Category Archives: Intermediate (1350-1750)

Adventures with 1…e5 (1)

So, as I explained last week, I’ve decided to play more positively and make some changes to my opening repertoire. In particular, I’m switching from c5 to e5 in reply to e4. You might think c5 is the more aggressive choice, but not in my case. I preferred the relatively stodgy Kalashnikov Sicilian, but in most cases my opponents preferred to avoid the main lines, as generally tends to happen at club level. As I teach 1.. e5 to my pupils I know rather more about it than I do about 1.. c5, but in the past I’ve been scared of the tactics.

Since 2001 my only competitive games have been played for my club, Richmond, in the Thames Valley League. I currently play about 20 games a year. I’ve never in my life played a FIDE rated game but if I had a rating it would be somewhere in the region of 1900. The season started with two matches between our A and B teams, which are both in Division 1 of the league. My first black of the season was in the second of these matches when I found myself playing on board 2 for Richmond B against Jochem Snuverink, who has a FIDE rating of 2341. Playing an opponent about 450 points stronger than me would at least give me the chance to learn something.

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4

So he’s going Italian rather than Spanish. My main choices are Bc5 and Nf6, against both of which White has sharp options where Black has to know the theory. I guess I could play defensively with Be7 if I didn’t want a theoretical battle. Of course, whatever Black chooses, White has the option of playing for a closed position with d3.

3.. Nf6

3.. Bc5 is probably the theoretically stronger move but Black has to be prepared to counter both the Evans Gambit (4. b4) and 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4. Both absolutely fine as long as you can remember the analysis. 3.. Nf6 is more fun for Black to play, though.

4. Ng5 d5

Black’s alternative here is 4.. Bc5, the scary Traxler (or Wilkes-Barre) variation. 5. Nxf7 is totally wild and unplayable for either side unless you know the theory. 5. Bxf7+ Ke7 may not give Black quite enough play for the pawn, although things are never so easy in practice.

5. exd5 Nd4

This is the next big decision for Black. The obvious recapture 5.. Nxd5 gives White a pleasant choice. The famous Fried Liver Attack with 6. Nxf7 is very popular and successful in junior chess. An alternative preferred by some authorities is 6. d4, when 6.. Nxd4 7. c3 b5 is a fairly recent try for Black. I would have said that Nxd5 was no longer played at higher levels but it was tried in Shirov-Sulskis (Tromso Olympiad 2014) when Black, who seemed unaware of ancient theory, lost quickly. I would have thought Shirov was the last person you should play 5.. Nxd5 against, but I guess there’s no accounting for taste.

5.. Na5 is, and has been for a couple of hundred years or so, the main line. I’ll return to this in a later post.

5.. b5 is the Ulvestad Variation, which usually transposes into my choice, the Fritz Variation. This was very popular for many years at Richmond Junior Club and scores well in practice (54% for Black on BigBase 2014), so it was a natural choice for me.

6. c3

Generally accepted to be the best move. A trap which I’ve used successfully online (and in games against small children at Richmond Junior Club) on several occasions goes 6. d6? Qxd6 7. Nxf7? Qc6 8. Nxh8? Qxg2 9. Rf1 Qxe4+ 10. Be2 Nf3#

6.. b5
7. Bf1

Looks strange, but again considered the best move here.

7.. Nxd5
8. cxd4 Qxg5
9. Bxb5+ Kd8

This is the main line of the Fritz variation. White now has an important decision: Qf3 or O-O.

10. O-O

10. Qf3 is the more popular option here (144 games on BigBase 2014 compared with 70 for O-O) but Stockfish considers Black to be fine after 10.. exd4 (much better than the more usual Bb7, which would probably transpose to my game) 11. O-O Rb8 or 11. Bc6 Nf4! 12. Bxa8 Bg4 when Black, despite being a rook down, appears to stand better.

Jochem’s choice seems to be a definite improvement, leading to an advantage for White in all variations.

