it didn't stop me acquiring a better picture later.]

OK, yes, Chernev misses things, and yes, he's over-fond of general principles, but I'm very much at ease with Chernev being read by people who haven't yet done much work on their game.  Chernev's enthusiasm is infectious, the games are inspiring and well-chosen (Chernev's selections have turned up ceaselessly in instructional books published since), and, if you're in need of some general principles, I can't think of a better way to acquire them. Unless you have ambitions to be a very much better player than GM Ashley or even postal master Taylor, you could do worse than make it your second chess book, too.

(Aside: I think that particular accolade must go to Garry Kasparov.

• Lasker Em - Steinitz W 1-0 [C62]

[D] 17th July. A thinking process.

I often think, only a correspondence player has the luxury of adopting a genuinely consistent thinking process. The rest of us have to contend with the clock, our emotions, our laziness...

I have struggled with this issue all my life, it seems. There has to be something which balances the thorough with the realistic.

For juniors, I have been playing around with a THINking scheme, which was really driven by the need to correct some common errors; it goes:

Beginners, I'm happy if they do just 123 and 5.  If they can't manage that, then just 1 and 5 will do.  If they can't manage that, then just do 3...    Anyone who regularly does everything between 1 and (*4) can probably outplay me.

Purdy suggests:

Purdy adds: "Being unmethodical by nature, I have never been able to train myself to use my own system throughout a game!"  Although he adds, having made a list of errors after a tournament, he was convinced that at least half of them would have been avoided had he done so.

Dan Heisman regards organising your thinking as one of the Big Five things to get right.  He also, helpfully, provides us with an example, described in a dozen pages, which I summarise:

This is quite a lot, for sure, but he reassures us that a lot of it becomes automatic -- it's not something you go through like military drill.

OK, this all may be too much advice by now.  How can you respond to all that?  In particular, how

Some suggestions:

1. Reflect on how you decide on a move in various positions. That sort of translates as: try and notice yourself thinking while you're thinking. Also, reflect on your mistakes.
   
• If you're keen, make a recording of yourself thinking what to play
  
2. What do you do when you are thinking?  Is there any order to it at all?  Could you organise it better?
   
3. What's missing?  Are there things suggested above that would be useful to include, for example, routine blunder-checking?  Try including one or two steps at once, get them rehearsed, build up your habits until your thinking process is complete.
4. Go back to 1 after a month or three of practice, see how you sound now.
   

[C/D] 10th July 2007. Tactics: combinations and blunders

1. Chess is 99% tactics, said Richard Teichmann.  However, 90% of the time, there is no tactic for either side.  So, as well as any difficulty presented by a complicated position, we also have to counter our natural laziness in not looking out for a rare event, as if each move we are crossing the a quiet country road, and not bothering to check for oncoming traffic.  When they think it's a quiet position, even the best players miss things.

2. Tactical ability can be improved, says Dvoretsky.  He described two elements: vision and analysis.  Both can be developed by completing exercises.  [An uncomfortable corollary: If you don't exercise, don't expect to get better!]

3. You need to have a good understanding of the varieties of tactics.  There are different ways of classifying and naming this variety; Purdy gives six simple headings of:- Jumps, Mates, Forks, Nets, Pins and Ties. These building blocks can be fitted together to make a combination, a set of more or less forcing moves, often with a sacrifice, resulting in your advantage.

4. The more combinations you see, the more you will be able to see.  Real examples are very helpful in developing your imagination, throwing up ideas that you can analyse.  Euwe doesn't call it imagination, he calls it combinational vision, but he and Dvoretsky both agree that looking at different problems helps.  The most obvious thing that it helps, which you would expect, is that you can develop depth and accuracy the same way; keep pushing yourself on speed and depth.

5. Purdy also advises us, when searching for combinations: examine moves that smite! These are checks and captures; both are forcing moves which limit the range of reasonable responses. The move that is right when a tactic is available is usually the opposite of a normal sensible move.

6. You should always examine every position for 'accidental' tactics, but look especially hard if you think you have an advantage (if your position is better, your better pieces are more likely to work up a combination between you) or if you notice the clues for a combination: an unsafe king or loose pieces.

7. You should also be aware that there is another, less well-known, list: the list of difficult moves to spot: Long moves, Backwards moves, Declining to capture, an intermezzo or Zwischenzug, False endings, Coming back from the dead, Quiet ('creeping')moves in noisy positions, Switchbacks, Hesitations, and in John Nunn's uneuphonious coinage, Collinear moves (throwing yourself on the sword).

