As a teacher, I was off this summer. I worked hard on my chess and played a ton. From Memorial Day through August, I played in 4 weekend events. This is a staggering number for me, and only summer break allowed for this to occur. I also played a ton of over the board blitz. I played 29 games over a 3 day span during a trip to New York. I used this as a springboard and played blitz often on the weekends at a local coffee shop. Many people noted my improved play, especially in blitz.

i also played a lot of rapid and blitz online. I chased a few online titles, causing me to play much more than I normally would. By the end of the summer, I was in great form. It culminated in my best tournament, beating players in the 1900s and raising my rating to 1867.

Subscribe

Successes

This summer was full of chess successes. I include them here as a reminder to myself that the hard work will pay off and as inspiration to others.

Highest otb ratimg ever - 3 times! New peak 1867.

Defeated an IM in a USCF online rated game 30!

Tied my peak chesscom blitz rating 1555.

Was able to play casual otb blitz at a much higher level than previous attempts.

Earned the Arena Fide Master title.

New 3 minute puzzle rush high - 30

Process

I did a lot to work on my chess this summer, but the most important piece was rest. I was intentional about getting as much sleep as possible. It felt amazing. I had more energy on and off the board. My study sessions were more productive, and my games were sharper. This is the part I worry about most going back to work. It’s hard to get the sleep I need. Even on days where I do sleep well, I have an hour drive home, which saps any energy that I might have left at the end of the day. This means I’m less sharp and can do less during study sessions and games.

Another related piece is exercise. With more time, I was able to get more exercise. This certainly contributed to the greater energy described above. I’m not able to do intense exercise, but I was able to up the frequency and duration of what I can do. The improvement was noticeable.

With more time came more chess time. However, I noticed something else. I felt less pressure about my chess time. Instead of having to squeeze it in every spare moment, I felt myself enjoying it more. Instead of it feeling like a chore that must be completed before the end of a long day, it was a fun activity that I could fit in the day when it felt good. This made a big difference in the quality of my study and my enjoyment. Some days I only did an hour. But it was a more invested hour.

Perhaps the most important aspect was going deep. During the school year, I feel the constant pressure of time and the continued need to plug holes in my game. This often leads me to studying many things at once and making little progress on any. This summer, I felt free to go deep with areas such as IQPs, defense, and attacking. I was able to pursue these topics with depth over weeks while still addressing important issues like tactics, playing, and analyzing.

Throughout Kevin summer, I made calculation a focus. This is time consuming and demands a lot of energy. I solved Noel Studer’s problems, took calculation lessons, and worked from many books. I continue to do poorly with the exercises, but this is a great sign that I’m working on something that needs work. I do so badly that I’m wondering if this is the secret to reaching 2000. If I can raise my calculation floor by any significant amount, it might have a dramatic effect on my results.

Takeaways

Chess study can be fun! I might be putting too much pressure on myself during the school year. Maybe it’s ok to just enjoy the process more and not obsess about how much I’m studying. Or … maybe that level of pressure is keeping me going. I need to reflect more on this one.

Good form comes from playing. I need to find a way to keep getting out to events. At a minimum, I need to keep playing OTB blitz. In the past I didn’t find them valuable because I couldn’t examine the games. But I’ve been leaving with takeaways and opening lines to check. And more OTB keeps me in better form than playing online.

I need to continue prioritizing sleep. It’s my superpower. I play so much better when I’m well rested. This can be tough with how early I have to get up. But I need to keep it a priority.

Keep doing the work, and the results will come. My summer successes were built on a year of hard work. The other day, I told my coach that I finally felt like 2000 was a possibility. He said, of course it is. It always has been. With so many down times and rating drops, I need to remember that there will be new, higher peaks in the future

Perhaps most importantly, my brain still seems ok even over 50. My calculation is getting sharper as I work on it more. I am playing better and seeing stuff faster. Hard work seems to be off setting whatever decline is happening.

The final takeaway is that as I’ve thought all along, improvement seems to be more about time than age. Plenty of adults have made big gains when they found time to do the work. It might come easier for the youngsters, but putting in the time seems to be the key.

Kevin summer may be ending, but I will still be doing the work and trying to remember the lessons that I’ve learned. I already can’t wait for next summer!

Subscribe now

Here is the final position of my victory over IM Justin Sarkar. It was only an online USCF-rated Game 30, but I will take any win over such a strong player. It’s black to move, but white is about to gobble up all of the pawns.

Lesson 1: Chess is Fun!!

I know chess is supposed to be fun, but during my journey, I’ve mostly viewed it as climbing the unscalable mountain. Achieving goals and improving is “fun.” But I haven’t spent much time treating chess as an empty calorie purely fun activity. It’s too “important” for that! During my time at Bryant Park, I let myself go. I didn’t worry about improvement or long term goals. I acted like a kid at a chess tournament laughing and playing blitz between rounds. It was fun, energizing, and freeing. I played creatively and actively. I attacked and used my intuition. I even flagged 2 players in 3/0 games. Essentially, I discovered a new way to engage with chess, and it was a blast.

Lesson 2: Meeting New People

I’ve met a lot of people at chess tournaments. But I struggle showing up to casual events. I’ve played at a coffee shop in LA, but almost all of the players are much stronger than I am. Although, it’s pitched as casual, it’s always felt very serious to me. Coming to Bryant Park for three days in a row, I saw many of the same people. We talked chess and life. This experience has given me the push and courage I needed to attend some of the chess bar scene events in LA. Looking at their Instagram pages full of young, hot, people, I always thought that I didn’t belong. (I may find out that I was right.) But I’m going to give it a try and see what happens.

Subscribe

Lesson 3: Improvement

While I wasn’t playing the games for improvement reasons, I learned a fair amount about my openings and my play. My recent revelation that I don’t handle attacks well was on display against an aggressive player. I learned quite a bit about some opening lines that I don’t often see in tournaments. I was pretty surprised to find improvement from games that I didn’t analyze, but I did.

Lesson 4: Freedom to be Creative

I never ever play a game without analysis. How can you improve if you don’t look at your games? However, for my 29 games at Bryant Park, no analysis was possible. Instead of fretting about it, I embraced it. I wasn’t going to be graded on this work. There was no permanent record of these games. I could play creative moves that I wouldn’t normally play and see how they worked out. It was exhilarating. It was freeing. It was eye opening.

Takeaways:

My main takeaway is that I need to have more fun with chess. Of course, I should continue working on my game and improving. But I should enjoy it more. Chess doesn’t just have to be a strenuous workout where the pain feels rewarding. I need to let my inner 13 year old out more with chess.

The action that I’ll be taking is playing more chess for fun. I’m going to take a few weeks and just play fun attacking chess. I’m going to sacrifice a lot of pawns and take chances. I will get some bad losses and the computer will say that I play like a beginner. I’m fine with that. I may even play a stretch of games without examining them. Gasp!!

This article is as much a reminder to me as it is a public piece. In a few weeks, when I go back to my hold habits, I want a record of the three freeing days I spent at Bryant Park having fun with chess. Stay tuned for my article on playing a ton of blitz for fun.

Unfortunately, this emphasis on tactics did not result in an immediate 300 point rating climb. While it did allow me to find more tactics, this didn’t equate to winning most of my games. It seems that there is more to chess than tactics. Of course we all know this. But this tactical work got me thinking about what the function of tactics and tactical training is.

We’ve all heard the glib advice of some titled players who say that you should only study tactics until 2000. We’ve seen plenty of posts and videos of amazing ratings gains based on tactics training. So, what’s going on?

The more I think about tactics, the more I conclude that they are the fundamentals. They are the building blocks of chess. They are the basic patterns that you need to know. Let’s compare chess to some other sports.

Basic chess tactics seem similar to layups in basketball. Layups are a fundamental skill that all players need to master before moving onto other skills. However, if you practice layups all day long and nothing else, you won’t be making the NBA. But if you are really good at them, you can certainly dominate at lower levels. As a parent, I’ve seen a lot of little kids sports. The kid that figures out layups in kindergarten is an untouchable God on the court. I’ve see kids score 40 points just dribbling to the basket and making it.

This comparison seems quite accurate when we think of lower levels of chess. Under 800 or so, mastering layups or the basics will bring success. However, as you move up the ranks the fundamentals aren’t enough on their own.

To extend the basketball metaphor, if you are really good at layups, you will get more room for other shots as your opponents will have to fear you going by them. You will bring more defenders to you allowing someone else to be open and making a great pass to them. In other words the fundamentals, the tactics, set up and allow for success in other parts of your game. It might look like the game was won by a layup, or tactic, but if you can’t shoot or pass, pretty soon the fundamental skill isn’t enough.

Subscribe

Let’s look at some other sports. Youth soccer is another place where fundamental skills lead to domination. I’ve seen a little kid playing goalie, get the ball, dribble it by every defender and then dribble it into the opposing goal, no shot required. This child was playing goalie because she had already scored 5 goals. One fundamental skill was enough for victory. As the kids in the league got better, dribbling was no longer enough. Now whenever she gets the ball, 3 defenders swarm her. She needs other skills like passing and shooting from distance to continue dominating. She needs to understand how the defenders, pawns, are structured, and where her attack might come from.

My last example comes from my high school tennis days. I picked up tennis for the first time late in high school. I had little experience or skills. But somehow I had a monster serve. This one fundamental skill carried me past many opponents and onto the team. Everyone was shocked by my rapid success. Some tried emulating it. However, it won’t shock you to hear that there was a ceiling to this rise. Soon I was frustrated as my single skill couldn’t carry me to victory over better players. I was soon labeled a one trick pony and relegated to a lesser role on the ream. Over many years, I developed the other skills that other players had developed and slowly improved my rating.

I’ve been mulling over these analogies for a few weeks now, how I should apply it to chess and my own training. The conclusion that I’ve reached is that layups are important for beginners and continue to be important for more advanced basketball players. Similarly with chess, tactics are a critical foundation for all beginners. In fact, up to a certain level, playing and tactics should be pretty much all you train. But at some point, it isn’t enough. You need to be able to shoot, pass, and understand defenses. Chess, like basketball, is not a single skill game. Yes, at times it might look like it is. But it just isn’t. We’ve heard the phrase, “tactics flow from a good position.” The win might have looked like a tactical one, but you set it up with other skills. For me, tactics should remain an important part of my training. But only a part. Calculation is critical. Positional understanding is important. Starting and ending games are key. In short, I need to improve all aspects of my game while continuing to practice my layups!

So I guess my current answer to the question, do tactics win games is yes but. Tactics are important, but as you improve they alone won’t bring you the rating points that you crave. Go work on your tactics. But work on the other parts of your game as well.

Subscribe now

Tactics

You’ve probably heard about my 100 tactics over 100 days. I really did complete almost 11,000 tactics over 100 days. I was doing tactics before that, and I’ve continued since ending the challenge a month ago. My tactics are doing pretty well. I saw a lot of my opponent’s ideas during games, and I found my own tactical shots. More important though, I didn’t force tactics that weren’t there. I didn’t make unsound sacrifices only to find that they didn’t work. Okay, you got me, I did once. But I was already losing, and that was a desperate attempt to turn the tide. My calculation said that it didn’t work, but I didn’t have much choice. The bottom line is: I was able to combine tactics with the rest of my game. I was able to use tactics as a piece of my process rather than only looking for tactics. It feels like a big step forward.

Exchange Sacrifices

Recently, I was lamenting about the week I spent going deep on exchange sacrifices. Looking back on it, it felt like a waste of time. In fact, this work made me worse at chess. Every time I tried to force an exchange sacrifice in my blitz and rapid games, it was a disaster. However, this weekend, I saw an exchange sacrifice in one of my games. Based on my training, I instantly knew that it would work. This allowed me to go deeper and connect it with other tactical ideas. This all culminated in a cool combination that gave me a huge advantage. After about a minute staring at the board, my opponent leaned into whisper to me. I prayed that he was going to say those two words that I longed to hear, “I resign.” Instead, he whispered, “nice combo.” That was even more shocking. Had I suddenly become Beth Harmon? My opponents cheering my moves. This exchange sacrifice is especially satisfying as it cements the idea that the knowledge and skills are bouncing around in there somewhere, just waiting to show themselves.

Endgames

I take a lot of heat for the time I spend on endgames, especially rook endings. But my endgame competence and confidence helped a lot this weekend. I reached a lot of endgame, and I always felt good about them. I had the confidence to know that I could hold my own. My skills showed themselves as I confidently held draws against several stronger opponents.

Tenacious Defense

A big issue for me in the past was giving up too quickly. I didn’t resign too early, but I was mentally giving up. This was often connected to my bad habit of over and under estimating my positions. My evaluations are often wildly off, with me saying I’m winning or losing, and the engine saying it’s plus or minus .8. I’ve often decided a position was losing and had a hard time giving it my all. In this event, I had two games where I concluded that I was losing, but I kept fighting hard trying to find the best moves. In both games, my opponents made a few suboptimal moves, and I found a way back to equality. After the games, both opponents said they never thought I was losing. The engine agreed with one opponent, and once it agreed with me. But in neither game was I lost. These games are a great lesson going forward. Just keep fighting as hard as possible. I might still lose, but I will have at least made it difficult for my opponent.

I Don’t Fear the IQP

Recently, I spent two full weeks trying to get over my fear of the IQP. It worked. I had a great time taking on IQPs (Isolated Queen Pawns) in training games and sorting through good and bad versions of IQPS. In my first game of the event, an opportunity arose. I could avoid and IQP or accept. Time for the test, would I take on an IQP in a classical game? I did! But … let’s not get too excited. This game reminded me that I am still struggling with forcing ideas in games that I have recently studied. I could have patiently played regularly chess and accepted the IQP, if my opponent decided to inflict it upon me. Instead, I forced it. I played several sub optimal moves trying to ensure a good IQP. These moves did not work out, and they were a big part of my only loss. So, I’m happy to be over my fear of the IQP, but there is still much work to be done.

Sleep and Stamina

Over the last year and a half, I’ve worked hard to improve the quality of my sleep. I’ve addressed sleep issues, and things have gotten better. At this event, I went to bed early, and both the quantity and quality of my sleep were excellent. This showed over the board. Especially in round 6. I felt energetic and alert as I tried to close out a winning endgame. In the past, thoughts of draw offers and easy ends to the game would have come into my head. Not this time, my energy propelled me forward and allowed me to play for and achieve the final round victory.

