You might also like to check out www.chessgames.com . On the front page each day is a tactical problem to solve. It starts on Monday with very basic ones, progressing to difficult ones on Sunday.

Also there are websites that have collections of tactical problems.

Just reading this thread for the first time and saw this.

Agree. I think it's a huge mistake to teach beginners openings which are deathly dull and/or you reach the same positions over and over again, like the Four Knights and Giuoco Piano etc. For one thing they're just incredibly boring to play and will put people off chess. For another thing they're quite difficult to find plans in.

There are plenty of openings out there which are suitable for beginners but which force asymmetry; I know because I currently play two of them - the Qa5 Scandinavian and the Bishop's Opening. (It goes badly for Black in the latter if he attempts to simply copy White). Neither opening really contains traps and pitfalls for the unwary, you can just show people the basic plan of the opening and set them loose.

I disagree with beginners playing the Scandinavian, it's so terribly boring for both players. I'd rather they learn attacking systems. It's true that they will get in trouble against players with better book, but they will get in trouble anyway vs those players

Is the Bishop's opening a good one for a beginner to start out with that you can just learn the basics and then turn them loose?

*Besides* tactics training, here's 10 things I learned in 2010 that helped me get from about 1100 ICC to 1600 ICC. Roughly corresponding to 900 USCF to maybe 1200ish.

1) Find the proper break move, and the rook development will become clear.

2) Opening principles work just fine, no need to learn openings at this level.

3) Pawn moves should be used sparingly in the opening and middlegame. Every pawn move weakens key squares and makes it less likely for that pawn to survive the middlegame.

4) The interplay of knight vs. bishop, as outlined in Silman's books, is an incredibly important concept and will clear up a lot of the 'I've developed but now I don't know what to do' problems.

5) It is vitally important to get your rooks to active spots in rook(s) + pawns endgames. It is worth sacrificing one or two pawns to get your rooks to the right spots.

6) Fixing your opponent's center pawn(s) on the same color as his only remaining bishop is an incredibly effective strategy at this level.

7) Rated, OTB play is fun, intense, and generally feeds your desire to play chess. It takes your appreciation for the game to a whole new level.

8) Chess is about training, not study. In other words, it's about developing certain skills more than it is memorizing a bunch of rules. Repeatedly playing out key concepts on a practice board (online or IRL) will drill key concepts into your head, while just reading them will often leave you befuddled.

9) Intermediates like me are okay at identifying the different features of a position (bad bishops, outposted knights, doubled pawns, rooks on open files, etc.), but awful at understanding the relative value of each.

10) I lied, I'm still going to mention tactics training. 15 minutes a day is more important than the other nine combined.

I started studying annotated games. I play them out on my board at home; I think I retain more from doing that. So far, I find that the games I've studied have helped me a lot with endgames. I make moves without even realizing I'm basing the decisions on patterns from previous games I've seen.

There are some similarities to poker for beginning players. It's easy to get blinded by your own position (the strength of your own hand) and not think about what your opponent is trying to do (his hand range). Sometimes I get impatient...I almost never think beyond 3 moves unless I have an idea for an endgame.

That's true for any game.


I think I need to start using more creative openings. I get in the same boring positions every time after my current openings. I reach a point of "What now?" in a lot of games against people who don't make obvious mistakes (eg 1400+). I mean, their mistakes are probably obvious to good players, but not to me. A Bruce Pandolfini book I read when I first started may actually have hurt me, rather than helped. I am going to practice some more aggressive/creative openings.

Go_blue, getting into the same "boring positions" is not a bad thing. The entire point of opening strategy is to get into those familiar and hopefully advantageous positions. If you're constantly getting into positions that are not to your advanage, you definitely want to drop those opening variations.

Widening your opening selection will work, but only when you're ready.

One of the biggest mistakes players make is knowing a little too much for their ability. The Soviet method of teaching chess was to only teach a student certain things and then when ready, would add something else to their knowlege. In other words, they weren't results oriented with students. Now i'm not saying that's the only or best way to learn the game, but the Soviets rather took their chess seriously and they had some pretty good results.

If you know someone strong enough, get them to annotate YOUR games for you. (I believe the chessbase programs have that feature.) Studying a GM game that was annotated by another GM may be helpful, but some of those moves are far beyond the understanding of the typical amateur.