8. So much for the theory.  You can be good at a lot of that stuff and still lose games because of tactics.  You have two other pitfalls to avoid: [1] Going to sleep and ignoring the approaching fin until a shark bites your leg off, and [2] forcing the issue, trying to make combinations happen in positions which are not ripe.  If you have the first problem, you need to become more paranoid: they really are out to get you!

9. I have been bellyaching for a while that books of puzzles don't test you properly, because every position has a solution, and you can often guess what the answer is just because you know it has a solution.  One author in particular has tried to get around this problem, namely Chris Ward; an example is Chess Choice Challenge 3, but even here, the vast majority of the 80 positions have a ! or !! solution.

10. The last thing you need to do is make checking for tactics and combinations part of whatever routine you have for choosing a move.  I have written simply about a four-step THINking process: [1] checking for threats (and dealing with them if you have to using ABCD), [2] checking for your own opportunities (and using them if you can), [3] think about how you can improve your position, and [4], if you can, play with a plan.  Playing with a plan is hard, and your opponent will get in your way, but it is something to strive for.

11. I've been saying and writing things like the above for years.  What's new?  Well, ten years ago, there we didn't all own computers, and there wasn't the online help available.  There are online tactics servers, tactics databases, websites where you can download tactics tests, free database software which can administer tactical tests, and free analysis engines which can show you what mistakes happened in your games. 

12. There are still many good exercises for the computer-free.  In many magazines, you will find a feature like Spot the winning move; there are books full of these things.  Another good thing to do is try analysing real games: Byron Jacobs and Graeme Buckley have both published books of tough analytical exercises which are quite different to the 'spot the move' variety.  Another good idea is setting yourself 20 minutes to find all you can of some analysis in a known GM game which has been analysed; these rich positions are to be found in books by Kotov, Nunn and Dvoretsky. 

13. Lastly, the best clues are always in your own games.  For example, having just started playing the French, I notice that I'm very likely to overlook destructive combinations against my apparently solid pawn chain.

[C/D] 19th June. The beginning of the end.

My esteemed colleague Simon Waters is leading on King and Pawn endgames next week, so I will attempt a warm-up for him this week. 

There are, in my mind, two types of chess theory: general and specific.  In the opening, for example, we say that in general it's a good idea to develop all your pieces once before moving any of them twice.  Equally, we might offer that the sternest test of the Two Knights' Defence is the move 4.Ng5, a view reinforced when Kasparov used it to duff up Timman.  Simon, I believe, intends to do some specific theory, and so my intention is to impart a few general principles.  The point of this, as above, is that specific analytic discoveries can contradict general principles, and indeed some conclusions of K+P endgame theory are distinctly against what you might expect.  Although I don't know what you expect...

I propose to go through an old introductory handout about endgames, starting with the idea of a passed pawn...

• RJ. Fischer - Berliner 1-0 [B03]

• Jose Capablanca - Abraham Kupchik 1-0 [C49]
• Jose Capablanca - Milan sr [New York Vidmar 1-0 [C98]

But suggestions are welcome.

[B/C/D] 5th June 2007. Joe, Harry and Jay: why we need other people.

To improve, you need to become an expert, not about chess, but about your chess.  You need to know what there is to be good at, and what you are good at, and what you are not good at yet.

Practice helps.  Books, databases, analysis software and especially going over your own games also help.  I always type my games into a computer and I always wince to see what tactics I've missed.  I also enjoy some of the computer's suggestions about alternative moves: sometimes they're real crackers, even if there's nothing in it by way of winning a piece or pawn.

But it does help to show your games to other people.  If they are better players than you, so much the better, but even if you are of similar standard, they will be good at different things than you, and are still likely to be able to make some useful comments.

Also: Donald Rumsden, you may recall, got into a lot of undeserved trouble for his apparently confused remarks about "unknown unknowns".  [It was about the only thing he has ever said that I thought made any sense.]  I was familiar with the idea from the 'JoHari window', a way of picturing self-knowledge devised by a couple of folks called Jo(e?) and Harry.

So, there are things I know about my chess that others do not (B), and there are also things I don't know about my chess that others do (C).