Takeaways:

I Can Do It! The first time reaching 1800 wasn’t a fluke. Hitting 1800 a second time lets me know that I can continue reaching new heights. After such a big collapse, I was getting worried. Had I reached my peak? I didn’t think so, but the evidence was starting to pile up against me. Reaching 1800 against such a strong field showed me even more. I can hang with 1900s. In the past, I had thought 1900 was a ceiling that I couldn’t break. I did fine against 1800’s, but 1900s were just too strong. This tournament showed me that there is nothing magical about 1900s. I can draw them, and perhaps be one of them before too long.

Post Mortems are a Blast. I already knew this, of course, but I got quite a few this tournament. It’s just so valuable seeing how your opponent was thinking about a position. So many times I said, and here I was just dead. My opponent would say, no you weren’t, and we would have a discussion about the evaluation. I feel like I would improve faster, if I could do a post mortem after every game.

Active Seniors are Strong. Let me break an illusion that you might have. Older players are at their floors, and they play several hundred points weaker than that. This is true for some. But seniors flying around the country for big senior events are not these players. These dedicated seniors are working hard, and it shows. I only played one person at their floor, and most were over 100 points over their floor. Senior chess players have a lot of experience, and many are still very strong chess players.

The Hard Work is Paying Off. My final, and by far most important takeaway, is that all of the hard work that I’ve been doing is there somewhere. We all know how hard it is to see our work show up in games. You study the Philidor defense, don’t see it for 6 months, and mess it up when it finally shows up in a game. It can be demoralizing and devastating. But fear not. It will come together. You just have to keep working at it. Our brains are cobbling it together slowly but surely. This tournament was a moment where I could see some of the strands of knowledge coming together, and it felt great!

I did it again. I hit my new high at 52, and so can you! Your hard work will pay off. Keep up the effort, and the gains will come. That’s the end of the motivational speech. Go do some studying.

Share

Let’s start with the why. I didn’t choose 100 days or 100 puzzles a day from any scientific data or revelations. Rather, 10,000 puzzles sounded like a big number worth pursuing. I hoped and assumed that doing 10,000 puzzles in 3 months would make me better at tactics or at least a bit sharper. The good news is, I do believe that I accomplished both of those goals. Did all of these chess phzzle make me a better chess player? That remains to be seen but some numbers indicate a positive trajectory. Working on the fundamentals of anything is always good, but will shooting 10,000 free shows over 100 days make you a better basketball player. Probably, but only in some areas.

The what: Over 100 days i completed 10,833 puzzles. They came from a wide tange of sources. Some were intentionally easy such as 3 minute puzzle rush or tactics time. Others were more challenging. I will cover the sources later in this piece. When I say 100 days, I’m not including the many days that I took off. When I was at weekend chess events, I took those days off to avoid burnout. Often on Tuesdays, I would take a break in order to be hungry for my classical game. I started the challenge in February and completed it in late May. While the breaks extended the challenge, they did allow me to stay sane and complete it.

The Process: i started the challenge in high spirits. I was excited to improve my tactics. For the first week or two I did a puzzle rush survival each day and completed many challenging puzzles. I was intent on not just volume but also doing them properly. I diligently looked at everything carefully before moving. After a few weeks I employed the Woodpecker method. I had always wanted to try it, and this seemed like the perfect time. I will write a separate post on the Woodpecker Method as I now have many strong feelings about it. While I started strong, after a few weeks, my resolve began fading. 100 puzzles a day is a lot! I found myself taking shortcuts at the end of long days. I always felt bad finishing the day wirh 2 3-minute puzzle rushes. But I had to get 100 puzzles! By the last few weeks, I was counting the days to completion. I tried using a wide variety of sources to keep things feeling fresh. It did help a bit, but 100 puzzles is just a lot of puzzles

Takeaways Positives:

It feels good knowing that I completed 10,000 puzzles in 100 days!

The challenge was a great motivator to do something I should be doing every day anyway.

It was good to work on the fundamentals. We have to be sure of our layups before we can do more impressive things on the chessboard.

My tactical awareness improved. I was finding more tactics in my games and even neighboring games. Several times, I looked over and saw a winning tactic that both players missed.

My ratings climbed across the board. I reached a new highest puzzle rating. My blitz rating neared a new high. My classical rating got closer to 1800 again.

Even with the challenge over, I am still doing a lot of puzzles. Creating the habit of doing a lot of puzzles is useful. I haven’t been keeping track, but I would guess that I’m still doing about 30-50 per day.

Takeaways Negative:

I often felt like this challenge took away from my chess improvement. I need to work on so many areas and on some days, 100 puzzles took all my chess time and energy.

After doing so many tactics, I found myself trying to force tactica in my games. There were a few weeks in the middle when my games were full of these types of mistakes. However, with some intentionality I was able to find a balance between my tactical skills and positional strengths.

The biggest issue is some days I was just done. Sure I did the puzzles, but I did them poorly. I didn’t look carefully and moved too quickly. This certainly had the danger of engraining some new, bad habits.

Subscribe

Final Thoughts:

Writing this a few weeks after the challenge, I’m happy to have done it. However, there were many moments during the challenge that it felt like a mistake. I wouldn’t do it again or recommend it. However, if tactics are something that you need to work on, a 30 day challenge might work well. But you should choose a number of puzzles that works for you. 100 was an arbitrary choice based on reaching 10,000 puzzles. I will probably do several 30 puzzles for 30 days challenges in the future. I also think you should be intentional about the puzzles you choose. Pick a set that addresses an issue. If you are struggling with checkmate patterns, focus there. If you are struggling with more basic tactics get Everyone’s First Tactics Workbook. The bottom line is tactics are a critical part of chess. Taking some time to focus on them is a good idea and will make you stronger. But it’s also important to remember that tactics aren’t the only part of chess and you have a lot going on in your life. Choose a program that works for you. Make sure that your program will help you develop good solving habits.

Sources:

Easy:

3 minute puzzle rush

Tactics time

Puzzle climb - chesspuzzle.net

Medium:

Puzzle rush survival

Chesstempo

Chesscom puzzles

Lichess puzzles

Woodpecker Method - easy

Hard:

Practical Chess Exercises

Woodpecker Method - Medium

Share

However, as with many things in life, this didn’t just magically happen. I keep making the same errors. My last few games have made clear that this is a pressing issue that must be addressed. This isn’t an issue that is easily solved with more chess knowledge, though I imagine knowing more would help a bit. But this particular issue is more about how I am thinking and how I am evaluating. My coach and I have noted that this is what seems to be holding me back far more than any lack in chess knowledge, at the moment. This issue has caused me to make bad decisions, force moves that I shouldn’t have, and is straight up losing me games.

Below is a recent position that crystallized just how serious this issue has become. I was convinced that if e5 works, I have a huge advantage. Take a look at the position. It is white to move. First, does e5 work? Is there a fairly obvious refutation to it? Second, do you agree that if it does work, I have an enormous edge?

Hopefully, the first thing you noted is that e5 does not work. Good news, I also saw that b6 was a big problem. I couldn’t respond with b4 because then a5 comes. If I do the normal a3 then a5xb4, a3xb4, and my rook hangs. I saw all of this during the game. But … I was so convinced that e5 was winning, I worked hard to find a way to ensure that b6 didn’t wreck me. The plan I concocted was ludicrous and involved moving the bishop to a3, which helps nothing by the way.

Perhaps more importantly, even if the move did work, I wasn’t at all clear on how I had an advantage, what that would look like, how much it was, or what I should do to take advantage of it. Instead, I had murky ideas like, I’m basically winning, lots of pieces are pointed at the king. Nothing specific and nothing concrete.

My big takeaway from this position is that I spend too much time trying to make my ideas work, and not enough time trying to refute them. I think this tendency has been exacerbated by my recent 100 days of 100 puzzles challenge. In puzzles, I am focused on forcing the ideas through because there is an answer. I’m tempted to take a break from puzzles, but I don’t think that’s the answer. I do feel myself getting stronger tactically. I was also reminded by Michael Adams in Think Like a Super GM. Most of the solvers look for the answer. However, Adams would always instantly spot what he thought was the answer. He spent the rest of the time looking for the refutation to his idea. I’m the opposite. I spend almost all of my time desperately searching for the right answer and almost no time refuting it.

I think the answer to fixing this issue is being more deliberate about how I solve puzzles, train, and play. I am hoping that focusing on refuting my moves will start addressing the problem. I am trying to come up with training methods to address the issue as well. I’m going to be working with Nate Solon’s book Evaluate Like a GM. I’m hoping that thinking more realistically and concretely about evaluations will help me get my issues under control. Instead of saying e5 is crushing here, I’m hoping to reach a point where I think e5 gives me a space advantage. This space advantage would allow me to accomplish something concrete in the position and give me a .5 advantage. This would allow me to be clearer about my ideas and reasons for thinking a move is good. Relating it back to the above position, I would have to be sure b6 that doesn’t work. If it does, then I have nothing. It’s not enough to say e5 gives me an amazing position. It’s time to be specific!

We shall see if I can make real improvements here. While it’s going to be a challenging fix, it’s exciting to have an area to focus on that might reap big rewards. Instead of taking this as a painful moment, I’m thinking of this as one of the best chess conversations that I’ve ever had. Anything is possible. Maybe in a month from now, I will have a radically overhauled chess thinking process without gaining anymore chess knowledge.

One final remark, it’s moments like this where I’m so thankful that I have a coach who knows my games and tendencies well. Without him, I wouldn’t have realized how big of an issue this was, and I would still be plugging away on rook endings. (Okay, obviously I will still be doing that!)

March 15 San Francisco (Mechanic’s Institute) - Adult Only Tournament

March 28-29 Dulles, Virginia - DMV Adult Only Tournament - I’m Going to This

April 10-12 Charlotte, NC - ALTO - I Wish I could attend this one

May 29-31 Virginia Senior & Adults Open

Senior Events:

There are many on the horizon. You can do a search for each state.

Mar 21-22 Texas

April 11-12 Southern California - I’m Going to This One

April 25 New Jersey

Subscribe now

For anyone who has heard my recent appearance on the Perpetual Chess podcast, this post won’t be much of a surprise. I’m personally a big fan of adult only chess tournaments for a wide variety of reasons. Most importantly, as an adult, I want the option to engage in my hobby with other adults. I can only assume that I’m not alone in this desire. Luckily, some people are stepping up and making these events happen. But if they are going to continue happening, we need to support them. For this reason, over spring break, I’m flying out to Dulles, VA to compete in an adult only tournament. I’m hoping to meet some new people and expand my chess community.

I’m hoping to make more posts as I hear about more events. If you hear about any not on this list please do reach out and let me know.

I ended up dividing my puzzles into two buckets: serious and less serious. In the serious bucket were sources such as Chess Tactics from Scratch, Chesscom puzzles, Lichess puzzles, and ChessTempo. Most of this category came from Puzzle Rush Survival. I also did less serious puzzles when I needed extras or my brain was tired. These were usually 3 minute puzzle rush and Tactics Time on Chessable. There were several days that ended with a bunch of less serious puzzles to reach 100 while lying in bed.

I’ve been using Google sheets, which has worked great. I have a cell keeping track of the running total. Every time I do a batch of puzzles, I update the sheet. It’s low maintenance and effective. I haven’t been tracking how many come from each source, success rate, or time spent. I feel like this would be a roadblock for me, but it might work well for you.

Succeses

Researching this piece, I noticed a few nice perks of the challenge. I’m at my highest Chesscom rapid rating in the last 30 days, as well as my peak blitz in a while. More importantly, I’m seeing tactics in my own games. Here’s a recent, short blitz game with some serious tactics. I was piloting the black pieces.

A funny side result is that even glancing at neighbor games at tournaments, I’m seeing tactics. This week, during my OTB game, I noticed two winning tactics on a neighbor’s board. Both were missed by the players!

Finally, this challenge has inspired me to propose a sequel to my Chessable course: Chess Journeys Tactics Workbook: Turning Knowledge into Skill. I’ll let you all know how that proposal is received. Hopefully, next year, I will be releasing my second tactics course.

Problems

While there were a lot of great aspects of the 100 tactics a day challenge, it wasn’t without its downsides. Ughh, that many tactics are burdensome. It’s like every day is leg day. Yes, I will have tree trunk legs to support me, but it can get tedious. There were several days that I had to force it. Even worse, there were many moments where I felt like I was phoning it in. I try hard not to do that, as it builds bad habits. But there were many moments where I was thinking, I HAVE to do 10 more. It can be a lot.

I found myself using every free moment for tactics. This can be good. But it can be exhausting and also distracting. Waiting in line, tactics. Lull in conversation, tactics. Watching TV with the wife, tactics. I felt like I was often distracted by the duty of tactics.

The biggest issue is that all these tactics crowded out other important study tools. My examination of Fischer - Spassky 1972 was put on hold. My beloved rook endgames. I didn’t look at a single one!

Finally, I’m worried that all these tactics will lead me back to the bad habit of looking for tactical answers to positional situations. I’m hoping that vigilance and intentionality will avoid that problem.

Subscribe now

Future

What will the next 10 or 90 days hold? I’m hoping that I can continue this challenge. I feel like, despite the drawbacks, I have seen gains. This week on Chess Journeys, I spoke to yet another person who saw serious rating gains after doing the Woodpecker Method. This made me realize, “Why aren’t I doing the Woodpecker Method for this!?!?!” I ordered Ray Chang’s fantastic puzzle book, and I am going to try my first Woodpecker attempt. In a few weeks, I will write another one of these posts. Hopefully, it will be about the success of my Woodpecker approach and all of the chess strength that I’ve gained from it!

If you’re interested, come join the challenge. I have a chat going where we share our results. Many people are doing a modified version and having success. From doing one page of the Steps Method a day, 25 Chesscom Puzzles a day, or an hour a day of puzzles, people are finding their own ways of doing the challenge. What are you willing to do to boost your tactical skills?

As a competitive chess player, I am well versed in the legend of the Polgar sisters. I’ve even had the honor of meeting Susan Polgar and having her sign a chess board for my daughter and me. I’m well versed in many of the trials and tribulations that Susan faced on her way up, clearing out some of the sexist roadblocks for Judit. I came into the film knowing Judit’s triumphant rise, fierce attacking style, status as a top 10 player, and legitimate world championship contender. I wasn’t sure what I would learn about Judit, but I was ready to fill in the gaps or just celebrate her triumphs with my daughter.