10.. Bb7

10.. Rb8 11. Bc6 exd4 (or 10.. exd4 transposing) is probably a better try for Black, but, with his king in the centre, it’s still good for White.

11. Qf3 exd4

11.. Rb8 12. dxe5 Ne3 13. Qh3 Qxg2+ 14. Qxg2 Nxg2 15. d4 is another try, but leaves White with an extra pawn.

12. d3 Qf6
13. Qg4 Qd6

In this position Black has chosen Qe5 five times and Bc8 three times. Everything seems to favour White, though.

14. Na3 c6
15. Ba4 Nf6

The losing move. 15.. Nb6 was a better try, but still pretty unpleasant for Black. Now Stockfish chooses Qh4, planning to follow up with moves like Nc4, Re1 and Bg5 when it can’t find a good defence for Black. Jochem’s move is also good enough to win.

16. Qg5 h6
17. Qa5+ Qc7
18. Nc4 c5
19. Bd2 Nd5

Leading to a quick loss, but after 19.. Qxa5 20. Bxa5+ Kc8 21. b4! White opens up the c-file for an attack on the black king.

20. Qb5 Qe7

The computer move Ke7 was the only way to play on.

21. Rae1 1-0

So it looks from this game that the Fritz Variation, while offering good chances against an unprepared opponent, is pretty much unplayable for Black as long as White knows the theory.

Richard James

Share

Another Comedy of Errors

This is a game that I played back in July of 1990. This is one of four chess games that I played against Rick Christopher back then. I won three of those games and lost one of them. This game is one of my wins.

Rick was a player that I didn’t take seriously because I was rated much higher than he was and because he never wore shoes to any chess tournaments that I can remember, not even in the winter! In this game I got a little lazy and did not see some of my opportunities to win more quickly and Rick (White) missed some opportunities to equalize. I basically waited for Rick to blunder and then won the endgame after he did blunder. This strategy does work against weaker players, but it is better for my game play overall to force errors.

Mike Serovey

Share

Evident Advantages In King And Pawns Endgame

Like mating patterns and attacking patterns, there are patterns in that endgame which can help you to formulate simple but effective strategies.

1. Material Advantage: A material advantage is an obvious winning advantage in the endgame; a person who has a material advantage can win easily, though one should always investigate the resulting positions in relation to key squares & rule of square.

2. Virtual material advantage: How one should obtain a virtual material advantage? In my view there are two ways to do it.

i) Doubling the opponent’s pawns: Here is an example.


Now following the same example, if Black has a pawn on d7 instead of e6 then the game is equal.

ii) Pawn crippling: Through pawn crippling you can prevent the march of two enemy pawns with yours, which secures you a virtual material advantage. For example:

With White to move he can move his pawn to e4, thereby stopping the advance of Black’s e- and f- file pawns. While with Black to move he should play here f5 in order to save the day.

3. A piece is out of action: If you can force the enemy king to leave the main battle area it can secure the win. For example:

This is win for White with either side to move.

4. Far advanced rook pawns on both wings with opposition: This can be possible because the one who promote the queen first can prevent the enemy pawn to promote into queen by controlling the queening square. Here is an example.

5. Passed pawns: I have noticed that in practice a distance passed pawn is more advantageous than a regular one. However, it becomes much more critical when you are fighting with two scattered pawns against protected passed pawns or connected mobile pawns. So the question arises as to which passed pawn/pawns is/are better? Here I have divided them into the following categories.

i) Usually the protected passed pawn is better than the scattered one, though you can find some exceptions too. For example here White can’t win because the Black king can manage two tasks. (1. It is in the square of white’s passed pawn and 2. It is able to protect his own pawn without any risk):

ii) Scattered passed pawns against two connected mobile pawns: This is more crucial and securing a win depends on king and pawns positions.

a) Usually two scattered distant passed pawns are stronger than the two connected mobile pawns. For example

b) Two connected mobile pawns are better if they are far advanced, along with the king. For example

Ashvin Chauhan

Share

Towards Your Chess Improvement

The position below was taken from the game of Tarrasch against Berger, played in 1889:


White to move

At first glance it looks as if it is winning for white as you can play Rxd4, winning a piece.

First raw thought:
Rxd4 – cxd4
Qxc8 – Qxc8
Ne7+ and White wins a piece,

Normally a beginner, with some combinative knowledge, will instantly play this given combination and ended up in losing (as after Nxc8- d3 wins). The reason is that they don’t care to look at the position that arises after the combination which gives them a material advantage.

Lesson 1: Always try to see another half move ahead before playing a combination. The same thing has been recommended by Jacob Aagaard in his book Grandmaster Preparation: Calculation.

Second thought:
Before executing the combination I must bring my king closer so that I can stop the pawn advance. But then he can defend easily with Ra8 or Rb8 so I must stop here and look for other good moves. But now I see there is a chance to gain a tempo with:
Rxd4 – cxd4
Ne7+ (Changing the move order) – Qxe7
Qxc8+ – Qf8 and Qxf8 and gaining a tempo.

Lesson 2: Don’t give up in between.

Third thought:
I don’t get any material advantage then. Yet looking another half move ahead (lesson 1) I see that I now have a winning endgame position because the d4 pawn will fall soon and I can create outside passer on queen side.

Lesson 3: In the endgame a tiny advantage can be decisive and whatever combination you play must consider resulting endgames.

This position and the associated thought process shows that every position teaches you something. Progress is dependent on how much you learn and capitalise on it in future games.

Ashvin Chauhan

Share

Abraham’s Choice

Last Tuesday (9 September 2014) my old friend Abraham Neviazsky died suddenly at the age of 80. I’d known Abraham more or less since joining Richmond & Twickenham Chess Club in 1966.

Abraham was a remarkable character who had learnt chess as a boy in Lithuania, having been taught by the likes of Mikenas. His family had suffered hardship during the Second World War, and eventually found their way, via Poland, to Israel. Abraham later married an English girl and moved to England.

Abraham was noted for his devotion to Fulham football club, and also for his devotion to moving his b-pawn two squares at the start of the game. I played in the same team as him on many occasions and rarely if ever saw him play any first move other than b4. He didn’t play it in a particularly scary way, but was confident and experienced in the slightly unusual middle game positions he reached. In recent years he had also taken to starting his games with Black with a6 followed by b5.

The subject of opening choice has been a topic of debate recently on Nigel’s Facebook page. How should we choose our own openings and what advice should we give to our students, whether adults or children?

Should we encourage them, like Abraham, to stick to the same opening at all times or to vary their openings? And should we encourage them to choose main line openings or, again like Abraham, unusual openings?

I was an active tournament player in the mid 1970s, when the English Chess Explosion, along with the explosion in opening books, was getting underway. What I did was, in retrospect, exactly the wrong thing to do, but I’m sure I wasn’t the only one. Whenever a new Batsford opening book came out I’d rush to Foyle’s to buy it on publication day, skim through the pages excitedly and play it at the next opportunity. I’d get a bad position because I didn’t really understand the opening, decide it wasn’t for me, await the publication of the next opening book and repeat the whole cycle all over again. When I eventually realised that I was no longer interested in studying chess seriously I was left with the opening repertoire I had when the music stopped. I haven’t been happy with what I play, especially with White, but don’t feel confident playing anything else. I know a little bit about most openings but not enough about anything to play it against a strong opponent. I’m envious of my friends who’ve been playing the same non-critical openings for the past 40 years and know exactly what they’re doing at the start of the game.

But there are two reasons why I don’t really regret taking that approach. As a chess teacher it’s important that I know a bit about all openings so that I can find out how much my students know about them, so that I can avoid falling into the trap of only teaching the openings I play myself, and so that I can avoid giving them bad advice. A few months ago I watched two colleagues demonstrating a game to a class of eager students. The game started 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. 0-0 Nxe4, which they castigated for being too greedy and moving a piece twice in the opening. In fact it’s main line theory and perfectly good for Black, but as neither of my colleagues played this line with either colour they were unaware of this.

There’s another thing as well. It seems to me that only playing e4 and never d4 is like only listening to Bach and never to Mozart, or only reading Dickens and never Jane Austen. Always playing b4 on your first move, then, must be like only listening to, I don’t know, Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf. From my perspective it would seem that, from his choice of opening, Abraham only experienced a small part of the world of chess. But I’ve known few people who played chess with so much enjoyment and enthusiasm as Abraham. He’d have liked a few more years, but suffering a heart attack while playing chess against an old friend is probably the way he’d have wanted to go.

Richard James

Share

Chess Preparation for the Busy Person

Before writing, I checked for other peoples’ views on how a busy person should prepare? But most of the time they suggest opening repertories which save time. Instead of this I have a different idea that does not involve the effort involved in changing openings, instead putting the focus on managing your existing repertoire more efficiently.

1. Create your own database: You put in tournament games, online games with a decent time control and correspondence games.

2. Select critical positions: Whatever opening systems you play, you can find some middle game positions that occur in your games the most and put them into different categories. For example winning positions, losing ones and those which are difficult to handle or uncertain.

3. Use the computer as playing partner: I am not big fan of using a computer for chess preparation but here you can use computers in more sensible way. First of you can select levels which you want to play against then play your selected positions as black and white in order to grasp the ideas and spot out tactical possibilities.

4. Using the database: Once you have plenty of experience in playing the selected positions, now it’s time to see how the experts play them. You simply search positions using any chess database and can go through the games.

The whole process is nothing but a way working on the selected patterns in more organised way.

Ashvin Chauhan

Share

Remember Games and Patterns

You might have heard that Carlsen can remember numbers of positions and recall them over the board in a limited amount of time. In the book GM-RAM, by Rashid Ziatdinov, the author emphasises remembering key positions and games and claims that “if you know just one of important classical games, you will be able to become a 1400 level player, to be world champion you will need to know 1,000 such games”. This may be too much but we can’t deny fact that remembering these games cold will definitely help you towards chess improvement.

I tried different ways to remember games, for example playing them over the board many times, guessing them move by move, using Chess Position Trainer etc. But they didn’t work that well for me.

Then I tried one more thing and succeeded. This method uses lots of time but definitely works; after a month without playing them through a second time I am able to remember the games and their critical positions.

The way to do this is to take a book of your favourite player where he has annotated his games. Now we are going to annotate his games in our words rather than going through author’s annotations first. You can use different software but a pen and paper works best for me.

The most important thing is that your focus must be on one direction but with inherent flexibility (if your opponent blunders you must be able to punish him). This tends to be missing from the play of amateur play as they fight in different directions. Write down your ideas for each move (for both White and Black) and don’t worry if you repeat the same thing over a series of moves. Once you finish it (normally I take 4 to 6 hours) go to the experts annotations and compare. You will find that now it is very easy to understand the author’s points and your mistakes, this wouldn’t have happened if you went directly to the author’s annotations .

It is also wise to go for a second opinion also, if someone has explained the same game. Players who have the time and work like hell will definitely get benefit from this!

If you find this is very hard and time consuming, first watch this video:

Ashvin Chauhan

Share

Blind In One Eye And Can’t See Out The Other One

The game below is from the second round of my most recent event that I played in Colorado Springs. This game was a comedy of errors. I lost the first round and I think that my opponent did too, but I am not sure of that. Roger appears to be about ten years older than I am and I think that fatigue may have played a part in the way that he played this game. I took a lunch break between the first round and the second round and thus I arrived about five minutes late for the start of this game. That lost time may have hurt me in the endgame when we had a time scramble.

I was disappointed with a draw in this game because I thought that I was winning the endgame. We were the last game to finish that round and we got only 15 minutes to recover before the start of the third and final round. I ended up drawing my third round as well due to fatigue from this round. However, when I played over this game with a chess engine I became grateful for the draw because it was then that I realized that Roger let me get away with some horrendous blunders!

The first eight moves was pretty much what I wanted to play as White. Black’s ninth move pretty much started to mess up my plans because I had never seen that kind of setup against the Botvinnik System before. I misplayed the next ten moves or so and I ended up in an inferior position that Roger eventually let me out of.

On move number 16 I had achieved equality only to give Black a slight edge on move number 17. I outright blundered on move number 19, but Roger failed to take advantage of that. Judging by his facial expressions at a couple of points in this game Roger was actually impressed by some of my blunders!

I blundered again on move number 21. At move number 23 Black was clearly winning. Black missed a winning move on move number 24. I blundered again on move number 26 and Black let me get away with it. My moves number 27 and 28 were again blunders. Black finally finds a winning idea on move number 28. Black gives back part of his advantage on move number 31. Once again, I blundered on move number 35. Black blunders on move number 36 and allows me to regain equality. Black plays some inferior moves on numbers 44, 45, and 46 inclusive that allow me the opportunity to win, but I failed to take advantage of that. It seems that from this point on, every time that one of us made a weak move the other one matched it. I gave away my passed d pawn in the time scramble and then agreed to a draw.

Mike Serovey

Share

Critical Objectivity: Part II

“Find Fault …
Judge with severity …
… readily.”

If you were with me last week, you will likely remember that the above is the phrase I suggested that every chess player should live by with regard to each game they play if they are serious about their chess and would like to improve. In our constant search to further our chess understanding and to be better exponents of the game, we carry out post-game analysis. This, in my opinion, comes in two parts and we apply the above phrase to both. The first part, is the so-called ‘post-mortem’ analysis, which is done straight after the game, and preferably with one’s opponent. This was covered in my blog last week, and I advise you to read that first if it’s a stranger to you. The link is shown below.

http://chessimprover.com/critical-objectivity-part-i/

This week, we deal with the other part of post-game analysis, namely: Home Analysis.

Home analysis is very different from the post-mortem. It is usually done alone and takes a lot longer to carry out. In Home Analysis, our purpose (some would say ‘duty’) is to scrutinise our game — not only the one’s we have completed, but also our game as a whole. In order to do this, we must be prepared to make some sacrifices. The first is time, for in order for home analysis to be effective, it can not (and should not … must not) be rushed. The second sacrifice must be our ego, for a chess player who is too proud to be bluntly honest with his or herself wont progress very much. Before problems can be worked on (and trust me, no matter how strong a player, ones game is full of problems) they must first be identified.

As daunting as this sounds, it actually should be welcomed. After all, it means that it is possible to get better. With some dedication and hard work, honesty, and a strong will –not to mention a love for the game of chess, which is most important– it is my strong belief that any chess player can improve in some way, shape, or form. When a player tells me that they think they can not improve and have reached their peak, I usually ask them if they analyse and am not surprised that most don’t.

“I don’t have time”,
“I can’t be bothered”,
“it’s boring”,
“that’s only for grandmasters”. I’ve heard most excuses and this is more often the cause of any lack of progress.

So, we have covered the ‘why’, let’s turn our attention to the ‘how’ …

There are no hard and fast rules with home analysis, just like there aren’t with the post-mortem, it varies from player to player, and the more that one carries it out, the more it will gel and one will discover what works and develop their own technique. I do have a few general points of advice, however:

– Be alone and quiet. If possible, be totally free from interruption and distraction.

– Be comfortable.

– Analyse over a 3D, physical board, on which you can move pieces, not with a chess engine. This way, you will learn more, you will retain more information, you will gain more pattern recognition, and you will recall it easier and more accurately in your future games. It goes without saying, that the chess engine, opening book, and database/tablebase have value and can help a lot, but I think they have a danger of being over-used to the detriment of the brain.

– Be thorough, don’t rush or leave anything out.

– Treat the whole exercise as middlegame. Speaking for myself, I found that my analysis improved and became much more productive once I discovered this. Even if you have got in to trouble in the opening or endgame, I urge you to try to resist the temptation to open your openings book or tablebase. You can do this later on, and target those areas of your game specifically and that is best all-round. The point of post-game analysis should be to dissect the game that we have played, and to therefore evaluate how we play. Accordingly, we focus on our strategic understanding, our positional judgement, our calculation of variations, our tactical vision, our sense of danger. These things are the bread and butter of the chess game.

– Be Honest … bluntly honest.

When analysing, play through the game, armed with your notes from the post-mortem conducted with your opponent. These will already have given you some things to look at more closely. Do this at each move, not only from your perspective, but also from that of your opponent. What was played? What else was there? Explore the options, write the variations down along with your evaluations. Was the best move chosen, or was there something better? What was missed? What did you feel were critical positions? Again, you will already have an idea on this, make a note of it/them and delve in as deep as you like. This is a super exercise in itself and will be great for your pattern recognition.

Only when the analysis is completed should it be taken to the computer. Just a point of caution, however, computer evaluations of positions should be taken with a pinch of salt. You may think this is a bold statement, but even the best chess engine is very capable of giving a minus score in a position where White is actually doing very well. Likewise, it might show that White is up by +0.50 just before Black’s cramped position is about to explode in a fashion that would make Smyslov proud, and begin to dominate the whole board. Please bear this in mind. If you felt fine at a point in the game and your engine says your opponent is better, it does not necessarily mean you are wrong. Better does not mean winning, winning does not mean won. This is a unique feature with regard to chess engines, they are just sometimes not human enough.

Where your engine really does come in to its own, however, will be its calculation capabilities. What is it saying about your analysis of variations? What is it telling you that you have missed both during the game and after it? Which of your moves is it having a heart attack to? What brilliancies is it telling you were missed? Ignore them at your peril, include them in your annotations … and, very importantly, credit the engine.

When you’re done, click ‘save’ and then ‘print’. You will hold in your hand one of the most valuable things to your chess you could ever posses. From here, you should return to your board, and play through the finished product again. At the end of the exercise, you will have a much better understanding of chess, and a better insight into your play. Not only will it present technical areas to target for improvement, but it will also highlight some bad habits with which you are shooting yourself in the foot.

And believe it or not, that’s the easy bit. The hard bit is putting it all right — and, just like me dear reader, you are aiming to be the first player to have ever completely succeeded … ;-)

John Lee Shaw

Share

Critical Objectivity: part I

There is one very important ability needed by every chess player wanting to improve their game. Of course, chess has many different aspects to it, but without this certain ability, they all fade in to the background, and many may not even develop. The ability in question, is that of being able to be critically objective about one’s play.

It is very important to emphasise the word ‘critically’ here — taking a definition from the dictionary, “inclined to find fault or to judge with severity, often too readily.” For our purpose, let’s shorten it, thus:

“Find fault. Judge with severity. Readily.”

The chess player who strives to improve, should implement this after each game they play. After all, how can we get better without knowing our flaws? In truth, all areas of our chess are flawed in some way, (there is yet to be a player who has perfected the game), the challenge is pinpointing specifics so that we can work on them. This is done, of course, by carrying out post-game analysis. And this, dear reader, is the subject for my next two blogs.

It still startles me that many chess players do not analyse their games. This really is a great pity because they deprive themselves of great learning opportunities. However, perhaps there is a logical reason for this, as among the plethora of chess books on the market, there are not many (if any) covering the analysis of ones games. This is probably quite a commercial decision, considering that many strong players (and many not so strong players for that matter) make money carrying out the service.

Anyway, I am going to try to regress the balance, and offer what I can on the subject. It goes without saying, that there is no winning formula for analysis, no set rules or technique. Each person is different, as is each game, and what works in the case of one may not work in the case of the other. However, I do believe that it is possible to give sensible guidance on the subject, based upon experience, and what seems to work for me. The more that one analyses, a unique style develops and the framework will become like second nature.

My blogs this week and next week, will be of use to players who have either not yet embarked upon analysis of their games, or who feel that they are perhaps not getting what they should be from it. The reason that I have decided to split the blog in to two parts, is that in my opinion, there are two aspects to post-game analysis:

1). The so-called ‘Post-Mortem’ (immediately afterwards with the opponent).
2). Personal home analysis.

The Post Mortem

In my experience, it is very easy to tell a serious chess player, from a casual woodpusher, and even at tournaments there are examples of both. Serious players will find a quiet corner after they have finished playing, and embark upon a post-mortem of it with their opponent. Casual players might do this with good games, as an opportunity for glory, and their losses will get crushed up and disposed of.

The importance of the post-mortem can not be over-stated, it is one’s opportunity to gain the insight of the opponent — how was he/she feeling at certain points? Why did he/she play 18…Qb6, the move that caused great bemusement? Because chess is a battle of minds, this is a very crucial part of development. To approach chess solely with the self in mind is very often counter-productive — it certainly is in a game, after all. During the post-mortem, a player may already be startled at just how much they had missed in the game, and just how wrong he/she had been in evaluating the position, and the opponent’s options at certain stages, not to mention their own. This can be immensely deflating, especially when thinking that one has played a fabulous game, but it is a necessary pain that we must all go through in order to pursue that fabulous game.

Of course, the main objective is to discover what your opponent was looking for with their moves, what did they think they had, what did they think the moves achieved? What did they see that you didn’t and vice versa? Seek perspective, evaluations and opinion. Whether you won, lost or drew the game, you can learn from all of this. For your moves, you want to know their reactions, good or bad. Where did they feel you got it right? Where did they feel you got it wrong? What were they expecting — and was that better or worse than what you played? You might be startled at how often your opponent seems to have had a better plan for you than you did — and vice versa.

What did your opponent feel were crucial points in the game? Spend some time on what are seen to be crucial positions, this will give you some work already for stage 2, home analysis. How was your opponent feeling at various stages of the game? This will give you important feedback regarding how you are reading not only the situation on the board, but also the body-language across it. Did you think your opponent was worried when you played that check on move 21, prompting him to hunch over the board? Only to find out that he was encouraged, thinking it was wasteful or over-ambitious on your part and that it signalled to him that you felt you had nothing better? Indeed, was he right? This would show a tendency to bluff, or to show some wishful thinking or denial … and it’s really going to bite one on the behind if it doesn’t get sorted out.

Very often, a post-mortem might only last a few minutes, but those minutes will often have you bursting with things to look at and use to improve your game. I started taking a notepad with me because post-mortems gave me so much feedback. One more thing: I always try ‘dig’ and discover if my opponent knows the opening he/she played well? The mere comment “I’ve never seen this before” or “interesting line” can prompt many to volunteer lines in order to show off their theoretical knowledge. This can give you some things to look at if you found yourself surprised or if the game has highlighted a particular gap you have in a certain line. Just as you don’t want to miss a trick in the game, try not to miss any after it either.

Above all else, if you have never taken part in post-game analysis with an opponent before, then you really should give it a go. It can be a very rewarding exercise. Perhaps the next time you play, write down your moves and go over the game afterwards with your opponent. See what you can discover about their thought process and feelings during the game. If the opponent is stronger than you, if you have felt out-done somewhere, see it as open season to pick their brain.

You will very often find, during the exercise, that you will have much cause to … “Find fault. Judge with severity. Readily.” If you don’t, no matter how great the game in question, then it is more likely to be the fact that you are yet to master the art of being critically objective, than it is that you have mastered the art of chess.

And if you think that’s fun, just wait until part 2 …

John Lee Shaw

Share