But there are also things hidden from us all -- perhaps because we have never heard of them (D).  So, everyone knows I used to play the Modern (A), I know I used to get a rotten score with it but others don't (B), others may notice that I don't handle Rook Endings very well (but I haven't noticed) (C), and there may be something glaringly obvious to a GM (like, I always choose the wrong plan in the English Opening) which neither I nor anyone else at the club suspects (D), the unknown unknowns. 

So, the benefit of showing your games to others, in this scheme, is holding up a mirror to sides of you that you cannot see (C).  And the first step in curing a fault is identifying it.

[all] 4th June 2007. Elements of a profile

So, last week we launched the summer coaching sessions.  I explained the idea of the profile, and went on to ask everyone to complete the 3+3 exercise described below:

• Three things I do well (or try to do well)
• Three things I do badly (or want to do better)

The items were written onto coloured sticky notes, and I arranged them into rough groups on a table.  Doubtless other arrangements were equally legitimate.  The idea was for everyone to to start to build a confident picture of your strengths and weaknesses: try and draw up your own list of what A-M might stand for, and what might be your B and E or your M, and what might be your J!

[all] 14th May 2007. Coaching 2007 Part 2: Adults

• www.chesskids.com
• www.Professorchess.com
• www.chesscafe.com/
• chess.about.com

[all] 13th May 2007. Coaching 2007 Part 1: Juniors

No. 8

Alapin-Levitsky, St.Petersburg, 1911; White
to play

"The most plausible reason for Alapin not having seen the winning combination [it's mate in 4 -- DR] was that he did not expect there to be one.  The reader, who faces no such uncertainty, should have little trouble in discovering what was overlooked." Mullen/Moss

"I have heard from students about instructors teaching players rated 1200-1300 Philidor and Lucena positions. Yet I know someone who lost an easily drawable Philidor position because he did not know the technique and never heard of it. My point? That player was me: I had been playing tournament chess for 5½ years and my USCF rating was about 2100! Sure, if I had known the technique I would not have lost, but the point is that I got to 2100 without ever even hearing about the Philidor draw because such specific knowledge is only marginally useful (not useless!) and I was pretty good at each of the Big Five."

I don't think this is entirely fair. I can think of only two games in the last 20 years where I've had to play a pure King and Pawn endgame. But the ideas I learned studying K+P endgames (opposition, squeezing, zugzwang, in the square...) I've probably used in any number of games, and the threat to swap off into a winning K+P ending occurs constantly. The same may be true for the Philidor and Lucena positions: I've had Philidor maybe twice and Lucena twice, but the ideas crop up over and over again.

The theory is easy enough to get across, but there is still a requirement to come up with a similar mix of examples as test material: some requiring exact analysis of forcing lines, some where you have a strong positional move to make, and others which are examples of normal play, where there is nothing critical to do and any decent move would strengthen your position.  I very much liked the 'How Good Is Your Chess' approach in the Mednis and Crouch book 'Rate your Endgame', but it  is pretty stretching for most players (as is the study-based Livshitz/Speelman 'Test your Endgame Play').  I think I'd sooner see a bunch of positions drawn from practical play, maybe from Capablanca's games, where accuracy and sense are required without bewilderingly deep analysis or fantastic finesses.  It wouldn't be too hard to whizz through Chernev's book and pick out a few positions from each game where the move chosen has some modest instructional value.
Time, time... Where is the time to do all this research, find all these games, write all these books?

[all] 5th May 2007. Exeter - a chess city

[all] 21st January 2007. A note about Blumenfeld's rule

Blumenfeld's rule:

"It often happens that a player carries out a deep and complicated calculation, but fails to spot something elementary right at the first move. In order to avoid such gross blunders, the Soviet master B. Blumenfeld made this recommendation:-
When you have finished your calculations, write down the move you have decided upon on the score sheet. Then examine the position for a short time 'through the eyes of a patzer'. Ask whether you have left a mate in one on, or left a piece or a pawn to be taken. Only when you have convinced yourself that there is no immediate catastrophe for you should you make the planned move."

• shut your eyes for a second or two
  
• walk around your chair
• look at the board next to you then look back
• go and stand behind your opponent and see how it looks from their side
• slap yourself firmly (it works for TVs, right?)
  