However, the film was not what I thought it would be. I assumed it would focus on Judit’s rise and the challenge of pursuing the world championship. Instead, the main story of the film was surprising but riveting. Judit’s story was told through the lens of the top female player and her struggles to beat the top male player of the day, Garry Kasparov. To be fair, everyone struggled to beat Kasparov. But the movie highlighted Judit’s struggles to defeat him. I found this to be an odd choice, but my daughter was fully engaged in every match. “Will this be the game when she finally wins?” She would ask. Although I was thinking of course, she will win eventually, I was still into the story. What I didn’t know, and isn’t made clear in the film, is that Judit never beat Kasparov in a classical game. My guess is that much of this is due to Kasparov’s retirement in 2005. Given more time, I have to assume Judit would have beaten him.

By framing Judit’s arc as the challenge of beating the best player, Kasparov, the touch move moment of 1994 was amplified to high drama. In the pantheon of cheating scandals, it doesn’t register. But here it was framed as depriving Judit of her chance to break through. My daughter was outraged, and I was surprised by the incident. It felt like the male establishment once again trying to hold down the female challenger. I wasn’t following chess at the time of the incident, so I’m not sure what it felt like to chess players, especially up and coming female chess players. But it was certainly a powerful moment in the film.

The most surprising aspect of the documentary was that beating Kasparov wasn’t just a climactic moment, but it was essentially the end of the story. This left me wanting more. How far did Judit climb the ladder? How close did she get to becoming world champion. I understand the filmmakers decision not to center this journey as it becomes a different film. It’s no longer a documentary about triumph. As a chess player wanting to learn more about Judit, I was disappointed by this decision. However, for a mass audience, I think this was the right decision. I only needed to look next to me at my fist pumping daughter to realize that this version of the film made an impact. Instead of an exhaustive documentary about Judit’s life, we have a triumphant, motivating girl power piece that will certainly provide inspiration for both men and women in and outside of chess. Also, who knows, maybe the sequel is coming!

Subscribe now

While the chess matches against Kasparov were interesting, my favorite parts were about the lives of Judit and her sisters growing up as part of their father’s “experiment.” I had heard the legends of Lazlo Polgar creating geniuses, but I was stunned to hear him describe his grown children as an experiment. I assumed he would have spoken about it differently with so much time gone by. But quite the opposite was the case; her father spoke with pride about the success of his experiment. There was no attempt to sugarcoating his approach to parenting. It was fascinating to hear Judit speak so candidly about her experience not just as a child prodigy, but as part of this family experiment. While an outsider may be tempted to judge the parenting decisions of this family, this has become the norm with child chess prodigies. And many children have broken Judit’s record as the youngest grandmaster. It would have been interesting to see the film engage with this angle. Lazlo’s approach has now become the norm!

I was also drawn to the extensive footage of their young lives. Seeing images of the adorable prodigy at the board made me remember my own daughter’s early days in chess. These images brought gleeful giggles from my 11 year old daughter, who was able to see herself in the young Judit. I would love to see a version of the movie with 2 more hours of videos of the sisters hanging out and going to tournaments.

One aspect that I was hoping to hear about more going into the film was Bobby Fischer’s stay at the Polgar’s house. It’s such a fascinating piece of chess history, and it wasn’t mentioned. I imagine there was a version of the film with this storyline, but cuts had to be made somewhere. This is yet another spot to go deep and create another documentary. Let’s make this documentary a trilogy!

I’m not a movie maker or reviewer, so I’m not going to assign a rating to this documentary. What I will say is that it is a powerful and engaging tale of girl power and overcoming all obstacles. It’s a great film, and a must see if you have a young lady to share it with. My daughter loved it, and so did her chess buddies. While I would have liked to see more about Judit’s later achievements, the filmmakers have crafted a powerful piece that will inspire people in and out of chess. This is a must watch for chess and non chess players alike.

Thus, I unveil the 100 puzzles a day for 100 days challenge. If I can maintain this volume, I will complete 10,000 puzzles in 100 days. I’ve already started a spreadsheet. On it, I track how many puzzles I do each day, and mention the sources. For example, yesterday I completed 109 puzzles from a variety of sources. The sources I listed are: chess.com, pr survival, pr 3, chess tactics from scratch, tactics time. Today, I completed 108 puzzles (Huzzah, I’m ahead of the challenge) doing PR Survival, Chess Tempo Mix, and Lichess.

I’m intentionally using a wide variety of sources. For me, I get a bit bored with puzzles, and dipping into different buckets keeps me going. Some of the sources that I will be using are: Lichess puzzles and streaks, Chesscom puzzles, Puzzle Rush Survival, Puzzle Rush 3 minute, Chesstempo regular and mix, Tactics Time, Chess Tactics from Scratch, Steps Method, Chesspuzzle.net inception, The Best Move, Combinative Motifs, Susan Polgar’s Defensive Puzzles, Survive and Thrive, Polgar 5334 book, and whatever else suits my fancy.

These sources cover a wide range of positions. Some will be intense calculation work, and some will be easy. While the early back row mates of 3 minute puzzle rush over and over probably aren’t helping much, layups and free throws are a part of the training. Some puzzles will be easier than others. I decided to be okay with easier puzzles in order to be realistic about reaching 100 a day. My goal is to complete as many challenging puzzles as I can, but to understand my reality. Some days I may just do a handful of puzzle rushes, and I’m okay with that. Easy puzzles are also useful. They are the layups.

I don’t know if I will be able to keep up the volume for 100 days, but even if I fall short and complete 7,000 puzzles in 100 days, it should help my chess. It will hopefully give me the motivation to do the grunt work. To not skip leg day.

Anyone interested in joining me on a 100 puzzles a day for 100 days challenge? After 100 days, we will have done 10,000 puzzles! Post your intention to join the challenge here. You can share your spreadsheet with me or post updates. Whatever you need to keep on track. After 25 days, I will post a chat asking about progress. Let’s do it together. Community is a big part of success!

After 2 days I’m at 117. Off to a good start.

Method 1: Only Play When You are at Your Best.

Only play chess if you are feeling good. If you are feeling under the weather, stay home. If you got a bad night’s sleep, don’t play a rated game. Did you have a tough day at work? Sit this one out. Is this realistic? Probably not. Is this at odds with chess improvement? Probably. But if you want to gain rating, then playing when you can play optimally is a good plan.

I think this concept is why I do so well at weekend tournaments. I’m not distracted by my family and work obligations. I can set the room temperature to whatever I want and sleep like a baby. I’m well rested and stress free. In fact, chess is like meditation for me, which makes me feel even better.

This method especially explains my Vegas tournament success. While others are out all night engaging in debauchery, I go to bed early and show up to the board well rested, energized, and in peak playing shape. I’ve had opponents show up to the game that had clearly been up half the night. This is a big edge that I can’t always reproduce for games after a long work day.

I’ve done the opposite of this method many times, and it has resulted in many lost rating points. I’ve had terrible, stressful days at work and then tried to play chess. I couldn’t keep the stress out of my thoughts while at the board. Distracted chess usually leads to bad chess. I’ve played tournaments while sick. See my recent article about playing with no calculation. You won’t be shocked to hear that I lost rating at that event.

Subscribe now

Method 2: Only Play Your Best Time Control.

This is a tough one to follow. It requires getting lucky, having a lot of tournaments nearby, or not playing very often. Unless you have a lot of options, this might mean that you won’t play in many tournaments.

This becomes an issue if your town only offers time controls that you don’t like. For example, if you are only offered game 30 and you thrive in game 90, you aren’t going to be at your best in these events. If you want to improve your chess, you probably will need to accept playing at random time controls to get in more games. But if you want to ensure rating success, you should probably skip these events.

