7/9 log

Chapter 15: Combinations: the aims of combinations, active moves, checks and forcing play, when should you stop calculating?

Felt I should be pretty strong here and while a couple of the exercise problems I had trouble getting I did more than fine on the test. Did some of the test in the car waiting at traffic lights. Probably a bad idea but still produced solid results!

Test: 21/22 - excellent

The only problem I missed was this one because I stopped looking after winning a piece and since it was a 1-star problem I figured, hey, maybe it is that simple. I assumed I missed something, but no, my analysis was fine. In other problems he gives full credit for other moves that aren't the primary one you are supposed to fine and it seems here that is reasonable. But, yeah, the book move just ends the game immediately of course and is much stronger.

With this work ethic, I am not sure if you need me anymore :O

great work!

Lol. It means you can check out where I may be weak and be an even more effective coach!! Plus if I end up with good results, you can claim it was all because of your coaching .

7/10 log
Chapter 16: Queen against pawn. Pawn on 7th/2nd rank, winning rule, iknight or central pawn, rook pawn, bishop pawn, pawn on 6th/3rd rank.

Test: 17/29 pass. The tests for this were a bloodbath. I didn't go through the exercises/instructive part on a board as thoroughly as I should have. So as penance I went through the chapter again, even though I didn't fail.

16-4 0 out of 2. Missing this was quite bad imo.


16-5 0 out of 2. Missing this wasn't great but at least less bad.


16-8 0 out of 3. Fairly tricky so not as bad missing it.


16-9 1 out of 3. Kinda bad as this was definitely covered. But man these positions are tricky!


16-10 0 out of 3. Pretty bad. I miscalculated the winning variation, ugh.


7/11 log
Chapter 17: Stalemate motifs. Combinations, motifs in endgame, defence in pawn ending, ideas in studies, ideas in the middlegame.

Test: 13/15 - excellent

Played several blitz games. Took too much time, won on cheapos, missed quite a bit. So, standard? Def not that sharp at blitz atm but not playing a ton.

17-2 0 out of 1 point


17-9 0 out of 1 point. Missed that my move doesn't create a successful mating net. Only 1 square off the actually answer at least, .


7/12 log
Lesson. Learned I can pretty easily take a slightly trickier line vs. Smith Morra. I also got way too hung up on my knight being "out of the game," missing that my position really left the opponent with very few moves.

In the second game we went over coach was pretty surprised I ended up winning. So was I, lol. He said he may show it to Tex as an example of not giving up (and getting lucky, good luck with that Tex!).

7/13 log
Took a mental health day off from work so of course I spent most of it on chess and hanging with our dog, lol.

tactics: 28/30 intermediate set.

2 hours on opening repertoire. Finished putting lines/games of Barry Attack into CPT. Probably should finish putting in Dutch lines next, then Accelerated Dragon lines, then go back to 150 attack + Zukertort, etc.

Chapter 18: Forced variations. The meaning of active moves, forced variations, combinations.

Test: 18/23 - good

18-2: Only got 1 out of 2 points. I miscalculated the continuation although I'm not sure I miss it in a game if I see the first move.


18-3 1 out of 3 points. Cool problem. I considered the right moves but didn't notice everything they threatened.


18-10 1 out of 2. Was sloppy and wrote down the wrong continuation for one of black's follow-up moves.


18-11 1 out of 2. I missed the checkmate net. I had some long variation where white wins but it's pretty ugly.


Chapter 19: Combinations involving promotion. Pawn promotion, pawn breakthrough, breakthrough, double attack on knight along with promotion, various tactical procedures.

Test: 20/20 - excellent. I found this test very easy.

7/14 log

Chapter 20: Weak Points. Weak square, weak point, weak squares in the castled position, exploiting the weaknesses.

I was worried this would be a tough chapter, and I was partially right. It's so much easier to lose points on tests when it's hard to feel 100% certain about an answer since few win any material or even seem to massively improve the position. I did great on the tests except for one 3 problem stretch.

Test: 17/23 - Good

20-8 1 out of 2 points. Note the black h pawn is on h6 not h7 (too lazy to fix and imo it doesn't really change the position too much). I did consider the correct move but did not see how to continue very well against white's response. Of course, Yuspov points out my move doesn't really result in a better plan anyway and I cannot disagree lol.

http://www.chessvideos.tv/bview.php?id=1udjnruzdokj0

20-9 0 out of 3 points. The correct move was my second choice. The moves that scored 1 point were not the move I picked. I got obsessed with how to keep the d6 outpost alive against a possible ...f6 which is what my move was based on. He doesn't even discuss ...f6 as a problematic move.



20-10. 0 out of 2 points. I got fixated on winning on the queenside by securing b4 for my king. Not sure why that doesn't work yet but felt it was stronger than the correct move or any of the partial credit moves concerning the kingside. Oh hay, if I set stockfish to find the 10 best moves my move is at 1st/2nd while the correct move is ~8th and ~.6 eval lower. Rigged.

27 ply 2.08


I also got full credit on one problem when 3 different moves got full credit. Mine won a piece but the other lead to mate. Not sure why this counted for full credit when in an earlier test winning a piece counted for zero credit. obv I'm being nitty but

7/15 log

Chapter 21: Pawn Combinations. Underpromotion, two connected passed pawns on the 6th/3rd rank, pawn phalanx, pawn fork, mating motifs with pawns.

Seemed like it'd be pretty easy and I think these are pretty cool themes. Thought I'd completely smoke the test and while I did very well, I did not get perfect.

Test: 16/19 - excellent

21-5. 1 out of 2. I was actually pretty sure I didn't find the correct move but had spent quite a bit more time on this problem than others so just moved on.


21-7. 1 out of 2. I messed up the continuation. Hopefully in a game I would have seen why the continuation didn't work after the first, correct, move.

21-8. 1 out of 2. The move I saw wins, but not thematically or as forcing. Meh. I spent a lot of time looking at it to see if there was a good defense rather than looking for even more forcing moves. Should have known though since it didn't involve a theme from the chapter

7/16 log

My job has been emotionally exhausting recently and I skipped lifting again but instead did manage to finish two more chapters. Somehow distracting myself with chess works better than lifting atm. Probably b/c I come home just feeling so drained. Although studying chess requires a lot of focus too so I dno how to explain that seeming better. I'm probably just still more energized by it than lifting right now.

Chapter 22: The wrong bishop. Fortress I, cutting off from the "saving corner," Fortress II. The Fortress I is just king in the corner vs. bishop+rook pawn if the bishop can't cover the corner square. Fortress II involves a knight pawn and locking the bishop in front of the pawn on the 2nd/7th rank.

Anyway, since it was such a limited subject matter, I found the test pretty straightforward although some problems were quite tricky (three 3* problems).

Test: 25/25 - excellent

Chapter 23: Smothered mate. Lucena's mate, variations on Lucena's mate, king encaged in the endgame. Fairly familiar with this due to recent tactics training (and I'm sure I've seen it from before then). Thought I'd ace the test but I did miss one problem. Which I wasn't too surprised since my solution was pretty murky.

Test: 17/19 - excellent

23-6. 0 our of 2 points. I did see the winning idea, which wasn't difficult, but I had a hard time coordinating it and even missed a fairly obvious few moves that just completely sink my idea. I also considered the initial two moves of the mate but dismissed it b/c I thought black could just take.



On to the last chapter on gambits. Not even sure how this can be tested. Since I basically play zero gambits and know very little e4/e5 opening stuff we'll see how I do. Perhaps they will just be positions that have arisen from gambits where one side has a forced variation to win material? I dno, we'll see.

Looks like I can sit down and do the final test this weekend. Anxious to see how I do!

I think 'positions where you are material down and have to play actively' are pretty important and you shouldn't neglect them because your opening repertoire steers away from them. Not to mention that you might be on the other side of the board a pawn up!

I wrote a longer post but I don't get this problem. I can't figure out which of two first moves make it easier, but I don't see how you could go wrong on move 2

Yeah. I just was more confused about the test in general. But most positions were how you described and basically tactical tests in positions that resulted from a gambit. I did not do very well in this test though, I think I just was having a bad day because looking at the answers I definitely get some of them pretty easily most of the time.

7/17 log

tactics: 25/27 intermediate set.

Chapter 24: Gambits. A lead in development and gambits, guidelines for defending against gambits.

The exercises were basically two games with a lot of instructive analysis and various positions from them shown as diagrams. Basically just straight annotated games. Which were good but not sure they prepared me for the test all that well (except a couple of test diagrams were very similar to a couple of sidelines in the exercises).

Test: 12/21 - pass. 11 points passed so this was just barely. I was really not sharp when I took it, I think I was gassed from a very emotionally stressful work week (we may decide to close the company, but we'll see). I think normally I would have gotten a good (not excellent) mark on this test.

24-2. 0 out of 2 points. I think I see this normally.


24-4. 0 out of 2 points. Sad thing about this one is I think I was writing down the winning combination and then somehow (forgot how) I thought it didn't work so abandoned it until I found a bad line that looked ok at the time.