• visit your private toilet facility
  

[B] 20 May 2006. Authors of openings books

Angus Dunnington's Winning with Unorthodox Openings [Everyman] gives on page 11 the line 1.b4 e5 2. Bb2 f6 3. b5 d5 4.e3 with the comment:

"Black must decide what his ambitions are in the centre"

Then on page 23 the line 1.b4 d5 2. Bb2 f6 3. e3 e5 is given, where our guide remarks:

"4 b5 a6 ... leads to helpful simplifications for Black ... with equal chances"

It's a bugger spotting transpositions I know; less forgivable is omitting a whole main line:

Angus Dunnington's Winning with Unorthodox Openings [Everyman] gives on page 91 the line 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.g3 h5 with a fine game by Tartakower.

If you ever get this line as Black against Dunnington, I would be interested to see how he replies to 5...Nc6, 5...Ng4 or indeed any of the common replies to 5.g3 other than 5...h5 that are on my database, and completely unmentioned in the book.

[Sorry to pick on Angus again, I guess it shows I'm sufficiently interested in his books to by and study them. (Although Chess Psychology was an absolute dog, winning a prize only for the most uses of the word "ostensibly" in a chess book.)]

What's the problem here? I think it's repertoire books being written by people who don't actually specialise in (and may never have touched) the openings in question. It also suggests a test: how many games cited in the book are by the author? If you skim a chapter and turn up none at all, add a pinch of salt, or a bit of additional study, to your reading.

[C] 19 May 2006. Openings for correspondence

"I note your recommendation to play open openings when starting out to get more experience with tactics. I wonder if this applies to correspondence games. I've been playing them over the Internet the last few years and am at the stage where I get creamed by opponents who know long lines of the Sicilian or Ruy Lopez. Given that I've been somewhat influence by Purdy's recommended openings in Action Chess, which run counter to yours, e.g., The Colle system as White. "

That's depressing. Although if you are following long lines of theory, does that mean you know the theory too? What books are you using to support the play of the opening in these correspondence games? I've not played a lot of postal chess but I do know having some pretty meaty opening books at your elbow is a requirement.

The Colle still aims at an open game, and I'm happy to recommend it. http://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/Openings/colle.html

I regard the Sicilian and Lopez as openings for life in a way I don't think the Colle is; there are some short lines against the Colle which equalise but there is very little theory to learn for either side, which is appealing.

The Sicilian and Lopez have so much territory between them, it's likely that a player of any style can find lines to play as White that suit them. Yes, there's a bunch of theory to learn, but as long as you get a playable position where you understand the ideas, I think it's possible to play the White side of 1.e4 without spending all your time studying long variations.

James added:

"Do you think I'd improve more quickly playing more OTB, live chess over the Internet, or against a chess engine set down to my level? "

I think if you don't know,  I don't know! Personally, I don't like playing against chess engines but they don't half make sure you have your buttons done up. I also think correspondence play is an excellent proving ground, and that any mix of that and other approaches you find appealing is fine.

The most important thing I think is what you do about games you lose. It's a familiar reaction among amateurs to blame your openings (which I've been doing all my life). Is it that you need to dig a bit deeper into the theory, or into the handling of the middle game? What was your most depressing loss, and what was your interpretation of why you lost?

[D] 18 May 2006. Books to help a solid Black player.

" My question to you is this; I have pretty much settled on the Colle system for my opening but cannot find a defense that I like playing. I am not trying to be a Grand Master or anything I just want to be a good solid player. I've been thinking about the Tarrasch and the Modern. The Modern from what I've read can be used for just about any White opening which I guess is what I would prefer (I'm not sure that is aggressive enough for me). The Tarrasch is just an answer to Queen Pawn openings; then I would have to learn a defense for the King Pawn Openings."

You can sort of play the Colle reversed against 1.d4; it's called the Semi-Slav. I've got a web-page somewhere (http://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/Openings/black_d4.htm) which gives a repertoire with it and the Stonewall Dutch (which starts off with the same "Colle Triangle"). The pure Colle Reversed isn't that great for Black (White normally gets in e3-e4 before you get in ...e6-e5) but the Semi-Slav and Stonewall enjoy a good solid reputation at all levels.

I used to play the Modern but gave it up; it's too hard for me and I used to get very different structures every game, and was losing games I didn't understand (always a bad sign). A set formation with ...g6 ...Bg7 ...c6 and ...d5 leads to the Gurgenidze against 1.e4 and (usually) a variation of the Grunfeld against 1.d4; but I don't much like either system for Black.

The defence which perhaps gives the most reliable and limited set of structures to play is the French; it comes closest I think to a system which is easier to play for Black than White (Kramnik claims the same about the Stonewall). I think the French fits alongside the Colle and Tarrasch/Semi-Slav quite well; it goes at about the same speed and you can play 1...e6 and 2...d5 no matter what White does as the first two moves: always a comfort!

