Review of Rock Solid Chess by Tiviakov

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

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

Rock Solid Chess – Tiviakov’s Unbeatable Strategy: Pawn Structures by Sergei Tiviakov and Yulia Gokbulut. New in Chess 2023 264pp

It’s true that I haven’t been posting as much lately, but that’s not due to time away from chess. I actually have my highest rating in seven years at this point. Not bad for a guy who’ll be 50 in less than three months.

So what’s the “secret” that’s propelling me right now? Well, for one, I’ve been hitting the books pretty hard. One of those books is this latest offering by famed Dutch GM Sergei Tiviakov.

As far as I am aware, this is his first book, though he has produced many videos for ChessBase, including two which I am intimately familiar with, his videos on the …Qd6 Scandinavian and the Alapin Sicilian.

This book is the first in what will be a series of books on chess strategy by these co-authors, and I have to say I not only found it to be highly instructive, but I enjoyed it immensely.

The book is broken into seven chapters. They are

  1. Pawn majority on one flank
  2. Doubled pawns, part one
  3. Doubled pawns, part two
  4. Semi-open files in the centre
  5. One open file in the centre
  6. Two open files in the centre
  7. The double fianchetto

Preceding these chapters is one of the most interesting introductions I have ever read. It’s titled “Human chess versus computer chess”. It gives several games, some classics, some modern, where Tiviakov explains the difference in thought processes between humans and engines.

The games contained in the book are mostly lightly annotated in terms of variations, as the authors give most of the explanations in prose. The idea here is for the reader to understand the ideas rather than to get to the absolute analytical truth of a position.

This is something I would like to see a lot more in chess books. Yes, when you read certain books, like Ramesh’s recent book Improve Your Chess Calculation, it’s highly important to give line after line to ensure that the reader is thoroughly absorbing the most subtle details of each position. In a book such as Tiviakov’s, however, it’s far more important to ensure that the reader understands the concepts, which are best established with verbal explanations. Next year’s engines may give different lines than this year’s, but the ideas will remain the same.

Like many authors, Tiviakov knows his games best, so he often illustrates his ideas using them, but he also leans heavily on games from days gone by. Thus, you’ll see games from Botvinnik in the ’30s; Tal-Smyslov from the ’50s; Karpov from the ’90s, etc.

All in all, this book is quite well done, and I found it not only useful but enjoyable. Also, it seems that perhaps NiC’s “experiment” with paper of a lesser quality is over. This book is printed on high-quality paper for which NiC has historically been known.

Buy it today, and tell me about it tomorrow.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Interesting Win Against the Berlin

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

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

Here’s a position you don’t typically think of as move 24 in a Berlin:

So how did we get here, and how did I manage to blunder away all of my advantage? Let’s look at the game. Please note that I haven’t really analyzed this much so that’s why the notes are so sparse. This game was just played 12 hours ago.

So my rating continues to climb, but my openings continue to verge on nonsensical.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Review of the Checkmate Patterns Manual

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

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

The Checkmate Patterns Manual by Raf Mesotten 2022 New in Chess 376pp

One of the latest offerings in the Chessable/New in Chess partnership, The Checkmate Patterns Manual by Raf Messoten offers something for everyone.

Comprised of 30 chapters designed to drill the basic “name” mates, i.e. Anastasia, Arabian, Boden, Smothered, Swallow’s Tail, etc this book serves as an excellent primer for beginner and post-beginner players, a refresher course for slightly more intermediate players, and as a source of valuable teaching material for instructors.

Before we start talking about the book itself, let’s talk about a couple of technical points. First, the book is hardbound with excellent quality paper as has become a hallmark of the Chessable/New in Chess books. Second, the author is an average club player from Belgium (around 1900 FIDE).

I think that for some readers, this second point may seem overly important. After all, who wants to buy a book from a player well below the level of most authors? However, in this case, the level of the writer is well suited to the level of the material selected, so I don’t find that to be an issue at all.

Who is this book for? In my opinion, this book is best suited either for newer players, let’s say up to about 1000 Elo, or for anyone who coaches newer players.

To demonstrate the level of this book, let’s take a quick look at a couple of the puzzles in the “Final Test” which contains “100 of the hardest exercises in this book.”

For most players, neither of those exercises should present too much of a challenge. Those who do find them challenging should immediately buy this book, and those who coach should also immediately buy this book.

As for the book itself, it starts with a basic test to check the level of the reader, and is then split into 30 chapters, covering various “name” mating patterns such as Anastasia’s Mate, Arabian Mate, Boden’s Mate, etc, along with thematic mates such as Mate in the Opening, Bank Rank Mate, etc. After those chapters come three more tests, and then the solutions.

