Chess for Beginners

Author: chessbuzz

  • When You See A Tactic…

    When You See A Tactic…

    You see a tactical combination on the board and you have the opportunity to play it…you become excited, after all this is your moment to play like Tal, but chances are that you do not play  like Tal. While you have spotted a tactical opportunity,  it may not be the best move, it might even be a bad move.  Chances are that your opponent has a refutation for the tactic you have spotted that may either weaken your position or cause you to lose the game.

    When you see a tactic, there is no better moment to stop, and thoroughly analyze your combination. If you have found a winning move, then spending the time to properly analyze the combination is a good investment since you will have a winning position, and time should not be a factor. If the move is not winning, then the time spent on analysis will at least maintain the status quo.

    Most of the time when I rush to play a tactical move, one of the following negative things occur:

    1. The opponent has a killer in-between move that causes me to lose material or the game.

    2. The combination or sacrifice is flawed, and the opponent can easily refute it,usually at a material cost to me.

    3. The move is easily parried, and all it has a achieved is a positional weakening of my position, which my opponent if they are stronger will exploit for a win.

    So when you see a tactic, don’t rush to play it. Stop for a moment, and analyze the position as you would any critical moment .

  • Improving Analysis Skills

    Improving Analysis Skills

    According to Dan Heisman in his great article Bootstrapping Analysis Skills

    The following are what make you a good analyst:

    • Will to analyze the position correctly, move after move.
    • Patience to analyze the position thoroughly (but keep in mind the
      clock – see “g”).
    • Analytical thought process to know what steps to take.
    • Board vision to see what is happening (statically) across the entire
      board quickly and accurately.
    • Tactical pattern recognition – the ability to quickly and accurately
      recognize and assess basic safety issues.
    • Visualization to keep the imagined patterns correctly in the mind’s
      eye when looking ahead.
    • Micro time management determines the length of thinking time to
      take before one settles for a “best so far” move, assuming the
      “best” move is not found by then.
    • Deductive logic to see which moves are candidates, and what is
      forced and what is not.
    • Quiescence recognition to know when to stop analyzing lines and
      evaluate.
    • Awareness of danger/criticality assessment, plus the recognition of
      The Seeds of Tactical Destruction.
  • When Solving for Tactics

    When Solving for Tactics


    1. Look at the whole board.

    2. Look for immediate opponent threats.

    3. Narrate tactical themes (Hanging bishop, skewerable or forkable pieces, etc.).

    4. Look at more than one candidate (when you find a good move look for a better one).

    5. Calculate at least 6 ply (3 moves) deep.

    6. Look for in-between moves.

    7. Examine forcing moves first in the order of checks, captures and threats.

    8. When all seems lost, look for stalemate possibilities.

    9. If you feel you are on the right track, but your are not finding the winning move, then try to reverse the move order.

    10. Blundercheck.

     

  • Playing Against an Outpost

    Playing Against an Outpost

     

    In the diagram White has an outpost on e5, but Ne5 can always be met by …Nxe5 and after recapturing with the pawn, White’s outpost is gone. White needs to bring another piece to bear on e5, so White to move would play 1.Bg5 and follow it up with Bh4 and Bg3. If on the other hand Black is on the move, he would seek to prevent this with 1…h6, or a more active solution 2…Qe8( so as to meet Bg5 with 2…Qh5! threatening Rxf3) or 1…Qb6. Either move gives Black a fine position.

     

    If you are unable to cover your opponent’s outpost, then extremely active harassing tactics are needed.

     

    The diagram is from Unzicker – Fischer, Varna 1962.  If you are unable to cover your opponent’s outpost, then extremely active harassing tactics are needed. In this position the White knight is at least four moves away from reaching d5, this gives Black some breathing room to prevent it, since after the White knight reaches d5 White is lost.

    1… Ra4 Immobilizing the knight. 2. c3 Qa6 3. h3?  Rc8 4. Rfe1 h6 5. Kh2 Bg5 6. g3 Qa7 7. Kg2 Ra2 8. Kf1 Rxc3! White resigns, as after 9.Rxa2 (9.bxc3 Qf2#) Rf3+ 10.Ke2 Rf2+ 11.Kd1 Qxa2 his position is wrecked.

    The lessons to be learned here is that structure alone is not quite everything. The pieces must be able to coordinate with the pawn structure.

    From Stean’s Simple Chess

  • Thought Process Checklist

    Thought Process Checklist

    Core Evaluation

    1. How has the opponent’s last move changed the position? Has your opponent made a blunder?
    2. What is he trying to achieve?
    3. Has he weakened his position (positional concession, piece en prise, open to a tactic) ?
    4. Are there any threats?

    Tactical Evaluation

    If 1 or more of the following exist, then perform a tactical evaluation if none exist proceed to the Positional Evaluation section:
    1. Loose (unguarded) pieces : Loose pieces drop off LDPO
    2. Weak back rank
    3. Pieces that can be easily attacked by enemy pieces of lesser value
    4. Pieces that can be attacked via discovery
    5. Pinned or skewerable pieces along the same rank, file or diagonal
    6. Pieces (or squares) vulnerable to knight forks
    7. Overworked pieces (pieces guarding more than one piece or square)
    8. Inadequately guarded pieces
    9. Falling way behind in development
    10. uncastled King or lost pawn protection with Queens on the board
    11. Open enemy lines for Rooks, Queens and bishops to your King
    12. Pieces that have little mobility and might easily be trapped if attacked
    13. A large domination of one side’s forces in one area of the board
    14. Advanced passed pawns

    Positional Evaluation

    1. What is the material balance?
    2. Are there any direct threats?
    3. How is the safety of both Kings?
    4. Pawn structure questions:
    a. Where are the open lines and diagonals?
    b. Are there any strong squares?
    c. Who is controlling the center?
    d. Who has more space and where on the board do they have it?
    5. Which pieces are active and which are not?
    a. Are there any weaknesses in my position?
    b. Are there any weaknesses in my opponent’s position?
    c. Are there any strengths in my opponent’s position?
    d. What are the strengths in my position?
    e. Which is my weakest placed piece? How can I improve it?

     

    Candidate Move Selection

    1. based on above select 2-4 candidates

    2. Begin analyzing the most forcing candidate first

     

     

    NOTE: When analyzing look for opponent’s best response and look 2 1/2 moves (5 ply ahead).
    If there is a combination, then you need to calculate until quiesence.
    3. Double check that at the end of your analysis your opponent doesn’t have a killer move (deadly in-between move or tactic)
    4. Evaluate the position at the end of your analysis:
    Even, W / B is slightly better, W / B is better, W/B is winning, unclear
    5. Rank your candidate move based on evaluation.
    6. Depending on time constraints and the quality of your recently analyzed candidate move go to step 2.
    a. if your candidate’s analysis weakens your position (leaves you better when winning or even when slightly better, then analyze the next candidate on your list)
    b. If your candidate leaves you in the same position (even when even, winning when winning), then decide whether you want to take additional time to analyze the next candidate on your list. The next candidate might take you from even to winning, so even if you found a good move, look for a better one if time allows.

     

     

     

     

    Blunder Check

    7. Write down your move.
    8. Perform a blunder check
    a. are you leaving a piece en prise?
    b. Are you missing a killer tactic?
    c. Are you missing a killer in-between move?
    d. Are you positionally weakening your position?
    9. PLAY the move

     

     

  • The (Long) Road to Chess Mastery

    According to experts it takes approximately 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert in any field. So the following is my attempt to gauge my chess progress based on the 10,000 hour rule.

    Assumptions

    • 10,000 hours of practice = expert
    • A chess expert is a player with a 2000 USCF rating.
    • Your starting chess rating is approximately 1000 USCF.
    • Halfway through your training or 5,000 hours of practice later you should be rated approximately 1500.
    • Average chess level in ELO is about 1400.
    Variables
    • I have been playing chess for approximately 6 years.
    • I spend an average of 2 hours per day on chess which comes out to 730 hours of chess practice per year.
    Calculations
    • 6 years * 730 hours / year = 4,380 hours of study so far, so I am 43% on my road to chess mastery.
    • I still need 5,620 hours to become an expert.
    • At the current rate of 2 hours, I will reach a 2000 USCF rating in approximately 7.7 years.
    Results
    • Since I have completed 44% of the 10,000 hours my rating should be at around 1440* ( I am currently FICS standard 1684 – 250 (USCF adjustment) =  1434 USCF equivalent)
    • If I increase my study time to 3 hours per day, I will decrease the time required to reach 200 from 7.7 to 5.1 years.
    • Increasing study time to 4 hours / day I will reach 2000 in 3.8 more years.
    • Increasing study time to 5 hours / day I will reach 2000 in 3 years (huge drop off and not worth it).

    It seems that the optimal number of hours to spend on practicing / studying chess per day is 3 hours.

    * I figured 1440 by multiplying 1000 * 44% (which is the total gain required from 1000 – 2000).


  • News from the Front lines

    I haven’t posted in a while, and I need to make more time to do so. During my silence, I have continued to work on my chess improvement, and I am currently on day 112 of a program I am putting together for myself.

    My FICS standard rating has gone from 1607 to 1699 during this time and my blitz rating has gone from 1234 to 1310. I promise to write more when I have more time, but in the meantime here are a few thoughts and resource:

    1. Check out GM Nigel Davies The Chess Improver Blog.

    2. Being more aware of my opponent’s threats has been a major improvement milestone.

    3. A sure way to quickly improve is to practice basic chess tactics and to try to eliminate blunders from your play.

    4. Blitz is fun, but it is counterproductive when trying to improve your overall chess.

    5. Chess Secrets: The Giants of Chess Strategy by Neil McDonald is a phenomenal book and a great positional textbook.

  • Finding the Master Within Pt. 2

    I have finished the exercise I proposed in Pt. 1 of Finding the Master Within, and below are my results:

    1. I played over 3 random games from each of the masters on the list.

    2. I gave myself a 0 for needs work, 1 for average, 2 for good, 3 for very good and 4 for outstanding.

    3. I averaged the scores for the three games, and gave myself an overall score.

    4. I will now begin reviewing  in detail, the games of the master with which I have the most affinity.

     

    Master Exercise Results

    In my case I scored an average of 2.67 when playing over Tarrasch’s games, and the second runner up was Karpov with a score of 2.0. I observed that I did better with the more positional / classical style players than with the more modern / dynamic styles.

    I will continue to go over master games strictly focusing on Tarrasch’s games using Guess the Move, and then compare my annotations with his annotated games collection( Three Hundred Chess Games ).

  • Finding the Master Within

    There is no doubt that reviewing master games is one of the best methods to improve your chess. The question for me has always been which master’s games do I study first? There are schools of thought that answer this by stating that you should review master games starting in chronological order, since this maps to the way a beginner learns chess. Using this method you would begin with Steinitz, and work your way up to modern day masters like Kasparov and Kramnik. While this is a logical approach, the problem I find with it is that it might take a long time before you reach the games of some of the more modern day masters, and these might be the players with whom you have the most affinity in your playing style.

    What I am planning to do, is to review one or two games from a list of masters in chronological order so that I might find the master whose games I would like to delve deeper into. I will be looking for games where the play is clearest and the outcome is artistic.

    Master list:

    1. Paul Morphy
    2. Wilhelm Steinitz
    3. Tarrasch
    4. Emanuel Lasker
    5. Akiba Rubinstein
    6. Jose Raul Capablanca
    7. Alexander Alekhine
    8. Mikhail Botvinnik
    9. Mikhail Tal
    10. Tigran Petrosian
    11. Bobby Fischer
    12. Anatoly Karpov
    13. Garry Kasparov

    I will chose games based on the following criteria:

    1. Won games

    2. Preferrably annotated

    3. In chronological order

    4. Plays my openings

  • Playing Against The Caro-Kann Defense

    Reference:
    Chess Openings for White, Explained: Winning with 1.e4, Second Revised and Updated Edition

    Fischer vs. Petrosian 1970 Beograd World-SU 1970 · Caro-Kann Defense: Exchange. Rubinstein Variation (B13)