Chess Study

Studying and teaching chess is not a very exact science. There seems to be no hard and fast rules as to what to study, how much to study, how to study, when to study, ratio of study to practice, and even goal setting to direct study. Everyone seems to have their own way, which reflects in the fact that there is no universal style to chess.

Some players devour opening theory, which can help with tactical knowledge and plan creation in complicated positions, but usually does little to help with technical play. Studying openings can also lead to psychological weaknesses, as gaps in opening knowledge become apparent and worried about, while reactions to non theoretical moves can be poor.

Some players solve thousands of tactical exercises, which can help with their pattern recognition. While tactical vision is a key element of a successful chess player, it is only one factor, and a danger in working solely on tactics can be a reliance on them, and a need to make certain tactics work in positions where they may not be justified.

Some players study endgames (I might be guilty of this), following in the footsteps of Capablanca. This study of simpler positions and technical precision can help a player earlier in the game to understand weaknesses, relative piece strengths and the transition to the endgame stage. But exclusive endgame training can dull creative and tactical vision, and lead players to search for simple solutions in the middlegame, where a may forceful, or dynamic approach may be necessary.

Of course, the best answer is to mix up that which is studied. Try to solve some tactical puzzles regularly, keep working on openings that you play, or that interest you, and look at theoretical and technical endgames. How much a player studies will depend on that player's time commitments. A working adult, who is very keen on improving might be able to devote 5-10 hours a week on chess study, but then again, they might only be able to put in an hour a week, especially if they have family commitments. So what should these precious hours be spent on?

Playing chess is of paramount importance, and studying your own games is the next most important things. Being extremely self critical in your analysis is key, and analysing without a computer is important as you then simulate analysis that will be used in a game. Checking your analysis with an engine is fine. Much of the opening work you undertake can come from post mortem analysis, when you check to see how your play in the opening went, and then look to improve your knowledge of that opening. If you prepare for games, then some opening analysis will also happen. But beyond this what should you do?

I read an interview with American women's super star, Jennifer Shahade, where she was asked this question. She suggested that 40% of your time should be spent on the middlegame, 30% on the opening, and 30% on the endgame, at least for non master players. I found this interesting as so many Grand Masters have suggested opening study as relatively unimportant compared to tactical study or endgame thinking, and this balanced approach seems to make more sense to me, especially as some players find certain elements of the game more interesting. I would also add that players who are self studying should be happy with whatever they are doing, as any study is better than none. So if a player loves attacking chess, then I see nothing wrong with them looking at lots of classic games with elegant mates, and solving tactical puzzles. At some stage they should find out that a one sided attacking game alone will not suffice at a certain level, and they can then feel the need to study other parts of the game.

In my opinion, the best way to study a balanced, all round game is to look at annotated games. These will probably give some basic thoughts to the openings played, will examine the thinking processes of the players, especially if the author is playing, and will consider both tactical and technical aspects of the game. A good book of a games collection is invaluable in any players library, and should be worked through deeply, and critically. The ideas and general advice that can be gained is invaluable and can lead on to other areas of study. Seeing a great player handle an opening that we don't know too well can inspire us to explore that opening. Likewise, finding analysis of classic endgames can engage us in that subject and make us inquire more deeply about certain types of technical position.

So I intend to post classic games here from the books in my collection, which isn't extensive, but still has quite a number of titles. I'll try to post a game per day, though there might be times that I'm too busy for this. In the meantime, I'd be interested to hear form both payers and coaches how they feel players should study the game.

Practical Chess Study

Most of us study chess from a book or a computer by ourselves. We play through stuff, openings, tactics puzzles, famous games, endgames, and generally accumulate knowledge and some level of expertise. But it can get much more effective if you study in a group or with a partner. There are more brains at work, hopefully with different ways of looking at positions.The only trouble is that we have little time to get together with others to study so most of what we do is alone. It is possible to play online, but I don't think many people study in a group online. Perhaps with a coach, but not in a group.

When I was running an endgame group at the Melbourne Chess Club a few years ago, we'd meet at the club and go through a type of ending each week, first looking at some practice and theory, and then playing from positions that related to the evening's theme. This is a really good exercise, learning and then putting the new found knowledge into a practical setting.

I recently decided that I could try this at home using a strong engine (probably a weak engine would be good enough!). Find some positions and play them out against the computer. Good positions to play would be practical endgame positions that are fairly level, or even theoretical positions to test your knowledge (try mating with king and queen vs king and rook against a comp, or defending rook vs rook and bishop).

But why limit it to endgames? Let's take 2 famous quotes as a starting point.

"The hardest thing in chess is to win a won game"

"The remainder of the game needs no further comment"

These 2 chess cliches seem to contradict one another. So how about setting up a position which requires no further comment and trying to convert to a win? Here's an example.

This position is from the game Euwe-Capablanca London 1922. In the tournament book, Maroczy criticises Euwe's last move. 17.g3 "This loses a pawn". But that is it. The remainder of the game gets no commentary as if it is all self evident. Apparently.

Working out how Capablanca as black wins a pawn in this position isn't that difficult, but to convert after might seem tricky, especially against a computer playing to at least 2500 standard. I wonder how many of us could do it 100% of the time?

This is the sort of exercise that would be of huge practical benefit to players, certainly below master standard, and playing against the clock would also help practically. I will not be playing much chess in the second half of the year so I'll be looking at ways to keep in touch. This might just be one such method.

Chess Tempo

Every chess player should work on their calculation and tactical ability. Most chess playing sites have a tactical solving element, but the one I use at the moment in Chess Tempo, and I advise my students to use it. 

While it has a number of features, the one I mainly use is a tactical solving training element, and I prefer to not work against the clock, although I will sometimes test my vision in timed tests.

You get a solving rating, and the site rates puzzles and then tries to match each solver up with a puzzle of roughly an equal level. If you correctly solve the puzzle your rating goes up and you'll start to get harder puzzles, while if you get it wrong your rating goes down and you'll get easier puzzles. (the puzzle rating also goes up or down depending on whether it is solved)

Solving puzzles like this helps a player to develop their imagination and improve their calculation skills. Or put another way, you work on diverse ideas, and how to accurately employ them.

Here's a puzzle that I was given today. See if you can solve it, I'll post the answer tomorrow. And improve your tactical ability by joining Chess Tempo and solving puzzles.

It is white to move, black has just played Rg8-g6. You don't know what your objective is (mate, winning material, saving a lost game etc), you just have to find the best line for white.

TIP: make sure you look at your opponent's ideas and resources.

Now That I Have Some Time....

....I can do all those chess things that I always wanted to do. What exactly do I mean by this? Well as a tournament player I always felt obliged to be studying the game in the hope of excelling in my games. Of course I still would like to do well when I play, but as I only play online at the moment, and have no future tournament ambitions, I don't feel that "training" is so important. Instead I can look at what I want, study whatever I feel like, and play whatever opening takes my fancy at the time.

Funny really, as that doesn't sound like too bad a plan for training for a serious tournament player. For instance, I've started looking at some games in the King's Gambit, not that I have any intention of playing this venerable opening in my games. But it has made me think about concepts such as dynamic compensation for material loss, tactical implementation of strategic goals, identifying correct targets in a position, which are concepts relevant in chess generally rather than being specific to the King's Gambit. I have always tended to be a rather materialistic player, but I recently reviewed a book on the Catalan where I noticed that white often sacrificed his c-pawn for excellent piece play. In essence, this isn't really too different from what white is trying to do in the King's Gambit even though the Catalan is considered a quiet positional opening while the King's Gambit has always been considered as a mad hack.

The term dynamic compensation is a really mysterious one for most players. It is an intangible quality to a position which makes chess so amazing. For a player to be material behind but to have a superior position is one of the great battles in chess. Will the materialist hang on, or will the gambiteer destroy them? The majority of chess players tend to love sacrificial play and will therefore side with the gambiteer. However, it is no less risky to grab material and try to hold on and I've always been attracted to this side of the game.

So when looking at the King's Gambit who will I be supporting? Actually, to be honest, I'm just enjoying learning the names of all the Gambits and seeing some crazy games in actions! If you don't believe me, download the latest issue of The Week In Chess (TWIC) and go through the King's Gambits (ECO C30-C39) and have some fun. Here are the games from the last TWIC where the players were rated at least 2000:

Game 1 Pham-Pijuan is a crazy King's Gambit Declined with the mad (or bad) 5.Na4. The game descends into thrust and counterthrust with black looking good until white throws in the unexpected 15.Bf6 which black blunders to, and we then find black's king hunted to white's end of the board!

Game 2 Fier-Radulov sees quality GM Alexander Fier playing the Bishop's Gambit. The game takes a much quieter course, and ends with Fier forcing positional concessions in his opponent's pawn structure and winning a knight ending.

Game 3 Ustiyanovich-Melnichuk sees the centre completely open and black's superior development triumph in a bizarre miniature (I say bizarre because I can't really understand how anyone can play like this in a serious tournament game! Not surprisingly, the white player finished last in this round robin!)

Game 4 Gargatagli-Queralto sees the modern ..d5 and ..exf4 variation, which is the one that I chose as a tournament player. It is fairly easy to play and avoids a plethora of white tricks in the accepted variations of the King's Gambits. Quite instructively, black makes too many pawn moves early in the game and white sacrifices a knight to ensure that black's king will be a target for the remainder of the game.

Enjoy!! You'll be seeing a lot more of the King's Gambit on this blog!