It’s Better to be Lucky Than Good

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

As mentioned in a prior post, one of my main focuses right now is to learn to be completely honest with myself. To me, this doesn’t mean just being honest in my annotations – that part is easy. It also means a more honest approach with how to fix these issues.

Here is an excellent example:

Simple, right? 20…Rc2 followed by taking the knight? Well, I calculated 20…Rc2 21.Qb3 Rxe2 22.Rdc1 Qd7 23.Qd1 and I was worried my rook would be in danger of being trapped. Had I seen one move further and considered 23…Rb2 I would have likely realized that there is no practical way for White to get at the rook before Black can defend it.

This is something that can’t be “hidden in analysis” – there’s no real way to say that I didn’t take because of some external factor without looking like a real idiot. So it’s easy to be honest in the analytical part of this game. There’s no other practical choice.

But what about honesty in the approach to solving the issue? That’s a far more complex discussion.

I need to improve my calculation far beyond where it is now. It’s not just a matter of seeing further and clearer but of properly evaluating the end result of the variation I am looking at.

To this end, I am going to use this website: Blindfold Chess Puzzles (blindfold-chess-puzzles.com). I need to learn to visualize better, and this needs to be one of the tools used.

For those who are interested, here is the entire game.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

The Clean 30

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and that’s why I’m flattering, and not stealing. 🙂

I heard FM James Canty mention in this podcast: in this podcast at the 50:45 mark that he does something called “The Clean 50” on his streams where he does Puzzle Rush Survival and is not allowed to move to the next task until he can solve 50 puzzles without a miss. Get to 49 and miss and you have to start over. It’s a tool to develop discipline.

I have started to use this idea with what I am cleverly calling “The Clean 30” which is the same thing, but 30 puzzles.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Honesty, is Such a Lonely Word

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

I mentioned in an earlier post that you have to be honest with yourself. 

That doesn’t mean part of the time or some of the time. It means all of the time. Today I come across this position:

First, take a minute and calculate what you would play here. White to play and win.

OK, did you solve it?

Here’s what I came up with. 22.Ne6 fxe6 23.Qf6.Boom! I win.

Nope. What did I miss?

Simple. After Qf6 Black can play 23…Qf8. Here 24.Rc7 wins.

But I did not see that when I was solving it.

So I think that counting ones like this as failures is a huge step on the journey to improvement.

YMMV.

Here’s the game:

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Intermezzo’s – They Matter

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

Some lessons really stick with you. For me, this game is one of the most efficient lessons I have ever received.

I just now put this game, played only seven months into my comeback after an 18-year layoff, into Chessbase. I didn’t remember some of the info, such as the opening, but I could still picture the tactic as clear as day.

This was the tactic that made me realize how important in-between moves are. Since then, any book I have seen with a chapter on this theme is one I really enjoy reading.

This takes us back to the game we reviewed a snippet of yesterday. We have this position:

Here, my opponent plays 29…Qf7. At the board, I had calculated his other alternative, 29…Qe8 as follows: 30.Bg4 Rf8 31.Bxe6+ Kh8 32.Rc7 and just assessed this as crushing for White.

However, it turns out that Black has a nice resource here. Instead of retreating the rook on f5 here:

Black can play 30…Rc8 and if White captures the rooks with 31.Bxf5 Black then plays 31…Nxf5 32.Rxc8 Qxc8 33.Bf4 Nc4 and White is only the tiniest bit better. Now, the engine will show lines where as long as White avoids taking the rook right away, then White is still better, but I don’t think that in the game I would have looked deep enough to even think of those ideas.

Luckily for me, in the line that appeared on the board I saw the nice intermezzo.

Again, here is the position:

I see that my opponent is planning that after 30.Bg4 Rxf4 that as long as I play 31.Bxf4 Qxf4+ he gets a pawn for the exchange. Instead, I play 31.Bxe6

Now after 31…Qxe6 32.Bxf4 I am up a clean exchange.

This is the reason that reviewing your games matters. Yes, I didn’t analyze the game with Ryan in Chessbase, but we did go over it a bit after the game.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

You Have to Be Honest With Yourself

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

One of the almost universally accepted pieces of advice that improvers get it to analyze your own games.