Anyway, just to give a few points of advice..

Learn two or three openings that give you good positions.

Once in those favorable positions learn the interplay between bishops and knights. (In an open position bishops are better, and knights in a closed position.) There are of course always exceptions to every rule, but that's for later.

Always have a plan. Even a bad plan is better than no plan... "I want my queen here and my knight here" is a plan..

Play for space. The more space your pieces control the less space your opponent controls.

Oh yeah, the main one... Have fun!

I've decided that I am going to use this thread to keep track of my chess progression. I won't update it too often, but it will be cool for me to look back on it when I am a high rating in the future.

A few days ago I had to go to St. Louis to meet with a client. She and her husband took me out to dinner and showed me around the area. Before going to dinner, we stopped by their house and I saw a chess board. I mentioned that I play sometimes, and the husband challenged me to a game. This would be my first time playing in person, so I was pretty excited.

I beat him the first game, and he got really mad and said "Let's play again!" and very rapidly began setting up the pieces. I beat him again, and he stood up and said "Let's just get dinner!" and left the house to go to his car. It was a pretty amusing reaction to losing.

At dinner all he did was talk about how he runs a 90 million dollar company and blah blah blah, clearly trying to make himself feel awesome.

In conclusion, chess players are seemingly just as immature and ego-driven as poker players. However, I enjoyed playing chess in person quite a bit.

While I don't dispute this conclusion, I highly doubt that guy was a real chess player. If he were, he would have spent an hour+ after the first game analyzing in order to show you how he was so much better until this one move and even then he would still have good drawing chances except his wife was distracting him. He likely would cite some Informator article or book where GM blahblahblah definitely showed that his position was better and look at you suspiciously like you somehow stole some of his pawns while he wasn't looking. That's what a real chess player would do.

LOL, well said. I think the better conclusion to be drawn from Go_Blue's story is that people who run large companies tend to be competitive egomaniacs who can't stand not being the best at anything, and would therefore be advised not to keep a chess set around and challenge strangers to games if they, in actuality, suck at chess.

haha that would have been very amusing.

actually, after the first game i said in a friendly way "i don't know if you remember, but your double pawns here (i set up the position as i said it) is what caused you to lose." and he cut me off with "I KNOW WHY I LOST" and began setting up the pieces, "Let's play again!"

i don't think much merit can be given to my generalization. it just reminded me of playing in vegas, where people are your best friend...until they lose a pot to you.

Lately, I've been really focusing on the mental side of the game. I know it's all mental, but I mean the stuff that isn't directly related to chess knowledge. The results have been encouraging.

1) Use your knowledge.

Obviously it's no substitute for skill, but at my level I see a lot of players whose theoretical knowledge far surpasses their on-the-board performance, and the difference is mindset. How often do you hear a mediocre chess player say "I knew better than to to this, but I did it anyway"? I catch myself doing it all the time. "I knew I couldn't win a pawn race, but I didn't see anything better than to start it" or "I know I shouldn't move without checking his potential replies, but it just seemed good." or "I should think through to make sure this endgame is winning before I trade down into it, but I'm up a pawn so surely that's enough."

2) Determination matters.

I try to approach every game, every move with the mindset that "There's an advantage or improvement here for me, and I want to find it." That sounds obvious, but I've played a lot of games in the past thinking things like "I'm way better than this guy, I'll just throw out reasonable moves and wait for him to crumble" or "This guys is way better than me, I better hang on and just try to defuse any threats he can make." If I'm not in time trouble and I'm not sure if any of my ideas so far improve my position, then I'm not moving yet. I'm not moving until I'm sure it's an improvement or time trouble (or the threat of getting into future time trouble) dictates I have no choice.

3) Play positively as a default. That's not to say there's not times where you just have to defend against a threat, but if you don't *have* to respond immediately, it's probably better to proceed with a positive plan of your own. It may not work as well at the higher levels, but I'm finding at my level I can pick up a lot of wins just by not being the first one to blink. He's got a plan, I've got a plan, both can do some damage, but he breaks off his plan to try to stop mine. The initiative becomes perpetuating. Once he stops to defend my threat, I don't have to worry about his and I have time to create a new threat. And at the amateur levels, defense is hard, so the longer I have the initiative, the more likely it is that he'll make a mistake.

