Category Archives: Coaching

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 →

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

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

The pieces at their best

Posted on by

How pawns make life easy (and hard) for pieces.

The best B Q K N R P ever!

Also, the best pieces and the worst pawns…

Lessons from the lost No.1s

Posted on by

The FIDE Elo rating system began in 1971. Elo did a bit of study trying to work the ratings backwards, but the chief scholar in this regard is Jeff Sonas http://chessmetrics.com/cm/. Jeff devised his own rating system, however — using an ‘absentee’ penalty for periods of non-playing. This leads to odd-looking results like Lasker’s repeated plummets and recoveries here:

ChronoGraph-1840-2005.gif

Anyhow, whatever the merits of his system, it has yielded some intriguing results, including a month-by-month tracking of who is the world No.1-rated player. Apart from the world champions, you can see above that Zukertort and Korchnoi both broke the surface at some point, and there are other non-champions in the lists.

  • Kieseritzky
  • von der Lasa
  • Harrwitz
  • duBois
  • Morphy [https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/lessons-morphy]
  • Paulsen
  • Suhle
  • Kolisch
  • Neumann
  • Gunsberg
  • Zukertort
  • Pillsbury
  • Maròczy
  • Rubinstein [https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/lessons-rubinstein]
  • Fine
  • Bronstein
  • Reshevsky
  • Korchnoi [https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/lessons-korchnoi]

Anyhow, with nothing much better to do, I thought I would pull together some instructive games from each player who hadn’t yet had the ‘Lessons from…’ treatment.

    Kieseritzky

    The name of Kieseritzky is known as to most as the loser of one of Anderssen’s brilliancies, and to players of gambits — he gave his name to the main variation of the King’s Gambit and the Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit. He defeated everyone at some point, did well in matches and enjoyed more than one period at the top of the ChessMetrics league table. He also makes an early bid for the largest collection of names.

    von der Lasa

    One of the Berlin ‘Pleiades’ (including
    Paul von Bilguer,
    Ludwig Bledow,
    Wilhelm Hanstein,
    Bernhard Horwitz,
    Carl Mayet and
    Carl Schorn). No slouch in the name department, von der Lasa was a player of the first rank but never played a formal match or tournament. Yet in series of casual games he outscored Staunton twice and apparently Anderssen too. Not sure ChessMetrics should be including casual games.

    Harrwitz

    Remembered often as Morphy’s first match victim in Europe, Harrwitz was certainly a worthy candidate for a match, even if Morphy made short work of him. The opening he used to defeat Morphy in their first game still bears his name.

    duBois

    An Italian player who rarely left his country, I think he crept to the top in the late 1850s by a big score in matches, but it’s not clear.

    Paulsen

    Stereotyped as the first great master of defence, he was also a fine attacking player. And of course, to win the game, eventually the defender must become the attacker.

    Suhle

    Suhle’s brief appearance among the No.1s seems to arise from his demolition of his fellow Berliner, Paul Hirschfield, in a match, at a time when other top players were relatively inactive.

    von Kolisch

    von Kolisch abandoned chess for the pursuit of money, at which he turned out to be equally adept.

    Neumann

    Another Berliner, his great achievement was a storming performance at Dundee.

    Zukertort

    Zukertort contested the World Championship more than once, at great cost to his health. His own ‘Immortal’ is a real gem:

    Gunsberg

    Gunsberg’s reign at the top of the lists was just one month! But no fluke — he contested a close match with Steinitz in 1890, losing 4-6. Steinitz’ famous stubbornness in accepting the gambit pawn and hanging on for dear life may have made the score a little generous.

    Pillsbury

    Pillsbury’s name is more familiar than many on this list, and he has given his name to opening variations. His dazzling triumph at Hastings in 1895 make him the next great American conqueror; his short life the next tragedy.

    Maròczy

    Maròczy played chess at the top level at the turn of the century, took some time off, then returned as strong as ever. He edged out Pillsbury at Monte Carlo in 1902.

