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.
Something I have been giving a lot of thought to lately is how I can expand and improve my training program.
Over the decade-plus I have been blogging, I have had many “plans” that have seen the light of day. Some are well thought out, some not.
Generally it’s some mix of trying to create the perfect storm of materials plus time expenditure. At the end of 2021, for instance, I had this plan.
That’s a plan that was reasonably well-designed with quite a bit of thought put into it. Yet I failed. Why? I believe the answer is because I focused on the “what” but not the “how and when” of things.
The what is easy. What do I need to do to get better? You can find many answers to this question, most of them valid and based on the experiences of others. You can spend time analyzing your games and trying to eradicate weaknesses. You can work on your tactics, your endings, or your openings. You can do those last three with a board and set, a website/app, or with books. Again, this is the easy part.
The hard and less discussed part is the how and when. How are you going to achieve your goals? When will you work on them? That is something I didn’t consider when I wrote the above plan.
While I have no children, I am married and have a full-time career that typically sees me putting in at least 43 hours weekly. So, the how and when factor in when considering these things. I can’t very well ignore either my career or my wife and expect life to continue as is.
Something I have seriously thought about is the idea of waking up early in the morning for training. I currently get time every morning to solve some tactics and review some lines on Chessable each morning with my coffee. On Monday and Wednesday, I work from home, so the time I would usually spend commuting can be repurposed for training.
I have been thinking, “Sure, but what if I get up at 4:00 a.m. and then train daily from 4:00-6:00 a.m.?” That’s one possibility, but what would happen on Thursday nights when I play? To routinely get up at 4:00 a.m. in a state of mind where it’s possible to train, I’d have to go to bed by 9:00 p.m. each night. Yet on Thursday, I routinely am at the chess club until 10:00 p.m. and often am not home until as late as 11:00 p.m. So what then?
Also, if I get up at 4:00 a.m. on Thursday, I will be tired when I start my 7:00 p.m. game. I also couldn’t get up early on Friday to train since I would be going to bed hours later than normal. This means we’re talking about getting up early to train three days a week instead of five. As it is, I get some time in on Mon-Wed, so would this only benefit me on Tuesday? Is it even worth it, then?
These are the quandaries of trying to train under the family life circumstances. It’s not a question of what you can achieve as much as it’s a question of what you are willing to give up to have the chance.
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.
Spassky’s Best Games by Bezgodov & Oleinikov New in Chess 2023 280pp
This is the second recent offering by New in Chess, which covers the games of a World Champion. The other, Max Euwe’s Best Games by Jan Timman, was reviewed by me here.
While 61 games are included in this volume, the book focuses at least as much on the biography of the champion. The book is separated into two parts. Part I: A brief biography, and Part II: Games.
While there is no doubt that Spassky was one of the best players of his era, his reign as World Champion was nothing special. If I am being honest, I think Spassky would be largely forgotten by today’s players if not for the fact that he is the one from whom Fischer wrested the crown.
Talk to younger or newer players today, and they will recall names from the Soviet era, such as Tal, as his games sparkle with the creativity of sacrificial genius. Sure, he was one of the two “Winter Champions” spoken of by Botvinnik. So-called due to holding the title for a short time before the Patriarch reclaimed it. The other, Smyslov, while the greater overall player, is less well remembered today.
For Spassky, being Bobby’s opponent in 1972 keeps his memory alive. It’s not fair, but it is how life works.
To properly review this book, I also need to split my review into two parts.
Part I: A brief biography
This section of the book is quite well written. It covers Spassky’s first steps with famed trainer Vladimir Zak in St. Petersburg. Then, his training with Tolush once he became too strong for Zak. His professional relationship with Bondarevsky after parting ways with Tolush, etc.
From here, we see Boris gaining strength and winning accolades as he ultimately summits Olympus, only to fall out of favor with the apparatchiks of the communist party after losing to Fischer and his subsequent relocation to France, etc.
Along the way, game fragments show Spassky’s improving strength and skill.
I highly recommend this book for this section alone, alas…
Part II: Games
Here is where I take some exceptions with this book. I have two main quibbles: one minor and one not so much.
The minor quibble is the lack of what I would think is an appropriate number of diagrams and/or oddly placed diagrams.
To show an example:
We get this diagram from Spassky-Nezhmetdinov 1959
From here, we get the following:
“15.e4! Nh6
White’s idea is founded on the variation 15…f4 16.Nxg5!. White simply has an extra pawn and a winning position: 16…Nxh2 17.Ne6 Qh4 18.Nxf8 Nxf1 19.Bxf1 Kxf8 20.Nc7 Rh8 21.Qd5 Qe7 22.Ne6+ Ke8 23.Rd1.”
OK, I get it. Only two moves played after the diagram, so it’s not hard to reconstruct. But why not have another diagram appear after …Nh6 instead?
It gets worse as we then have:
“16.exf5 Nxf5 17.Bd3
Black’s attack has ended before it begun (sic). Losses, both material and positional, are inevitable.
17…Nf6
17…Nd4 18.Be4 a6 19.Nxd4 cxd4 20.Qh5 Rf7 21.Qh6 Kh8 22.Qe6 Rg7 23.b6 with a clear white advantage.”
I would like to see publishers better understand their potential target audiences for a book like this and understand the relationship that online training has with books.
I am by no means a strong chess player. Still, I am reasonably competent (US Chess rating is 1824 right now), and I find it much easier to read a book with a diagram before any analytical variation of more than a few moves. Most people reading this review will understand the pain of being well past some variation only to realize they left a piece on the wrong square for the last several moves. This is largely eliminated by placing diagrams there.
What I would do in the above passage is place diagrams after 15…Nh6 and 17…Nf6 which would help many readers, especially the lower-rated ones, with accurately playing through variations and then correctly setting the position from before the variation.
As for my remark about the relationship that online training has with books, when playing through games in Chessbase or watching a video with some analysis by strong players, there is zero chance that a piece will be on the wrong square after a variation. It can’t happen when playing through electronic content. Since it can happen when playing through games on a board, I feel that publishers would be doing themselves a favor by taking as many steps to eliminate this issue.
This brings me to my less-minor quibble. The overall lack of analysis is sad. Take this position from the 1968 Spassky-Korchnoi Candidates Final. The notes in this case are by English FM Steve Giddins.
This position is after the move 26…Qe6
“White’s attempted ‘attack’ on the kingside is brushed away like a fly, and this illustrates the depth of Spassky’s match strategy. The Korchnoi of those days was well-known as a brilliant defender and counter-attacker, but, by his own admission, was much weaker at seizing and using the initiative. In later years, partly inspired by his match defeat against Spassky, he worked exceptionally hard to broaden his style and become more versatile.”
OK, but why was the attack brushed away? What problem does …Qe6 solve that was not solved up til now? Can we illustrate what White’s threats were with a less accurate move perhaps?
Well, maybe this is just a fluke, right? No. Here is Spassky-Larsen 1978 after 14.0-0-0
“Such things are common at lower levels, but rare at Grandmaster level. White’s advantage can already be assessed as decisive.”
OK. Neat. Why? What could Black have done to prevent this from happening? Why is White’s advantage so decisive? Again, I say these things with the understanding that the publisher is likely as happy with a player rated 1000 buying this book as they are with a player rated 2200+.
It’s not all bad, though. After each game, a brief description of the lesson to be learned is given.
All in all, I’d say this book is a solid 3.5 out of 5. Mostly for the biography, but not completely. Some of the games covered have nice analytical breakdowns; it’s just that it’s the exception rather than the norm.
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 night I sat down to play seven-time Wisconsin State Champion Bill Wiliams. Though he is well past his prime, Bill remains a strong player who will capitalize on any opportunity.
I managed to outplay Bill for most of the game, but then I made an unforgivable blunder and was simply crushed. While devastating, this is a great learning opportunity.
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.
Max Euwe’s Best Games by Jan Timman New in Chess 2023 304pp
One of the latest offerings by New in Chess is this excellent tome on the 5th world chess champion. Timman notes in the introduction that he wanted to write a book on Euwe for several years, primarily due to the fact that Euwe is the only world champion that the Netherlands has produced to date.
Of course, the author knew the subject, and they even wrote a book on Fischer-Spassky together. Nevertheless, this book is a nice, objective work rather than a hagiography.
Over its 304 pages, the book covers 80 of Euwe’s games in depth. The book is split into four chapters.
The 1920’s
World Champion
Dethroned
After the war
There is a nice index of openings in the book and a list of names. One glaring omission is the lack of a games index. The “list of names” does cover the names of the opponents, but it also includes names of players who may have commented on a game in published analysis, so there is no direct list of the opponents. I find that to be the only real omission here.
The rest of the book is very well presented. The analysis of the games is thorough, and there are multiple diagrams on just about every page. I personally find this to be rather important. I do enjoy playing over the analysis in books, and I find this to be sometimes difficult without enough diagrams.
I also think that Timman did a wonderful job of combining explanations with variations. Here is an example from Thomas-Euwe Carlsbad 1929
19…e4
“A logical move, gaining space in the centre. However, 19…Qxd1 20.Rxd1 Rfc8 was stronger. At the board, it was hard to calculate why the queen trade is so strong. The hidden point emerges in the variation 21.Ra1 e4 22.Rxa2 exf3 23.Bxc5 and now Black has the surprising 23…b5!, gaining a decisive advantage on the queenside. “
Lastly, I want to give serious kudos to New in Chess for what appears to be a reversal of a recent horrible decision. About a year back the paper quality of the books published by New in Chess declined significantly. At first I assumed there was a paper shortage or something similar, but New in Chess released a statement saying that the new paper was easier on the eyes, etc. While that was true, it made the books look less elegant and cheaper.
Lately they have gone back to the much higher quality of paper. I sincerely appreciate that.
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 piece of advice that we hear over and over again is to analyze your games, especially draws and losses.
On the surface, that seems like sound advice, and here is a game I played on Thursday which I not only won, but was quickly up material. So why would anyone waste their time analyzing such a trivial win?
So what would be the point of looking at this at all? Well, in spite of the fact that the win was pretty straightforward there is one extremely teachable moment for Black here.
Recently I learned WHY White plays 4.Bd3 in the Exchange Caro. The idea is to prevent an easy …Bf5 by Black.
So now I can work on what to do in a position like this one, reached in the game:
I have been saying for years that I need to work on openings, but it’s only for the past few months or so that I truly have been doing so.
Now I have a position to analze which will help me understand why 4.Nc3 is inaccurate, and knowing why the book line is played will help with that. Whereas if I simply took the position that this game isn’t worth looking at since I won then I would miss something.
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.
Many chess players are familiar with this Lasker quote. “If you see a good move, look for a better one.”
I myself am certainly familiar, but sometimes it’s easy to forget to follow that advice. Take this position from a 10+5 game I just played:
Here I have decided that a possible path to victory is just to ram the a pawn down the board. So I begin this plan with 25…a5 and after a few moves we are here:
The nice thing is that the rook on c1 can’t block the a pawn as the bishop hangs. One reasonable idea for White would be to exchange the bishops with 28.Bxe4, but instead my opponent decides that he’d rather preserve the bishop, and so he plays 28.Bd1??.
I am now so fixated on my plan of shoving the a pawn, that the next move I play is 28…a4 and then after 29.h4 I respond 29…a3
This is why we are supposed to look for a better move. To be clear, I have plenty of time here. I am not in time trouble AT ALL.
What move did I miss? See below…
Til Next Time,
Chris Wainscott
.
.
.
.
.
In either position the correct idea is …Rxg2+, forking the queen and king.
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.
Here is my game from last night with some light notes. A total blunder fest, but part of my prep for the Senior Open was to play until nothing was left. I feel like I did that part well, at least.
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.
Something I have talked about over the years is my desire to one day use the method that Vladimir Zak allegedly taught in the Leningrad Pioneer’s Palace of taking between 13-17 hours to annotate a single game.
The formula essentially works out thusly:
Play the game over quickly in 15 or 20 minutes to “awaken your thoughts.”
Play it over the course of an hour to synopsize the key moments.
Analyze key moments in detail over three to four hours.
Analyze the opening for three to four hours.
Play the game over one more and write analysis for four to five hours.
I am fairly certain I can not analyze every one of my games in this fashion as I don’t have that much time. However, I have always wanted to do one.
Here is the game I have selected. I will show my work over some upcoming blog entries.
Feel free to critique me on this journey. I think it will be interesting.
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 didn’t post yesterday, but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t training. I didn’t get to do any Sherlock’s Method, but that’s mostly because I work from the office on Tuesdays. So my “free” hour between 7:00-8:00 am that I use for training on Mon/Wed/Fri is spent dropping my dog off at doggy daycare (shout out to Dogtopia in Pewaukee, WI – they are awesome!)
However, I knew this going in. I will also have the same issue on some Thursdays since I work from the office on that day too. I also go to the chess club on Thursday night. I don’t think I will have a game tomorrow, so I might still get my positions in. Time will tell. The plan is to do at least eight today to get in yesterday’s and today’s four positions.
Here’s a position that exposes an interesting blind spot in my calculation. I used to have an issue where any time there was a pawn exchange in an endgame, I would “forget” that you can just push past and that you’re not forced to recapture just because you can. This issue is not the same, but in my mind it is probably related.
Here is the position. It is from a correspondence game in 2011.
I’ll try to replicate my thoughts as I had them.
“White is down two pawns, but the d5 pawn is hanging. So really, they can be down only one pawn if they desire.
So what about 1.Nxd5. If 1…Qxd2+ 2.Kxd2 I’m threatening a fork on c7 along with 3.Bxg7, winning material. Wait, no, there is no fork on c7 since the d6 bishop guards against it.
Oh, OK. I play 1.Nb5, and now I am threatening both the d6 bishop as well as taking on g7. If Black puts the bishop on f8, now the fork works! Except 1…Qxd2+ 2.Kxd2 Bf4+ and now c7 is still guarded and after I move my king, Black can guard against the capture on g7.
Wait, maybe this is a positional puzzle since it’s a correspondence game. What if I play 1.Qxd5, and then after 1…Qxd5 2.Nxd5 Black has to either play 2…Nf6 and give back the pawn, or play 2…f6, which looks not great. Plus, in this line there is no …Bf4+ since the d5 knight guards against it.”
At this point, I’m essentially through most of the time I had allotted myself to solve this one. So I decide my solution has to be 1.Qxd5. After all, that looks to be pretty level, and an engine will tell you it’s slightly better for Black if Black gives up the second pawn with 2…Nf6 3.Nxf6+ gxf6 4.Bxg6 0-0. Of course, I’d rather be playing Black since I think the queenside majority would be a factor in the endgame.
Of course, there is a huge hole in my calculation. Do you see it? Do you see why I say that it’s related to my old inability to realize there were two ways to do something with a pawn?
The solution and my explanation are below.
Til Next Time,
Chris Wainscott
.
.
.
.
.
What I am missing is that after 1.Nb5 Qxd2+
White is not forced to recapture with the King, allowing …Bf4+. Instead, just recapture with the knight and the dual threats against the bishop on d6 and the pawn on g7 remain, along with the potential for the fork on c7 if the bishop moves to f8.
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 I mentioned yesterday, I am now training for the US Senior Open. This morning I kept up the routine of working on four exercises from Sherlock’s Method.
So far, here are my results. Out of eight puzzles, I have gotten four correct, three incorrect, and one I am giving myself partial credit for because I saw the main idea but not the purpose of it, so while I had a couple of moves correct, I missed some of the follow-up moves.
This is why I insist on writing down all of my analysis. There is no way to pretend, “oh yeah, I saw that,” since it’s not on the page.
The next piece of work that I need to do is to determine what line of the Caro I want to play against the starting move order of the classical variation. Take this position:
Here the main three moves are 4…Bf5; 4…Nf6; 4…Nd7. The one that seems to be the most in vogue is the 4…Nf6 line, but I don’t know how I feel about it. I have never played it or 4…Nd7, so I can see some value in deeply learning one of those systems. On the other hand, there is something to be said for sticking to the lines that I know best. Something to think about in the coming few days.
In the meantime, here’s a position from So-Van Foreest Zagreb 2022 Blitz.
I was checking this game as I saw it was an 0-1 game in the 4…Nf6 line of the Caro. In this position White has a massive edge, but Wesley slipped by playing the natural looking, but less precise 23.Rae1 instead of a move that holds the bigger edge. What move did Wesley miss? Solution below.
Here is the entire game.
Til Next Time,
Chris Wainscott
What Wesley Missed
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23.f4 keeps the position at a little over +5 according to Stockfish 15