I’ve wrestled with this issue on a weekly basis for years. My optimal time control is game 90 with increment. I’ve calibrated my classical play to this time control. However, a club that I enjoy playing at does game 55 with delay 5. For me, this is brutal. While I never have time trouble in G90, I am always out of time at the end of a G55. Even worse, I love playing endgames, but it just isn’t fun playing an intricate endgame on delay 5. In fact, it’s torture. It feels terrible watching your advantage that you worked all game for slip away because you don’t have time to think.

Despite this obvious issue, I continue putting myself in this situation because I enjoy playing chess, and I like to get in close to 100 rated games a year. I can’t achieve that when passing up opportunities to play. But if you truly want to gain rating, it’s best to stick with what you are good at / comfortable with.

Method 3: Avoid Playing Underrated Players.

Avoiding underrated players is tricky since most players are currently underrated. Nearly every weekend tournament that you attend will be full of underrated players, and not just the kids. Anyone spending the whole weekend playing chess is doing work outside of the event and improving on a daily basis. But if you attend a weekly club and the room is full of low rated children, you can be assured that they are very underrated.

I’ve spent much of the last three years attending a club like this. The people are wonderful. I’ve made many friends, adults and children. It’s been great having the chance to play weekly games. But my rating has suffered at this club. In fact, after doing some math, it looks like my rating is 150 points higher at other venues. I’ve had several tournaments where I finished with 2 wins, 2 draws, and 1 loss, only to lose 50 rating points. In one such event, my only loss was to a master, and in another, my opponents gained over 300 rating points combined.

On a positive note. I’ve found a club with people who seem accurately rated, and I’ve been able to make significant rating gains there. In fact, many months see me gain rating at one club, and them give those points to children at the other club.

Of course, this is a tough choice. If you are looking to improve, playing games when you can get them is a great method. But if you are mainly focused on rating goals, choose your events carefully!

Method 4: Play Up One or Two Sections

The most consistent, but slow way, to gain rating is playing up one or two sections. With this approach, in most rounds, you are playing higher rated players. This approach will lead to many losses, but these losses won’t hurt your rating much. The wins and even draws pump your rating. While this approach doesn’t result in accolades, prizes, and trophies, it has been an effective way to boost your rating. The real trick is on day 3 of a big tournament, your terrible score is what you expected, or better than you hoped. But your opponent is an emotional wreck, having a terrible tournament. This is your chance to pick up a win and boost that rating.

Unlike the above methods, which I haven’t followed. I have used this approach in most of my tournaments. I’ve had many a bad tournament score that netted me 20 points. I learned a lot and gained rating. This is a sure fire approach, but you have to be able to stomach a lot of losing! It can be uncomfortable when people ask how you did. I’ll say I did great. 1 win, 3 draws, and 2 losses. They will look at me funny, but I know that I just earned 30 rating points.

Method 5: Go Undefeated!

The method that gains the most rating points the fastest is going undefeated in a tournament. This nets you those sweet, sweet bonus points. You might be saying oh wow, what great advice, just win your games. That’s fair, but it’s deeper than simply winning games. You can be strategic to give yourself the best chance. One method is to join a lot of quads, where you play 3 games. It’s much easier to spike a 3 round event compared to a 6 rounder.

Another method is taking strategic byes. For example, if you are 3-0 in a 4 round event, taking a bye (or even dropping out) guarantees you an undefeated score. We see people do this to earn the master title on the regular. You can do this to achieve whatever rating that you are chasing. You can also take a bye to play weaker competition. If you’ve won the first 2 rounds, a bye in the third, will net you a weaker opponent in the fourth round.

This has accidentally been my best method for gaining rating points. In a 4 or 5 week event, I often have to miss a week for children or work. Twice, I went undefeated with a bye due to life. While it wasn’t a strategic decision for me, it can be for you, if you are chasing a number.

This is another method that might provide rating gain at the expense of improvement. Avoiding the top players misses out on learning opportunities. Taking byes means fewer games and fewer chances to grow.

Conclusions

The best way to gain rating is of course, to improve your chess. But in today’s ratings pool, that doesn’t seem like enough. The only way to truly lift your rating is by massively overperforming. In order to achieve such a feat, you need to be at your best, playing time controls you like, and with reasonably rated players. While this won’t always be possible, it’s something to consider when deciding to play in a tournament or not. It’s important to understand what you are signing up for. If you play a tournament with underrated players, while feeling sick, at a time control that you despise, you should recalibrate your expectations. This probably won’t be the event where you gain rating. Instead, this may just be a great chance to improve your chess. At least that’s what I tell myself when I keep going back to the club where my ELO is 150 points lower than anywhere else week after week!

If you’d like to see a video version of this advice check out:

However, I knew that I wouldn’t be at my best. This meant accepting that I would likely play badly and lose rating points. I had to accept this ahead of time, and I did. This was made easier by my recent rise to 1800 and crash to 1720. I was nowhere near any new rating goals. I also told myself that it’s useful to play in suboptimal condition as training. Certainly, by the end of tournaments, I’m not at my best, so I was practicing for this inevitability.

I also recognized that my calculation abilities would be hindered. So, I made an important decision not to justify weird moves with deep calculation. I wouldn’t try to solve positional moments with tactics. My goal would be to play “good” moves quickly. It was a fascinating experiment. The results weren’t great, but I’m glad I tried it. I learned several important lessons.

Lesson 1: Moving quickly feels great. I was usually up 40 or more minutes on the clock in the middlegame. I wasn’t burning excess energy. Usually I feel like if I’m not thinking hard about something while at the board, I’m wasting valuable time. But in these games, I would find a move. Make sure it wasn’t bad, and then make it. Unfortunately, I had to use my extra time to keep using the restroom to clear my nose, but moving quickly felt freeing.

Subscribe now

Lesson 2: Instead of spending my energy and time calculating endless variations of tactical shots that weren’t there, I spent my time looking at my opponents’ moves. I usually struggle to find my opponent’s best move, often being surprised by the best move. My coach is often baffled by this blind spot. During this tournament, I did a much better job identifying my opponents’ best moves, seeing their developing plans, and even countering them. I was especially impressed by my thought process in the position below.

White to Move

My opponent’s last move Nfh7 clearly indicated his intention to play f5. Immediately, I thought well g4 stops f5. That seems easy enough. However, I normally don’t play moves like g4. It’s so committal and weakens the wall around my king. However, in this moment, rather than calculating every detail and obsessing over future tactics, I quickly played what seemed like the “best” move, stopping his plan. I was aware that it might also be the losing move. It did not end up being a losing move, and the engine says it’s the best move available. This focus on my opponents’ moves let me find this one and many other useful prophylactic ideas.

Lesson 3: The best part of this style is that my patient approach to the positions left my opponents room to make mistakes. Usually, this space is occupied by my moves. In both games with the white pieces, my opponents made errors in closed positions. One 1800+ talented college student pushed their pawn break too early. A recently 2000 rated kid made a mistake that lost an exchange. Unfortunately, in my diminished state, I was unable to close out the win, drawing each. Despite the disappointing half point results, my patience clearly paid off! For once, I wasn’t the one blundering.

Lesson 4: There is, of course, a downside to minimal calculation. I did miss a few important moves. Especially critical is the position below. My opponent was threatening Bxh7, and I was choosing between h6 and g6. I quickly decided that g6 looked best as it didn’t leave a gaping hole on g6 and blunted the battery. In theory, this seems reasonable. What do you think?

Well, it turns out that a little bit of calculation would show that g6 is a disaster. In fact, the computer says that f5 is an only move here. But I quickly played g6. After putting down the pawn, I realized my mistake. It led to a terrible position. After my opponent takes on g6, I cannot take back or I lose the bishop to the brutal, Qx6+ double attack. I was able to lose only one pawn, but it turned the game into a calculation battle. Exactly what I had opted to avoid at this event. As the war heated up, I realized just how sick I was. I fought hard but couldn’t quite keep up and hold the worse position. After the game, for my health and the sake of the other players, i withdrew and went home exhausted, sick, but feeling like I had learned some valuable lessons.

Overall: With minimal calculation and moving quickly, I made mostly good moves. This approach only backfired big time once. Better yet, I only justified a bad move with calculation once. This is usually my Achilles heel, and avoiding it felt great. Reflecting on this event, my goal moving forward is to try using this approach with calculation. What I mean is emphasizing good moves and playing them on the faster side. Of course, I will employ calculation when needed. But I will try to refrain from going deep to justify suboptimal lines that my gut wants to make. I’m looking forward to seeing what will happen.

Postscript: I played a tournament game a week later against a 1900. I felt healthy again and decided to blend less calculation with necessary calculation. What I mean is that I didn’t try to address positional moments with wild tactics. Instead, I looked to improve my position and thwart my opponent’s plans. I created a weakness and patiently pressured it all game long. At one point, he set up a tricky tactical shot, but I used calculation, saw it, and avoided it. Later, I examined a move that looked good for my opponent. But in my calculation, I saw that I had a tactical trick in the line, winning a piece. After winning the piece, he resigned a few moves later. It was a great feeling. I made good moves for most of the game, and then I used calculation in the necessary moments to solve tactical problems. I successfully blended using calculation when needed and resisted the temptation to justify wild moves with calculation. I only hope that I can continue to replicate this one!

Have a stumbled on a new approach that will bring me wild success. Or is this just one game, and next game I will be back to my old ways? Only time will tell.

Subscribe now

Let’s start with what I’ve done to address the issue. At first, I simply ignored it. I said, “my brain is just different, it’s fine.” But so many people use this skill. After games, I feel shut out of important conversations. I simply nod along and pretend like I can follow what they are saying. So, finally, I decided to address the issue. I started working on my visualization abilities. I took some lessons with Aiden from Don’t Move Until You See It. The lessons were great. But my biggest takeaway was that the gains were minimal, the work was very hard, and it was a big time commitment. So, I keep going back to other kinds of training like puzzles, opening work, and calculation. These seem to be the areas that promise the most payoff. I has often felt like being able to play blindfold chess, or talk about moves, is more of an extra bonus rather than a critical need.

But am I missing the obvious? Is the hard thing just the right thing to do? I find myself thinking David Preuss, of the Chess Dojo, also has aphantasia. Yet, he can recreate positions. Maybe it’s the main thing I should be doing! Perhaps I’m already strong enough in other areas that visualization is what is holding me back from reaching greater heights.

Unfortunately, this article doesn’t come with a revelation or a happy ending. Instead, I’m hoping that this can be the start of a conversation. Dear Reader, how much of your games can you recall right after the game? What is your recall like 3 months later? How much could you recall at 1200, 1500, 1800 or any other level? I’m especially wrestling with this issue today, since over the weekend, I saw my opponent pull out his phone and input the entire game from memory on the spot. It was impressive and terrifying. So really the question that I’m trying to ask is: secretly, am I just bad at chess?? Have I cobbled together a workaround for a fundamental problem that must be solved? I’m eager to hear from others out there. Is remembering your games a big part of your chess journey, or are those who can recall games on the spot the outliers that I shouldn’t be comparing myself to?

Below is the game that my 1800 rated opponent remembered in its entirety right after after the game. I was able to clearly recall the first 10 moves immediately after the game. Today, while writing this piece, I could only remember the first 5 moves. Next week, I may not remember what color I was!

To be fair, Dark Squares is kind of the perfect book for me, intersecting two interests of mine, chess and religion. The chess part is obvious, but you may not know that I have 3 advanced degrees focusing on religious issues. While cults aren’t a research area of mine, I do find them fascinating. What I find most interesting is that blurred line between religion, religious movement, and cult. I regularly teach students that the difference between a cult and religion is often perception. Christianity was originally labeled a cult. Same with Mormonism and Scientology. Which of them do you consider a religion? All of them? Some of them. Their legal status has changed, and their perception as well, over time.

Dark Squares fits squarely into this discussion. What I like best about the book is Danny’s emphasis on the positive aspects of this religious movement that he would later call a cult. He tells stories of children free from helicopter parents freely wandering the idyllic woods of Arizona. He tells the tales of lost souls seeking meaning and finding answers within a group of others seeking answers. Danny’s own rise within the cult from nobody to somebody is fascinating. His evolution from innocent child to questioning adult is so relatable. We all go through much of what Danny did, only in a totally different context. We question our parents’ knowledge and control over our lives as we grow up and mature. Danny did it all, but in a more exploitative and confusing environment.

Although Danny couldn’t see it yet as a child, he does such a great job letting the cult side of the movement peek through. From the heart wrenching decisions of the leader to separate Danny from his mother to the alcohol fueled gatherings to air the grievances and truths of the community. It is all compelling, and so many emotions are evoked. I teared up at moments and nodded appreciatively at others.

Subscribe now

It was also fascinating to read about the rise of a child prodigy. Danny’s rise was especially intriguing because he was the best player on a chess team that came out of nowhere. When the team started dominating, people certainly started asking questions. It was fun to see the friendships and comradery of the team that came out of nowhere and baffled the world. But it was also so sad to hear the team get ripped apart due to status and community structure. His adventures, chess improvement approach, and many whys for chess were so educational.

Dark Squares also provides some inside information on the birth, growth, and eventual domination of chess.com. Danny went deeper into cheating than I thought he would, which was refreshing, revealing many details from the Magnus/Niemann kerfuffle. But while this section is enlightening, and Danny tries to be humble, this part of the book often felt like a lengthy advertisement. Chess.com handles cheaters better than everyone. Chess.com has the best site for playing chess. It has the best resources. While I’m not asserting that any of the information is untrue, it was a touch too much propaganda for me.

Despite my one nitpick, Dark Squares is an amazing read on so many levels. Whether you are into good stories, cult descriptions, chess prodigies, or just the rise of Chess.com, this one book has you covered. Well done Danny. You’ve accomplished something that I’ve rarely seen, a rich, nuanced description of cult life. Complete with the highs, lows, and everything in between!

Subscribe now

Before moving on, what would you play here? Are you looking at this as a tactical moment or are you looking for other moves? In the comments below, let me know what you chose.

Subscribe now

When looking at this position as a possible tactical problem, I was looking at attacks on the barren king. I was trying to make 24. Nxg7 work. I was thinking that perhaps I could bring the bishop in, rook lift to e3/g3, and then swing in with the queen. I just had done a few puzzle rushes, so, my brain was energized by this line. But quickly, I realized that this wasn’t a tactical moment. I reset my brain and looked at it positionally. Let’s take a look at my move, Fischer’s move, and the computer’s move.