24-5. 0 out of 1 point. Somehow missed this one too.


24-8. 0 out of 2 points. I think this is a fairly tricky position since a few more kind of work. Mine doesn't seem great even with engine analysis. The correct move is pretty simple though and I didn't even consider it somehow.


24-11. 1 out of 2 points. I think normally I calculate this out better and see the move.


24-12. 1 out of 2 points. I definitely see this normally.


7/18 log

tactics: 18/19 intermediate set.

Final test. 41/47 - excellent. I should have done even a bit better though. I made a couple of very simple mistakes when calculating out continuations on a couple of problems that seemed easy to me. I was a bit anxious to just score the test rather than go back and double-check my variations but that would have likely saved me a couple of points. I also certainly didn't take over 2 hours, let alone 4 on this (he says 1-2 hours for tests, and the final is double the size of a normal test) but that was my pattern throughout the book, never taking a full 4 hours on a chapter (I think this may change if I get to the intermediate/advanced books though).

Still, I think I can/should be excited about finishing the first book and how well the final test went.

F-10. 0 out of 2 points. Yuck. I saw the correct move but not as a first move, instead looking to play it in other variations. My move also seems to lead to a repetition draw based on engine analysis. Oops.


F-14. 0 out of 2 points. Oh geez. I just botched what I wrote down and didn't check it over. Pretty bad since this motif was/is fresh in my mind and, honestly, not very difficult. If I had played out my first move I would have easily seen my second move accidentally stalemates. Still, fair is fair and I gave myself no credit.


F-19. 1 out of 3 points. Partial credit for winning a pawn. I think this is the type of problem I'm more (rather than less) Likely to see in a game somehow. In the test I saw the first move which seems like a weak threat but didn't see it as a way of leading to a real move with a double threat, winning.


Total results for Build Up Your Chess, including the final test as a "25th" chapter.
Final tally for the book: 85% (464/546)

% of chapter grades
Excellent: 72% (18/25 chapters)

Good: 16% (mate in two moves, opposition, forced variations, weak points)
Pass: 12% (centralizing the pieces, queen against pawn, gambits)

So, done with Build, on to Boost! Only 8 more books to go!

7/19 log

tactics: 46/49 intermediate set. I feel that if I don't do this for a week or even a couple of days I'm less sharp. Not positive that's true but it certainly seems that way even though in between I'm certainly looking at a lot of chess positions and tactical/calculation stuff via Yusupov.

Lesson: Had a good lesson. Coach put together a bunch of positions from my games we've gone over so far. I did....ok. Maybe B-? Could be too hard on myself but in at least one game I made the same not great move as I did in the game as played and in a few I remembered the general better idea but still didn't play the right move. I did do better with positions from more recent games but that may just be because those were longer games so they are imprinted on my mind better.

7/20 log

tactics: 27/30 intermediate set. I missed three in a row at one point, yuck! Perhaps I was distracted, I dno.

Chapter 1: The Windmill: coordination of the pieces, matting attack. I thought I'd find the tests easier. It went well, but several positions were tricky. Also, a couple of the example exercises were pretty tough and I couldn't even figure out how to get into a windmill situation.

Test: 20/23 - excellent

1-4. 1 out of 2 points.




1-8. 2 out of 3 points



1-12. 1 out of 2 points



Chapter 2: Pawn Weaknesses: compact structure, islands, exploiting weaknesses, evaluating the position. I thought this would be tough and it was, although I did ok. The reason I think I found these sorts of chapter tests much tougher is because I often see the correct move but I cannot clearly tell it's better than other ones, so every few problems I get fancy or write down something else which at the time I think is an improvement.

Test: 13/17 - good

2-3. 0 out of 2 points.



2-7. 0 out of 2 points.

Hmm, for the above post I now see I copied the wrong position for 1-4. I didn't sleep well the night before and may not have been at 100% yesterday, :/.

Here is the correct one:

7/21 log

tactics: 24/30 intermediate set. Haven't scored that low on the intermediate set....ever I don't think. Wasn't super sharp.

Chapter 3: Back rank combinations: weakness of the back rank, typical combinations, a far-advanced pawn, deflection. Thought I'd do really well at this since it comes up so much in the tactical training I've done.

The first half, where I sat down looking at the book positions uninterupted (well, mostly), I did pretty well (8/9). The second half, which I mainly did by looking at the positions in between traffic lights on my way home from work, I did not do as well, missing two problems completely. Even if I feel I will do well, I really should just wait until I have the time to sit down and do it all on a board the way Yusupov recommends. Not only will I be happier with my test results but I will learn everything a lot better that way.

Test: 14/19 - good

3-7. 1 out of 2 points.



3-9. 0 out of 2 points



3-11. 0 out of 2 points.

7/24 log

tactics: 9/10 intermediate set.

Chapter 4: Exploiting Weaknesses: weaknesses, emergence of weaknesses, occupying weak squares, basic rules, advantages of a direct attack on weaknesses.

Test: 13/19 Good
4-6 0 out of 3.





4-7 0 out of 2





4-8 0 out of 1





7/25 log

tactics: 38/42 intermediate set.

7/26 log

tactics: 2/2 intermediate set.

Chapter 5: The 7th Rank: exploiting the 7th rank, advantages of doubling rooks on the 7th rank, typical tactics, operations on the 7th and 8th ranks.

Test: 20/22 Excellent

5-1 One out of two points.





5-2 One out of two points.





7/27 log

tactics: 2/3 intermediate set.

Chapter 6: Fortresses: two knights, other fortresses.

Test: 21/24 Excellent

6-6 two out of three points





6-7 one out of two points





6-12 one out of two points





7/28 log

tactics: 17/17 intermediate set.

Chapter 7: The pawn wedge: pawn on the 6th rank, pawn wedge on f6, g6, h6.

Test: 21/22 Excellent

7-6 One out of two points.





7/30 log

tactics: 6/8 intermediate set.

Good thread yugo. Like the work ethic. Whose your coach right now??

Your training is very tactics orientated, which is good to see. Have you also been studying classical games (Alekhine, Fischer etc.) or planning to do so in the future?

Also, in post game analysis, does your coach make you write down your thoughts during the game?

7/31 log

tactics: 32/37 intermediate set.

8/1 log

tactics: 28/34 intermediate set.

Chapter 8: Opening traps, what is a trap, opening traps, benign traps, bad traps, how do you spot a trap.

Test: 18/20 Excellent

8-11 One out of three points.





8/2 log

tactics: 10/10 intermediate set.

Chapter 9: The use of traps, trap sin the middlegame or endgame, trap sin defense, traps in better and level positions, find the trap.

Test: 20/23 Excellent

9-6 One out of two points.





9-9 One out of two points.





9-11 Two out of three points.

Impressive!

YouKnowWho.

I guess it is. I feel if I don't keep doing it I probably won't improve. What I really am trying to do is get a larger set of positions I missed or struggled with and then do those with spaced repetition. Which I probably should transition into for a while since I must have missed/struggled with quite a few of my intermediate set by now, .

Unless positions from those games come up in the Yusupov training books (which have more modern games too), then no. I have in the past looked at classic games. In the future I certainly might. I think it's a strong thing to do although I feel I need to find well annotated ones rather than just play through random games.

He doesn't really make me do anything although I need to get better at writing down my thoughts after a game so I can have better annotations of what's going on when I look at it later. But I do already attempt to do this.

In general, YKW doesn't make or ask me to do too many specific things, possibly because he follows this log and figures it's better for me to continue than to get too FPSy.

The next thing I will concentrate on when/if I need a break from the Yusupov training is to work more diligently on my opening repertoire. I did some work on it but it's hard to find time with what I'm currently focused on.

Lol, nice! That was actually one of my worse sessions, .

hahaha

makes me look like such a bad coach

these problems are great because I can imagine seeing them all in annotated games noted "here White played X which is imprecise. He could have maintained his advantage with Y. Black defended well after this and held the game". Which is a more common situation than "here White missed this spectacular yet thematic combination".

I was writing that response fast b/c our lesson was about to start, . The way he asked made me think he thought all coaches were task masters or really strict or something and I just wanted to make it clear that wasn't your style.

You never are like "you must X, Y, Z or you will be a horrible player." Which I'd guess plenty of coaches do. When I was in chess class and about 6 years old I got kicked out b/c the teacher had a "no talking during games" rule but I couldn't stick to it . He said "you don't need to come back next set of classes." And I gave it a lot of serious thought and figured even though he was an ******* I'd try it again. And when I walked in he barked "I told you not to come back, get out of here." Many feels and tears were had.

Very vivid memory for me and I didn't play chess for 6–7 years after that.

Yeah, I agree. Most chapters have really good problems picked out from real games. Often he will show the rest of a game if it's an endgame or the beginning if it's an opening type problem. Many games are his own games. It turns out being 3rd best in the world for many years results in quite a few very interesting positions!

<Abbott and Costello>
No I don't know who. That's why I'm asking!
</Abbott and Costello>