Category Archives: Topic

How to analyse your own games

Posted on by

The point of analysing your game is to see where you need to improve for next time, not to see if the computer disagrees with you, or to produce a set of notes suitable for a magazine.

  1. As soon as possible after the game, write down your thoughts as you remember them during the game, concentrating on critical moves and mistakes. There may have been only one critical moment; so be it.  Also, make a note of where you ran out of ‘book’ moves that you can remember.
  2. On Lichess or your home database (DO NOT TURN ON THE ANALYSIS ENGINE), enter the moves of the game and your thoughts about the critical moment(s).
  3. Do not turn on the analysis engine.
  4. Go through the moves again, this time trying to decide if your thoughts during the game at those moments were correct, and if not, what is correct.
  5. Still don’t turn on the analysis engine.
  6. Make a note of any improvements in moving or thinking.
  7. Now you can check your analysis against the computer’s.  You may now have three comments to compare about a critical moment: “Me then”, “Me now”, and “Stockfish”.
  8. Again, make notes of any more improvements in moving or thinking.  A mistake in calculation (I missed a check at the end) may also have a mistake in judgement (there was no way this was going to work because I was not as well developed as my opponent).
  9. Also, when you ran out of ‘book’ moves, use the book/database to see if you missed any good ideas.
  10. If you made a mistake (as if…), or if you disagree with the computer, think about how you are going to avoid that mistake next time, and make a list of tips for yourself at the end of the game (e.g. don’t rush through the opening, don’t assume recaptures are forced).
  11. You can also make a longer list of tips from all your games.  If you keep giving yourself the same advice, stop giving the same advice, and start taking it!

N.B. You are allowed to disagree with the computer.  Computers will tell you what the best move and likely result is, computer vs. computer.  You are trying to decide what is the best move for you.

Club player example: HICUP

GM Example: https://youtu.be/_SGjLJ13oYk?t=568

More advice on game analysis from the Chess Dojo:
5m version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3MiuKuynm0
25m version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKfaWbD84S8

A gift to blitz players

Posted on by

I had a nice email last week from Jonathan of the Norwald chess set makers from Denmark, who has offered us a guide to get better at blitz chess.  It’s long and thorough — thank you Jonathan!
The original is here https://norwald.dk/en-intl/blogs/artikler/how-to-get-better-at-blitz-chess, a copy is given below, and their other articles are here https://norwald.dk/en-intl/blogs/artikler

Continue reading →

Tartakower on the English

Posted on by

A fine addition to my collection of wonderful annotations (H/T Edward Winter)

Click […] for list of games

Tartakower annotated White’s first move as follows (H/T Edward Winter):

“An opening which the master from Bremen has been playing, almost without exception, for about 30 years.

Just recently, however, I learned that in annotating the game Eliskases v L. Steiner, which Black won prettily …, the German master and journalist Leonhardt expressed his joy that this tortuous opening, which comes from the Eastern Jews (Ost-Juden) Nimzowitsch and Tartakower, will lose some of its worth.

With such remarks, Leonhardt is certainly doing his homeland a disservice. His hope of flattering official circles may well backfire and he may well be “corrected” for publishing assertions which are:

1. untrue, since the opening was introduced by the Englishman Staunton;

2. maladroit, since the system was developed by the German Carls;

3. ridiculous, since in the game in question, Eliskases v L. Steiner, the move 1.c4 was played by a good Tyrolean, whereas it was refuted by a Semitic player;

4. preposterous, since in chess we take pleasure in seeking truth, without players’ personalities playing any role;

5. unhealthy, since in chess we prefer to be rid of political, ethnological, etc. discussions; and finally;

6. harmful, since the German authorities recommend their citizens not to make attacks on foreigners.”

The Theory of Steinitz

Posted on by
  1. At the beginning of the game the forces stand in
    equilibrium.
  2. Correct play on both sides maintains this equilibrium and leads
    to a drawn game.
  3. Therefore a player can win only as a consequence of an error
    made by the opponent. (There is no such thing as a winning
    move.)
  4. As long as the equilibrium is maintained, an attack, however
    skilful, cannot succeed against correct defence. Such a defence
    will eventually necessitate the withdrawal and regrouping of the
    attacking pieces and te attacker will then inevitably suffer
    disadvantage.
  5. Therefore a player should not attack until he already has an
    advantage, caused by the opponent’s error, that justifies the
    decision to attack.
  6. At the beginning of the game a player should not at once seek
    to attack. Instead, a player should seek to disturb the equilibrium
    in his favour by inducing the opponent to make an error – a
    preliminary before attacking.
  7. When a sufficient advantage has been obtained, a player must
    attack or the advantage will be dissipated.”

From David HOOPER, Steinitz’ Theory, British Chess
Magazine Vol. 104, p.370 Sept 1984.

 References:

  • Steinitz’ International Chess Magazine
  • Steinitz’ Modern Chess Instructor
  • Lasker’s Manual of Chess
  • Euwe’s The Development of Chess Style

Notes

  1. The theory is the antithesis of the previously held view, that
    inspired play might of itself create a winning position;
    rather, (3) winning positions can come about only through errors by
    the opponent. Creativity and ingenuity still have a role, in the
    setting of problems for the opponent that they may fail to
    solve.
  2. The point (4), that, if a defender played correctly, then any
    attack commencing from an equal position can be refuted, was first
    indicated by Louis Paulsen. He declared (unfashionably) that all
    gambits can be defended, and practised what he preached; in this
    way Paulsen was the progenitor of the fully formed theory of
    Steinitz. Defensive play has its own principles:
    The defending side must be prepared to defend and make
    concessions, e.g making a weakening pawn move. However, the
    defender should avoid making concessions until forced, and then
    should make only the minimum concession necessary to meet the
    threats.

     

  3. The last point (7) is attributed by Lasker to Steinitz; DH
    cautions that he was unable to find such a statement in Steinitz’
    works. Lasker’s version goes on to say:
    The right to attack belongs only to that side which has a
    positional advantage, and this is not only a right, but also a
    duty, otherwise there is the risk of losing the advantage. The
    attack is to be directed against the weakest spot in the opposing
    position.
  4. DH was prompted to write this article after reading Purdy’s
    “The Great Steinitz Hoax”, Chess Player’s Quarterly, 1978
    [which is, according to BCM, reprinted in No.2 of Lasker and
    his Contemporaries    ], in which Purdy apparently argues that
    Lasker was more the author of the theory than Steinitz.

    Purdy and Hooper disagree on what constitutes the theory.

  5. Lasker certainly was the principal pedagogue and advocate of
    (his version of) Steinitz’ theory through his Manual.
    Lasker’s presentation was coloured to some extent by the principles
    of his own general philosophy of Struggle (Work, Economy
    and Justice); Lasker also offered extensions to the Steinitz
    theory, viz. principles of Cooperation and of Justice (in the
    sphere of chess).
  6. The influence of the theory is so substantial that instances
    need hardly be found, but a couple interested me recently:

    1. Jon Speelman’s introduction to his Best Games
      1970-1980       collection, where he refers to the “story” style of
      annotation – where was the crucial error by the loser? This of
      course assumes that the loser must have made at least one mistake, and Speelman quite explicitly
      signs up to the theory that there is Justice in chess, and that to
      lose you must have made a mistake – or two, really, and maybe three
      if you are White.
    2. An annotation in Chess Monthly where the GM
      reluctantly admitted that despite a series of brilliant moves by
      Black, White was at no disadvantage. This is the corollary of the
      same point; in a balanced position, even brilliant play, correctly
      met, will lead only to another balanced position.
  7. What is the significance of Steinitz’ theory for the club
    player? Different aspects have different importances.

    1. Defensive play may be so poor that an attack undertaken with
      insufficient means might well succeed in practice.
    2. So, defensive play, as modelled by Paulsen and Steinitz, must
      become a strength of yours.
    3. Moreover, while winning combinations may theoretically be
      available principally (if not
      only      ) in advantageous positions, in practice tactical
      opportunities and especially oversights can appear at any time, so
      at each move you should routinely check for combinational blows for
      each side.
    4. It may not be so important to decide who has the advantage as
      to decide what to do, and then do it well!
      “The question that matters to you in actual play is simply,
      ‘What is my best move?’, and if you can decide without being sure
      who has the theoretical advantage, so much the better      ” —
      PURDY

About Dr.Dave

Featured

Posted on by

drdave_sheu

Dr.Dave Regis is a mostly retired researcher in health education working in Exeter, Devon.

He does a bit of chess coaching and chess publishing .

He is accredited as Coach by the English Chess Federation and as an Instructor by FIDE (the international chess federation).

Through Exeter Chess Club, he and others have run many coaching sessions over the years, and the notes and games from these sessions are now stored on this site.

You can get in touch through the links on the front page.

Going back in time

Posted on by

This page happened
because I wanted a place to store these positions,
but my
well-behaved chess databases refuse to do things like
accept a
position without a King (see below).

For example, I have had trouble entering this one on a database:

---N--R-
pp---p--
---K--p-
--------
--p-----
---pp--p
---P-pB-
-Q----BR

Mate in ONE (Fischer [not that one]).

[HINT] [SOLUTION]

Proof games

rnbqkb-r
ppp-pppp
--------
---p----
--------
--------
PPPPPPPP
RNBQKB-R

What is the shortest series of legal moves leading to this position?

[HINT] [SOLUTION]

Retrograde puzzles

http://www.janko.at/Retros/

B-KRN---
PP------
--QK-R--
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------

Colour the pieces. What was the last move?
(Husserl, 66/71)

[HINT] [SOLUTION]

Logic puzzles

--------
--------
--------
-r-b----
B-------
--------
--------
---k----

Where is the White King?
Raymond Smullyan 1957

[HINT] [SOLUTION]

That’s an old puzzle of his, but it’s reproduced in The Chess
Mysteries of the Arabian Knights (sic) as well as many
anthologies. To pack so much into such a small space is art.

r-b-k--r
p-p-p-p-
-p---p-p
--------
--------
P-------
-PPPPPPP
--BQKB--

Black to move. Can Black castle short here? (1…O-O)
Raymond Smullyan 1957

[HINT] [SOLUTION]

k-K-----
----Q---
--------
--B-P---
---P----
-------P
--------
-------B

Checkmate! But which square is a1 and which h8?
Raymond Smullyan 1957

[HINT] [SOLUTION]

The Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes

The solutions to Smullyan’s most fiendish problems run to many pages.

If you like these, you might also like his book of logic puzzles,

What is the name of this book? But this is hard to ask for in
a shop…

__________________________________________________________

[HINT]

If you find it difficult to solve looking at the diagram,
try setting up the position on a board.

[HINT]

It’s natural to assume that a piece that appears to be on its
original square is indeed on its original square.

[HINT]

Only one King can be in check, and whichever is the Black King is at the
moment in double check. And double checks have to be discoveries…

[HINT]

White’s last move must have been with the King, and White’s King must
have been the victim and the deliverer of a discovered check

[HINT]

What was White’s last move?
And before that?
So what were Black’s possible last moves?

[HINT]

White’s last move seems obvious, but what was Black’s last move?

__________________________________________________________

[SOLUTION]

Seriously, set it up on a board.

[SOLUTION]

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ne5 d5 3.Nc6 Nd7 4.Nxb8 Nxb8

[SOLUTION]

Double checks have to be discoveries, and you can’t discover a contact
check from a Queen, so it seems that:
the Q on c6 is White,
and the wK is on d6,
so the N on e8 is White,
and the R on d8 is White,
the bK is on c8, and
so the discovery is 1.c7xd8/R check
and the Pb7 is Black,
so the Ba8 is White (by promotion a7-a8/B)
and the Pa7 is also White.

[SOLUTION]

With wPc2 and bPb4, the last moves must have been
1…Bd5+
2. c2-c4 b4xc3 en passant
3.Kxc3+

[SOLUTION]

Suppose Black can castle.
That means, Black’s last move was with a Bishop or a Pawn.
White’s last move was a2-a3, but what about the one before that?
Whatever piece White moved then, it was captured by Black on Black’s last move.
Black could not have made their last move by capturing with a Pawn
because there is no square that this Pawn could have come from.
Black could not have made their last move by capturing with the Bishop,
because the only piece that could be on c8 is a Knight, and where could
it have come from? Only d6, and that must have meant that Black’s King
stood still while the Knight checked it from d6. That’s not possible.
So Black didn’t make their last move with a Pawn or Bishop.
So Black did make their last move with a King or a Rook.
Not the Ra8, as the Knight could not have reached a8 from b6 or c7.
So Black made their last move with a King or Rh8. (e.g. 1.Nd6-e8 Kd8xe8 or 1.Ng6-h8 Rg8xh8)
So Black cannot castle king’s-side now (yet maybe it’s legal to castle long later).

[SOLUTION]

Assuming the lower left hand corner is a1, e4-e5 discovered check and mate seems like a solution.
But Black has no legal last move with the King.
So Black must have last moved a different piece.
Which White must have captured last move.
But the “e5” pawn would have come from “f4”, so…
The “h1” Bishop must be (a) newly promoted, and (b) the capturing piece.
So Black’s last move was e.g. …R”h1″ (actually …Ra8)
And White’s last move was Pb7xa8/B#
So the lower left hand corner is h8.

Fix this first

Posted on by

From Dalton Perrine: https://chesschatter.substack.com/p/common-chess-mistakes-by-rating

Training PriorityUnder 15001500 to 18001800 to 20002000+
Fix firstBlunder checkingBlunder checking;
time management		Prophylaxis;
calculation depth		Consistency;
the mental game
High payoffShallow calculation;
king safety		Wrong-moment trades;
passive defending		Endgame technique;
emotional control		Endgame precision;
calculation depth
Matters, slowerPassive defendingPawn breaks;
prophylaxis;
calculation		Misjudging positions;
pawn breaks		Fine-tuning prophylaxis
Mostly fixes itselfWeak pawns;
piece placement		Piece placement;
targeting weaknesses		Wrong-moment trades;
time management		Positional polish
Low payoff to train nowEndgame theory;
positional study		Deep opening theoryBlunder checking;
king safety		Basic safety,
already solved

Towards conscious competence

Posted on by
  • UNCONSCIOUS INCOMPETENCE
    • You don’t do a blunder check (or some other part of the process)
  • CONSCIOUS INCOMPETENCE
    • You do a blunder check but it’s slow and you still miss stuff
  • CONSCIOUS COMPETENCE
    • You do a blunder check and do it well
  • UNCONSCIOUS COMPETENCE
    • You do a blunder check out of habit and it (usually) works

The Art of Analysis – part 2

Posted on by

You aren’t allowed to read on until you have had a go at
analysing the games yourself!

Click […] for list of games