Each chapter contains several examples of the type of mate being discussed. Let’s take a look at an example from the first chapter on Anastasia’s mate.

First, the reader is given a diagram that shows the pattern:

Anastasia Pattern – click to see diagram in book

Then there are several game examples. For instance, this position from Karjakin-Metsalu 2001

Containing over 600 exercises, this book will keep the reader busy for some time.

While this book isn’t for everyone, I still give it five stars for those who it is meant for.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Losing the Thread – We’ve All Been There

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

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

Imagine you are White in the above game. You’re up a piece for a pawn. You just need to convert this won game and you’ll add a full point to your score. What could be better?

So why not just play 52.Bc2 and threaten to win a pawn to go up a full piece? Yep, that’s what you do. You see your opponent’s eyes light up. Oh no, what have you missed?

Your opponent plays 52…h4, and now after 53.Bxe4 hxg3 54.fxg3 Kg4 you realize your mistake.

If White saves the bishop, Black will win White’s last pawn, and the game is a theoretical draw of R+B vs R.

I honestly don’t know why White didn’t go into that and at least try for the win.

Here is the complete game, which is wonderfully rich and complex.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Which Recapture?

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

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

Here’s an interesting position. White has just played 21.Rxd8

Take a minute and ask yourself which way you would recapture as Black. 21…Rxd8, or 21…Kxd8 and why.

To me, the instant answer was 21…Rxd8. I didn’t even give it any thought.  Somewhere in the back of my mind some trope about taking the open d file was probably rumbling around.

Yet in the game, Mitrabha recaptured with the King, playing 21…Kxd8. After a moment’s thought I realized that this makes perfect sense since White has a queenside pawn majority and so Black would want his king on that side of the board.

Out of curiosity I checked with the engine. 21…Kxd8 is equal. 21…Rxd8 is +1.2 for White.

There should be no “automatic” recaptures without thinking.

Here is the entire game:

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Excellent Conversion at the U18 World Youth

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

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

I’ve been trying to do a better job of following more live events and recent games. I’ve not always done a great job with the total immersion concept, but I’m making a push to be better at it now. I need to see more games in a setting that forces me to draw my own conclusions about them rather than just read someone’s publish analysis.

One thing I’ve started to do is to play through every game in TWIC between two players of at least 2400 strength in the Caro-Kann and the Slav since those are openings that I play.

Another thing that I’ve been doing is following more live events. So a bit ago I opened up Follow Chess and I clicked on the U18 Open section of the World Youth and I saw this position.

Many times we are taught that opposite-colored bishops are usually a draw. Yet immediately this struck me as a position where White could easily convert. White did so, putting on a nice demonstration of technique. Yes, there was nothing overly difficult about this, yet it still serves as a nice example of a technical conversion.

Here is the game:

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Publishers and Diagrams

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

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

One thing that I really wish chess book publishers would take into account more is the placement of diagrams.

One of the harder things for me to learn when I came back to chess in 2011 after an absence of almost 20 years was how to hold a position in my head so that I could reset it after playing through a line of analysis. I suspect that I am not alone in this.

Yes, I’ve read the musings of those who say they play through games with two boards, making the move on both boards, then using one to keep the position while they play through the analysis on the other board. I personally don’t find that to be an appealing thought at all.

I was drawn to the idea, both then and now, that learning to hold positions in my head would ultimately make me a stronger player. I believe this to be as true today as I did a decade ago when I was struggling to do this at all. If it’s relevant to anyone, my rating then was about 1600, whereas today I’m generally in the high 1700’s with a peak of 1896. Not exactly a strong player, but certainly not weak.

With that said, publisher’s do include diagrams for a reason. For some, it’s clear that they are trying to give readers a visual anchor in order to read through the book without needing a board. I am nowhere near that level, though I do often try to play through the analysis in my head without moving the pieces and have found that this has helped me visualize better. At first, I could hold the position well enough, but didn’t understand things like “why …Qd6 there” until I’d eventually realize that a pawn was unprotected on g3 or something like that.

That takes me to today’s quibble. Books which don’t have diagrams in places they clearly should.

Let’s take a look at this page from Enqvist’s 300 Most Important Chess Positions

We are given a diagram before Black’s 19th move, which is followed by a good explanation of why that move was played, but we are not given a diagram either after Black’s 20th move, where it would be much more useful. As you can see, the analysis runs to the next page and contains parentheses and brackets.