Great sample size. LOL.

my a-ha moment was getting big enough to move the queen

1. Before making any move, check for hanging pieces, forks, mates.

2. It's OK to transform advantages (e.g. a middlegame attack to an endgame with an extra pawn and active pieces).

That psychology is like 75% of success in any given game.

Haha I forgot I started this thread. I never really managed to get better and stopped playing. But, I'm going to start up again. Hopefully I'll start dominating now that I'm older and wiser!

The 1st thing is to get an abc tactics book that teach all the basic tactics. The 2nd thing is to buy as small an endgame book u can find and learn basic pawn, rook, queen endings that cover about enough in maybe 20 pages. You wont need much more up to ever. The 3rd thing is to buy a very simple and easy opening book that cover all openings, so you get at least the basic moves for playing all openings with enough variation covered up to 10 moves or so. The 4th thing is likely an intermediate book of middle endgames, that rates similarly in importance as the above books, if u want to develop further, and it will show the positional strategies that are kind of as important and similar as the basic tactics, so its significant and basic.

To study more will help if ur talent limit hasnt been reached, and yes, there is a limit thats higher or lower in every area of life and you wont improve but marginally after that. After the basics the talents are stronger players after one and two years than the lesser talents that start to peak after few years already while the talent go developing better like 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years maybe.

The next level studies develop an opening repertory, so you learn more variations from openings u pick to play, and learn the plans for both players. The are specific opening books and some teach the ideas better, giving just enough, though often too much, variation moves, and sadly in many cases one can bust a lot of moves by checking them with the computer. And dont put those moves in memory, just understand them. A good openings power will make one a stronger player also generally, as it improves ones chess understanding.

Then some have improved further with up to heavy tactics training, training ones talent potential further, plus it will develop the tactical eye further, as knowledge, and makes the brain stronger in calculations.

Leaks are in calculations, positional play, middle endgame play. One just sees why one is weak, why one loses, and then focus on those leaks.

Playing against even competition is the best of practise, but there are not too many of them around after one gets to average level, most players being just under it and it never improved my game as 90% or so slower blitz game like 1 6, 2 6, 5 10 ended only in two ways, either an easy outplay, or ones own blunder. I started to play computers at that point, just that one needs two computers if at the same time waiting a more level competition at a free chess server at least. I lost interest after some year or two playing computers and havent played much at all since, but even human competition playing many games straight if he is willing, was the best time i ever had when hitting the average blitz rating. The average was 1450, and the slower game average was maybe about 1800 according to my rating, where i played humans and machines. I often get close to draw at blitz games vs. ordinary master level or even better computers, with many draws also, rare wins. The difference between average and master isnt much, the talent from most part being the only difference and thats why i am not really impressed of anyones playing ability, got kind of through.

Playing against a significantly stronger human, like even just 100 points can be pain, and one tends to make a beginner blunder more often than one should against them, being psychologically in such a state of mind. I dont like it much, and i havent played them much, a couple of wins and draws from better positions also, close a win, they were below master, some 2000 blitz rating, who for some reason were pretty easy for me, and not sure i even have a losing score vs. them, but it was chance of course. What comes to not being able to win clear to even huge winning positions vs. much stronger opponents, is universal and happens to a lot of players and is well known. No different vs. my some beginner blunders vs. them. I remember not being able to score from clear winning positions a couple of times but blitz is blitz.

semi-grunching:

@OP: People keep suggesting you study tactics, and they are correct.

The single best thing I ever did to improve my tactics was to read and study "Winning Chess Tactics" by Yasser Seirawan.

I will always have a soft spot for the book because it was the single most important book in my humble chess-life.

I love love love that book and it's the book I used when I was teaching chess to the little rug-rats at my local elementary school because solid tactical play is the most important skill to have in chess, imo. The book was fun and taught the concepts well, and the puzzles were great too. Most other chess books I read have been too dry or focused too much on grandmaster games which were over my head.

I recommend starting with "Winning Chess Tactics", and then once the book is too easy for you, which it will be eventually, move on to the "Winning Chess Strategies" or the "Winning Chess Endings".

My $.02. GL!

Cliffs: I can't recommend Seirawan's "winning chess" series enough; but especially the tactics book.

-buckethead2

I might be wrong, but I am 100% serious

Firstly, lemme say that I was not entirely truthful - it has not taken me to the next level YET, but I believe that it will.

Secondly, I should have been more clear - I meant games between opposition of at least somewhat similar strength (let's say +- 200/250 rating pts). Naturally, if I play Carlsen my psychology will not be of much importance.

Thirdly, this is probably going to be very TL;DR - I am sorry. I thought about this for a week after I saw Wlrs's response and I am laying it all out

So the question that has plagued me for a while was: "why does my performance vary so much from game to game?". For a long time I answered this simply by "I am just not very good at chess". Even though that statement is relatively true, I don't think it is an answer in this case.

People I have talked to about this really liked to give the following response - "well, chess is just so deep that in each game you encounter completely different setups and your playing strength can vary quite a lot because of the type of position and other chess-related factors".

Okay, it is somewhat true. Hence in my previous statement I left 25% for chess-related factors The thing is that the depth of chess really does not matter THAT much for us mere mortals. If we take the entire depth of chess as 100%, in a game between two 2300 players we are covering maybe 5% of it. The rest of the 95% is not important, unless someone accidentally stumbles on to something that is good, but beyond his understanding - however, that can go both ways, so it cancels out. So those 5% is pretty much 100% for those 2300 players. That is like a separate realm where their game is played. Most of the things they consider are the same. Most of the lines they calculate are the same. Even when one beats another, based on a tactic or some strategic idea, the other usually realizes that it was not some novel idea, he has that type of motive in his chess knowledge, he just was not able to find it at that time.

Of course that in the long run, our chess knowledge is very important. However, it grows very slowly and even when we learn something new, we might not be able to apply it any time soon and it is often very hard to gauge just how important that knowledge was. So what matters from a game-to-game basis (again, I mean games between somewhat comparable opposition) is not the amount of knowledge we have, but the execution of it! And I believe that the level of our ability to execute our knowledge properly relies, almost solely, on our psychology.

When I came to this conclusion it finally hit me - I have to keep accumulating chess knowledge if I want to make big improvements in the long run, but if I want to do well in the short run, I have to work on my execution, not on my knowledge. In other words, I have to work with myself at a psychological level and fix leaks that I have in that area. And that is what I am trying to do (not without a lot of failure though, I admit).

I am going to try to illustrate this by some relatively recent examples from my own experience. Let's start with European Team chess Championship. I went there to represent the Lithuanian national team on board 4. Before the tournament, when the lineups for other teams were released I started seriously panicking. I was rated 2305 at a time and I saw that despite of how poorly we do in the tournament, most of my opponents will be GMs, with maybe a couple of IMs thrown in for good measure. Our team as a whole was also one of the last seeds and we were going to be over-matched in every match. I was scared as hell. "Who am I going to win against?! There is no one I can count on beating in this tournament! Oh lord, it is going to be horrible and the entire Lithuanian chess community will see it". For a month straight I was panicking every single day and I was sure that I am going to bomb this tournament really hard. During that month I was losing seemingly every single game of chess, whether it be rapid/blitz or classical training games. I couldn't solve anything on tactics trainer. I tried studying endgames and I just failed miserably. But then, thankfully, some real magic happened - literally on the morning of my departure to the championship, my wife announced that she is pregnant. Wow, did that put things in perspective! It took the entire pressure away immediately. "What does this tournament matter? I am going to be a dad!". We were taking a bus to Poland which was about a 15 or so hour ride and during those hours, when I didn't sleep, I just thought about my future. Not as a chess player, but as a man. And when I arrived to Poland, I just felt so inspired that I knew that I am going to do well in this tournament.

The result: http://chess-results.com/tnr114411.a...wi=821&snr=162

My first IM norm and 2550 performance. Not too shabby for a person who lost every game for a month and thought that he can't even beat players 400 lower rated than him.. So what do you think happened, did I magically acquire some massive chess knowledge overnight... or was it all in my head?