    Bogoljubow

    The burly Bogo is often regarded as being a punchbag and figleaf while Alekhin was ducking Capablanca’s challenge. We’ll never know what would have happened if Capa had ever come up with the same amount of prize money he demanded from Alekhin (following the stock market crash, this was a big ask), but while Bogoljubow wasn’t a match for Alekhin, he was no pushover, and had a couple of months at the top of the Chessmetrics lists. His legacy is strongly defended in a couple of recent books by Bogdanovich.

    Fine

    Fine gave up chess for psychoanalysis — ‘a loss for chess and at best a draw for psychoanalysis’, someone quipped. The war years interfered with his career but he could beat anybody on the day and had a plus score against Botvinnik:

    Bronstein

    The ‘co-World Champion’ and possibly the world’s grumpiest loser was the author of some fine and charming books, in which it is straightforward and a pleasure to find instructive moments. This is a bravura attacking game:

    Reshevsky

    Reshevsky is notable for his early promise and his longevity in the top ranks of chess, despite his amateur status in the modern era (he was an accountant). However, some of his best years coincided with war, and he never was able to break through to be a challenger in the 1950s — possibly because of collusion between Soviet players at Zurich 1953, at about which time he tops the Chessmetrics rating list. He qualified for the Candidates’ for the last and sixth time in 1967.

Reti, Markovich and me

Posted on by

“A knowledge of tactics is the foundation of positional play. This is a rule which has stood its test in chess history and one which we cannot impress forcibly enough upon the young chess player. A beginner should avoid the Queen’s Gambit and French Defence and play open games instead! While he may not win as many games at first, he will in the long run be amply compensated by acquiring a thorough knowledge of the game.” — RICHARD RETI, Masters of the Chessboard

 

Re: Openings for adult class players
Reply #57 – 10/13/09 at 12:40:43		 Post Tools
Straggler wrote on 10/12/09 at 23:55:18:

But the argument for playing open games as an adult seems to rest on the assumption that everyone can improve their tactical ability.

Not entirely.  It’s also that open positions are fundamental.  I say again, you must know how to play open positions well in order to play chess well.  If someone 1700 or so just wants to have fun playing chess, he should play whatever strikes his fancy.  If he wants to improve at chess, he should play systems that lead to open positions, and he should not be shy of playing with the IQP.

I don’t think that starting out with the attitude that he can’t do something is very healthy for the student, in all frankness.  If someone were my student and said, “I can’t do this because I’m no good at tactics,” I would say, “Don’t sell yourself short!”

 

Fromper wrote on 01/25/11 at 02:32:35:

Are there any openings that you think everyone should play, before moving on to more complex stuff? For instance, do you think everyone should put in some time answering 1. e4 with e5 to get a feel for open games before trying the Sicilian as black? Or is the QGD (as black) a necessary precursor to trying hypermodern responses to 1. d4? What openings do you think are prerequisites to know before trying what other openings?

Anyone would think you were new to the forum, since this question has been very often asked and answered, and also very often answered without even having been asked, in these pages.

To repeat for the 2,427th time the Markovich Doctrine, or Dogma as many would have it: new and improving players must play 1…e5 against 1.e4, particularly the black side of the Two Knights Defense, and must play the Tarrasch Defense against the closed systems.  On the White side there’s a wider range of options, but the repertoire should emphasize sharp, open positions.  After they get up to 2100 or so, I don’t care what they do; I’m not strong enough to coach people much higher than that; and that seems like a good time to start branching out.  Also if you don’t care about improving your game, I don’t care what you do.

There’s a whole theory behind this that has been fully enunciated by me and my acolytes in old threads that I can’t be bothered to find right now, as well as a set poorly reasoned counterarguments made by some well-meaning persons with, unfortunately, only a dim understanding of this game.
  • Again, a word of warning must be given to the inexperienced: do not attempt (these openings) until you have fully tried out, first, the open game, and then the Queen’s. These are far and away the most difficult types of opening to master. The writer has spent a considerable portion of his chess-playing life studying them intensively and is still liable to be met with shocks…~

Harry GOLOMBEK in Griffiths & Golombek: Pocket Guide to the Chess Openings.