I’d really like to know the reasoning behind the placement of diagrams. This one makes no sense to me.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Targets: Taimanov – Bronstein 1953

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

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

In reading Enqvist’s book 300 Most Important Chess Positions I came across this one from Zurich 53.

I want you to stop for a moment and take a look at the position. It’s Black to move, and you are Black, so what would you play?

If you are like me, you are tempted by 18…Rxa2, which wins back your pawn. Ah…the security-blanket-feeling of material equality! If you are like Bronstein, you realize that after 19.Rxa2 Rxa2 20.e5 Black will have no targets on the queenside, while White’s attacking chances in the center are very real.

On the other hand, if you are like Bronstein, you realize that after 18…Bxc3 19.bxc3 you have some tasty targets with the a and c pawns.

Here is the game. Go find your inner Bronstein!

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

USA Olympiad Woes and Dreams

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

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

Heading into the current Chess Olympiad in Chennai, the USA team in the Open Section were massive rating favorites. Today, with their 1-3 loss against India 2 they are all but eliminated from medal contention at all.

We can all speculate about the reasons for this severe underperformance all we like, but ultimately it boils down to poor form at the wrong time, along with some opponents who have shown quite good form. This is chess, it happens.

We can also engage in the quite enjoyable activity of Monday morning quarterbacking and speculate how a team composed of youngsters such as Xiong, Sevian, Niemann, etc. would have done. In fact, I kind of played that game earlier today with an elite GM. I also played it with another friend. It’s fun!

Let’s be honest though, all of those thoughts are fueled by hindsight. It’s easy to say that things should have been done differently once they have gone somewhat wrong. Yet had we sent a team that was not the best one we could field in terms of rating, then fans would be screaming bloody murder. So the speculation has to remain as a “what if” – or does it?

Imagine a world in which the USA bids for, and receives, an Olympiad. We can then field two teams. In fact, if there is an odd number of teams, we can even field a third. What would that look like? Now we could be taking the same action as India and seeing what our youngsters can do. Imagine USA 2, a team composed of Xiong, Sevian, Niemann, Robson, and Swiercz. USA 3, where we can get a veteran like Onischuk back at the board on a team where we could get experience for players like Yoo and Mishra.

I would love to see this dream become a reality. Let’s keep growing chess here in the US.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Female Only Samford Style Award?

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

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

I saw the list of 2022 Samford Fellowship awards a couple of days ago, and it was nice to see two female winners this year in Carissa Yip and Alice Lee. In fact, this is the third year in a row that Carissa has made the list, and I imagine that she has been putting the funds to good use based on her continued success at the board.

It’s also Chess Olympiad season right now, and so I’m enthusiastically keeping an eye on the performance of the USA teams. One thing that has struck me is that while the USA Open team has become far and away the team to beat, the USA Women’s team has not achieved nearly that same level of success.

In fact, our ladies have won only two team medals in their entire history (Silver in 2004, and Bronze in 2008) and 3/5 of the team in 2022 have been there since the times of those medals.

This isn’t to cast disparagement on the performance of our current female Olympians. As always, I quite enjoy watching their performance, and am hopeful that they will wind up outperforming their starting position. Yet I keep coming back to the thought that it would be nice if we could create some of the same opportunities for female chess players here at home that we have for men.

The importation of talent such as Levon Aronian, Wesley So and Lenier Dominguez, along with the growth of a player like Sam Shankland mean that some prior stalwarts of the US team, such as Ray Robson and Var Akobian, no longer have a spot on the team. In fact, Shankland only has his spot due to Nakamura turning it down. A fact that Sam is refreshingly honest about as he often openly wonders if the current Olympiad will be his last, which he has done since his first.

Yet on the ladies’ side, we are seeing the return, yet again, of Irina Krush, Anna Zatonskih, and Tatev Abrahamyan. Again, please don’t misunderstand, I enjoy watching these ladies play, and often admire their games. I used to follow Tatev’s games quite closely when I was a French Defense player. I can’t help thinking, though, what would it be like if the USA was producing GM’s amongst female players like we are amongst the men?

That brings me back to the topic of this post. How nice would it be if there were some sort of Samford-style award that was for female players only. How long before we would have a Women’s Olympic Team that would be perennial medal contenders?

How long before we would be producing more professional female players? Many of the top US Women’s players, such as Jennifer Yu, seem to have little to no interest in continuing as professionals. In the current climate, it’s hard to blame them.

Anyways, food for thought. I’d love to hear your comments.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott