Creating Tactics Problem Sets From Your Games Using ChessBase Products

I’ve played a lot of blitz online.  A LOT of blitz.  It seemed to me that if these games could be mined for tactical errors, they would make an ideal set of simple tactics problems for drills.  Manually mining them for gold, however, would take forever.  I routinely store and analyze my blitz games, but have been negligent in saving positions into databases for tactics or blunders (a project I started but didn’t keep up with).

One day I thought: what if I take Rybka and tell it to analyze the games to a depth of 5 ply?  That should roughly correspond to a Chernev and Reinfeld-ish “Seeing Three Moves Ahead” or simpler level of tactics, and should be fairly quick.   I was familiar with the ChessBase interfaces for Rybka and Fritz and new that it could automatically generate “Training Annotations”: when you load the game or position, it jumps to a position and opens a window prompting you for the correct move.  I decided to test this idea with my 800 most recent Blitz games (about 10% of my total games on record).

Read more »

Shifting Focus

{Coincidentally, in an interesting example of parallel evolution, there seem to be many other bloggers that have recently taken self-improvement much more seriously as well. Check out Blunderprone's blog for more info on his ACIS (Adult Chess Improvement Seekers) movement.}

 For the last while I've been content to learn more about chess –endings, opening repertoire, reading some of the classic game collections such as Alekhine's NY 1924 and Nottingham 1936 tournament books, and Botvinnik's 100 Selected Games, etc. However, as I enter my 40^th year of existence, I look at the sidebar of this blog ("hopes to become a B-class player before senility sets in") and the subtitle ("Do as I Say, Not As I Do") and have decided to do more of what I say.

For me, I identified the following areas as needing the most improvement:

Read more »

Mate in Two

The following Mate in Two problem is from Yusupov's Build Up Your Chess I, and I think it's the hardest mate in two problem I've come across so far.



I'm not going to give away the answer, but it's a good test of your ability to analyze a dense thicket of short variations.

Laszlo Polgar's Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games has a ton of mate-in-two problems in it, and I occasionally turn to a random page and try to solve some. Some of them are really devilish, and are good practice for practicing Kotov-like analysis (trying to analyze each branch of a variation once and only once).

I'm going to try and get a couple more chapters of Yusupov's book knocked out this afternoon.

Simple Forcing Variation

The following tactic is fairly easy to calculate, yet it gave me some trouble. I'm finding that, when calculating forced variations, I have more difficulty when I have a choice of moves than when my opponent has a choice of moves.

White to play:

4r1k1/ppn1bppp/q7/7Q/1nN1P3/1B1P4/PP5P/KN4R1 w - - 0 1

Black to play has a straightforward mate in 2 starting with 1...Qxa2+, so White's play either has to interfere with this mechanism, or be with check. Moves like 1.Nca3 or 1.Na5 don't lead to anything. That leaves two checks: 1.Rxg7+ or 1.Qxf7+. The former check doesn't seem to lead anywhere either (e.g. 1...Kxg7 2.Qg4+ Qg6).

1.Qxf7+ looks like an "obvious" queen sac, because after 1...Kxf6 the knight can move to e5 or d6 with a discovered, double, check. But which knight move?

Correct is 2.Ne5+, because on either 2...Kf6 or 2...Kf8, 3.Nd7#.

However, when I tried to calculate this as I would in an over-the-board game, I would stall at this point. I was seeing the king slipping out of the mating net with 2.Nd7, and didn't immediately see the mate after 2.Ne5 Kf6. That was enough for me to second-guess the entire line and try to find ways to get other first moves to work. In a real game I probably would have bailed out by playing a knight to a3.

This demonstrates both quiescence errors (not calculating out until all checks, captures and threats are spent) and not "thinking like a tree" a la Kotov (calculate each branch of each line only once). And yes, Kotov's technique has been criticized by others, but in general (especially for simple problems like this one) it's an ideal worth striving for.

Spot the Back Rank Weakness

Even though (if you're at all like me) we still fall prey to "simple" back-rank weakness tactics, I think these tactics are sometimes dismissed as obvious, beginner cheapos. However, these motifs can be quite deeply concealed. The following example from Marshall-Alekhine, NY 1924 caught my attention:



20...h6. Alekhine: "It was surely disagreeable to deprive the Rook of the control of h6, and yet there appeared to be no other way of preparing for Rf6 (20... Rf6 21. Qxe4 Qxe4 22. Nxe4 Rxe4:



23. Rxd5." Of course 23...cxd5?? 24. Rc8+ and back-rank mate to follow. It's not hard to calculate this forcing line, but you'd have to look pretty carefully at the first diagram to see that there was a potential back-rank weakness and that making luft with ...h6 was a good idea. Besides being a good example of calculating a forcing variation, this is also a good example of playing "real chess" a la Heisman: "What can my opponent do after I make the move I want to make?"