I looked at a few different moves. My first thought was blending tactics and positional play. I could improve my queen with 24. Qd3. I am putting some eventual pressure on h7, improving my queen’s position, and it generally looked decent. But, 24 … Ne5 is annoying. So then I looked at f4 first to allow me to play Qd3. This seemed like an interesting move, but it does weaken e4 forever, so that is a big commitment and something to think about. I also considered f3 to slightly improve the position. After thinking more about my opponent’s position, I decdied that I didn’t like the bishop on c3. Can’t I force a trade with Bd4 or Bd2? If I take the bishop on c3 and they take with the b pawn, my b pawn is weak. However, they are left with many pawn weaknesses that I can target. Also, Bd4 hits g7, so that will need to be resolved immediately. The more I looked at Bd4, the more I liked what it did. It’s departure from e3 gives me options. Now the rook can lift to e3. This could start an attack with Rg3 and allowing the queen to come to the kingside. Moving the bishop to d4, also gives the e4 pawn more stability with the rook directly defending it. I thought my opponent might take the bishop with his, but then I take with the knight, which looks great on d4. For some reason, I didn’t strongly consider g6 and where the knight would go. This seems like a big oversight, as it feels like clearly the best response for black.

Fischer played 24. Bd4. Huzzah, I was right! I’m always excited when I find the player’s move. Korchnoi continued with 24… g6. Fischer moved the knight to h6 to check the king. From there, Fischer doubled the rooks on the c file, and the game was dominated by Fischer’s rooks. He didn’t end up using any of my ideas about Re3/g3.

The computer likes Bd4 and Bd2 best. Then g4, Rc1, and f4. While I did find f4, the computer does not like my followup idea of Qd3. Instead, it is just gaining space, often following up with g4. The computer doesn’t like a knight sacrifice on g7. The bishop takes, and white is just down a piece; there is nothing there. Unlike a human, the computer isn’t swayed by how the position looks, or if it has just done 10 puzzle rushes, it just finds the best moves, and clearly Nxg7 is a ridiculous move that loses on the spot.

In summary, it’s a lot harder to find the right move in a position if you are only looking for tactics. Exclusively, searching for tactical shots can warp your perspective of what is going on, what is possible, and what is needed.

What move did you choose and why? Were you swayed by the barren king to keep looking for tactical shots, or did you quickly move on to other moves?

Subscribe now

I’ve done quite a few puzzle rushes today, and I started looking for tactics like d6 or doubling the rook and then d6. I considered Rb1 hitting the b7 pawn. I then looked at Qe3 to trade off the queen. But that doesn’t give me much on the d file. Only after these thoughts did I notice that it hung the d5 pawn. Perhaps that should be worrying. The move I landed on is Re3. It supports the c pawn, sets up a useful doubling on the e file, and overall seems to put pressure on the position. It seems to move our position forward with no drawbacks. I would happily make this move. I feel like white has a bit of an edge here. Nothing too dramatic, but it feels like black has more room to go wrong. Let’s see what MVL played.

MVL played 20. Re4. At first, this looks a bit weird to me. I’m liking that it sets up the c4 push. But Rac8 makes it a bit tougher. Perhaps Qd3, c4, and then Re1 is quite good. I am a bit worried about black playing Red8 and then e6 putting pressure on the queen though. The game actually continued quite oddly. Black immediately pressured the queen with 20 … Rd8 then 21. c4 f5 to try to chase the rook away from guarding c4. White then shockingly gave up the c pawn to push the h pawn. This pawn push triggered a game winning attack over the next several moves. The position below is 6 moves later after move 26. We can see that Qg5 is coming and black is falling apart quickly. A few moves later MVL is +3, and he delivers mate on move 38.

The computer says everything is a draw here. Re4, Rab1, Rad1, and c4 are all fine moves that leave us at 0.0. My move Re3 is given -.2. Somehow I didn’t take really consider black’s rook going to the d file first to pressure the pawn. This leaves us a bit passive forced to bring the rook to d1 instead of doubling on the e file. Playing through the next 10 moves, there is no big attack. Just steady, drawish play.

Leave a comment

What move did you make? Did you foresee a big attack with your move?

Subscribe now

Are you starting to get suspicious of so much information? The weird thing is that I did feel pretty good about this tournament. But I lost 30 rating points. This is the second time this same scenario has happened to me.

Subscribe now

You might be wondering, how is this even possible. The answer is of course, talented juniors. I played 4 talented juniors that gained 274 rating points from the tournament. Every round, I got paired against a much lower opponent that was having a great tournament.

I’m left wrestling with a tough question. Am I trying to have fun and improve my chess, or am I trying to improve my rating. At the club where this has happened twice, it seems like an either or question. Many adults have stopped playing here due to the continuous influx of talented juniors. This is especially sad, because these are mature well behaved juniors, and it’s exciting to watch them improve so much. What makes the situation even more maddening is that the juniors that take everyone’s points on the way to their success stop playing at the club because now they see the same thing happening to them. As juniors looking to improve, it’s just not worth risking the rating loss.

To be honest, I’ve been writing this article in my head for about a week, but I’m still not sure what the point of it is. Am i just sharing the madness of playing tournament chess in an area with talented juniors. Is this my goodbye to the club that I’ve so enjoyed because I’m now pursuing 1900. Is this my goodbye to 1800 as I continue hemorrhaging points at this club. I still don’t know the answer, but it sure would be great if the USCF could solve this problem for me.

Are you all having the same experience, or am I just at a club with more talented juniors than normal?

My thoughts: I’m immediately drawn to Nd6, blockading the d pawn. It also supports an f5 pawn push. The knight on e8 is also the worst placed piece on the board. I will have to find something quite good to override that move. It’s important to note that this doesn’t seem like a tactically rich position. Pieces aren’t in contact and there aren’t any pins or other tactical features.

Bd6 doesn’t seem like a bad move, but why take the square from the knight.

I am worried a bit about c5, so, Rc8 isn’t a bad move.

Qd7 would improve the queen and set up an f4 push.

It looks like Nd6 is an obvious move. I’m not really sure what white will play here. F4 is possible but it leaves a backwards e pawn, but the two center pawns are connected. Nf3 would improve the knight and pressure the f6 pawn. This would hinder our plan to push f5.

My final answer is Nd6. It’s not an earth shattering move, but it improves our position, improves our worst piece, blockades the pawn, and controls some useful squares. The position still seems roughly equal, with chances for both sides.

MVL: Not too surprisingly MVL played Nd6. Anand surprised me with a4, and MVL played Bg5. Next move he played f5.

Computer: The computer agrees that Nd6 is the best move, but not by much. Rc8, Bg5, and g6 are all strong moves. I find it interesting that I didn’t even consider Bg5, and this was clearly on MVL’s mind as it was his next move. I think I didn’t consider it because the bishop is supporting the pawn on c5. At least it was before the knight move.

I like to finish by seeing how the game played out. MVL used the f5 move to launch an attack on the king and finished the game with a blistering attack.

Subscribe now

Well, this position wasn’t the most exciting position, but that’s the point. Most positions in a real game, aren’t that exciting. I feel like training myself to not look for the tactic or forcing move in every position is a good antidote to all the tactical puzzles I do that trick my brain into looking for a tactical answer even when they’re aren’t any. What move did you go with and why?