Given the fact that the video below on scholars mate has had 404,749 viewings at the present time, I do wonder if The Chess Improver is targeting the right audience. So I’m trying another tack.

In attempting this checkmate, remember the following:

1) The weakest spot in your opponent’s position is f7.

2) The moves to play are 1.e2-e3 (or 1.e2-e4 if you prefer), 2.Bf1-c4, 3.Qd1-f3 and 4.Qf3xf7.

3) Do not bring the queen out before the bishop as this will telegraph your intentions.

4) The queen goes on her on color at the start of the game, otherwise Qf3 will be an illegal move.

I can only add that 1.e2-e4 is probably better than 1.e2-e3, and that you should choose your opponent with care. Hikaru Nakamura has played this way in a few games but every one of them spotted the threat. Here’s an example:

There is a more serious message to this post, and that is that the majority of people who play chess are not serious students of the game. But this is not reflected in chess literature.

Nigel Davies

The passing of Robert Byrne last week was a sad loss the the chess World. I met him only briefly but he impressed me with his calm demeanor and great knowledge.

He also played a significant role in my cogitations on the Modern Defence (1…g6 against just about anything), his system against the Saemisch Variation of the King’s Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 c6 followed by 6…a6, intending …b7-b5) formed the basis of my idea of 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. c4 d6 4. Nc3 a6. If White then went for a Saemisch formation I would switch to his plan of a queenside expansion, the main difference being that I would delay …Ng8-f6.

Here’s a game Byrne won with this plan from a tournament played before I was born:

This is one of the fascinating things about chess, the players collaborate towards the development of our ancient game whilst trying to crush one another. Some of these players are particularly strong influences if we are attracted by the same concepts that they are. And Robert Byrne certainly influenced my Modern.

The following video features him in combat with Nigel Short on the BBC series The Master Game. A rye sense of humor comes through as he fails to beat the then young prodigy.

Nigel Davies

This post is really a follow up to my previous post, The Instructional Value Of Amateur Games. I am about to explain why Grandmaster games can be totally unsuitable for kids to watch.

The following game is an exceptionally subtle effort by one of Garry Kasparov’s former seconds, Rustam Dautov. Does it have instructional value? Well it does for me, and maybe a lot of players over 2200 or so. But as anyone who teaches chess to children will know, you need to discourage them from moving their rooks’ pawns in order to develop their rooks:

This actually gives me a major headache, that if my son starts to watch me play (and the comeback is scheduled for when he can hold his own in adult tournaments) I need to set a good example. The problem is that for maximum effect I would probably need to try and do things my opponents don’t understand, things like this Berlin Defence. But would this then encourage some early rooks pawn moves, and weird rook development via h6 and a5? Probably.

Nigel Davies

A typical complaint amongst club players is that they don’t have enough time to study theory, though usually it isn’t the opening that’s the problem. The feeling of not knowing the opening usually stems from not knowing what to do after the opening, which is usually a lack of middle game understanding.

Of course things don’t get better if someone then spends what little time they have for chess on opening moves rather than investing them in more profitable aspects of chess. It’s better to play fairly simple schemes in which there are clear plans.

Here’s an example of a simple looking opening which can nevertheless by very dangerous in the hands of a good player. In this case it’s the German Grandmaster Ralf Lau who provides an object lesson in the art of tactical play with a series of hammer blows starting with 14.Re5!:

Nigel Davies

One of the problems with the idea of chess as a ‘spectator sport’ is that the games played tend to be utterly incomprehensible to those who are supposed to be watching them. This is why chess teachers tend to use games which were decided by rather simpler means.

A good source of these are games from the early 20th century as the best players would play some one sided games against lesser lights. But there’s also a modern source of instructive games which has been largely overlooked, the games played by amateurs.

Some strong modern amateurs would be top players if they could be transported back 100 years, and they get to play against players much weaker than themselves in swiss events and casual games. So they produce games in which they win with some clear and instructive plans with the added benefit that their openings will be more modern.

Is there a good source of these encounters? Actually they’re very difficult to find, but I did locate the following game in Fred Wilson’s excellent book, Simple Attacking Plans:

Nigel Davies

Teaching my son to play has given me a great refresher course in many aspects of chess that I’d long since forgotten. Not least of these is the importance of adhering to the rules, and in particular the touch move rule.

The reason, besides cultivating the habits needed for competition, is that it fosters mental discipline and vision. When people try out various moves (by putting them on the intended squares without letting go), they are losing the opportunity to make themselves visualize the position a move ahead. Worse still they are also clouding the vital moment that separates cogitation from commitment.

To understand the importance of this one can try googling for ‘inability to commit’ and then drown in the flood of references. Frankly I doubt that much of the psychobabble you will find has much merit to it, it’s simply the fear of making a mistake. Yet without taking that leap of faith, and making a commitment, we end up doing nothing at all.

The following video has had a total of 12 (!) viewings at the time of writing, so little surprise that it appeals to me. And seen in this light a chess game might be seen as a series of commitments, a powerful exercise in combating a fear of failure.

Nigel Davies

During the last few decades there has been a great focus on ‘new moves’ or ‘theoretical novelties’, with the implicit assumption that these dreaded creatures can strike us from a clear blue sky and cost us the game.

There have been cases of new moves causing havoc, but this needs considerable clarification. New moves, by definition, are simply moves that haven’t been played before. And they can also be old moves which didn’t find their way into the databases.

Are new moves usually better moves? Well let’s think about that for a moment. If a position has been played many times before, and by Grandmasters, would they all miss the best continuation? That seems unlikely.

A more likely scenario is that a player will be looking to throw his opponent on his own resources by playing something a bit different. Such innovations are unlikely to be better than the established moves, but that doesn’t stop them working.

Are new moves played deliberately, or can they sometimes be accidental? Well I know from my own experience that it’s possible to forget your intended opening variation and end up improvising. Now it could be that I’m particularly forgetful, but I suspect instead that I’m not the only one.

Here’s an example in which a future GM, Juan Manuel Bellon Lopez, plays a ‘theoretical novelty’ (according to my database) with 9…Nxd4, the established moves being 9…e6 and 9…Nb6. But unfortunately it loses a piece!

Nigel Davies

There is a golden rule for ensuring good concentration, and that is to limit your focus to simply finding the next move. The problem is that it is easier said than done.

All sorts of unhelpful thoughts visit our minds during a game, from chess related things such as rating, qualification and prize money to a variety of non chess issues. Some of these are impossible to ignore, such as having a house move in the offing. And it is advisable not to play chess when you have such huge concerns as it can result in horrendous losses and a severe blow to one’s self confidence.

Can this sort of focus be cultivated? I believe it can, and largely through the meditative arts such as meditation, yoga and chi kung. And there are also things you can do during a tournament to avoid too much distraction.

First and foremost you should never talk to people during the game, even to exchange a few pleasantries. Talking is the most destructive thing that I know of to a player’s concentration and should be avoided at all costs.

Secondly you should have a clear idea about where you’re staying, how you’ll get to the tournament hall and where you’re going to eat. These things may seem unimportant but they can all use up the attention needed for chess.

Finally it’s important to try and settle any life issues before you go to play. House moves are at the top of my list of distractions, with pending divorce or separation following on closely. Don’t play when your kids are ill because you’ll hang a rook whilst worrying about them.

Earlier this week it looks like even Magnus Carlsen and Vladimir Kramnik seemed unable to maintain full focus, though having a single game decide who would play for the World Championship is not an easy thing to ignore. So they were looking at each others games and then trying to adjust their own play depending on how they thought their rival would do. Of course this is going to be horribly distracting.

Club players too can go through this kind of thing, especially during team matches. It may seem like the right thing to do to watch how your team mates are playing, but actually it’s better to ignore the other games. Try it the next time you get to play a match as your team’s chances of winning will be improved when you concentrate on your own game.

Nigel Davies

One of the benefits of a classical chess education is that you don’t learn to do things the wrong way. Unfortunately very few Western club players have had this luxury and when their self taught methods are practiced sufficiently they become bad habits.

It can be a difficult job change them, the best approach being to become aware of them and then then superimpose correct habits on top. With enough of this mindful practice the old habits will start to lose control over our thinking. But it can be a difficult and thorny process.

The following game shows that I’ve struggled with this myself. After more than a decade of playing the Modern Defence my tolerance of cramped positions became greatly enhanced! And when I started playing classical openings this ‘tolerance’ came back to haunt me, as in the following game:

Did things get better? Fortunately yes. After a few more years my ‘Modern’ days were thoroughly behind me and now I couldn’t imagine playing a game on just three ranks.

Would it have been better if I’d never played this way in the first place? Probably it would, but then it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Ashvin’s post on March 20th had a great illustration in the 9th round of the Candidates Tournament in London. Facing some very serious preparation by Vladimir Kramnik, Magnus Carlsen was forced into a critical position. Yet he managed to find a brilliant defensive sequence starting with 22…Re8! and later 25…Nd5!. Here’s the game:

Good defence is certainly a vital aspect of chess, and one which is often underestimated by players at club level. One of the problems is that not many people think that it’s a fun way to spend their leisure time so will tend to try for a swindle and then give up if it doesn’t work. Yet as Paul Keres pointed out in The Art of the Middle Game the correct strategy is to make it as hard as possible for your opponent to win the game. And when faced with such a stubborn defence it often happens that the player who is better makes a mistake.

Are there any ways to cultivate good defensive skills? Well reading The Art of the Middle Game is a great start. I think it’s also important not to play too much quick stuff on the internet as it’s too easy to give up and play another game from a better position. Longer time limits are certainly better, as is setting a limit on how many online games you’ll play at a time. This will give the games you play greater value, hopefully fostering greater tenacity when you play them.

Finally, one of my own methods of putting up resistance in a poor position is to recall the following speech of Winston Churchill. We shall indeed fight them on the beaches as this never say die mentality helps save a lot of lost positions:

Nigel Davies