To add a dose of humility, I'll conclude with a recent blunder of mine from a blitz game:


I had actually made luft with ...g6 seven moves ago, to hopefully thwart back-rank problems. In time trouble I played 29...Rcc7??, hoping for something like 30.Bxc5?? Rxc5 31.Rxc5 a2 -+.

However, to my opponent's credit, he almost immediately whipped out 30.Bh6! Ke8 31.Ra8+ 1-0.

Preview of Forcing Chess Moves

{edit: fixed the first diagram}
{second edit: fixed the third. Good grief!}

I've been slowly working my way through Forcing Chess Moves by Charles Hertan. I see that it was reviewed at the Chess Cafe here, so I'll just add a few impressions so far.

First, be forewarned: the author uses ALL CAP EMPHASIS for certain KEY SAYINGS that are repeated throughout the book. I understand the pedagogical intent, but it's distracting. I still haven't decided yet if it's a net plus...if at some point I play a game and suddenly my COMPUTER EYES kick in to realize it's time for BRUTE-FORCE CALCULATION to find the winning move, then I suppose it will be proven effective.

The theme of the book is to train you to analyze the most forcing candidate moves first. What makes this book unique is that it's overall goal appears to be to expand your perception of what a forcing move is. The premise is that a computer will find winning moves that often are omitted as candidate moves by humans, because at first glance they look bad. The author hopes to train the reader's COMPUTER EYES so that they will consider these odd, but forcing moves, as candidates in their own games.

I'm still in the earlier part of the book, which more closely resembles a standard collection of advanced tactical problems in that the forcing moves tend to be checks and direct sacrifices. An example:

NN-Keene

simul 1995

1... Qh2+!!

"...it is the most FORCING MOVE on the board. Perhaps your COMPUTER EYES are even able to follow the chain of forcing moves and find the tricky but logical 'quiet forcing move' on move 4?"--Hertan.

2. Kxh2 Rxf2+ 3. Kh1 Ng3+ 4. Kg1 Ree2 0-1

A standard tactical problem, although the not-most-forcing (i.e. non-check) 4...Ree2 could be considered foreshadowing of what's to come.

Here is an example featuring a much less obvious forcing move:

Gershon-Mihailidis

Kavala 2004

1. Qb6! a6 (1... axb6?? 2. Nxb6#; 1... Nd7 2. Qxa7) 2. Nc5 Ne8 (2... Nb5 3. Bxb5
axb5 4. Nxb5 cxb5 5. Nxb7+) 3. N3a4 Nd6 (3... Qc7 4. Qa7! Rd7 5. Nb6+) 4. Qa5 1-0.

I found that the author's comments can be misleading, and that it's better to try and solve the problems yourself with an open mind, and then consult the book text. For example, for the following problem the author says: "Here a beautiful stock mate on h7 relies on a SELF-BLOCKING ENEMY PAWN on g5 containing the black king. Excellent COMPUTER EYES are in play, as all five white moves are the MOST FORCING:"

Weissgerber-Rellstab
Bad Pyrmont 1933

1. Qd8+ Kg7 2. Rxg5+! hxg5 3. h6+!

I missed this move. I saw that 3. Qxg5 was with check, and assumed this must be the most forcing move...what's stronger than a queen check?... but saw that 3... Kf8 4. Qd8+ Kg7 5. Qg5+ draws. Further, Fritz found that Black could win with 3...Kh8.

3... Kxh6 4. Qh8+ Rh7 5. Qxh7#.

One thing I've found in analyzing my own games is that Fritz will find moves that are clearly strong, but I would never have considered the first move of the sequence. Sometimes, the tactic will defy categorization as a fork, pin, skewer, deflection, removal of the guard, etc, but simply be a move that works. My impression is that Hertan's book may help open the reader's eyes to these opportunities. I also think that endgame training can also help, because sometimes the winning move can only be found by BRUTE-FORCE calculation. More on that in a future post.

I feel that the standard practice of studying tactical motifs can blind us to other possibilities if we can't classify them as one of these motifs. This is not to say that studying basic tactics is detrimental. My point is that if humans can't name or categorize something, they have a hard time recognizing it. For example, some languages have words that cannot be adequately translated into others, and describe concepts or feelings particular to that culture. I wish I could come up with a good example of that on short notice, but "schadenfreude" comes close...in recent years it's crept into common English because it fills a gap in our language. Similarly, let's say a certain winning move puts the opponent into zugzwang, forcing a self-blocking move that allows a successful king-hunt and mate. For us, that may be an example of BRUTE-FORCE CALCULATION of QUIET FORCING MOVES. For some alien chess culture, that may be a classic example of a "glibberfunken" motif that every alien schoolboy knows.

Deceptive Tactic

It took me a few minutes to solve this tactic from "Chess Tactics for Beginners":



The reason is that this looks like it's set up to be the old "windmill" or "see-saw" tactic: rook moves along a rank or file to deliver a discovered check; king moves; rook returns to original square to check. This is normally combined with other threats, such as merely gobbling material with the rook. I was thinking, "well, this is a tactics problem, the answer must involve this tactic" and kept trying to make it work.

Here, rook moves along the 7th rank or the g-file don't accomplish anything. I briefly wondered if the trick was to set up a winning zugzwang after moving the rook, but (for example) 1.Ra7+ Kg8 2.Bg7 can be met by 2...Rf7=.

Then I realized that a safe king move would also put black in zugzwang. Correct is 1.Ka2! Only the black rook can move, and it will be lost to the discovered check (e.g. 1...Ra8+ 2.Ra7+).

However, 1.Kb1 doesn't work, because here the white rook can't block the check after 1...Rf1+, e.g. 2.Ka2 Rf8.

The hardest part of this problem was letting go of my preconception of what the solution must involve, and postponing the "obvious" windmill pattern for one move. Sometimes familiarity with standard tactical motifs can blind you to other tactical possibilities.

Interesting Sicilian Tactic

I've set my formula on ICC to play opponents 0-200 points higher than my current rating, and I'm seeing games where the opening resembles something "normal", including a lot more open Sicilians. So far, the Sicilian/Najdorf hybrids seem pretty common, although they seem to leave book quite early. I've been playing Sicilian systems with Bc4, f4, and kingside castling for the most part. I should reread the sections in Soltis' Pawn Structure Chess on the e4-e5 and f4-f5 breaks, since that's a key issue in a lot of my Sicilians.

The following position occurred in a recent ICC game:



I dismissed 14.fxe6, which Fritz discovered, because I thought the exchanges relieved the tension and gave Black a freer game. It turns out that the main line seems to lead to about a pawn advantage for White after 14...Bxe6, but the line isn't very forcing so I forgive myself for not seeing this at the board. What's more interesting is that the alternate recapture 14...fxe6 is a tactical blunder. The reason is the nasty move 15.Nf5!:



There's a few motifs here that I should remember for future games. One is the possibility of a pin on the a2-g8 diagonal allowing a piece to hop into f5. Another is that the bishop on e7 is often insufficiently protected. When lines open up, these factors may come into play.

Here, the knight move is possible because the e5 pawn is pinned. Mate on g7 is threatened, as is the knight fork on e7.

If Black tries to defend by playing 15...Rf7:



White has the simple "removal of the guard" tactic 16. Nxe7+ Rxe7 17. Rxf6, since the g7 pawn is pinned.

Another defensive try is 15...Ng6:


But a removal-of-the-guard/counting tactic gives White the clear advantage: 16. Qxg6! hxg6 17. Nxe7+ Kh7 18. Nxc8. After the knight is recaptured White is a piece up and has a great position to boot.

Daniel King's Powerplay Series: Like Steroids, But Legal

I'm about halfway through the first DVD in Daniel King's Powerplay series. I had viewed the second and third DVDs earlier this year, which deal with how to go about conducting an attack. I had found that the DVDs had a pronounced effect on my play, and that I had absorbed and retained a fair amount of the material.

I had postponed getting the first DVD on mating paterns, because I felt I had enough books on the subject and that I wouldn't gain that much from the DVD. After playing through much of the DVD, I realize...I was half right. Objectively, the material is "old hat". For example, the Greek Gift sacrifice is covered quite well in such works as Vukovic's Art of Attack in Chess, and Znozko-Borovsky's The Art of Chess Combination (both classics). I thought that the material on the Lasker double-bishop sacrifice was a bit skimpy as well. The videos are very enjoyable to watch, although in this first DVD there was some clumsiness early on as King figured out how the technology worked (aside: what does Chessbase have against editing?). Based solely on the content, however, I would think that the DVD was intended for beginners that hadn't studied mating patterns much (although the level of commentary indicates a more advanced target audience).

However, after going down to the chess club I found that once again King's DVD had planted ideas in my mind, and I had many successful attacks in my games. The Greek gift motif popped up in one of them, where I pushed h2-h4 to secure a g5 knight. Again, I found that although I was not consciously trying to be an attacker, or trying to force an attack where it wasn't justified, I was finding attacking motifs and applying them.

I feel that the DVD format, while perhaps delivering only a fraction of the information that a good book would, delivers that information more efficiently and more memorably. I've been highly satisfied with the other DVDs I've viewed (Ziegler's on the French Defense, and Muller's first endgame DVD). However, King's DVDs seem to have reached into my head and reprogrammed my brain. I feel like Neo from the Matrix....someone downloads a library into my skull and suddenly I know kung-fu.

The effect is pronounced enough that I may consider adding future Powerplay DVDs to my collection. Again, objectively the subject material (opening play; pawn structures) is adequately covered by book material I already have... but I'm left wondering if King has magic to work here as well.

I'll try to update this once I've finished the DVD. I also now have Muller's second and third endgame DVDs, and will likely review them at some point.

Hall of Shame, Episode 1

I'm still getting settled in to my new locale, but I've started playing chess locally and getting back into the groove.

The following position is from a casual but slow game, which was a grueling, back-and-forth, positional struggle. I am relying on my memory here, since regrettably I did not keep score:



I am playing Black. I decided to dart across enemy fire to bring my king to the defense on the kingside. I had calculated that the pawn endgame after 1... Ke5 2. Re1+ Kf6 3. Rxe7 Kxe7 should at least be a draw. However, there are two major flaws with this sequence. My opponent found the lesser of the two rebuttals (which was enough for me to immediately resign) but missed the best response.

Try to find the two biggest flaws with my intended sequence. Using a chess engine is gauche.

I'll post the answers later.

Chess Tactics for Beginners Arrived

I finally picked up CTB, so I have something to smack around after CT-ART's done abusing me. Did the first 110 problems over lunch. I had an embarrassing think over one of the mate-in-one problems, an example of chess blindness if there ever was one:


The funny thing is, I knew the theme was queen mates in one, but I instinctively kept trying to find a longer sequence, or returning to a failed one, rather than focus on every possible queen move. I kept looking at the criss-cross "mate" with Qd5, thinking, "man I wish that were possible...wonder if the programmers made a mistake with this one." After about a minute of this I forced myself to actually think concretely and found the answer (which I'll leave to the reader to find.)

Really, really embarrassing. If this had been given to me as a "white to play and win" I may never have gotten it.

Mental Muscle: Fast Twitch vs. Slow Twitch

Those of you into exercise know that there are two general categories of skeletal muscle: fast-twitch and slow twitch. Fast-twitch muscle is capable of short bursts of intense power, but tires more quickly; slow-twitch muscle is less powerful but capable of long periods of aerobic exercise. I think that, when it comes to chess, something comparable applies to the muscle between your ears.

The #1 mantra of chess success is "study tactics". To me, however there are two separate components to tactical strength:

• speed of pattern recognition
• depth of vision

This is a bit artificial...the two aren't completely separate. Here's a hypothetical example to hopefully clarify what I mean.

You analyze a game of yours with Fritz, and Fritz points out that you could have won a piece by force. The error could fall into one of two broad categories:

• "Oh, of course! I should have seen that!" (a sign that either you weren't playing "real chess", or that you were playing "real chess" but you missed a relatively simple tactic) This is your standard patzer error that tactics drills a la Heisman and proper thinking technique help to weed out. The aspect of chess strength most at play here is pattern recognition, and quite possibly the speed of calculating short forced sequences.

• "How the hell was I supposed to see that? That's twelve ply deep!" Assuming it is a fairly forcing sequence, the relevant component of chess strength here is how clearly you can see the board several moves ahead. Even if it's a Kotov-esque tree of variations, visualization is an important component of the calculation process.
  

For me, the approximate boundary between the two in a middlegame of average complexity is six to eight ply--in other words, falling into the Chernev and Reinfeld "how to see three moves ahead" range of set up the tactic, execute the tactic, collect the booty.

I don't think that the idea of training your "visualization muscles" is often addressed. Instead, we have books or programs such as CT-ART that have a gradient of tactical problems from simpler to harder. Then, to do the harder ones, you need to work that muscle and see deeper. To me, that's a bit like exercising your back by doing squats. Yes, the back muscles will coincidentally get worked out a bit while you develop your legs, but you're not actually targeting them.

I have recently started studying master games in earnest. I try not to spend too much time on each one (I'd say 5-30 minutes, depending on the depth and quality of the annotations), but I usually use a board and pieces and take notes. For most of the annotations I push myself to visualize as best I can the sequence of moves. If it's a bit fuzzy, I may make a move or two on the board and try again. I do the best I can without spending too much time on it, then move on.

This position from Alekhine-Marshall, NY 1924 struck me as an excellent example:



Alekhine has the following side note: "[8. d5] must be done at once, inasmuch as Black, after 8.Be3, would obtain counter-play by means of 8... Bxf3 9. Bxf3 e5
10. fxe5 dxe5 11. d5 Nd4! (12. Bxd4 exd4 13. Qxd4 Nxe4), etc."

Set this position up on a board...go on, do it. Try to visualize down to the final position and get a feeling for what "etc." entails. Try to visualize, for example, why White doesn't play 14.Qxe4. If you can't get it, make a move and try again. Repeat until you get it. I'll add a comment about the final position at the end of my post...spoiler alert.

In the past my eyes would start glazing over at around 11.Nd4 and I'd just continue playing over the main line of the game. Here I said, "this isn't impossible, push yourself a little". While it's not a forcing sequence, it's a logical series of exchanges. With a little effort I was finally able to visualize the position at White's move 14 fairly clearly.

Note that I'm not trying to calculate my way through to the end, just visualize. In some cases, as you work through an annotation you'll be struck by alternatives: "hey, wait, why not _____ ?" If something jumps out at you, then go ahead...take a look, try to quickly figure it out, and if it's unclear write a note and move on. I have found that lengthy, linear analysis, especially by lesser annotators, is often suspect, and you may find that your own ideas are correct. For example, I found one instance in Capablanca's Best Chess Endings where Chernev missed a classic queen sacrifice and double-bishop mate. I was pretty chuffed about that.

I am hoping that by studying master games in this fashion that I'll overcome some of my mental laziness and improve my ability to visualize several moves ahead. One of the few books I've come across that actually touches on this aspect of chess development is Best Lessons of a Chess Coach, where in several critical game positions the reader is pushed to see ahead as far as they can.

I think the study of master games tends to be overlooked for a couple reasons:

• You aren't getting a concentrated dose of tactics, or endgames, or opening theory, or strategy. So, if you're setting goals like "today I'm going to study tactics", or "this week I'm going to work on rook endgames", etc., you're going to be using other, more specialized, training material.

• You aren't being spoon-fed the information. You have to actually think about the game on your own and ask your own questions. For example, an annotation may read "obviously forced" or "this alternative would result in a dead-lost endgame" as if it's self-evident, but you actually have to stop, think, and see if you can understand what the annotator is getting at.

Spoiler alert for the above position: I had difficulty visualizing that the e-file was completely vacated of pieces, save for the king. I had a residual shadow in my mind of one of the bishops on the e-file. After working my way through it once, I was able to work forward from the given position and visualize fairly clearly the final position, complete with vacated e-file.

Counting Error

Here's an example of a counting error from one of my Blitz games. It's not very hard at all, but with the clock ticking I wasn't able to calculate it correctly.

Analyze the consequences of 1.Ba3.


1.Ba3 Bxc4 2.Bxd6 Bxd3 3.Bxf8 Bxf1 and Black is a piece ahead. Best then is the desparado 4.Bxg7.

I looked at this position two different ways afterwards. First I did "He takes, I take..." and tried to keep a running tally. I could see that Black would be a piece ahead, but I had to concentrate. One contributing factor was that taking "snapshots" at certain points before quiescence was misleading. Sort of like:

1...Bxc4 2.Bxd6 ("equal so far") 2...Bxd3 3.Bxf8 ("I'm up the exchange") 3...Bxf1 4. Bb3 or 4.Kxf1 ("I return the exchange") to give the illusion that everything would be equal, rather than that White would be a piece down.

However, if you just barrel down the main line and add up pieces, you can see: "In the next three moves, Black takes N, B, and R and White takes B and R. At that point, whether both bishops save themselves or both bishops are captured, Black is still up a piece."

So it may be that it's easier to calculate "I take this and this, he takes that and that and that", rather than "I take, he takes, I take...". I'll have to try this out in practice. This method may make you more likely to mis-evaluate a side variation (e.g. 1...Bxa3 or 2.Bxc4) since you're just gunning down what you perceive the main line to be, but if nothing else it can help you "check your math".

"Hall of Fame" Databases

No sooner do I post my intent to not clutter my blog with my own ICC blitz games, than I play another game that's actually demonstrates my previous advice.

I'm testing out the Chess Publisher web tool for posting entire games. Here's why I'm posting this game:

1. I've said that you can use a chess engine such as Fritz to "mine" your blitz games for tactics, but emphasized the "Hall of Shame" databases of your errors. "Hall of Fame" databases, where you successfully executed a tactic, are also a good idea, and a morale booster as well. Sometimes, after focusing on all your shortcomings, it's nice to go over examples where you did play the best moves. This game demonstrates the theme of the back rank weakness. It's a cute example, because there were two separate weaknesses on d8 and e8 that were exploited. You can find similar examples in tactics books, but when the position occurs in your own game I think it has greater impact.

I've been a bit lazy lately, but I'm trying to routinely dissect my blitz games and save the tactics in their own files. I separate them by "tactics I successfully executed" and "errors where I missed a tactic", and I further separate them into 1, 2, 3, and >3-move tactics (grabbing an en prise piece, or leaving a piece en prise would go into the 1-move folder; a knight fork would go into the 2-move, and a "Chernev and Reinfeld: How to See Three Moves Ahead"-style tactic would go into the 3-move). When they get sizeable enough I'll have my own databases of real-world, simple tactics that I can use for drills.

2. The game demonstrated how understanding is more valuable than opening preparation. I was actually out of book on move 4, more or less. Even though I've played the French as Black for over a decade, I rarely face the Tarrasch, and I've only recently started playing it as White. I'm sure I've had the position before, but never bother memorizing the continuation. However, I have a decent understanding of how to play against an IQP (Isolated Queen's Pawn) and played according to the position. A quick check with Fritz and Chessbase shows that I actually played the opening quite credibly. I knew that I was supposed to play Bb5 at some point, but since I don't really understand why (yet...I'm going to check out this move order when I have time)I played my own moves and still got a good middlegame.

This game was a really, really rare example of error-free play on my part (error-free meaning my move never differed from Fritz's best move at about 10 ply by more than about 0.3 pawns).

My opponent was rated in the mid-1400s at blitz, about 80 points higher than me.



1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. Ngf3 Nc6 5. exd5 exd5 6. dxc5 Bxc5 7. Nb3 b6 8. Be2 Be6 9. c3 Nge7 10. O-O O-O 11. Bg5 Qc7 12. Bxe7 Nxe7 13. Nbd4 Rad8 14. Re1 Nc6 15. Qd2 Nxd4 16. Nxd4 Kh8 17. Rad1 Be7 18. Bf3 Rd6? 19. Nb5! Qb8 20. Nxd6 Bxd6 .

A point-count comparison indicates that White is only up 1.25 pawns
at this point (the exchange is worth 1.75 pawns, but Black's bishop pair is
worth 0.5 pawn). However, white's pieces are actively placed, whereas Black's
are defensively placed. Fritz's evaluation of about +2.9 pawns for White is
probably more accurate. Fritz probably sees that the d pawn is indefensible
in the long run. However, with two bishops pointed at the kingside, White has to be careful about a kingside attack, especially after the next move (I'm always worried about moves like...Bxh3). 21. h3 Bf4 22. Qd3 Rd8 23. Qb5! Setting up the following tactical opportunity...Qd6?


24. Bxd5! Bxd5? 25. Rxd5! Qf6 26. Re8+ (26.Qe8+ and 26.Rxd8+ also lead to mate.) 1-0.

Note that, on Black's part, this is an example of both a counting error and a quiescence error. It seems like Black has just enough defenders of the d-pawn, but if Black were to capture three times on d5 the position is not yet quiet because Re8 would mate.

Heisman's Latest Article: Counting Errors Revisited

Dan Heisman's latest ChessCafe.com article revisits counting errors ("I take, he takes, I take...oops.") with some more elaborate examples. None of the examples are of mind-blowing complexity, but for several I had to sit and think. For example:


The moves played in this game were (after 1...Nbd5) 2.Ne5? Nxf4 3.Nxf6? Bxf6?? 4.Be4?? Ng6. In particular, Black's third move looks natural, but is not best. If Black's correct 3rd move isn't immediately obvious to you as you play through this example, go straight to Heisman's article, do not pass go, and do not collect 200 ratings points (at least, not until you're done reading through the Novice Nook archives there).

If you routinely mine your games (including Blitz) for tactical errors, you'll be finding plenty of these errors in your own games and can include them in your "Hall of Shame" files.

Silmanites vs. De La Maza "Knights": Don't Be Hatin'!

{from despair.com}

As I dip into the waters of Chess Blogs, I've been dismayed how so many people are divided between two camps: Silman "fanbois" and de la Maza "Knights".

For the uninitiated: Silman is a well-known chess author whose works on chess strategy (most notably How To Reassess Your Chess) have quite a following. Indeed, as I wrote earlier, this is one of two books that got me seriously interested in chess. Michael de la Maza is an amateur that dramatically increased his chess rating through an intense program of chess tactics. His method was first described in a series of articles and then in the book Rapid Chess Improvement. He also made Convekta a lot of money by touting its "CT-Art 3.0" program as being ideal for his system of tactics study. People that have put themselves through a rigorous de la Maza tactics regime refer to themselves as "Knights" or "Knights Errant".

First, a disclaimer. I am not trying to tar all the de la Maza fans with the same brush. I've seen lots of good, reasonable advice out there. However, I've been encountering snobbery and anti-Silman sneering in my travels, and I can't understand the polarization. Here are a few of the themes that I've been seeing, and my reactions:

-"Tactics are more important than positional understanding". Well, der. No one, including Silman, disagree that tactics should be the focus of study. However, I've seen people overstate their case and say that Silman's stuff is "garbage". The most important benefit of Silman's material is it aids you in finding good moves when tactics are not the sole factor. The concept of using the imbalances in a position to direct your strategic thinking is immensely useful. Even though tactical oversights will play a larger role in the outcome of your games, that does not mean that the strategy of accumulating small advantages is worthless. Other things being equal, the player with the worse position will tend to make the more serious errors.

Although, ultimately, chess is a game, and people should spend time doing what they find enjoyable, I'm taken aback by the cheeky conclusion to de la Maza's original articles:

I look forward to avoiding opening, middlegame, and endgame study for years to come.

This is akin to restricting your exercise to one-arm pushups in order to excel at fighting with one hand behind your back.

I don't think players have to read and re-read and re-re-read Silman's books as if they were the bible. Learn the basic concepts, then go on to study tactics and annotated games. That little bit of time taken to read a book or two on chess strategy is well worth it. I would strongly recommend any player interested in improving their game to also look at Kmoch's Pawn Power in Chess. Oddball nomenclature aside, it's all very good stuff. It will help you arrive at middlegame plans by looking at the pawn structure.

-"If you give one of his positions to a computer, and try and play his plan, the computer will eventually play something Silman didn't mention and proceed to win." Computers now routinely beat the best players in the world, so this argument strikes me as silly. As Dan Heisman has said repeatedly, your goal in a game of chess is to find the best move possible given the time constraints. A thought process like Silman's helps guide you to finding good moves.

You want to talk tactics? Mikhail Tal, the great attacking player, was quoted as saying, "There are two kinds of sacrifices: correct ones, and mine.". The point being, maybe his tactics weren't perfectly sound, but it put his opponent on the ropes. Even if a Silmanesque thinking technique doesn't result in perfect strategy, it will help you find strong moves (provided you double check your moves for tactical flaws before you play them).

One final observation: it appears that de la Maza and many Knights have quit, or cut back on, chess after attaining their goal, be it completing the "Seven Circles" program or whatever. I've seen this phenomenon happen to myself and others, in many different areas of life. For example, someone quits their job and plays a MMORPG 140 hours a week in order to get the first top-level character in the game, or starts an intense diet or exercise program, or takes up golf or whatever. They put in an incredible amount of time, then burn out once they've reached their goal or gone as far as they feel they can. The "Seven Circles" method de la Maza proposes is not for the faint of heart. Towards the end, you're expected to do 1000 tactical problems, in one day, in under 9 hours. I'm not surprised after completing that ordeal that some people get a bit sick of chess.

In contrast, books like Silman's, or Best Lessons of a Chess Coach by Sunil Weeramantry and Ed Eusebi, don't just instruct, or make you a stronger player. They open your eyes to the richness of chess, and add to your appreciation of chess. When you play through annotated games, and the annotator says "obviously such-and-such a move would be bad because of such-and-such a positional factor", you'll see the truth in that assessment. I think Silman put it best in his review of de la Maza's book:

I get hundreds of letters from students worldwide that gain hundreds of points in a few months from reading my “strategically oriented” books. Others don’t improve drastically in tournament play, but simply enjoy the game more because they can suddenly understand ideas utilized by the chess greats. This is a VERY important point (I’m not pushing my books, I’m trying to make a point!): they enjoy the game more because, instead of looking for tricks while not having a clue about what’s happening on a broader scale, they are taught that chess has many hidden depths that ARE accessible to them with proper training.

If we set aside the issue of whether or not Silman's books can make you a better player, there's no denying that they can make the games you play more enjoyable. I have enjoyed accruing small advantages to reach a winning position. I have had knights on outposts dominate bad bishops. I have won games because of an outside passed pawn. I have counterattacked in the center after being attacked on the wing, and I have opened up the position for my bishop pair. I have taken advantage of a lead in development to open the position and launch an attack.

I'm sure these games abounded with tactical errors. But I feel I played more strongly for having been exposed to these positional ideas, and by thinking about the imbalances in the position.

Plus, I've been playing chess seriously for 13 years and I'm sure I'll be enjoying it for decades to come.

Learning from Blitz Example: An Instructive Queen Sacrifice

Since my last post I've been more religious with how I analyze my blitz games. In one of my recent games I missed an idea featuring a queen sacrifice and instructive B + N mate.



The strongest move, which I didn't play but Fritz found, is 1.Ne4, ganging up on the pinned knight. I didn't think any further than 1...Nh5, protecting the bishop and discovering an attack on White's queen. However, 2.Qxg7!! is crushing. The point is 2...Nxg7 allows 3.Nf6#.

A great example of how Blitz & Fritz can be used to generate your own library of tactics problems.

What Can You Learn From Blitz Games?

I play too much blitz and not enough "regular chess". I think it's encouraging superficial thought, and I think I need to reprogram my brain to play what Heisman calls "real chess" on every move. I have a bad habit of going on blitz-crack binges where suddenly it's 3am, my vision is blurring and I'm down 300 ratings points.

However, I think that Blitz, in moderation, can help you improve your game if you stop and try to learn from each game. Here's how:

1. Blitz + Fritz = tactics problems for free. Well, you can use another analysis engine besides Fritz, but that wouldn't rhyme. If you analyze a blitz game with the computer, you are going to find plenty of examples of gross tactical blunders or missed opportunities. You can generate your own books of tactical problems by saving these positions in their own database. Chessbase 9 even allows you to add a "training annotation", where it will hide the next move and prompt you for the correct answer.

There are two advantages that a database of tactics taken from your own games has over store-bought books or software. One is that these are realistic or even mundane tactics. I've been enjoying using the CT-ART tactics program, but it's heavily slanted towards sacrifices and sacrificial mates. In a real game, the tactical opportunities that you miss are often more "boring". For example, maybe your queen could have forked a loose knight and pawn, and your opponent would have lost a pawn with no compensation. Heisman recommends studying lots of simple tactics to improve your pattern recognition, and these are exactly the kinds of errors that you'll be making in blitz games. One common error I see in my games is with "I-take, he-takes, I-take" counting problems, where a slight change in the move order makes a large difference.

I also see many instances where I played a good move, but there was a better move. For example, perhaps I could have won an extra pawn with another move, or been up a whole piece instead of just the exchange. You won't find many problems in books that deal with such mundane differences. The more often you choose the best move instead of the second-best move, the more quickly you can grind down your opponent.

The other advantage of such a book is that, since the positions are taken from your own games, they'll tend to stick in your mind better. Heisman recommends making a "Hall of Shame" database where you make problems out of your blunders. I'm going to start doing this more religiously, and also make some separate bases for 1, 2, and 3-move tactics (where I to move had the tactic) and blunders (where I allowed my opponent the tactic).

2. Opening Preparation. For every game you play, you should find out who left theory first, and what you would play if that position were to arise again. This can be as simple as seeing where someone played a move that's not in your computer program's opening book, or you could go as far as consulting opening manuals and/or searching a large database of games. If you use the program Bookup, you can automatically import your blitz games into opening databases for your white and black repertoires.

When I use Chessbase, I can see not only how often a move was played in my master games database, but what the player's ratings were and how well that move performed. This can be quite informative. For example, you may see that your opponent played a move that wasn't downright awful, but all the people that played it were rated below 2100, and in a couple of simuls a grandmaster opponent played what appears to be the refutation.

If you keep a database of your own games, you may find some interesting results that will save you study time. For example, when I searched for games in the last 7 years where I played the Spanish (Ruy Lopez) as White, I got these statistics:


This tells me a few interesting things:
a) the Steinitz defense (3...d6) occurred in a whopping 23% of my games. This is considered an outdated line by experts, and in some repertoire books gets very little attention.
b) The Cozio defence (3...Nge7) is causing me problems (opponent scoring 56%)
c) I'm doing well against the Berlin defense (3...Nf6; opponent scoring 23%).

If I succumb to the siren call of opening preparation, this tells me that I should concentrate on the Steinitz (which I face the most) and the Cozio (which I face often enough and do poorly against).

A similar search where I play the French as Black showed that I very rarely face the Tarrasch defence (3.Nd2) at my level...which is odd, since at professional level it's the #2 response. This tells me that it should be an excellent choice to play as white, because French players of my level rarely face it.

I'm going to maintain that you only need to know openings as deeply as your typical opponent. If you confine your preparation to finding out where your games deviate from theory, and what the "proper" continuations are, you can spend more time studying the stuff that really matters.