Category Archives: Basic (Rating below 1000)

A Proper Charlie

When teaching basic opening principles to my pupils I use the acronym DCK to emphasise our three aims at the start of the game: Development, Centre Control, King Safety.

A few years ago someone asked me a good question. Given that these are our aims at the start of the game, how come so many players choose the Sicilian Defence: 1. e4 c5.

1.. e5 appears to be a better developing move: it opens lines for the bishop as well as the queen, while 1.. c5 only opens a line for the queen, which we’re not supposed to bring out too soon.

1.. e5 also appears better in terms of central control. It controls d4 and f4 while 1.. c5 controls d4 and b4.

Finally, as 1.. e5 releases the f8 bishop it leaves Black one move closer to bringing his king to safety by castling.

So, a good question indeed. How should I answer it? I explained that, in the main lines of the Sicilian Defence (and why they are the main lines is another good question, but let’s just say that, at higher levels at any rate, they score better than the alternatives) White plays 2. Nf3 followed by 3. d4. Black’s plan is to trade off his c-pawn for the enemy d-pawn, reaching a position with an advantage of two pawns to one in the centre.

We teach beginners, naturally enough, to use their centre pawns at the start of the game, and not to move our wing pawns more than is necessary. We demonstrate how Morphy only moved his e- and d-pawns when beating his aristocratic opponents. Perhaps we’re missing a trick in failing to explain that in very many openings Charlie the c-pawn plays an important role.

Consider also the Queen’s Gambit: 1. d4 d5 2. c4. Again, White is hoping to trade his c-pawn for the black d-pawn, giving him a two pawns to one advantage in the centre. There’s nothing very much wrong with Black allowing this as long as he’s ready to hit back at White’s centre with ..c5 or ..e5 at an appropriate point.

Another way to look at the opening from White’s perspective is that he’s trying to get two pawns together on the 4th rank. Often this will be on e4 and d4, but sometimes he’ll prefer c4 and d4, and occasionally e4 and f4. The Hypermodern School taught that this is not necessary, and instead you can control the centre from the flanks, but that, again, is another story.

So after 1. d4 Nf6 White will usually choose the non-developing 2. c4. He wants to get two pawns together in the centre, and Black has prevented 2. e4.

Understanding that if we’re White we try to get two pawns together on the 4th rank, and that we can use Charlie to help us do this, is important in understanding the Giuoco Piano and the Ruy Lopez. After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5, White can, instead of the boring Giuoco Pianissimo, play 4. c3, following up with 5. d4. (Or, as is the modern fashion, with 5. d3, preferring to develop first while taking d4 away from the black minor pieces, and perhaps finding a suitable moment for d4 later in the game.)

Again, in the Ruy Lopez, we see very similar ideas. We also see the typical knight manoeuvres for White: Nb1-d2-f1-g3-f5 or Nb1-d2-f1-e3-d5. This will be the subject of a future post when I reach the relevant chapter of Move Two!.

There are other ways, apart from the Sicilian Defence, for Black to use his c-pawn in the fight for the centre.

In the French Defence, the key move for Black in most variations is ..c5. We can see this, for instance, in the Advance Variation: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5. Again, Black would like to trade his c-pawn for White’s d-pawn, and perhaps later, via a timely ..f6, trade his f-pawn for White’s e-pawn as well.

In the Caro-Kann Defence, as well as some lines of the Scandinavian Defence, Black plays ..c6 to help set up a solid position in the centre. In these openings the black knight will often be developed via d7. In the Queen’s Gambit, Black is well advised not to play an early Nc6, blocking the c-pawn, unless he really knows what he’s doing. Instead, he has the choice of setting up a solid central position by playing c6, as in the Slav Defence, or hitting out at White’s centre with c5, as in the Tarrasch Defence.

Finally, White can move into Hypermodern territory by choosing the English Opening: 1. c4. Now if Black plays e5 it’s a reverse Sicilian Defence, but he has many other viable options as well.

So perhaps we need a different approach to teaching the openings to novices. While it’s easy to get children to play Giuoco Pianissimos and Spanish Four Knights, at some point fairly quickly we need to ask them to consider Charlie the c-pawn. We’re often using three, not two pawns to fight for the centre: the c-pawn as well as the d- and e-pawns. Very often, as a result of this, our queen’s knight will emerge, not at c3/c6 but at d2/d7 instead. Learning this important lesson will steer our students away from turgid positions with e4/d3 against e5/d6, teach them how to handle a wide variety of pawn formations, and give them a wider understanding of chess culture.

Richard James

Share

The Chess Human Condition

I have touched previously on a few of the players I have known, including Bad Hair Guy and Dr. Porsche, and on Meetings With Remarkable Chess Masters, but just as the chess board can be seen as a kind of miniature model of the Universe, so too can chess players represent the wondrous and amusing diversity of the human condition.

“Stereotype” is now almost a forbidden concept, a Thought Crime to the politically correct, but of course it is extremely useful in the real world of politically incorrect human beings. The following are indeed stereotypes, but if you have played in more than a handful of chess tournaments you will have run into them. If you are a youngster just starting out in serious play, consider this a guide to what you can expect to face in the chess jungle:

The Relentlessly Combative

Anyone who continues beyond their first real chess tournament, like anyone who lasts beyond their first boxing match, must have a certain level of combativeness. Otherwise, they would revert to playing and thrashing their younger siblings, or perhaps needlepoint. But given that we all have this quality, in certain individuals it is taken to extremes. There is a school of thought that fighting with the organizers, other players and perhaps spectators is the way to an “edge” that will carry over into playing a fighting game. Robert J. Fischer was considered the very exemplar of this approach, which seemed to work well for him, except when it resulted in his withdrawal from a competition (Sousse Interzonal, Reshevsky match). Grandmaster Walter “Six-Time” Browne, who strove to emulate Fischer in almost every way from the Najdorf  Sicilian to the King’s Indian to the pairings disputes, and who was very enjoyable to watch, was the second greatest exponent of this mindset that I personally observed.

Relentless combativeness does not serve most of us well in trying to win chess games while still enjoying them. In your chess career you will encounter players who argue about the color of the squares, the pieces, the clock, whether your writing a ? on your score sheet is legal, whether you are adjusting your glasses too often, and whether your candy bar is causing their allergic reaction. They will roll their eyes, smile, laugh and snort after your moves. You must develop a vast, calm and empty space in your mind where all of these things fall soundlessly and without causing a ripple. But on the board, aye, there’s the place to be relentlessly, mercilessly combative. The rest is foolishness, worthy only of your amusement.

The Relentlessly Unorthodox

There are quite a few players right up through the ranks of master who seem to enjoy being different for difference’s sake. Though few become GMs, some are very strong players. Their unorthodoxy is, of course, mostly associated with the choice of opening, though I have known a few that extended this into the middle game by sacrificing material, regardless of whether it was good.

IM Michael Basman is perhaps the best known exponent of this approach, and has beaten many grandmasters with a variety of unorthodoxies. Hugh Myers is another good example, an interesting player, writer and man, who strove not just to explore but to use the byways of chess in practical play, with quite a bit of success.

Fortunately, most of the Unorthodox are not nearly as strong as Basman and Myers, and their reluctance to do the known and expected can usually be used against them if we take the right tack in meeting their attempts. The Unorthodoxers rely partly on shock and partly on our tendency to underestimate their moves. After 1. g4, for instance, many players of the black pieces believe they’re almost “winning” and proceed to recklessly storm forward with unjustified abandon to “destroy” the weakened king side. The right approach is just to “play chess” and find good moves until the opponent commits some additional errors. After all, the position is almost certainly still “a draw” after white’s first move, whatever it may be. Don’t get cocky, Kid.

Here’s an example from a game of my own. The opponent’s opening lands him in a bad position, but of course I didn’t play “perfect” chess and he had to make more errors for me to win. But I remember that at least I had the right mental approach after seeing his first few moves…

Share

Chess for Fun: Tim Krabbé’s Chess Curiosities

It is good to be reminded, from time to time, that “improvement” is more than just raising one’s grading. I presume everyone reading this plays chess because they enjoy it. Of course, we all like winning chess games, but understand that we are going to lose some, as well.

Beyond the fight in the competitive arena, chess has many other areas that I find fascinating, including the history of the game and its players, problems and studies and the unusual and sometimes bizarre “human interest” stories that come out when people interact with each other.

I’ll write about the historical part in a future post. For today, I point you to a treasure trove of fascinating games, positions and personalities, Tim Krabbé’s Chess Curiosities. If you’ve never had the opportunity to expand your chess horizons beyond the intricacies of the Semi-Slav and how to win rook endings, Chess Curiosities will provide hours, indeed, days, of enjoyment.

Now every thing there is not for every body; I don’t get too excited by the position that contains 53 consecutive checks, though I admire the thought and effort that went into it. But even for those “practical” players who disdain certain types of studies and problems, there is a wealth of the strange, the surprising and the beautiful.

Some examples: A Tragedy in Elista wherein two strong masters play a 127-move marathon with the result-changing mistakes coming thick and fast; The Ultimate Blunder (Resigning in Winning Positions); and  A Love Story With a Diagram.

For those who just want to see serious chess moves there are the wonderful and often almost unbelievable “110 Greatest Moves Ever Played” (start with 110-100 here and work you way up).

While no. 1, played by Spassky, indeed required a “leap of imagination” beyond the ordinary. my personal favorite is no. 8, played by Kholmov against Bronstein at Kiev 1964 (USSR Ch.). White to move and flabbergast:

The rest of the game is here, but do NOT peek until you have found and calculated the implications of the strongest move for White!

There is so much more at Chess Curiousities. It is a joy, and along the way you will find improvement material as well!

Share

The Genius of the Kibitzer, Part II

In Part I, we wondered why a person observing a game (The Kibitzer) often sees things the players miss, which is really just an example of the general case: Why are we, in most serious games, unable to apply our full chess strength to all the moves?

It seems to me that this is the heart of the half of chess improvement that doesn’t involve chess, as such. To be a decent player of serious chess, it is vital to spend the time “moving the pieces around” as Nigel has emphasized, to gain a storehouse of typical positions and patterns that can help you find a good move quickly and efficiently. It is important and useful to have a decent knowledge of some opening sequences and basic endings. Given all of that, we know how some players are simply better at putting this skill and knowledge into practice. Certainly no one is “perfect” and no one wins them all, but just as in other forms of competition, from poker to football to politics and war, some people perform better at chess “in the arena” than others.

The fundamental question is: What are the differences?

I will not address those things all of us already know: Decent sleep and food, and moderate regular exercise will all help to maintain attention and alertness during the stresses of a serious game of chess.

But wait! Why is chess “stressful” at all?

We often take for granted that it should be so, but by now almost everyone knows that “stress” is a generic term for something we do to ourselves. There are “stressors,” say a bear appearing suddenly out of the bushes (it’s happened to me) but the “stress” is caused by our own physiological reactions. Parts of the brain we share in common with reptiles explode with activity, various hormones and other chemicals are rushed into the blood and we prepare for “fight or flight.” When I was a beginning tournament player and spotted the possibility of a “winning” combination my heart often beat as fast as if I has just run 100 metres; you can imagine that if the game wasn’t over quickly my play fell off steeply later in the session. Eventually I learned to control this overreaction, but it was not simple or easy.

I am a very competitive person who wants badly to win at every competition I do, and I don’t think this served so well at chess, during the game itself, early in my career. Strong competitive spirit can mentally prepare us to do our best before a game, but constantly ruminating about winning during a game, rather than concentrating on making good moves, only hurts our ability to apply our skill.

That’s an attitude adjustment, but what else can be done to better our results?

An excellent television program, “How Smart Can We Get?” has some key information at Segment 5, about 41:00 in (but the whole program is of great interest). A neuroscientist who had her own sporting experience of “choking” explores the mechanisms that prevent top performance. During mental tests, the activity of the amygdala and other emotional centers of the brain can produce actual, physical interference with the neurons of the pre-frontal cortex that we need in order to (among other things) play good chess. What top performers do is a sort of “cutting off” of the connection between the emotional centers and the rational mind.

A method that has worked to assist in this (as applied to academic tests) is writing down emotions and thoughts for 10 minutes before testing begins. Students who did so got an average of a half-grade higher (B+ vs. B-) as against a control group who just sat doing nothing for the 10 minutes before the test. Examination of the student writings shows that as the writings progress there is an evident change of attitude and more positive feeling about the test. The scientist compares it to “off loading” unnecessary programs from your computer, freeing resources and allowing for clearer thinking and memory–and presumably, better chess!

Another way to do this is through mental training via meditation or a martial art. There are many studies going back decades about the various physical and mental benefits of meditation, but for our purposes I would point to the ability through practice of achieving certain mental “states.” Many hours of experimentation and practice gradually make it easier and quicker to focus and integrate the various parts of the brain. When not integrated, they simply interfere with each other.

There is an expression in the martial arts that in various forms simply says: “Mind like water.” This is a state of no expectations, no hopes, no fears. Like a pond on a still day, there is no apparent motion, but the mind of the artist sees, hears and feels the opponent and his intentions and reacts without conscious thought, without anger, doing the right thing at the right time, as he has done a thousand times in training. This is not a way to “play chess” but a way to a higher level than writing of “off loading unnecessary programs” from the mind. Seeking it will increase your chess, and life’s, performance and results.

I don’t attempt here to analyze or compare various forms of meditation and martial arts that might serve the purpose. A classic old book that I recommend for the basics of meditation is The Relaxation Response. Regarding the martial arts, Nigel’s Tai Chi might be a good thing to try, as opposed to the forms that break boards and such. But everyone who tries will find their own right way.

So this post has not been about “chess” much, has it? Yet I believe strongly, from my own experience, that the “Genius of the Kibitzer” is based on two important points:

POINT THE FIRST: The Kibitzer is not trying to win a game, just looking at a chess position and finding a good move. The Kibitzer is not invested, emotionally, physically and spiritually, in the game.

If you play good chess the winning will take care of itself.

POINT THE SECOND: The Kibitzer’s brain is not resonating with conflicting waves interfering with his clear thinking about the position. The Kibitzer’s neurons are often firing more freely and efficiently than the players’ because his mind is more like water.

If you free your mind you can play chess freely.

(Coming next time: I offer myself up as a test subject for these scientific theories!)

Share

Attention!

I have had a life-long interest in the mental training and psychological methods that are often placed under the heading “self improvement,” and since I became an avid chess player 30 or so years ago I have looked at ways to use these methods for stronger practical play. In future I will explore a number of these with you, and hope you will share your experiences in this area on the entry for the post at Nigel’s Facebook page. Especially if you think I’m all wet.

The book Rapt by Winifred Gallagher argues that the quality of our lives depends to a great extent on what we choose to pay attention to, and how well we do so. I recommend you read the whole thing, but as far as chess play goes, a main point is that we really can focus (consciously) on only one thing at a time, and that our focus is narrower than we usually realize. In human vision, the eye has a limited number of receptors, and a little self-experimentation will prove to you how you actually see only a small part of the visual field at all clearly; the rest is a fuzzy haze filled in by your mind (for some fun examples, see here).

Apart from vision, what we focus on has many other effects on our experience; when presented a business opportunity, do we focus on risks, or rewards? While playing a game of chess are we able to focus on the game itself, or do we sometimes think about how many points our grading will go up if we win, or how much prize money might be ours if we win this one, then the last round? Despite my own study, work and training, I too have had thoughts like this during important games, and while I won my share, this can’t be helpful.

Grandmaster Frank Marshall has been quoted as saying that, “In chess, attention is more important than concentration.” (And say, look at the quote third below Marshall’s, from Nigel Davies! But that is another post). Whatever can that mean? Now that we have got the preliminaries out of the way, with the material gleaned from Rapt and other sources I present a practical list of ways to train and play that work with your human attention capabilities, in order to improve your chess:

Attention span is time-limited; use this to your advantage. The amount of time you can pay attention to one thing (like your next move) is limited, and resting your mind periodically during a game is the best thing you can do to ensure that you stay fresh for move 50, 60 or more if needed. At time controls like Game/90 or similar, I don’t think you should ever use more than 10 minutes for a move, no mater how complicated, and 6-8 is probably the maximum for actually finding anything useful. Time spent after that is likely to be wasted and tiring. Most moves need to be made in 2-3 minutes at modern time controls, so find a move and play it! It may not be the “best” but if you get into time pressure plus mental exhaustion what are the odds of a serious blunder?

Pay as much attention to your opponent’s position as your own. This has been a bête noire of mine throughout my chess career, and I believe from observation it’s true of many other players as well. I have a tendency to focus too much on my possibilities: I’m going to advance my center pawns! I’m going to attack his king side! The opponent, one may be sure, has plans of his own, but non-masters are less attentive to these. I’ve developed a couple of techniques to counter this tendency; one, what I describe as “Look at the opponent’s pieces.” Write that at the top of your score sheet before the game. If you spend a good bit of time visually attending to your opponent’s formation, where the focal points of his pieces come together and so on, you will notice things that you would miss if you spent too much time looking at your own pieces and considering the wonderful things you might do with them. Also, you may recall the old Soviet advice of calculating on your clock time and looking at “positional considerations” on your opponent’s time. I would change this to “calculate for your opponent” on his time! While his clock runs, pretend you are he (or she); find the best move. If the opponent plays something else, you may have a head start on why it’s not good! If you’re surprised, also good. Now you’ll be looking for what the opponent is trying to do to you with the move, instead of immediately starting in on what you want to do.

“Beware of the Guard Cat”

Switching our attention to something pleasant and non-chess related can help freshen it. Often we get up from our game for a stretch and end up looking at other games. I don’t think this is harmful, but it has worked well for me to look out a window at trees or grass or clouds for a few moments (or even the parking lot!). If no window is readily available, look at the people around you. Just for a moment, take your mind off of your game and look at their faces. What do you read there? What stories might they have to tell? This is not just some humanist baloney, but a very practical method for refreshing yourself. One to two minutes of focusing away from your board every 15 minutes or so, even if you don’t get up, is a recipe for staying mentally fresher.

Just for fun: 12 Concentration Exercises from 1918! I know that Frank Marshall said that attention was more important than concentration, but we haven’t really defined the difference, have we? Mental exercises like this have a long history, from Athens to Zen. I think they can only do one good. I would add that there are chess board versions: take a board and a knight. Forget for awhile all the clutter that comes from the 32-piece  starting position. Place the knight somewhere near the middle of the board. Visualize all the squares it can jump to and color them all a bright pink in your mind, until you actually see the color (some chess programs do this on command but that sort of passive viewing does little of value!). Hold this picture for 10 seconds. Do the same with a queen. Put both queen and knight on the board and turn all the squares they both control purple. Hold this picture for awhile. Make up your own variations with more pieces.

The possibilities for training our attention, improving out chess and having joy in doing so are limitless. Surf around the Web or Amazon for more ideas. I would especially recommend, again, paying more attention to our opponents, for if we can catch them paying more attention to themselves our chances of success dramatically increase.

Share

Efim Geller and the Soviet School of Chess

Here’s a nice Youtube video featuring Efim Geller. It touches on one of the great paradoxes of the so-called Soviet School of Chess, which I personally think was just propaganda rather than a real entity. People became good at chess in the USSR thanks to powerful incentives, much higher status and a better life than they got from working in a factory.

Share

Susan Polgar Interview about Chess Benefits

Here’s a very interesting interview with Susan Polgar and Lisa Suhay on the benefits of chess. Of course this doesn’t mean that making chess compulsory in schools is a particularly good idea (I much prefer Richard James’s idea about establishing centers of excellence) but it is certainly a wonderful promotion for the game.

Share

The Hoi Immortal

It’s a pity that the category of tournaments seems to be the most important thing these days. There are lower rated players around who are capable of the most fantastic chess but many of them get very little opportunity to display their skills.

Anyway, here’s a fabulous combinative game by the Danish International Master Carsten Hoi. I think it’s one of the most brilliant games ever played.

Share

Chess And IQ

Chess expertise is often thought to be a sign of a high IQ, but is this really the case? And does it really matter?

A good way to describe this question is with the word ‘complex’. Chess and other areas of expertise seem to be highly dependent on knowledge, and for this dedication is more important than intelligence. To further complicate the issue, people can become ‘expert’ in IQ tests.

Personally speaking I’ve always admired character more than talent and more than speed. And these may not be particularly well represented either by chess or IQ rating lists.

Share