I will be the first to admit that many times in my life I have “analyzed” my games by simply turning on the engine and turning off my mind. I also have fallen victim many times to the idea that “I would have seen that.”

That last phrase is an insidious one. It’s so easy to trick yourself into believing these things that it can have a massive negative impact.

Let’s take this position, for instance. Here, my opponent has just taken on d4 with the knight which had been on f5. After the game, he said he had missed that my queen would guard the f2 square so his rook couldn’t penetrate.

If I take the knight, I’m simply up a rook for a pawn, and with so much weak material in Black’s camp, it will soon be more. But wait, isn’t 35.Rxg7+ the start of a three-move mate?

Well, back when I first came back to chess in 2011, and for a few years afterward, I had this horrible habit of missing escape squares. Luckily, this behavior manifested itself more often in my puzzle-solving than in my playing, but let’s just attribute that to luck.

So what happens here?

Well, calculation shows two possibilities. The first would be 35…Kxg7 36.Bf6+ Kf7 37.Qg6#. OK, that’s good. The second possibility would be 36…Kh6 37.Qg6#.

Good news, we have a forced mate on the board! However, remember what I told you above about my habit of missing things? I wanted to make sure that I didn’t run into anything like that here. So I really took my time and spent a few minutes making sure.

So ultimately I played the move, and here is the final position of the game.

Nice, right? Everything came out just as calculated. Except it didn’t, and this is where today’s lesson of honesty comes into play. When I was calculating this OTB, I completely missed the fact that the Black king could go to h6 in the first place.

“But I would have seen that in the game!” Yeah, sure. I would have 100% seen that 37.Qg6 is mate in one. I have no doubt about this. In addition, the knight is still hanging on d4, so does any of this truly matter?

Yes, of course it does. If you really want to get better, you have to have a deep and abiding honesty with yourself. You can’t brush these things aside.

So, while I am pleased overall with the game and the result, I am not happy with my performance on this move.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Does The Dojo Even Have a Clue?

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

In a word – yes! In two words, which you should read in the voice of Jesse Kraii, “Yes, boss.”

One of my continuing chess goals for 2024 will be an extension of what I did in 2023, and that is to trust the process.

I joined the Dojo Training Program a couple of months ago, and so far, I have to say that it’s helped me a lot. Has the help been that I am finally studying the “right” things? I don’t think so. To be honest, I’m not sure there are necessarily “right” things.

Certainly, there can be wrong things. If you spent years studying nothing but tactics, would you become stronger? Almost certainly. What if those tactics were nothing but mate in ones though? Would you be stronger then? Not likely. At least not after the first few hundred, assuming you were a beginner when you started.

Some things in the Dojo training program for my cohort include Polgar Mate in Two’s, Polgar Mate in Three’s, building a low-level opening repertoire along the lines of the quick starter courses in Chessable, playing through certain GM games, analyzing my games, etc.

Does that mean that this is the key? Has the Dojo cracked the code? Not necessarily, in my opinion. Where they get it right is that they give the learners something to focus on.

I do believe that some of the items in the Dojo program are vital to anyone who wants to make a real attempt at improvement. For example, analyzing one’s own games. My experience has shown that when I truly work at analyzing my games, I tend to get better, even if it’s a slow grind of a process.

So what is my plan for 2024? To keep grinding the Dojo Training Program. While I don’t think that the Polgar book is any better than other books would be, for instance, Forcing Chess Moves by Hertain, or one of my favorite books which should be more well known, Improve Your Chess Tactics by Neishtadt. However, the fact that it’s the book that was selected keeps me from jumping around and solving a few from this book and a few from that book.

Besides, it’s satisfying when you get to check things off the list, and with the Dojo program, boy do you get to check things off the list.

Also, their separate Discord for the training program makes it easy to find training partners and a community of like-minded folks.

Consider this my suggestion that you sign up for the Dojo Training Program today!

You can join here: Training Program | Chess Dojo

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Steinitz Never Mouse-slipped

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

These days, when you’re looking up games, you need to pay special attention to whether or not the game was played online.

Let’s take the game Donchenko-Malek played on 11/07/2023 in the early Titled Tuesday. Since this game is in an opening I play (the Caro), I decided to look at it since I often look at games in TWIC that are played in my openings.

