One of the lost arts of the chess board is that of adjournment analysis. In the days before computers we used to adjourn games after the first session (normally 40 moves and 4 or 5 hours) and then continue them after dinner or on a separate day. And between the sessions it was customary to analyse the adjourned position as well as possible, recruiting what help was available.
There is an interesting chapter on adjournment analysis in The Art of the Middle Game by Paul Keres and Alexander Kotov, with this particular chapter being written by Keres. Alexander Kotov also discusses is in Think Like a Grandmaster and here there are some wonderful insights.
Kotov suggests that collective analysis tends to be inaccurate, something that was confirmed by my own experience. He suggests that an initial examination with friends can be a good thing, but after that you should work out everything on your own.
These days everything would be checked by a computer of course, but the idea that collective analysis tends to be inaccurate is interesting. I think that a lot of different voices will necessarily create an atmosphere in which participants want to outdo each other, and without their own game being at risk. It’s a classic case of too many cooks spoiling the broth, with one highly motivated cook being far more effective.
How can this help the improvement process? Essentially in immunising us against believing the unknowing collective and seeking instead to be independent. Your own ideas may not be right but thinking them through yourself and putting them on the line you learn something if they are refuted.
Here meanwhile is a funny video about receiving advice:
One of my early favourite openings was the Chigorin Defence with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6!?. I started playing it after seeing it recommended in Leonard Barden’s The Guardian Chess Book. And I then played it throughout my teenage years, long before Alexander Morozevich discovered it.
The Chigorin is a sharp and lively counter attacking line which has much in common with both the Gruenfeld and Nimzo-Indian. There have been some developments since Morozevich championed it, but by and large it will tend to surprise White players.
Here’s my Youtube clip about the Chigorin Video at Tiger Chess:
Here’s a nice blow for humanity. Note that computers can have trouble with closed positions and especially build-ups against their kings. And this in turn should help correspondence players who want to gain an edge!
Here’s another interesting Youtube video about one of my favourite players. I really miss Kasparov’s vibrant attacking style:
One of the greatest dangers of facing an unorthodox opening is psychological; it’s very easy to feel contemptuous of your opponent’s moves, or even insulted. And it has happened even to the best players, for example when Anatoly Karpov lost to Tony Miles when the latter answered 1.e4 with 1….a6.
Magnus Carlsen manages rather better in the following game, but mainly because he stays objective:
Here’s a nice documentary featuring interviews of different players. Among the featured players are Anatoly Karpov, Levon Aronian, Alexandra Kosteniuk and Elizabeth Paehtz.
Here’s an interesting video of the London Chess Classic blitz qualifier, won by England’s Michael Adams. I hasten to add that players of this level can play meaningful blitz games, but as you go down the rating scale it becomes ever more destructive to players’ thinking habits:
This great event finishes on Sunday, the official tournament site is here.
This warning from Stephen Hawking got me thinking. First of all I was surprised that he was taking the trouble to lend support for this idea which has been depicted in the movies on numerous occasions. And then I started considering chess players’ relationships with computers and how they’ve changed the nature of the game.
Computers have certainly led to massive advances in the fields of training and preparation; now even some players below 2200 can effectively use engines such as Houdini or Stockfish to prepare critical positions. This has led to many top players eschewing sharp theoretical lines and instead choosing to slug it out in dour positional struggles, with Magnus Carlsen being the leading representative of this approach. Speculative gambits have become quite rare as the work required to prepare them is largely wasted; it’s a serious risk to play the same line in more than one game as future opponents may be very well prepared.
So what lines are good? Basically just about anything that puts the emphasis on the middle game in which both sides have lots of playable alternatives. Your opponent can still prepare using a computer database, but he’s not likely to unleash a decisive opening innovation.
As for artificial intelligence, let’s keep them on a tight rein. I discussed this matter with Michael Koblentz on Facebook and he cited Koblentz’s law of robotics. This included such common sense measures as not given computers weapons, allowing them unilateral control of life support systems, build other computers etc. All common sense really, and of course we should never, ever, let them play chess.
One thing I’ve discovered over the years is that many people play chess for fun. This was a rather alien concept as I’ve always gone for ‘blood’ myself. I’ve also found it difficult to understand why many players don’t really seem to be trying to improve, they just seemed to be enjoying playing some matches, meeting up with their friends and perhaps trying a new opening.
It took me a while to accept that this was a valid approach. The turning point came during one of my seminars in which two attendees took me aside and suggested I do a video on tricks and traps in the opening. They weren’t sure they wanted to spend thousands of hours improving their positional understanding but would get a kick out of springing a few traps on their unsuspecting opponents.
Thus the idea for my Foxy Openings Dirty Tricks videos was born and I made two of them outlining a couple of tricky and surprising opening repertoires. The Dashing Danish could also fall into the category of ‘light entertainment’.
These videos are now all available at my Tiger Chess site, complete with pgn files for download and use in programs like Chess Position Trainer and Chess Openings Wizard. Here’s a video showing a bit more about the Danish one:
Winning a won game is one of the trickiest aspects of chess. In addition to the regular difficulties in combining tactics and strategy, there are great psychological pressures to contend with. For some it’s an internalized parent telling them not to mess it up, others will become careless and wonder when their opponents will resign. Very few players play as well when they recognize they should win with best play.
In the November 2014 Tiger Chess Clinic (available to Full Members only) I take a look at various qualities which can help the process, perhaps the most important of which is endgame skill. The top players certainly have this in spades which is one of the reasons they rarely mess things up.
Here’s Magnus Carlsen at work in the London Chess Classic from a couple of years ago. It looked at first as if it should be a draw, but little by little things slip away for White:
Here meanwhile is some more about the Tiger Chess Clinic: