A New Way of Training Tactics

I came across a forum post by IM David Pruess where he gives excellent advice on truly learning patterns when training tactics. Below is his advice:
The original post is titled Chess Advice Most Chess Player’s Don’t Like to Hear and it’s a must read.

or when i give players in the 1000-1800 range advice on improving their tactics, viz: 10-15 min per day of solving simple tactical puzzles. the goal is to increase your store of basic patterns, not to work on your visualization, deep calculation. remember that is your goal. you are not trying to prove that you can solve every problem. if you don’t solve a problem within 1 minute, stop. it’s probably a new pattern or you would have gotten it by now. (with private students i’ll take the time to demonstrate this to them: show them through examples that they can find a 3-4 move problem in 10 seconds if they know the pattern, and that they can fail to find a mate in 2 for 10 minutes if they don’t know the pattern). look at the answer, and now go over the answer 3 more times in your head to help the pattern take hold. your brain can probably take on 2-3 new patterns between sleeping, so you should stop once you’ve been stumped by 2 or 3 problems (usually will take about 10-15 min). there is no point in doing more than that in one day. and any day you miss, you can’t make up for. a semi-random estimate on my part is that you need about 2000 of these patterns to become a master. so you need to do this for 2 years or more.

i would guess that less than 1 in 100 of the people i have given this advice to have followed it to the letter. if they enjoy it, they’ll waste their time doing it for 1.5 hours in a day, choosing to ignore that it’s not helping them [after 15 min]. or some with ego issues will insist on trying to solve every single position (if only they linked their ego to their self-discipline ).

- IM David Pruess

A Specific Curriculum

While I am disciplined in spending a minimum of 30 minutes per day doing chess studies, I am usually jumping from book to book and topic to topic which ends up losing valuable time. In the past I have tried to work from a training schedule, but the problem has been that the schedule has been too general. What I started doing is creating a specific training curriculum, where I create a schedule 2 weeks into the future, with the exact content I should cover everyday (an example can be seen here).  The schedule is created on a Sunday, and it takes no more than 15 minutes to create.

When solving a tactical puzzle of intermediate to advanced level I either:

1. Have no clue how to go about solving it and get it wrong.

2. Have multiple ideas that look promising, but after further analysis don’t win {usually end up playing one of the two and get the answer wrong}.

3. Solve the puzzle correctly.

This post is going to focus on solving the 2nd category above. I have found that you will get many more puzzles correct by combining ideas that arise by analyzing different candidate moves. Unfortunately, by not making a link between the two, or forgetting about your first idea when looking at the second, I mainly fail to connect the dots and only after reviewing the correct answer do I see that I had been on the right track and would have answered correctly  if I had combined my candidates.

You might want to solve this puzzles on your own before reading the answers below taking into account your thought process while doing so and then see if you encountered the same issues as I did.

Here’s the first position we will look at:

White to move and win

The first candidate that came to mind was 1.Bb6 attacking the Queen. I analyzed the response 1…Nxb6 2.axb6 Qxb6 which loses a pawn for White and the Black Queen lives on. So I abandoned this candidate and looked for a better move.

I then found that Qh6 looked promising and I began to analyze 1.Bh5 with the idea of Bh8 and then getting my Queen to h6. But I soon found that 1.Bh5 was a slow since it allows 1…Kh7 and White is out of gas. What I missed, and where I think there is room for improvement, is if I would have combined both moves. Attacking the Black Queen with 1.Bb6 with the idea of freeing the diagonal for my Queen to get to h6 with mate was the winning combination and one I failed to see by not connecting the dots.

Let’s look at another example, and one which occurred right after I had attempted to solve example #1 above.

White to move and win

In this position quickly saw that both the White rook and Queen were attacking the Black d8 rook, and that there might be a tactical opportunity if the Queen were deflected from its defense. The candidate that came to mind was 1. b4 but after further analysis I saw that the Queen could seek shelter by moving to 1…Qc7.  The other candidate that stood out was 1.Qf6+ but the King can easily get out of the way with 1…Kg8 and there aren’t enough White pieces in the vicinity to force the issue. The third candidate I analyzed was attacking the undefended bishop with 1.Qe7 but I found that the bishop can get out of harms way via 1…Bc8. If I would have combined the two ideas or even looked a few ply deeper  I would have found the answer 1.Qe7 attacking the bishop and preventing the Queen from seeking shelter at c7 after deflecting her with b4. 1…Bc8 2.b4! and Black resigned.

 A ply is a half move and a move is equivalent to 2 ply or a turn by each player. For example,  1. e4 is one ply and 1…e5 would be the 2nd ply, together these two plys make one move.

Getting close to the truth of a chess position requires the calculation of a minimum of 6 ply (3 moves). The higher your rating the higher the ply calculation requirement increases since your opponent will be delving more deeply into the position than you. If you calculate anything less than 3 ply you are playing hope chess, since you are not forseeing your opponent’s responses. 

Below is an assessment of how calculation skill correlates to one’s chess rating:

0-1000 1 ply

1000-1200 2-3 ply

1200-1400 4 ply

1400-1600 6 ply

1600-1800 8 ply

1800-1900 10 ply

1900-2000 12 ply

Stopping your calculations too soon can prevent you from finding the winning move. Many times the winning move comes after a series of seemingly unfavorable moves, and stopping your calculation too soon will prevent you from finding the best move in the position. At the same time, not looking deeply enough into your opponent’s moves will cause you to miss defensive opportunities against your opponent’s threats.

Here’s a good example of a tactics puzzle where I did not find the correct answer because I stopped my calculations 1 ply too soon.

In this position I saw 1. Qxe5 and 1. Rd8+ as possible candidate moves. I then proceeded to analyze 1.Qxe5 Qxe5 2.Rd8+ which leads to the next position:

At this point I saw that the Black King seemed to be escaping via 2…Ke7 and he would also be attacking the undefended rook on d8. I stopped my calculations at this point and proceeded to analyze 1.Rd8 which also lead nowhere. If only I would have continued analyzing 1 ply deeper, I would have found 3.Re8# and White Wins. Here’s the winning position:

Consistently calculating at least 6 ply deep on most moves is one of the key improvements you can make in your thought process that will allow you to improve your chess skill.

Highlight for answer: 1.Qh6! Qxe1+ 2.Bf1 (2.Kg2? Ne3+), and Black must give away his Queen with 2. …Qe#+

During my most recent chess break, I ran into a friend of mine who loves chess and who had been in Japan doing a 4 week Seshin at a Japanese Zen Monestary.I asked him if he had time to practice his chess while at the monastery, and he told me that he had not, but that he had briefly spoken to a monk named Tezin, who also loved chess and was a pretty good player. He told me that Tezin had told him how his chess had improved in the last two years even though he did not practice as much as before he became a monk. Tezin told him that he attributed his chess improvement to what he called the ‘Secrets of Zen Chess’.

I was very interested in hearing these so called secrets of chess improvement, and begged my friend to tell me what Tezin had relayed to him… so here goes:

Less is More

- Less focus on ratings and more focus on enjoyment & playing a beautiful game.

- Less focus on reading books and more focus on practice.

- Less focus on chess and more focus on solving the problems on the board.

Impermanence

- Because the position is always in flux, you need to adapt your plans and be flexible at all times.

- Because of the fluidity of the position, the position needs to be reassessed every few moves.

- Realize that dynamic advantages don’t last forever…take advantage of them while you have them.

Practice

- Practice for the sake of practice.

- Practice for the beauty of the game.

- Practice because you love to practice.

Cause and effect

- Consider the cause and effect of every move.

- Consider how the position has changed after your opponent’s move

- Consider how the position has changed after your move.

- Consider if there are any tactical conditions on the board.

Mindfulness
- Be mindful of the game, you must become one with the board.

- Be mindful of the harmony of your pieces.

- Be mindful of the position, get to the marrow of the board.

- Be mindful of threats against you.

- Be mindful of your threats against your opponent.

- Be mindful of checks, captures and threats.

Harmony
- How can I improve the harmony of my pieces?

- How can I disrupt the harmony of my opponent’s pieces?

- How can I improve the weaknesses in my camp?

- How can I create weaknesses in my opponent’s camp?

Mastery lies in a convergence of skills that are already a part of you and not new knowledge derived from books. Mastery lies through practice that will lead you to uncover those things that are already inside you. Mastery lies in being mindful in life and at the board, so that you will know what your opponent’s plan is before your opponent realizes what his plan is. Mastery will be attained once you stop trying to attain it.

These are the keys to mastery and these are the secrets of Zen chess.

White to move

 The King and black rook are on the same diagonal. The only piece preventing the Queen fork is the Bishop, so if the Bishop could be attacked, the fork would work. 1.Rf3 is the logical candidate. After 1.Rf3 the black rook could move to safety, where it would not be victim to the fork…but after further analysis the rook has no safe squares to go where he would be free from the fork. The next option for Black is to defend the bishop with the Queen, but again the Queen has no squares which are not attacked by either the White knight or the White d5 pawn. 1.Rf3  1…Qb7 2.Rxf6 Qb5 3.Qc3 Qf1+ 4.Kg3 Qg1+ 5.Kh4 1-0

Opening

Principles
e4- opening name
d4 – opening name
Tactics

Middlegame

Tactics – Pin
Tactics – Backrank weakness
Tactics – Decoy
Tactics – Deflection
Tactics – Double Attack
Tactics – Exposed King
Tactics – Fork
Tactics – In-Between Move
Tactics – Interference
Tactics – Clearence
Tactics – Mating Patterns
Tactics – Overworked Piece
Tactics – LPDO
Tactics – Promotion
Tactics – Skewer
Strategy - BishopPair
Strategy – Good vs. Bad Bishop
Strategy – Bishop vs. Knight
Strategy – Open Lines and Diagonals
Strategy – Central Control
Strategy – Closed Positions
Strategy – Space
Strategy – Activity
Strategy – Isolated Pawns
Strategy – Backward Pawns
Strategy – Doubled Pawns
Strategy – Pawn Chains
Strategy – Passed Pawns
Strategy – Minory Attack
Strategy – Weak Color Complex
Strategy – Weak Squares
Strategy – Outposts
Strategy – Positional Sacrifice
Strategy – Harmony of the Pieces
Strategy – Development

Endgame

Theory (Mueller / Fine type content)

Theory – Lucena Position
Theory – Philidor Position
Theory – Shouldering
Theory – Opposition
Theory – Triangulation
Theory – K+P
Theory – R+P
Theory – RvR
Theory – Double Rook
Theory – Queen
Theory – Minor Piece  
Theory – Fortresses
Theory – BvN
Theory – Bishops of Same Color
Theory – Opposite Color Bishops

Practice (Shereshevsky type content)
Practice – King Centralization
Practice -  Principle of Two Weaknesses
Practice – Do Not Rush
Practice – Passed Pawns
Practice – Schematic Thinking
Practice – Exchanges
Practice – Fight for the Initative
Practice – Prophalaxis
Practice – Bishop Pair
Practice – Zugzwang
Practice – Fortresses
Practice – Converting and Advantage

Played G/15 game and drew against opponent rated 1826 in a winning position (I was up a minor piece), but opponent had counterplay and I was down to 4 1/2 minutes on the clock.

Tuesday 12.08.09

Reviewed game. Confirmed that position was won. Opponent made a tactical mistake where he lost the exchange. Focused study will revolve against playing this position against Rybka 3.

Wednesday 12.09.09

Played won position against Rybka and lost twice!!! I should have simplified the position, since I was up 3 pawns.

Thursday 12.10.09

Played standard game on ICC against opponent rated 1710 (I am currently rated 1780 with one more provisional game to go). Lost game due to tactical oversights.

Friday 12.11.09

Reviewed standard game. I played poorly, going from a better position to even and ultimately to a losing position. My first mistake was an exchange that gave my opponent lots of activity and counterplay even though I had a material advantage. It is interesting to note, how high Rybka evaluates activity giving it an evaluation of over 1/2 a pawn. I then fell victim to a removal of the guard / pin / deflection combination which netted my opponent my bishop. I kept on playing, and ultimately fell victim to a checkmate, which I totally missed. Focused study will revolve around doing extra tactics.

Saturday 12.12.09

 Focused on doing tactics at chess.com instead of chesstempo. Noticed that the timer is not helping my solving…dropped approximately 100 rating points!  I prefer solving the standard chesstempo tactics which allow me to take my time to find the right answer.

 Sunday

Doing extra tactics solving at chess.com.

Played G/20 20 game against opponent rated 1865. Played the Sicilian Grand Prix and lost in a rook endgame where I was a pawn down.

Tuesday 12.01.09

Reviewed game. Made an interesting observation that I would not have picked up on if I had not reviewed game. I lost 2 pawns during the game, because I failed to take back material. I chose to lose material instead of making an exchange that would benefit my opponent.  I have to remind myself during a game that material precedes any other strategic criteria.

Solved tactics for 15 minutes.

Wednesday 12.02.09

Did Chess Tempo for 45 minutes. Was aiming for accuracy, so I only got to do 10 puzzles 65% success rate. I am currently rated 1702.

Thursday 12.03.09

Solved tactics for 15 minutes.

Played G/20 20 game on ICC against opponent rated 1783, I won the game and I am now rated 1780 (still provisional).

Friday 12.04.09

Reviewed Thursday’s game. Opponent made several tactical oversights, I made several poor moves in the late middlegame, but my opponent did not take advantage of them. This leads to the importance of reviewing your games, even your wins. After the game, I felt pretty good about my play and I would have never guessed that I made two weak moves that would have converted a won game into a draw if my opponent had acted on them.

Saturday 12.05.09

Solved 1 hour of tactics

Sunday 12.06.09

Open day. Did 30 minutes of tactics on Chess Tempo. Reached my highest rating yet of 1714. Played a few blitz games on FICS.

Wednesday 11.26.09

Played G/15 5 game against an opponent rated 1687 on ICC (I am provisionally rated 1781 after this game). I plan on playing all of my standard games on ICC so that I can maintain continuity in tracking my ELO rating. ICC rating is approximately 250 points higher than USCF. At 1781 my rating is a bit inflated due to it’s provisional status…it should be more like 1600-1650 IMO.

Solved tactics on Chess Tempo (30m)

Thursday 11.27.09 [Thanksgiving]

Reviewed Wednesday’s game – I won the game, but I came out poorly out of the opening. I have always had issues with the French Defense Exchange variation, so my focus study will be reviewing the French Exchange variation. (1 hour)

Solved puzzles at Chess Tempo (15m)

Friday 11.28.09

Chess Tempo 30 minutes
Focus Study: French Defense Exchange variation (1.30h)

Saturday 11.29.09

Solved (easy non-rated) puzzles on chesstempo (30m)
Played G/15 5 game on ICC against opponent rated 1865 I am still provisionally rated with an ELO of  1768. NOTE: Next game will be a G/30 time control.

Sunday 11.30.09
Reviewed game. Loss stemmed from not calculating all possible candidates and faulty thought process, where I forgot threats I had assessed several moves before. Opponent came out of the opening slightly better. Opening played was the Caro-Kann Exchange variation. Going to focus on Stoyko Exercises to improve calculation skills as well as an intense tactics training session.

Did one Stoyko exercise from a correspondence game I am currently playing. Analyzed the position for approximately 10 minutes. I also did a ‘Guess the Move’ game on chessgames.com. I chose a Capablanca game where Capa played White against the Caro-Kann defense. The chessgames.com exercise took about 30m.

Tomorrow Monday I’ll restart the training schedule.