We start out with a sideline:

Here, Malek plays 3…g6 instead of taking the pawn and exchanging queens. Cool, I don’t look at these lines too often, so this is some good stuff.

I keep going through the game, and it’s just dead level, but I can see that Malek wins, so what the heck.

One move from the end of the game, Black is slightly better, but nothing spectacular. Then:

In this position, Donchenko, clearly intending to play 29.Rd6, instead plays 29.Rd5.

Ah. No wonder the game is lost.

Here is the entire game for anyone interested.

Just a reminder that in the digital chess age, you can’t take a result at face value 100% of the time.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Three Lessons to Learn

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

Recently, I joined the Chess Dojo training program. The program is a very detailed and thought-out training plan. Please note that this is in no way similar to having a coach, and in fact, you should still keep working with the coach you have, even if you join.

The program is a detailed list of tasks that players within certain rating bands – “cohorts” – should work on.

So, for instance, part of the cohort I am in is to solve the Polgar mate in two puzzles from number 307 to number 1,800.

Another part is to analyze some master games, and that takes us to today’s work. The game is Petrosian – Lipnitsky, 1947. According to the study guide, we should spend roughly 30 min on each game, and we should be able to outline three takeaways when done.

Here is the game. See you in 30 minutes.

Something that struck me, immediately when I first saw this game was White’s next three moves from this position:

They are 12.Rad1; 13.Rc1; 14.Rfd1

What a fantastic thing to see that a player can immediately admit to themselves that they would rather have rooks on c1 and d1 and after 12.Rad1, the only way to fix that was to move the rook back to c1.

So, what are my other two takeaways? The first is that in this position, White can win the bishop pair with 19.f4

The third is the tactical sequence that starts in this position with 22.Ba7

Overall, it was an excellent game for the 18-year-old who would win the world championship 16 years later.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Don’t Blame the Opening

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

Last Thursday, I played against Allen Becker, a local 2000 player. Typically, when I have White against Allen, I play the 6.Be2 Najdorf. I planned to compile a file of all of the games in this line from 2023 in which both players were 2500 minimum, then work through them in preparation for this game.

My Chessbase had other ideas, and I had to spend some time deleting and recreating my search booster, along with some other maintenance work. So, I was thinking before the game that I had two choices.

First, I could play into what would likely be the 6.Be2 Najdorf. I assume Allen spent some time that day (and perhaps prior) looking at these lines to prepare.

Second, I could play 1.d4, and we would likely wind up in a Queen’s Indian.

Decisions needed to be made, and I ultimately went with Option 2. As I mentioned to Allen after the game, the problem here is that I have played the Najdorf as recently as he has, whereas I hadn’t played the White side of the QID in years.

First, let’s start with the game:

Now, let’s start with the excuses.

  • “I had to stay out of his prep.”
  • “I didn’t know the opening/I didn’t have time to memorize the lines/I’m not playing my normal stuff.”

Are those legit? Perhaps in their own way, but certainly not in relation to this game. Let’s look at why.

First, take this position:

This is where it’s easy to say stuff like, “Here, I went wrong with 13.Rc1 since 13.Ne5 has been played more than five times as often.” That is a 100% true statement, but let’s face it, it’s an excuse. The three most popular moves here, in order, according to my database, are 13.Ne5 (73 times); 13.Re1 (19 times); 13.Rc1 (14 times), and so there it is, right? The third most popular line equals didn’t know the opening well enough, and that’s why I lost!

However, Stockfish 16, at a depth of 40, gives the following as the top three moves in this order. 13.a3 (-0.09); 13.Qb1 (-0.09); 13.Rc1 (-0.13).

So, ultimately, I played the best move of the three shown in my database, according to the engine. Hmm… it must not be that I didn’t know the opening.

Now, let’s take this position:

Here, I play a move that has never appeared in my database, 13.Na4?. I can pretend as long and as loud as I like that the reason I played this move is that I didn’t know the opening, but you don’t have to know an opening to know enough not to make stupid moves.

My thought process here is that I want to fight for control of the c file, so I want to get the knight out of the way. Stockfish 16, again at a depth of 40, will tell you that the position here is -0.60. This is hardly the evaluation of a dead-lost position. In fact, it’s only slightly worse.

The problem isn’t the eval; it’s the lack of understanding. Here, I refuse to abide by solid chess principles. After all, my vague dream to “fight for control of the c file” is nonsense in this position. Allen can play 12..Ba3 13.Rc2 Qe7 and so much for any hope I have to control anything.

While Allen doesn’t play that line, what he plays is fine. This leads us five moves later, to this:

Here I know I need to get my knight back into the game. So I start calculating. I look at 18.Qb2 and 18.Nc3. I ultimately decide the Nc3 idea has the trappy little idea in it.

I look at the following:

13.Nc3 Rc8 14.Nex4 Rxc1 15.Nxd6 Rc6 16.Nxf7 Kxf7 and it seems a bit unclear  to me, but probably a little better. The engine will tell you it’s much, much better, but I did not know during the game if it was, just that it likely was a bit better, though unclear.

However, after 13.Nc3 Rc8 14.Nex4 Black doesn’t have to take the queen. He can play 14…dxe4 instead. But here, I can just play 15.Qxc8+ and then after 15…Nf8, I must be completely winning since I can save the knight on f3.

Oops. Do you see the fatal flaw? Give it some thought. It’s below my signature.

So here we are at the end of an important lesson. It’s easy to blame the lack of opening knowledge, but that wouldn’t be correct since that’s not what cost me the game. It was my lack of understanding in general, along with the utter oversight in calculation.

The good news is that this understanding means that the problem can be fixed, whereas taking the easy way out and blaming the opening would mean that I wouldn’t have identified the actual issue.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscot

.

.

.

.

Oops, the bishop on a6 will snap off the queen. I missed this entirely.

Some Thoughts About Improvement

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

A common theme that I continue to see in adult improvement content is that, for some unknown reason, many people have decided that improvement cannot be fun and must be a grind.

From my point of view, neither of those are necessarily true statements.

The internet is full of folks who are several hundred (even 1,000+) points below whatever rating level is being discussed, but they are speaking definitively that “The only way to get to ____ is to ____.” e.g., “The only way to get to 2200 is to spend at least five hours a day studying for ten years.” or something along those lines.

The main problem here is how would they know.

Let’s use me as an example here. My rating is currently 1848, and I am trying to get to 2200. I can speak pretty definitively on what it took for me to get to 1800, but I can’t tell you a thing about what it takes to get to 2200. I can tell you what my plan is to get there, but I can’t tell you if it will work. Along the way, over the years of my journey, I have made several changes to what I am doing as I learn what works and what doesn’t for me.

The key takeaway in that sentence is the last two words. “For me.”

However, my journey started a dozen years ago. I was just under 1500, and my current peak rating is 1898. So I can speak about how I gained those 400 peak-to-trough points. Did I do it by grinding away for hours every single day on things that I hate? Absolutely not.

Mostly, what I have done to this point is just to spend *some* time on chess almost every single day. Sometimes that looks like me spending a couple of minutes on Chessable knocking on an opening line or some tactics. Sometimes it looks like me spending several hours on analyzing a game of mine or playing through GM games, etc.

The point is consistency, not pain. Sure, sometimes I spend a lot of time taking the pain. This has been illustrated in my recent work over the past year or so on openings. In general, I don’t like studying openings. But I will not consistently beat the players I need to beat to get to 2200 if I don’t stop getting horrible positions out of the opening. Yet, if I decided that I was going to grind openings to the detriment of everything else, then how would I possibly be able to keep my head in the game?

I don’t think I could. To study chess with an eye toward improving, I am convinced that it needs to be enjoyable. At least, that turns out to be the case when I am the improver.

Therefore, I split the time as best I can. Today, perhaps I will work on lines in the Caro. Tomorrow, maybe I solve some puzzles. Then, the day after, I could decide it’s time to play through some GM games or read a bit more of Reassess Your Chess.

Again, I can’t pretend to be able to speak with any authority on where I am trying to go. But I can speak that way with where I am now.

Since you made it this far, here’s a puzzle to solve. The solution is at the bottom.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

.

.

.

.

.

Solution