Pete enquired further:

"Can you recommend good books on either the Dutch-Stonewall or the Semi- Slav?"

If there's not enough in the Playing Black against 1.d4 webpage for you...

There's a really nice little book, terribly out of date, but still useful, by Tim Harding. Queen's Gambit Declined: Semi-Slav. A library, a second-hand shop, or a friend might be able to supply it, if you don't have much left in the piggy bank after buying those books on the Modern. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713424486/ A copy of QGD:SS with a look at Nunn's Chess Openings to bring you up to date should be all you need at our level.

If you are thinking about buying new books, the Starting Out series from Everyman I think are usually quite good. There are volumes on the Slav/Semi-Slav (which I haven't read, but Flear writes fine books and knows a lot about the Slav complex: NB not all of the book will be about the Semi-Slav with ...e6) and on the Dutch by MacDonald (which I own, and it's very good, but not all of it is about the Stonewall). http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857443934/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857443772/

A bigger theoretical book is Peter Wells on the Semi-Slav; but that is a book for real theory nuts. I haven't read it but it's reckoned a good book, although it's ten years old now. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805032886/

The Bellin books for Batsford on the Dutch have good chapters on the Stonewall, http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/071343211X/ and http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713457600/, but if you're in for a book of that level you can't do better than Jacob Aagaard's monograph on the Stonewall. Aagaard always writes well and he's done everything you need to do for this line. However, it's pretty chewy material and he doesn't cover all the sidelines you need to know if your opponent doesn't want to play the Stonewall (like 2.Bg5). I think also that Aagaard has not played the line himself, just been asked to write a book about it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857442520/

So, with Aagaard, you'll need the MacDonald or the Pinski books http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857443071/ as well to fill out a Dutch repertoire, or a bit of time with an openings encyclopedia like Nunn's. Many players (like MacDonald) use the move order 1...e6 to dodge lines like 2.Bg5, but that means you have to play the French or some lesser defence.

A book I don't know at all: The Chess Advantage in Black and White by IM Larry Kaufman http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812935713/ recommends that Black play the Semi-Slav against 1.d4. It should be OK but a lot of the book will be wasted if you don't play the other lines. (Spanish Exchange, Berlin).

Help on using inserted games [PalView].

I've re-worked this page to use PalView, which I think is wonderful; had I been starting from scratch now, I'd use it for everything.

1. Whole games will be displayed in a new window or tab if you follow the link; play through them if you like, then come back to the main text.
2. The control panel buttons are, in order:
   

   |<	<<	<	>	>>	>|	^	( )	/\
   Go to start	Back 5 moves	Back	Forward	Forward 5 moves	Go to end	Flip board	Autoplay	Step into variations

3. Visitors without Javascript, and perhaps with other configurations, may not be able to view and play through these games as intended.  You can download all the games and positions as a PGN file, and this can be viewed using a PGN viewer (N.B. WinBoard is also a PGN viewer, as well as a front end for GNU chess and online play.)
4. Any other problems, suggestions, etc., let me know.
   

5. Game Index B BERLINER - Fischer, RJ. 18 C CAPABLANCA, JOSE - Kupchik, Abraham 8 - Vidmar, Milan sr [New York 9 COHN, E. - Rubinstein, A. 19 COLLE - Delvaux 11 D DELVAUX - Colle 11 E EVANS - Opsahl 30 F FISCHER, RJ. - Berliner 18 FLOHR - Pitschak 13 H HARTMAN - Yanofsky 20 HUNT HARRIET - Song Yi 21 K KUPCHIK, ABRAHAM - Capablanca, Jose 8 L LASKER EM - Steinitz W 14 LASKER, EMANUEL - Tarrasch, Siegbert 22 - Teichmann, Richard 23 O OPSAHL - Evans 30 P PITSCHAK - Flohr 13 R RUBINSTEIN, A. - Cohn, E. 19 S SCHEVE - Teichmann 10 SONG YI - Hunt Harriet 21 STEINITZ W - Lasker Em 14 T TARRASCH, SIEGBERT - Lasker, Emanuel 22 TEICHMANN - Scheve 10 TEICHMANN, RICHARD - Lasker, Emanuel 23 V VIDMAR, MILAN SR [NEW YORK - Capablanca, Jose 9 Y YANOFSKY - Hartman 20

   Games index: