There are plenty of better sources of opening knowledge; however, pick up a book like MCO, and unless you have tons of money to pay the author, you get no interaction. This is a segment on how I win, particularly in games where I tie an advantage back to the opening, or even just knowing the opening.
General opening recommendations for openings are:
a) Stick to openings; at least for a long while - Don't flip flop and play the French one week, the Sicilian the next and the Caro-Kann the next. Why? Because you want the chance to be in the same positions over and over again so you can improve over time. Why switch and put yourself in such drastically different positions.
b) Have something for everything - You've been studying Capablanca playing 1. d4 in games in which his opponent played d5. You are feeling great about your understanding of what he did against different things (just an example). You get to a tournament, your opponent plays.. the Dutch! And you have nothing. You look at his Stonewall setup and you have no idea what's going on.
Why not take chessbase on your smart phone, put in 30 minutes, and infinitely have a better idea from the percentages what masters playing white are trying to do and avoid. If you're a good player, it's not going to be hard that you're fighting for control of e4, so are they, and if they force retention of control of this square, you have to make them pay for it with some discomfort.
c) Always check your losses - If you lose, most of the time it will be because of something lacking in your middlegame or middlegame-endgame transition. Check to make sure that when your opponent played some slightly different move, proceeding as you normally do wasn't a bad idea. You can, once again, use chessbase percentages for this.
d) Start your chess career playing 1. e4 and 1. ... e5 v. e4. Learn how to play open positions.. how to stay solid. And then, when you're ready to get serious, learn d4 and d5.
I had an 1800 who is from Europe and hadn't lost in many games at Glenwood Chess Tournaments lose to me while he was playing the Grunfeld. He came up to me after and said "I feel Americans are just brutally attacking only, and conversely you really understand static positions." I'm not sure about that; but I do feel that there is a benefit to starting with e4, and then switching to d4, even if the switch is not permanent.
Qualifying ratings on chess.com
I wish that what I had was a bunch of notations from slow games, but sadly I lose most of those. What I do have is many blitz games on chess.com. Mistakes often happen in blitz, but I tend to believe that the beginning of games represents your inherent ideas about opening play, because you are not yet under time pressure.
Every time I argue to my students "you should know this line" or "that trap" I get back, "yeah but a strong player isn't going to fall into that."
Most of the players I know are between 100-150 points lower on chess.com than their USCF strength, so with that qualification, here are blitz games I have compiled with the corresponding ratings.
White - Joeanthony1900 1820
Black - Ashamril 1792
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bg4
This is when I just feel fangs come out on my side of the board. I know what to do when black fails to maintain control of the b7 square, and while a very good player may be fine, they better really know what they are doing.
Why do I like d4? I feel it allows me to grind the game to a halt, limit opponents opportunities and then take shots when I feel it's safe to do so. He just made me feel safe; observe the change in tempo from play that has been quiet to this point (and would remain so had he played say.. e6).
5. Ne5 Bf5 6. cxd5 Nxd5 7. Qb3 Bc8 8. e4 f6 9. exd5 fxe5 10. dxe5 cxd5 11. Nxd5 e6 12. Bb5+
I'm already looking at 12. ... Bd7 13. Nc7+ Qxc7 14. Qxe6+! Kd8 15. Bg5+ as a possibility (not checked with a computer for accuracy). Will it materialize? I don't know at this point. But a NM who was once rated in the high 2300s told me that the difference between him and most non-masters he's met is that most of them wrote certain moves off as unplayable, where as he tried to make them playable.
12. ... Nc6 13. Nf4 Qe7 14. 0-0 g6 15. Nh3 h6 16. Qc2!
This is the move that could be dropped right into the middle of Reuben Fine The Middlegame In Chess... I believe that one would have to be rated much higher than the average very strong club player to see that using h6 to stop the massive threat of Bg5 and Rd1 is superseded in terms of immediate peril by the weakness created on g6... at least with the clarity that many lower rated players would like to claim AFTER seeing Qc2. Perhaps better was a simple Qb4 instead of h6.
What I will contend here though is that this entire pressured situation goes back to seeing Bg4 and pouncing all over it, knowing what to do and the resulting pressure created.
Black went on to choose erroneously to protect g6 and lost the rook and the game.
This next game was a 2/1 game, where I don't play as much and where my rating is much lower, but I wanted to include it because of how exactly the house falls.
White: Torblednam 1366
Black: Joeanthony1900 1451
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be2 Nf6 7. 0-0 b5 8. Bd3 Bb7 9. Bg5 b4
The problem that I don't think white expected in this move, but that I've also experienced against plenty of strong players in slow games, is that my threat of an in-between move comes with me capturing with a pawn and threatening queening; where as his doesn't.
10. Nce2 Nxe4 11. Bf4 Qc8 12. Bg3 Nxg3 13. Nxg3
Here I'm already elated. I won a pawn by understanding e6 Sicilian openings and pressure on e4, and I just got a bishop for a knight in a very open game.
13. ... Be7 14. Nh5 0-0 15. Nf4 Qc5 16. Nb3 Qg5 17. g3 Bd6 18. Nh3 Qd4 19. f3 Qh5 20. Kg2 Nc6 21. Be4 f5??
Here I do make a mistake, but my opponent didn't take advantage. I didn't set myself up due to time, but I'm a believer his mistakes in the opening took place when he had plenty of time... Here he does not take advantage. I probably should have played Bc7.
22. Bd3 Ne5 23. Be2 Bc7 24. Qd2 a5 25. Nc1 Bb6 26. Nd3 Ng4
Now, one can say "it's blitz." I'm not convinced that the average 1700 USCF player, even with time, sees the threat of Ng4 followed by the now protected Ne3+. Your average club player likes intuitive moves.. the underestimate the threat of moves that do things like "put a piece on a square that is naturally attacked by a pawn" even if said pawn cannot take.
27. Ne5 Ne3+ 28. Kh1 Qxh3 29. Qxd7 Qg2#
This next game is against a chess.com 1912, which probably means that this guy is very possibly a USCF expert... You can tell by the moves that he clearly just didn't see a threat here.. which is why it pays to know your openings. My students would claim that a player this strong "wouldn't make a mistake like that." This guy did...
White: Joeanthony1900 1842
Black: WuhoUnited 1912
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Bg4 4. Ne5 Bh5 5. Nc3 Nd7 6. cxd5 cxd5 7. Bf4 Ngf6 8. Qb3 Nxe5 9. Bxe5 e6 10. Qxb7 Be7 11. Qc6+ Qd7 12. Qxa8 Black resigns
Here's the thing, you can argue "oh yeah, blitz, Qd7 is a terrible mistake." It is. However, black was already in a lot of trouble here. On Nd7, without even looking for better, immediately one can see that Bxg7 wins a pawn. e4 also has some potential. Kf8 comes with it's own positional problems. Black clearly misunderstood the opening. It would have been my bad if I had failed to punish bad ideas behind Bg4.
In this next one, I play a player who underestimates one of my favorite threats, Qc2 in indian openings with dual mate/h1-a8 threats coming. Start with this rule I have in d4 openings.. when they fianchetto queenside, you do the same kingside.
White: Joeanthony1900 1838
Black: ID67 1833
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 b6 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. Nxd5 Qxd5 7. g3 Bb5 8. Bg2 Nc6 9. 0-0 Rd8 10. Bf4 Bd6 11. Bxd6 Qxd6 12. e3 Ba6 13. Re1 0-0 14. Rc1 Bb7 15. Qc2 Rd7
Here it comes..
16. Ng5!!
Threatening mate or winning a piece on c6. By the way, I've got this exact threat going in rated games..
16. ... g6 17. Bxc6
Black resigns..
I'm a huge believer that knowing your openings creates middle game threats at a higher rate than not knowing. In this game, knowing that his Tartakower setup meant taking on d5 was key...
Friday, September 23, 2016
Saturday, September 10, 2016
How to get better at chess
Hey everyone, my name is Joe Anthony. I'm rated 1855. You'll see me at tournaments teaching kids from my son's high school tournament and enjoying watching people try to get better at chess. Chess is a rich game that is much more substantial to me than most "games." Therefore, anytime someone is trying to get better, I'm a big fan of that.
"But Joe, are you the best person to be speaking on what makes someone better?" .
My qualifications are these. 15-1-1 in the last year against 1600-1899; 50-1-2 all time v. <1400, My best tournament included back-to-back-to-back wins against 1950, 2002 and 2130. My best students have gone from provisional to 1596, 1446 and 1279 in nine months. And they're far from done. The 1596 played a GM at the Illinois Open, and though he never had probably even surefire drawing chances, he didn't look out of place. In their first open tournament, all three players beat players 1700 or higher.
And that's what I can help you with. I'm 15-1-1 in the last year against players rated 1600-1899. If you want to post that % against those players over a year and then say, "I had to go to Mesgen, cause Joe is just a 1855," great.
So if I've convinced you to dive in, let's go!
Talent.. it's like a cannon
Getting better at chess is hard work. Before you start the process, be aware of your talent level to weigh whether or not you're ready for the commitment. I've seen players agonize for a lifetime to be 1000. If you want to do that, great. But especially if you're going to pay for lessons, understand what you're getting into.
Natural talent level is going to determine what you need to put in to get X out. Higher talent can put you on a much higher trajectory.
Coach?
I agree with GM Boris Avrukh. The best thing you can do to get better at chess is to hire a professional coach. This coach should have a very high playing level and a great ability to express ideas. That's going to cost you $80/hour. If you have it, you should. Most don't.
Then you can step all the way down to me charging $25/hour if you come to me (cheaper online), or $5 to analyze a game of yours and send you back my thoughts. I also take a personal interest in my students' games without having to be paid to do so... if for example I see them at a tournament.
The final way you can go if you get down to $25/hour and you say, I don't want to spend that but I do want to get better.. is get ready to study.
What now?
What I'm about to provide is what you can do if you have the kind of talent that walks into the room at around 1200, and you want to get to 1600 and beyond. If you have 800 talent and you still want this, just be prepared to work twice as hard.
Books
Everyone has their favorites, and we can debate all day. Here are my recommendations
Complete Book of Chess Strategy - Jeremy Silman
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1890085014/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=ilche-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=1890085014&linkId=60104986432dabe6ff4d639d7217aaa7
I find this book to be a great litmus test in terms of being ready for the rest of the books. It has page after page of concise and simplified examples of chess concepts. But more important, if you can't follow this book, you might not be ready for my recommendations and should spend more time on puzzles and basic books.
If you're more like 800 strength and you need to get to 1200, I recommend chess magnet school. It's where I have my son's high school coach send all of the kids who show up, aren't really serious chess players, but tell them that they're serious about trying to be one. I think it's $26 for a year. It has it's ceiling, but it really teaches you the basics very well.
I teach my stepsons (who I consider my sons), so I didn't come into their life until they were 8 and 9. If I had them at 4 or 5, we would have been doing this.
If you can follow this book, you're ready for the following..
Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953 - David Bronstein
300 Chess Positions - Lev Alburt
Middlegame in Chess - Reuben Fine
Basic Chess Endings - Reuben Fine
Time for books tends to vary based on how much time you have and how much mental energy you have. If you have the willingness to sit down and get serious like you are in college, these books should boost your ability.
Openings
Openings are not the only thing, but they are a thing. Don't listen to someone who tells you not to study them at all. However, be wary of someone who doesn't have strong middle game skills and yet is trying to convince you that "do this, then this, then game over." You shouldn't spend more than about 15-20% of your study time on openings.
The tool? Chessbase. I think their app is like $7.99 on a smart phone and it breaks down opening moves by percentage of games in their database that WHITE won.
Eventually, if traffic and interest warrants it, I'll do a subscription with my best openings... probably for a very reasonable amount.
Tactics
Chess.com's tactics trainer is great. I forgot where I read that chess is tactical, even at the top levels, but it is. Everything is about playing to make a big tactical shot a possibility. And then, if your opponent simply defends well and makes your potential tactics too risky, you shift to playing for better endgames as your primary mindset... you always should be playing for a good endgame, but you will become more committed.
If you're serious about getting better at chess, do 50 tactics a day. However, don't spend all your time on this. A lot of tactics and setting up tactics is understanding chess concepts. I've seen players spend all their time on tactics and they never get to the tactic because they don't understand things like "getting a knight to the 6th rank," "rook to the 7th," "controlling key squares" or "good bishop, bad bishop." Your total chess knowledge is going to dictate how good your positional play is which in turn dictates what tactics you have.
The evolution of chess from the 1850s to today, if it has one central theme, can be summed up in the idea that there are resources (the games of the greats), that have been used to stagnate pure tactical play.
Endgames
Chess mentor is great for a lot of things, but especially for this. You can start at the most basic levels of endgames and work your way up. If you're a 1200 working hard to improve your middle game (where chess talent shows), and you're not finishing endgames, my bet is that a practical understanding of a) the opposition and b) centralization of the king can start to add those victories.
If you're like my best student, you can often play very "eh" middle games only to turn into a monster in the late middlegame/endgame. Very few people are like this.
Play a lot!
Look, I can tell you to read all these books and do all these puzzles and that's great. But, go play 10,000 games and you'll be amazed what your brain just registers due to good consequence/bad consequence.
A multiplier effect of playing a lot is that if you just take your losses online and in tournaments, and then analyze with a computer, you'll skyrocket the value you get out of a specified number of games.
Understand what a computer is though. When you're saying, "well, the computer liked it" and you can't verbalize a good reason why it's a good move, then you're not using a very valuable tool for what it is supposed to be used for. Computers will give you ideas of big spikes due to things that good players often don't see because they're not intuitive. But they shouldn't be used as a substitute for chess ideas.
Master games
Masters are masters because they're better than players who aren't. What better games to look at, 10 or 20 at a time, than those played by the best players.
A master I know advised, as a top bang for your time buck, to look for games by top GMs against players rated 200+ points lower, and to just go through as many as you can rapidly to get to see the max amount of games and to see how top players put lower rated players away.
Chessgames.com is great for this.
Obviously, if you have a chance to look at annotated games and you have the time, it's even better.
Maxims of my chess
Now that we have your major resources of study down pat, what should you tell yourself? What things will guide you to better chess. I'll list some now.
Forget fear
I recently was looking at games of a 1200 player and it seemed that everything he did that was passive or that he wouldn't do that was active came with him telling me "well I was afraid of this." The worst part was that there was nothing to fear. Everything he was telling me was easily defended anyway.
You owe it to yourself not to be afraid. If you play without fear and you lose because someone else is a better player, you'll get better in the future. But you'll find out what you're capable of. Don't confuse playing without fear with playing risky, bad chess.
I've seen 1200s stay at 1200 because they actually verbalize a good plan, and then say "yeah, but I didn't do that, I did this (very passive) move, because I was afraid of X." And that leaves me putting my head into my hands.
A surly expert named Frisco Del Rosario once told me, "learn to know when your opponents perceived threats aren't really threats, so you can ignore them and get on with your own threats!" If somebody lives this approach in all their games, yes, they will find out sometimes that the opponent did have real threats... but they will learn to realize their own.
Try also to remember this. There are very few players who are so good that every game is about showing how good they ARE instead of getting better (primarily). For most of us, the games we play this Saturday are primarily about making us better in following Saturdays. So who cares if you play smart chess and get bold and aggressive and lose? What, your world champion title is on the line? No. You owe it to the work you put in to take shots at your opponent. And that's why what I hammer into my students is...
Look for superseding threats! Always
There's a commonality with the players I've beaten in my life. Of the 145 documented USCF wins I have, more than half of the players think I shouldn't have beaten them. You could make a line out of most tournament halls and down the hallway of players who think I shouldn't have been able to do this or that.
I figured out why. I've beaten a lot of players who were better in a broad array of chess skills. Perhaps the player I beat had a better understanding of a wider range of chess techniques and topics. In a game where we traded down, traded down and got to a 3-pawn v. 3-pawn endgame, he would have beaten me, because he's a better quiet endgame player. But on move 17, I saw a chance to load up my pieces for a knight sac on e6 that would blow up the middle of his board, executing that move on move 18.. and before he got a chance to play a long game, the middle game got blown up.
Look at sacrifices. Look at rook or queen sacrifices for pawns even. Look at sacs of pieces on empty squares with no piece. Look at in-between moves.
Steve Tennant, a master who has beaten very strong players once told me that a prime difference between masters and players who are not masters is this... "moves that you write off as crazy and impractical.. therefore not even looking at them, I see them as possible and make them happen when I have the opportunity."
Just realize that there are two kinds of players. One player is saying, "I have a plan, you go ahead and have yours but this is mine, and mine will beat yours." The other player is saying, "I have no plan. My plan is just to try to trade down and play for a draw and pounce on you if you mess up." You can get some wins with the second approach. If you're amazingly accurate and you have a complete and comprehensive game, you can be a super GM with the latter approach. I don't think that that approach is the best way to grow chess from 1200 to 1800 and beyond.
Don't make bad threats just to make threats... but look. If you look,.. really look, there often is that Nxe6 sac for a pawn where the knight forks a queen and rook if black doesn't take it, and if black does capture with the f-pawn, you can recapture with the queen giving check and hitting the bishop on e4..
Play stronger players
I don't think that it's an accident that I've settled at 1875-ish. When I had time to devote to playing a lot, I was playing George Mandrusov (2050) and the deceased Alexander Levitan (2074) constantly. I did what I think most players can do. Find the best competition you can actually function decently against, and with good talent, you will have a decent chance to at the very least settle about 200 points below them.. and that's if they are a stretch for your ability level.
You could do everything I advise and play 1300s. I could take your twin and get them games against Al Chow, Ken Wallach and Kevin Bachler all day long, and if they can actually play into a middle game and not look lost, they will probably get better than you will.
The biggest reason is that I believe that the brain easily registers what stronger players do to you as things that you can think out against someone else in the future.
This is all great, but you gave me a lot of general stuff... I can't figure out what to do with it all. I don't have a coach and this seems too hard.
I think for the results I can get out of players, I charge a very reasonable rate. I'd also be the first to tell you if you're too good for more than a brush up. If Eric Starkman or Richard Zhang came to me and wanted a coach, I'd tell them that they're actually some of the few who are ready for that GM, and that they should seek out the best play they could if they couldn't afford that level of coaching.
But I have players whose first provisional tournaments in December were 1087, 1235 and 1207. Eight months later they are at 1279, 1446 and 1596 respectively. If I had to bet on myself over the next 8 months, I'd bet 1550, 1700 and 1800 with ease. And then, eight months after that, when the 1596 will likely be around 2000, THEN he'd get more value out of a GM, IM or Fide Master coach.
And if you hire me, I'll give you my best stuff.
If you just want to come here, I'll give you my pretty darn good stuff for free... analyzed tournament games, blitz games, ideas and general thoughts that will improve your chess.
And if you decide that my stuff is no good, I am very aware that there are better authorities on chess out there. And everyone should do what is good for them.
But I'll always be honest. And my honesty is that coaches can point you in the right direction, but the work you're willing to do will really make you better.
My next submission will be geared toward specific games, and not general ideas. So then we can really dive in. In the meantime, come here for IHSA stuff also.
"But Joe, are you the best person to be speaking on what makes someone better?" .
My qualifications are these. 15-1-1 in the last year against 1600-1899; 50-1-2 all time v. <1400, My best tournament included back-to-back-to-back wins against 1950, 2002 and 2130. My best students have gone from provisional to 1596, 1446 and 1279 in nine months. And they're far from done. The 1596 played a GM at the Illinois Open, and though he never had probably even surefire drawing chances, he didn't look out of place. In their first open tournament, all three players beat players 1700 or higher.
And that's what I can help you with. I'm 15-1-1 in the last year against players rated 1600-1899. If you want to post that % against those players over a year and then say, "I had to go to Mesgen, cause Joe is just a 1855," great.
So if I've convinced you to dive in, let's go!
Talent.. it's like a cannon
Getting better at chess is hard work. Before you start the process, be aware of your talent level to weigh whether or not you're ready for the commitment. I've seen players agonize for a lifetime to be 1000. If you want to do that, great. But especially if you're going to pay for lessons, understand what you're getting into.
Natural talent level is going to determine what you need to put in to get X out. Higher talent can put you on a much higher trajectory.
Coach?
I agree with GM Boris Avrukh. The best thing you can do to get better at chess is to hire a professional coach. This coach should have a very high playing level and a great ability to express ideas. That's going to cost you $80/hour. If you have it, you should. Most don't.
Then you can step all the way down to me charging $25/hour if you come to me (cheaper online), or $5 to analyze a game of yours and send you back my thoughts. I also take a personal interest in my students' games without having to be paid to do so... if for example I see them at a tournament.
The final way you can go if you get down to $25/hour and you say, I don't want to spend that but I do want to get better.. is get ready to study.
What now?
What I'm about to provide is what you can do if you have the kind of talent that walks into the room at around 1200, and you want to get to 1600 and beyond. If you have 800 talent and you still want this, just be prepared to work twice as hard.
Books
Everyone has their favorites, and we can debate all day. Here are my recommendations
Complete Book of Chess Strategy - Jeremy Silman
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1890085014/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=ilche-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=1890085014&linkId=60104986432dabe6ff4d639d7217aaa7
I find this book to be a great litmus test in terms of being ready for the rest of the books. It has page after page of concise and simplified examples of chess concepts. But more important, if you can't follow this book, you might not be ready for my recommendations and should spend more time on puzzles and basic books.
If you're more like 800 strength and you need to get to 1200, I recommend chess magnet school. It's where I have my son's high school coach send all of the kids who show up, aren't really serious chess players, but tell them that they're serious about trying to be one. I think it's $26 for a year. It has it's ceiling, but it really teaches you the basics very well.
I teach my stepsons (who I consider my sons), so I didn't come into their life until they were 8 and 9. If I had them at 4 or 5, we would have been doing this.
If you can follow this book, you're ready for the following..
Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953 - David Bronstein
300 Chess Positions - Lev Alburt
Middlegame in Chess - Reuben Fine
Basic Chess Endings - Reuben Fine
Time for books tends to vary based on how much time you have and how much mental energy you have. If you have the willingness to sit down and get serious like you are in college, these books should boost your ability.
Openings
Openings are not the only thing, but they are a thing. Don't listen to someone who tells you not to study them at all. However, be wary of someone who doesn't have strong middle game skills and yet is trying to convince you that "do this, then this, then game over." You shouldn't spend more than about 15-20% of your study time on openings.
The tool? Chessbase. I think their app is like $7.99 on a smart phone and it breaks down opening moves by percentage of games in their database that WHITE won.
Eventually, if traffic and interest warrants it, I'll do a subscription with my best openings... probably for a very reasonable amount.
Tactics
Chess.com's tactics trainer is great. I forgot where I read that chess is tactical, even at the top levels, but it is. Everything is about playing to make a big tactical shot a possibility. And then, if your opponent simply defends well and makes your potential tactics too risky, you shift to playing for better endgames as your primary mindset... you always should be playing for a good endgame, but you will become more committed.
If you're serious about getting better at chess, do 50 tactics a day. However, don't spend all your time on this. A lot of tactics and setting up tactics is understanding chess concepts. I've seen players spend all their time on tactics and they never get to the tactic because they don't understand things like "getting a knight to the 6th rank," "rook to the 7th," "controlling key squares" or "good bishop, bad bishop." Your total chess knowledge is going to dictate how good your positional play is which in turn dictates what tactics you have.
The evolution of chess from the 1850s to today, if it has one central theme, can be summed up in the idea that there are resources (the games of the greats), that have been used to stagnate pure tactical play.
Endgames
Chess mentor is great for a lot of things, but especially for this. You can start at the most basic levels of endgames and work your way up. If you're a 1200 working hard to improve your middle game (where chess talent shows), and you're not finishing endgames, my bet is that a practical understanding of a) the opposition and b) centralization of the king can start to add those victories.
If you're like my best student, you can often play very "eh" middle games only to turn into a monster in the late middlegame/endgame. Very few people are like this.
Play a lot!
Look, I can tell you to read all these books and do all these puzzles and that's great. But, go play 10,000 games and you'll be amazed what your brain just registers due to good consequence/bad consequence.
A multiplier effect of playing a lot is that if you just take your losses online and in tournaments, and then analyze with a computer, you'll skyrocket the value you get out of a specified number of games.
Understand what a computer is though. When you're saying, "well, the computer liked it" and you can't verbalize a good reason why it's a good move, then you're not using a very valuable tool for what it is supposed to be used for. Computers will give you ideas of big spikes due to things that good players often don't see because they're not intuitive. But they shouldn't be used as a substitute for chess ideas.
Master games
Masters are masters because they're better than players who aren't. What better games to look at, 10 or 20 at a time, than those played by the best players.
A master I know advised, as a top bang for your time buck, to look for games by top GMs against players rated 200+ points lower, and to just go through as many as you can rapidly to get to see the max amount of games and to see how top players put lower rated players away.
Chessgames.com is great for this.
Obviously, if you have a chance to look at annotated games and you have the time, it's even better.
Maxims of my chess
Now that we have your major resources of study down pat, what should you tell yourself? What things will guide you to better chess. I'll list some now.
Forget fear
I recently was looking at games of a 1200 player and it seemed that everything he did that was passive or that he wouldn't do that was active came with him telling me "well I was afraid of this." The worst part was that there was nothing to fear. Everything he was telling me was easily defended anyway.
You owe it to yourself not to be afraid. If you play without fear and you lose because someone else is a better player, you'll get better in the future. But you'll find out what you're capable of. Don't confuse playing without fear with playing risky, bad chess.
I've seen 1200s stay at 1200 because they actually verbalize a good plan, and then say "yeah, but I didn't do that, I did this (very passive) move, because I was afraid of X." And that leaves me putting my head into my hands.
A surly expert named Frisco Del Rosario once told me, "learn to know when your opponents perceived threats aren't really threats, so you can ignore them and get on with your own threats!" If somebody lives this approach in all their games, yes, they will find out sometimes that the opponent did have real threats... but they will learn to realize their own.
Try also to remember this. There are very few players who are so good that every game is about showing how good they ARE instead of getting better (primarily). For most of us, the games we play this Saturday are primarily about making us better in following Saturdays. So who cares if you play smart chess and get bold and aggressive and lose? What, your world champion title is on the line? No. You owe it to the work you put in to take shots at your opponent. And that's why what I hammer into my students is...
Look for superseding threats! Always
There's a commonality with the players I've beaten in my life. Of the 145 documented USCF wins I have, more than half of the players think I shouldn't have beaten them. You could make a line out of most tournament halls and down the hallway of players who think I shouldn't have been able to do this or that.
I figured out why. I've beaten a lot of players who were better in a broad array of chess skills. Perhaps the player I beat had a better understanding of a wider range of chess techniques and topics. In a game where we traded down, traded down and got to a 3-pawn v. 3-pawn endgame, he would have beaten me, because he's a better quiet endgame player. But on move 17, I saw a chance to load up my pieces for a knight sac on e6 that would blow up the middle of his board, executing that move on move 18.. and before he got a chance to play a long game, the middle game got blown up.
Look at sacrifices. Look at rook or queen sacrifices for pawns even. Look at sacs of pieces on empty squares with no piece. Look at in-between moves.
Steve Tennant, a master who has beaten very strong players once told me that a prime difference between masters and players who are not masters is this... "moves that you write off as crazy and impractical.. therefore not even looking at them, I see them as possible and make them happen when I have the opportunity."
Just realize that there are two kinds of players. One player is saying, "I have a plan, you go ahead and have yours but this is mine, and mine will beat yours." The other player is saying, "I have no plan. My plan is just to try to trade down and play for a draw and pounce on you if you mess up." You can get some wins with the second approach. If you're amazingly accurate and you have a complete and comprehensive game, you can be a super GM with the latter approach. I don't think that that approach is the best way to grow chess from 1200 to 1800 and beyond.
Don't make bad threats just to make threats... but look. If you look,.. really look, there often is that Nxe6 sac for a pawn where the knight forks a queen and rook if black doesn't take it, and if black does capture with the f-pawn, you can recapture with the queen giving check and hitting the bishop on e4..
Play stronger players
I don't think that it's an accident that I've settled at 1875-ish. When I had time to devote to playing a lot, I was playing George Mandrusov (2050) and the deceased Alexander Levitan (2074) constantly. I did what I think most players can do. Find the best competition you can actually function decently against, and with good talent, you will have a decent chance to at the very least settle about 200 points below them.. and that's if they are a stretch for your ability level.
You could do everything I advise and play 1300s. I could take your twin and get them games against Al Chow, Ken Wallach and Kevin Bachler all day long, and if they can actually play into a middle game and not look lost, they will probably get better than you will.
The biggest reason is that I believe that the brain easily registers what stronger players do to you as things that you can think out against someone else in the future.
This is all great, but you gave me a lot of general stuff... I can't figure out what to do with it all. I don't have a coach and this seems too hard.
I think for the results I can get out of players, I charge a very reasonable rate. I'd also be the first to tell you if you're too good for more than a brush up. If Eric Starkman or Richard Zhang came to me and wanted a coach, I'd tell them that they're actually some of the few who are ready for that GM, and that they should seek out the best play they could if they couldn't afford that level of coaching.
But I have players whose first provisional tournaments in December were 1087, 1235 and 1207. Eight months later they are at 1279, 1446 and 1596 respectively. If I had to bet on myself over the next 8 months, I'd bet 1550, 1700 and 1800 with ease. And then, eight months after that, when the 1596 will likely be around 2000, THEN he'd get more value out of a GM, IM or Fide Master coach.
And if you hire me, I'll give you my best stuff.
If you just want to come here, I'll give you my pretty darn good stuff for free... analyzed tournament games, blitz games, ideas and general thoughts that will improve your chess.
And if you decide that my stuff is no good, I am very aware that there are better authorities on chess out there. And everyone should do what is good for them.
But I'll always be honest. And my honesty is that coaches can point you in the right direction, but the work you're willing to do will really make you better.
My next submission will be geared toward specific games, and not general ideas. So then we can really dive in. In the meantime, come here for IHSA stuff also.
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Updated IHSA rated list after the Illinois Open
Here are your top 125 rated players that I know of that are eligible for IHSA play, have played in the last calendar year, and are not provisional.
Please let me know if:
a) A kid has moved or switched schools or quit chess or whatever thing like that that would result in someone coming off of the list
b) There's someone I don't know about whether they be a freshman, a kid transferring from out of state, someone who didn't play last year but will play this year, or for any other reason.
1. George Li Jr. IMSA 2382
Please let me know if:
a) A kid has moved or switched schools or quit chess or whatever thing like that that would result in someone coming off of the list
b) There's someone I don't know about whether they be a freshman, a kid transferring from out of state, someone who didn't play last year but will play this year, or for any other reason.
1. George Li Jr. IMSA 2382
2. David Peng Fr. New Trier 2381
3. Alex Bian Jr. Stevenson 2302
4. Jacob Furfine Fr. New Trier 2282
5. Spencer Lehmann Sr. Barrington 2223
6. Anshul Adve. Sr. Urbana University 2207
6. Anshul Adve. Sr. Urbana University 2207
7. Matthew Stevens So. Whitney Young 2189
8. Vincent Do Fr. Unknown 2181
9. Akhil Kalghatgi So. Whitney Young 2143
8. Vincent Do Fr. Unknown 2181
9. Akhil Kalghatgi So. Whitney Young 2143
10. Daniel Bronfeyn Jr. Mundelein 2129
11. Nikhil Kalghatgi So. Whitney Young 2082
12. Jack Curcio Jr. Maine South 2079
13. Rishi Narayanan So. Barrington 2059
14. Hanson Hao So. Bloomington 2042
15. Andrew Fei Jr. Dunlap 2026
16. Miranda Liu So. Stevenson 2010
17. Marissa Li Fr. Naperville North 2008
18. Pranav Sriram Sr. Lincoln Park 1968
19. Eddie Zhang Fr. Fremd 1919
17. Marissa Li Fr. Naperville North 2008
18. Pranav Sriram Sr. Lincoln Park 1968
19. Eddie Zhang Fr. Fremd 1919
20. James Wei Jr. IMSA 1902
21. Eric Starkman Jr. Highland Park 1874
21. Eric Starkman Jr. Highland Park 1874
22. Conrad Oberhaus Jr. Stevenson 1868
23. Bryce McClanahan Sr. Glenbrook South 1833
24. Abe Sun Jr. New Trier 1832
25. Tyler Tompkins Sr. Hinsdale Central 1820
26. Alec Feygin Sr. Glenbrook South 1789
27. Shayna Provine Jr. IMSA 1785
28. Henry Curcio Fr. Maine South 1774
28. Henry Curcio Fr. Maine South 1774
29. Richard Zhang So. Naperville North 1789
30. George McCoy Jr. Northside 1759
30. George McCoy Jr. Northside 1759
31. Jack Xiao So. Stevenson 1741
32. Patrick Li So. Dunlap 1739
33. Billy Hoseman So. Glenbrook South 1737
34. Shon Shtern Sr. Glenbrook South 1726
35. Philip Song Jr. Naperville North 1714
36. Quinn Baker Sr. Oak Park-River Forest 1713
37. Darek Nowak Sr. Maine South 1707
38. Omkar Prabhavalkar So. Barrington 1703
39. Cassie Parent Jr. IMSA 1702
40. Mihir Bafna Jr. Bloomington HS 1684
41. Jonathan Lee So. Northside 1678
42. Rahul Dhiman Sr. Stevenson 1665
42. Nathan Yamaguchi Jr. New Trier 1665
44. Gustav Jennetten Sr. Peoria Richwoods 1655
45. Jason Drews Jr. Cary Grove 1652
46. Arda Sonmez Jr. Highland Park 1646
47. Vikram Dara So. Neuqua Valley 1634
48. Joseph Isaac Jr. Naperville North 1632
49. Will Richards So. Wheaton North 1624
49. Jack Thain Jr. Charleston 1624
51. Akash Mattu Sr. Naperville Central 1615
52. Bethany Simos Sr. Naperville Central 1611
53. Alex Lim Jr. Neuqua Valley 1610
54. Kenny Kotowsky Jr. Maine South 1606
34. Shon Shtern Sr. Glenbrook South 1726
35. Philip Song Jr. Naperville North 1714
36. Quinn Baker Sr. Oak Park-River Forest 1713
37. Darek Nowak Sr. Maine South 1707
38. Omkar Prabhavalkar So. Barrington 1703
39. Cassie Parent Jr. IMSA 1702
40. Mihir Bafna Jr. Bloomington HS 1684
41. Jonathan Lee So. Northside 1678
42. Rahul Dhiman Sr. Stevenson 1665
42. Nathan Yamaguchi Jr. New Trier 1665
44. Gustav Jennetten Sr. Peoria Richwoods 1655
45. Jason Drews Jr. Cary Grove 1652
46. Arda Sonmez Jr. Highland Park 1646
47. Vikram Dara So. Neuqua Valley 1634
48. Joseph Isaac Jr. Naperville North 1632
49. Will Richards So. Wheaton North 1624
49. Jack Thain Jr. Charleston 1624
51. Akash Mattu Sr. Naperville Central 1615
52. Bethany Simos Sr. Naperville Central 1611
53. Alex Lim Jr. Neuqua Valley 1610
54. Kenny Kotowsky Jr. Maine South 1606
55. Eli Elder Fr. Highland Park 1605
56. Harrison Loh Sr. Naperville North 1603
57. Patrick Kut Jr. Andrew 1592
58. Monish Bhasin Sr. Naperville North 1578
59. Shashank Bala So. Stevenson 1568
60. Ajay Balaraman So. Naperville North 1567
61. Shvetali Thatte Unknown Unknown 1555
62. Ritesh Sivakumar Jr. Naperville Central 1552
62. Mindren Lu Jr. Northside 1552
64. Austin Insley Jr. Indian Creek 1547
65. Nathan Saltzman So. Hinsdale Central 1541
65. Isha Gani Sr. Northside 1541
67. Emma Wang So. Hinsdale Central 1538
65. Isha Gani Sr. Northside 1541
67. Emma Wang So. Hinsdale Central 1538
67. Emily McClanahan Jr. Glenbrook South 1538
69. Kavin Lavari So. Stevenson 1537
70. Julian Liam-O'Carroll Evanston 1535
71. Wesley Gizel Sr. Barrington 1504
72. Jesse Wang Sr. Naperville North 1502
73. Matthew Wong So. Lane 1491
74. Elijah Patterson Unknown Unknown 1485
75. Ricky Roman So. Whitney Young 1484
76. Matthew Kosova Sr. Northside 1477
77, Joseph Buklis Fr. Unknown 1473
77, Joseph Buklis Fr. Unknown 1473
78. Sean Insley So. Indian Creek 1472
79. Jiedong Duan Sr. Niles North 1469
80. Oliver Brady Jr. Evanston 1466
81. Will Olafsson Sr. Maine South 1457
81. Will Olafsson Sr. Maine South 1457
82. Nate Tracy-Amoroso Sr. Evanston 1452
83. Nick Allison Jr. Andrew 1446
84. Michael Dula Sr. Northridge Prep 1438
85. Raymond Liu Jr. Rolling Meadows 1434
86. Georgia Wolf So. Lane 1429
85. Raymond Liu Jr. Rolling Meadows 1434
86. Georgia Wolf So. Lane 1429
87. Prithiv Kumar Jr. Bloomington HS 1421
88. Clayton Davis So. Normal Community West 1406
89. Matthew Kelly Jr. Northridge Prep 1396
90. Nicholas Edels So. Barrington 1381
90. Nicholas Edels So. Barrington 1381
91. Eric Helgemo Jr. Niles north 1372
92. Matthew Tang Jr. Hinsdale Central 1351
93. Arnav Batta So. Fremd 1348
94. Joseph Harrigan Jr. Highland Park 1329
95. Perry Hoag So. Homewood-Flossmoor 1318
96. Capison Pang So. Hinsdale Central 1317
97. Alex Parkel Jr. Whitney Young 1312
98. Kyle Kras Fr. Andrew 1283
99. Jarun Jannak Jr. Andrew 1279
100. Ricky Nguyen Jr. Metamora 1264
98. Kyle Kras Fr. Andrew 1283
99. Jarun Jannak Jr. Andrew 1279
100. Ricky Nguyen Jr. Metamora 1264
101. Zach Warsh Sr. Highland Park 1257
101. Steffano Herrera Sr. Argo 1257
103. Daniel Hammond So. Andrew 1250
104. Muhammed Lotfi So. Northside 1247
104. Muhammed Lotfi So. Northside 1247
105. Prathik Kandimalla So. Barrington 1247
106. Geoff Murphy Jr. Metamora 1246
107. Micah Hill Jr. Naperville Central 1242
108. George Polski So. Naperville North 1222
109. Shawn Smith Sr. Wheaton-Warrenville South 1221
110. Riley Wilson Sr. Evanston 1217
110. Anthony Mu So. Fremd 1217
112. Anshu Indusekar Jr. Neuqua Valley 1216
113. Patrick Tippens Jr. Highland Park 1214
114. Branden Wagner Jr. Glenbrook South 1201
115. Rebekah Nielsen So. Normal Community West 1180
116. Nathan Frommelt Jr. Neuqua Valley 1173
117. Jack Wakeman So. Wheaton North 1171
118. Connor Cai So. Dunlap 1170
119. Gabe Chambers So. Normal Community West 1161
119. John-Michael Micklich Jr. Bloomington Central Catholic 1161
121. Andrew Orlos So. Argo 1152
122. Adarsh Mattu So. Naperville Central 1132
123. Adrian Zanoria Jr. Dunlap 1115
124. Arthur Rodriguez Jr. Belleville East 1114
125. Simon Groenendijk So. New Trier 1062
118. Connor Cai So. Dunlap 1170
119. Gabe Chambers So. Normal Community West 1161
119. John-Michael Micklich Jr. Bloomington Central Catholic 1161
121. Andrew Orlos So. Argo 1152
122. Adarsh Mattu So. Naperville Central 1132
123. Adrian Zanoria Jr. Dunlap 1115
124. Arthur Rodriguez Jr. Belleville East 1114
125. Simon Groenendijk So. New Trier 1062
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)