A couple weeks after that there was an Open Lithuanian Rapid Chess Championship. It had quite a large prize fund for Lithuanian standards and therefore there were a lot of strong players, a bunch of GMs and IMs. My rapid ELO was at 2310 and I was the 22nd seed. I am not a good blitz/rapid player, but I came in to this tournament very inspired by my recent performance and I felt nearly unstoppable. So I beat some lower rated guy in round one and get paired with 1970 as white in R2. Naturally, I think this is going to be easy. How can this guy pose any problems to me, the GM and IM crusher?! I was arrogant and I got punished for it. He just completely wrecked me, I did not stand a chance. It was not due to some opening surprise either, it was a very well known opening line for me in which he simply crushed me. I could not take him seriously and therefore I did not concentrate properly. Again the same question - did my chess ability just randomly went away for one round, or was it there, but I was not able to execute due to my messed up mental state? I think the answer is rather obvious.

After the game I was extremely frustrated with myself. Not because I lost a game - I am now experienced enough to expect such losses here and there. I was pissed because I realized WHY I lost and it made me feel ashamed and weak. I took a walk in fresh air (since I got crushed quickly I had some free time) and came back to the playing site as a new man. The result: http://chess-results.com/tnr115430.a...&wi=821&snr=22

I scored 7.5/8 in the next 8 games before losing in the last round to a strong GM (definitely chalk this to the other 25%, my mental state was fine, he just outplayed me). I beat an IM and scored 3.5/4 vs GMs in that streak. Same tournament, same day, I lose to 1970 hopelessly and then have these results. Did I just magically remember how to play chess? Or was it the result of my psychology? Again, I think the answer is rather obvious.

After this tournament there was a rather long period when I didn't play much, but studied quite a lot. I felt that I have improved quite a bit, was doing very well during training games, was solving various problems with ease. That gave me big self-confidence going in to the next tournament.

I beat a couple of lower rated guys, playing some fairly decent chess. You would think that I would have learned from my previous mistakes, but, sort of like a drugie, I fell back to bad habits. In round 3 I was paired versus a 2150 guy (I was rated 2344 at a time) as black. Having all this self-confidence from before, AGAIN I stepped on the same rake. I didn't take him seriously enough, did not concentrate and was simply wiped out. Again not a surprise in the opening, just a regular opening after which I got wrecked as if I was a beginner. What was really scary is that I had several chances to try to head towards some worse-but-drawish positions during the game, but I was still so arrogant that I had no doubt that I am going to outplay him somewhere down the line anyway. After I extended my hand in resignation again I felt this huge surge of shame. How could I've done this again? For **** sakes, this guy has even played in the national championship final, how can I disrespect him like that? I was very disappointed in myself, not in my chess, but in my mental weakness. Thankfully I had a full evening and half of the next day to recuperate. Again I was able to hide my mental flaws and went on a tear chess wise, winning four games in a row and beating a strong IM and GM in the process. With 6/7 I was suddenly in the lead and I was starting to feel arrogant again. Got paired versus a young and upcoming 2220 player and my first thought was "well THAT is a pretty nice pairing for a tournament leader, ho ho ho". Thankfully I caught myself in time. No more stepping on the same rake! I went in to the game confident, but respectful, was able to concentrate and won a nice game. Phew, one bullet dodged. Now I was on 7/8 and had a full point lead. Got paired versus another 2216 guy, very young and talented (he is now almost 2400 I think due to the K of 40). I was white, all I needed was a draw to clinch. Again I managed to maintain my mental state and went in to the game respecting the opponent, but I stepped on another rake - I played like a pussy cause the draw was enough. Got promptly completely wrecked, even though I was white. Again, the reason for the loss was not my chess ability... Again and again and again.. I still have a long way to go it seems, but I am showing some positive signs.

http://chess-results.com/tnr149319.a...0&wi=984&snr=3

So, here you go. I have more examples like these, but this is already much too TL;DR anyway. I have a firm belief that my performance from game to game is much more influenced by my mental state than my actual chess knowledge. Feel free to prove me wrong, though

I like this a lot. It reminds me of all the announcers saying how much of a mental game golf is. Sounds like nonsense to nongolfers but is understood perfectly by good golfers. And it's not about choking over 3 foot putts. So if true for a physical sport must be true for chess.

that is a good post youknowwho, and i agree. psychology was one of the main things i had to become good at to get my grandmaster title.

congrats . how many are in the litter?

Excellent post, YKW.