Category Archives: Praxis

Lessons from Nunn

Posted on by

John Nunn was a top ten player in his prime, but was and is a champion as a chess author. His first substantial book, Secrets of Grandmaster Play with Peter Griffiths, was an instant classic, and he has written many volumes aimed at the improving player. He has been particularly concerned to reflect the richness and complexity of modern chess in his books, and has striven to do so in uncluttered prose, leavened with a bit of dry wit. I think he has succeeded rather wonderfully, and I have borrowed from his writing wholemeal, as opposed to piecemeal, for coaching sessions over the years.

Opening

Some of that dry wit:

“If you want to lose a miniature, then here are three helpful tips. First of all, it is a big help if you are Black. losing in under 20 moves requires a special talent which few possess. Secondly, choose a provocative opening, for example an opening in which you try to realise strategic ambitions, but at the cost of backward development and delayed castling. Thirdly, if something goes slightly wrong, don’t reconcile yourself to defending a bad position – seek a tactical solution instead! Don’t worry about the fact that tactics are bound to favour the better developed side; just go ahead anyway. Follow this advice and at least you will get home early.”

And more serious fare, about the position at move 11 below:

“But already this opening has certain puzzling aspects. Why should White consistently maintain his initiative, both in the variations we have looked at and in those to come? Why should Black’s position be so awklard? The question really boils down to a more basic one: why is the Ruy Lopez (which this opening has virtually become) so difficult for Black to combat? Look at the present position: Black’s pieces are sensibly developed; he has as much space as White; his pawns are strong. Yet he has problems.

“The answer seems to be that in this type of Ruy Lopez position Black can easily get cought in a situation where his game cannot unfold. Here for instance, White has his plans of Ng3-f5 and later d4, but it is less easy for Black to find something profitable to do without weakening himself or making some serious concession. His pieces may look reasonably placed, but they cannot readily achieve anything constructive or relevant. I should make it clear that this does not have to happen in a Lopez; it is far from being a bad opening for him. But in practice one error (6…Qe7) can leave him in misery. And so, if a player seems to have a respectable game (in a Ruy Lopez or any other opening for that matter), yet still loses, his misfortune may often be traced back to this lack of life in his position.”

— NUNN AND GRIFFITHS

Middlegame

It’s hard to pick just a couple of annotations to represent the rich seam to be mined in Nunn’s books, but I went with these two:

“If White wishes to play for a direct attack he can try 15. g4 [variation]. In olden times White would often attack by g4 and Ng3 in the Closed Spanish; once in a while White would break through with a Nf5 sacrifice, but now it is recognised that so long as all Black’s pieces can reach the King’s-side, a direct attack should not work. Thus, the emphasis has switched to diversionary Queen’s-side play, with a King’s-side attack being reserved for a favourable moment when Black’s pieces have been lured away. Moreover, the King’s-side attack is usually based on f4 rather than g4, since only f4 offers the chance of activating the light-squared Bishop on c2.
White’s preliminary a4 gives him control of the a-file; this may not appear relevant to the conduct of a King’s-side attack, but watch what happens later!”

And a little bit deeper: after move 10 by White

“The traditional way of assessing such positions is to say that Black has an inferior pawn structure, but in compensation he has the two Bishops (*). Looked at this way, Portisch’s plan appears strange. However, a static evaluation takes no account of the potential activity of Black’s pieces. His main problem is the future of the c8 Bishop; he doesn’t want to play …Bd7, because that would prevent the manoeuvre …Nd7 and …Bf6, which is his best chance of activating the other minor pieces. After …Be6, the Bishop would be a target for a later Nf3-d4 or f2-f4-f5, and it would block the e-file, making it ipossible to develop pressure against the e4-pawn by …Re8. The only real solution is to get rid of the Bishop by …Bg4 followed by …Bxf3. This plan has to be executed immediately or else White plays Qd3, preparing to meet …Bg4 by Nd4. Perhaps there is even an argument for 10. Qd3!?, although this might tempt Black to develop his Bishop another way – by 10…a5 followed by …Ba6.
The exchange on f3 not only relieves Black’s slightly cramped position, it also gives him a grip on e5.”

Endgame

Nunn’s sharp style surely kept the number of endgames he had to play to a minimum, but I’ve picked out a couple from the books spanning his own career. As an author he was something of a connoisseur of this phase of play, and was a notable interpreter of exhaustive and exhausting computer-solved databases.

This first game is an endgame for most of its duration, but it ‘feels’ like a middlegame to me! Nunn’s notes are rich.

A typical observation from his oeuvre:

“The
following game is typical of tournament chess. Published games are
often ‘clean kills’, in which the defender puts up little resistance, but in
reality most games aren’t like this. Annotations, particularly those by
third parties, often promote the concept of the game in which the winner does everything right, while the
loser does everything wrong. This is rare in practice, except when one
player is much stronger than the other. This game is more representative; stretches of accurate play
are interspersed with mistakes and the defender doesn’t go down without a fight, but puts up a fierce and
determined resistance right into the endgame.”

I’m sure Nunn kept the notes to a minimum, but they are hard going! And yet, if you want to improve, you must immerse yourself in such detail.

And to appreciate this earlier game, too, you must turn to the notes to get the most out of it — or, as the authors recommend, play through it as though you had the black pieces, and try to work out the best moves.

Lessons from Timman

Posted on by

I have just read, with enormous pleasure, Jan Timman’s volume of his best games, Timman’s Triumphs. The range of openings is very broad, the tactics pleasing and sometimes brilliant, the strategy revealing, the endgame play subtle; the annotations do justice to a Grandmaster’s play but remain accessible; the stories between the games are engaging and warm.

Opening

Timman’s repertoire is very broad and includes every style.

Middlegame

Too much to choose from of course, but some contrasting games: a brilliancy prize, a Petrosian-esque manoeuvring game,

A contrast, but with a deeply calculated break at move 28:

And a sprightly attack with some very unobvious moves@

Endgame

I’ve just been looking at some Nunn endgames which are full of tension and precision; Timman’s choices show deftness more than forcefulness, and that magical ability to create something out of nothing. First, he out-Anderssons Andersson.

A little tactic #23 and a principled repositioning #36 to win an ending against Tal:

Lessons from Euwe

Posted on by

Euwe was always an amateur player, not a professional; he taught mathematics in a girls’ school in the Netherland for much of his active playing career, then was employed by a computer firm. He devoted much of his life to teaching chess, through books and articles. My favourite among his writings is a collection of articles about the middlegame with Hans Kramer, later published in two volumes. He collected and organised opening theory, he wrote books for beginners and masters, and he took the Presidency of FIDE. His own games are not often quoted in instructional books these days, but he was a very fine player, able to compete at the top level even in 1952, as we will see.

Smyslov on Euwe:

‘From my youth I was familiar
with the facets of Euwe’s versatile chess activity: his books showed that he was a splendid
teacher; the novelties employed in his games
and his analyses in chess magazines showed
that he was an outstanding theoretician. His
aggressive handling of the opening on a realistic positional base, and his unexpected manoeuvres, his amazing skill in finding a veiled
way out of a difficult position demonstrated
the Dutch grandmaster’s wonderful tactical
gift. Later I was also able to appreciate fully
the other fine qualities of the fifth world
champion — industriousness, stamina, self-
control, and his gentleman-like attitude to his
opponents.’

Opening

The ‘Strategy’ part of Euwe’s book Strategy and Tactics in Chess is mostly a long annotation of this game, where Black struggles to advance his backward c-pawn in the face of White’s central pressure:

Euwe was a great student of the opening, and described that “the opening weapon was knocked out of (Alekhin’s) hand” in their first match. But he brought psychological guile as well as theory.
Euwe also remarked:

“On discovering any difficulties, Alekhine
preferred to stake everything.
This is why, on encountering solid positions
in the even-numbered games, he began playing in reckless style, which brought him a win
in the fourth game and almost brought a win
in the sixth. My objective with White was
clear: after achieving a slight advantage, I had
to resist in the tactical complications. Of
course, this was not easy against a player of
such class, but, on the other hand, it did not
seem impracticable: after all, the tactical complications were created in positions that were
favourable for me. That is, I was playing as
though with a favourable wind… My new tactics were crowned with complete success. In
the 12th and 14th games Alekhine again
played extremely riskily
and to win it was
sufficient for me to make only two or three
genuinely good moves.”

Middlegame

First, Euwe’s famous demonstration of the power of mobile pawns:

People often emphasise the rational and logical in Euwe’s chess, but he had as much imagination and verve as anyone. Anderssen was also a professor of mathematics!

Euwe surprised many by entering the Zurich Candidates’ Tournament in 1953; his play in the second half of this double-round tournament showed the poor stamina of middle age, but in the first half, he was equal to any. Kotov won the first brilliancy prize for a game that is rightly famous, but the second and third brilliancy prizes went to Euwe.

Click […] to choose a game:

Endgame

Euwe is not much known for his endgame play, but it is as clear and witty as the rest of his game: his idea at move 24 is piquant, but the whole endgame is peppered with ideas.

A tricky Rook endgame follows an exciting opening and middlegame. There is much to savour here:

Lessons from Smyslov

Posted on by

Botvinnik’s disciplined research and iron logic was a strange parallel of the era of Stalin, the man of steel; Smyslov’s chess was something altogether lighter and more intuitive.

Smyslov could often distil something clear and attractive from a game in ferment, and bring a fresh eye to familiar settings.

In the
1980s, he had a remarkable second wind, playing his elegant, modern
chess all the way to the Candidate’s Matches, where he was stopped
by Kasparov.

Opening

Smyslov’s best-known contribution to opening theory is his eponymous variation of the Grunfeld, but in fact he innovated across the whole spectrum of opening systems, and could improvise happily at the board. Here’s Smyslow equalising happily with his Grunfeld:

I was struck by this little-known game, which showed an unprejudiced eye:

And a bit of opening preparation that came off:

Middlegame

A couple of standard themes that I always use with groups, the IQP and the Knight outpost, but to impose these ideas on other Grandmasters is impressive.

A celebrated game where Smyslov ensnared his opponent with position play, then faced with a sacrifice for counterplay by his opponent… sacrificed his Queen! Kasparov and his computer piddled over this game, but as Tal says, years of analysis and minutes of play are not quite the same thing.

Endgame

Smyslov was famed for his endgame play. A notable win, sustained by intuition as much as calculation, was this one:

Another wonderful Smyslov display, showing great insight into the difficulties of playing with a Knight in a closed(!) position.

Lessons from Alekhin

Posted on by

Almost any game by Lasker or Capablanca could be studied with profit, in the hope of playing a little more like our heroes. Their games are full of common sense. But the modernists and hypermodernists like Alekhin are not so easy to learn from; they thrive on a different style of chess, being less interested in the elegant harmony of principles and more interested in complexity, conflict and contradiction.  Alekhin’s chess can be admired, but it is not easily imitated!

Nunn comments on Alekhin:

“I first came across Alekhine’s collection of games when I was about 11 years old.  Up to that point, I had been quite successful in junior events and I had the feeling that chess wasn’t really a very difficult game. After playing over all 220 games in the first two volumes (covering the periods 1905-23 and 1924-37), I thought “How can anyone play like this? It’s just impossible to see so much during a game!”. I was particularly struck by his game against Rubinstein from Semmer­ing, 1926 (game 42 in this book), and the move 15…Nxf2! in particular. It seemed incredible that there might be a stronger move than the obvious recapture on c3, but after having checked the analysis several times, I had to admit that taking on f2 was a forced win. But how did this move even enter Alekhine’s head? Today, finding this combination doesn’t seem so totally impossible as it did then, but it remains an enormously impressive game. In my opinion Alekhine’s special gen­ius lay in his ability to discover unexpected twists in positions where a lesser  player would have made an automatic, conventional move. Other examples of such twists, in addition to the 15…Nxf2 mentioned above, are the move 19 Qc7! in game 31 and the idea of 18 dxe5 and 19 Qf4! in game 47.” John Nunn

And here’s Bobby FIscher on Alekhin:

“His style worked for him, but it could scarcely work for anybody else. His conceptions were gigantic, full of outrageous and unprecedented ideas. … His play was fantastically complicated, more so than any player before or since. … At the chessboard, he radiated a furious tension that often intimidated his opponents.”

But he played many games, and wrote throughout his life, and in fact there is much that is instructive about his play. But the lessons are not always easy.

Opening

Alekhin played every opening with relish and invention, including the hypermodern Grunfeld Defence and the defence to which he gave his name. Never for Alekhin automatic development or routine captures; he strove to find the most accurate and challenging moves at every turn.

And a vigorous win from the opening against a notable opening theorist (indeed, a lot of the theory of the Slav can be traced back to games between these players).

Middlegame

I’ve chosen contrasting Alekhin games: one illustrating a solid grip on the game, showing many simple positional themes in a clear form, and two sprawling messes, apparently pushed forward mostly by Alekhin’s formidable will to win.

Two of Alekhin’s most celebrated brilliancies.

Click […] to choose a game

Endgame

So, Alekhin’s chess is not easy, but in the endgame, some welcome clarity can appear. Here’s a celebrated annotation, explaining how to squeeze a win by coming up with a plan:

And an endgame against a more formidable opponent, which has been much discussed in the books as a model of how to win with an outside passed pawn in a Rook endgame — it all depends on having your Rook behind the passed pawn. Well worth playing out against a peer or a computer.

Lessons from Carlsen

Posted on by

Carlsen often seems to win without doing anything in particular, but doing it very well. Commentators have tried to explain his peculiar gift by appealing to ‘nettlesome’ moves, moves that have no obvious dangers, but perhaps are surprisingly awkward to meet.

Opening

Carlsen, particularly when younger, has been noted more for his avoidance of sharp and theoretical lines, than having signature opening systems. He often seems content to aim for a ‘normal’ White plus in the opening, hoping to build on it later on, particularly in blitz. Nonetheless, he has often embraced some deep theory, and his defence of his title against Caruana owed much to the Sveshnikov Sicilian.

‘Only’ a blitz game?  Commercial pressures mean that the top players have to  engage each other more often at speed, and Carlsen has been, if anything, more dominant at blitz play than classical.

Middlegame

Carlsen plays with a subtlety few can match or understand, but sometimes he plays a game where the themes are clearer.  Here he is demonstrating the d5 outpost in a modern setting, the Maroczy Bind, and the virtues of the French Defence.

 

 

 

Endgame

Carlsen has taken endgame grinding to a new level; everyone is scared of his ability to find tiny improvements and niggles that add up to a win, at least in practical play. Perhaps some of these endgames are drawn on paper, but chess, it should be noted, is played on a board.  Offered without notes, as a study in pure will to win:

 

Here’s one showing the two Bishops in a position where the Knights didn’t look too badly off — in fact, some commentators dismissed it as drawn.

 

Here is a brisk and more straightforward effort. White’s pawn advances on the King’s-side made them vulnerable, and Black abandoned the Queen’s-side to attack them. Black then invested two Rooks for the Queen: often the Rooks are better, but with White’s King exposed and with more than one pawn to tease White with, the Queen was boss.

 

What makes a difference?

Posted on by

“There is really only one mistake in chess – underestimating your opponent”  — TARTAKOWER

I found this session hard to prepare, and might try again! I have tried to find mistakes that are typical of a certain level of player – that is, mistakes of a characteristic kind, that better players no longer (or only rarely) make.

The hope is that these are the sorts of error most easily avoided. This document is subject to two caveats:

  1. All chessplayers make mistakes all the time. Moreover, you cannot extract a win from a position by effort alone, or the application of only your genius, your opponent must make a mistake.
  2. There are some mistakes that everybody makes. These probably include misjudging (or simply failing to spot) combinations and other opportunities, attacking without justification, inadequate technique, and thinking only for yourself.

So, mistakes are inevitable, but to be worked on – for example, try to eliminate one-move mistakes, then two-movers, and so on. I’m sure becoming more efficient or more consistent would for most of us result in a rise in grade without any great new insights being gained.

I originally started out trying to find examples of good ideas unique to each level (e.g. to find a good move by a Major player that a Minor player couldn’t have found) but this was much harder. Instead, I have given in the County player section, examples that we might all aspire to, and also offer a ‘good’ game for each lower level (“the player at their best”) which shows decent play using ideas which we may be able to see at all levels.

Books with annotated amateur games

Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur, Euwe and Meiden

The Amateur’s Mind, Jeremy Silman

The Improving Annotator, Dan Heisman

Thinkers’ Chess, Stephan Gerzadowicz (Correspondence games)

Magazines: Rabbits Review, Chess Circuit, Popular Chess

Minor BCF 80-100 (1240-1400 ELO)

The games of Minor players are often marred by tactical oversights, and the games are often decided that way. Is there any point in commenting further? Yes, because of two very important reasons:

  1. firstly, Alexander’s observation that blunders only occur in losing positions (not always, but more than a grain of truth), and
  2. secondly, that there are other things about their games which could be improved by greater understanding, even while blunders may appear.

In the opening, development is often started well and general rules are followed (e.g. move each piece once) but is at times too straightforward and is not always complete. After this the game may appear episodic, with not all the pieces being used to effect. In the endgame there may be some caution about using the King and theory is often not properly understood, but can win and advance pawns properly.

{D} Minor BCF 80-100 (1240-1400 ELO)

The games of Minor players are often marred by tactical oversights, and the games are often decided that way. Is there any point in commenting further? Yes, because of two very important reasons:

  •   firstly, Alexander’s observation that blunders only occur in losing positions (not always, but more than a grain of truth), and
  •   secondly, that there are other things about their games which could be improved by greater understanding, even while blunders may appear.

In the opening, development is often started well and general rules are followed (e.g. move each piece once) but is at times too straightforward and is not always complete. After this the game may appear episodic, with not all the pieces being used to effect. In the endgame there may be some caution about using the King and theory is often not properly understood, but can win and advance pawns properly.

The Minor player at their best:

The Minor Player at work in the Opening

The Minor Player at work in the Middle Game

The Minor Player at work in the Endgame

 

Good reading for Minor players:

An Opening Repertoire for the Attacking Player – Keene/Levy

Chess Openings for Juniors and Attacking the King – John Walker

Logical Chess – Irving Chernev

Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge – Averbach

Winning Endgames – Tony Kosten

Winning Chess – Chernev/Reinfeld

{C} Intermediate BCF 100-120 (1400-1560 ELO)

Intermediate players are usually pretty efficient – solid, get their pieces out properly, play sensibly against odd moves and have mastered the King’s-side hack. There is a tendency to adopt fortress-like defensive blockades in the middle-game, and may overlook unobvious moves, or tactics in quiet positions. They know basic book wins in the endgame but may only defend rather than seeking counterplay.

The Intermediate player at their best:

The Intermediate Player at work in the Opening

The Intermediate Player at work in the Middle Game

The Intermediate Player at work in the Endgame

Good reading for Intermediate players:

Repertoire books e.g. Winning with…

Think/Play like a Grandmaster – Kotov

Rate Your Endgame – Mednis/Crouch

Test Your Chess IQ (Book 1) – Livshitz

The Middle Game (I/II) – Euwe and Kramer

Simple Chess – Michael Stean

{B} Major BCF 120-150 (1560-1800 ELO)

Major players usually have a well-worked-out opening repertoire and can set their opponents problems in each phase of the game. Even 200-grade players cannot dismiss the better Major contenders as easy prey.

There are standard plans and “clockwork” attacks which the Major player understands and plays well. Where a solid formation is adopted there is usually also a view to some flexibility and keeping the pieces at least potentially active. They will seek counterplay and know how to limit the play of their opponents. They usually notice all the relevant features of the position even if they choose the wrong move/plan.

The Major player at their best:

The Major Player at work in the Opening

The Major Player at work in the Middle Game

The Major Player at work in the Endgame

Good reading for Major players:

Specialist monographs e.g. The Complete…

Practical Chess Endings – Keres

Batsford Chess Endings – Speelman et al.

Secrets of Grandmaster Play – Nunn/Griffiths

Reading as for intermediate players too.

{A} County BCF 150-180 (1800-2040 ELO)

The County player is an alert player of openings – they will often know some of the theory outside their own repertoire, and play their own lines with some depth – in fact, they play any sort of position pretty well.

They are beginning to master the art of analysis, being able to sustain assessment of a main line with variations throughout a tactical game, and in complex positions can isolate a theme and crystallise it. They defend much better than weaker players and swindle well.

In the endgame they do know a bit of theory, and can calculate well enough to improvise a strategy for unknown positions. How often I have embarked optimistically on a slightly worse endgame against county-strength players, only to be ground down without mercy. I often feel there are three games to be played at this level before you can secure the whole or half- point: once in the opening, middle and endgame.

Obviously there are still things that separate the lower from the higher (approaching 200) boards of county teams: things like judging positions on their merits rather than by analogy, and the coordination of their pieces. And of course, all the common threads (depth of analysis, thinking for the opponent, knowledge of theory) can all be expected to be stronger in the better player.

The County player at their best:

The County Player at work in the Opening

The County Player at work in the Middle Game

The County Player at work in the Endgame

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…

The Art of Analysis, Part 1

Posted on by

Let us begin with a mistake – what we might call
positional mistake:

“Positional sense should free you from the slavery
of `variations’.” – Nimzovitch

Statements like this, and one or two other factors, led me to
neglect the analysis of variations – instead preferring to develop
positional assessments – for many years. It is possible to consider
positional judgement and planning as somehow a higher calling,
which avoids the need for grubby heavy analysis. This, however, was
a mistake on my part.

Here is some treatment for people suffering from the same
condition:

“What is the essence of the chess master’s art?
Fundamentally it consists of the ability to analyse chess
positions.

“Home analysis has specific features of its own: you are
not restricted by time, and you can move the men freely. Despite
this difference between home analysis and practical play, there is
much in common between them. It is a well-known fact that almost
all the outstanding chess-players have been first-class analysts.
(…)

“It is useful to publish your individual analytical work.
Then you are subject to objective criticism.” – Botvinnik, 100
SELECTED GAMES.

“So I began to analyse games…” – Timman, THE ART OF
CHESS ANALYSIS

“I got to know Mark (Dvoretsky) at the very beginning of my chess
career, at one of the sessions of Botvinnik’s chess school in 1974;
in those days, Dvoretsky was Botvinnik’s assistant. (…)

“We are adherents of the same, analytical, way, and we
believe in the triumph of analytical penetration into the secrets
of a position” – Kasparov, Preface to Dvoretsky’s SECRETS OF CHESS
TRAINING (FIRST PUBLISHED IN RUSSIA AS “THE ART OF ANALYSIS”).

“I selected from tournament books those games in which the greatest
complications had arisen. (Then) set myself the task of thinking
long and hard so as to analyse all the possible variations. I would
sometimes … write down the variations I had examined and then I
would compare them with those of the annotator. (…)

“Great help can be got from solving studies from a
diagram without setting up the position on the board.” – Kotov,
THINK LIKE A GRANDMASTER

“Analysis, if it is really carried out with a complete
concentration of his powers, forms and completes a chess
player.” – Polugayevsky

“Many players, even of a high calibre, will assert,
half jokingly and half seriously, that a difficult labour of
analysis can be replaced by intuition. ‘I played this move in a
flash – it was obvious it couldn’t be bad‘ is the sort of
thing we often hear in a post-mortem.
“Criticising such a policy is not simple – not after it has just
been successful! <…> Instead of appraising the state of struggle
on the basis of precise calculation, Black makes a move, which on
general considerations, is wholly in the spirit of the position – a
flank attack is countered by a break in the centre. Yet in chess
there are no axioms.”

— ZAK, Improve your chess results.

Two sorts of games should hold a special place in your own study:
(a) Analysis of master games, and (b) analysis of your own games
(especially losses). So, I have an exercise which involves
neither…

I have been privileged to obtain a copy of the six games
from the first match of the Exeter `A’ team this season. I propose
to analyse each game with the coaching group during a session in
the New Year, but I would like you to have a go at analysing them
first. Then we can compare notes…

How do you analyse a chess game?

If it’s someone else’s:
(1) Play through the whole game fairly quickly, seeing what ebb and
flow the game had.
(2) Divide the game up into episodes, even if they are only opening
middlegame and endgame, and try to describe what happened and who
if anyone had the advantage.
(3) Try and find the critical steps, where one or other side made
an important choice (even if it was only to overlook
something!).
(4) Put your account aside for a few days and have a fresh look
later. What other ideas now occur to you? Did you make a too-smooth
moral fable out of a more fluctuating scrap?

If it’s your own:
(1) write down as much as you can remember about what you thought
about at the time, and
(2) any thought your opponent shared during a Post Mortem.
(3) Leave it for a few days and come back fresh, then analyse it as
you would somebody else’s. Be particularly wary of self-serving
interpretations, especially of the “I was winning all the way
through” variety. What did you miss?

Below, Round numbers are board numbers. The Exeter players
(White on even boards) hold BCF grades this year between 171 and
156; Teignmouth between 180 and 130. These are roughly between 2000
and 1600 ELO.

N.B. Games 2 and 5 feature an early loss of material; to
analyse past this point, in Game 5 at least, may not be very
profitable.

Click […] for list of games

Our analysis: https://devonjuniorchess.co.uk/wp/drdaveexeter/2026/09/21/the-art-of-analysis-part-2-2/

Coaching Zone at East Devon Congress 2026

Posted on by

Thanks to all those who attended, shared games, contributed comments and heckled; I hope you got something out of taking part.

LINK to Lichess study for Saturday game analysis: https://lichess.org/study/6WyVNXpv/

LINK to Lichess study for Sunday game analysis: https://lichess.org/study/QIirDybT

Short talks

Not all the talks actually happened but here are the intended slides; the slides were designed to support a talk and not to stand alone.

AnalyseYourGamesDownload
BoardsightVisualisationDownload
Blunder-proofingDownload
CandidateMovesDownload
ElementsEvaluationDownload
EndgamesTipsResourcesDownload
MistakesMinorDownload
MistakesMajorDownload
PlanningDownload
OpeningsQ&ADownload
UsingComputersDownload