To computer or not to computer - that is the question...

I want to open a discussion on this as I feel there is a little too much of a hardline against engines.

The prevailing wisdom is that players under (2200 or thereabouts) should avoid engine use or at least do some serious analysis first. There are however I believe several assumptions underlying this:
. That the student has a coach who can answer why a move is good or not if the student is unable to come to a conclusion no matter how many of such positions there are
. That the student has a large amount of time to do such analysis
. That 2200 equates to some kind of level without explaining what the underlying level means
. That bad engine discipline leads to overuse (cf. as using a calculator when you should be learning your times-tables)
. That comments and material in courses and books is always accurate and appropriate for the student's level

. That weaker players will not be able to use the engine appropriately or will misread it
. That it's unnecessary for below 2200 play
. That becoming a Grandmaster is the goal

First my own feeling on this:

If you are using an engine appropriately for your level and you are aware of the limitations of an engine, and you do not have a coach on hand, then some engine use is beneficial, probably more so than not using one at all. It can be used to check your own analysis and assumptions as well as speed up your ability to work through material when time is limited.

I think if you ask the top trainers most would say don't use a computer, but they are already coaching their student and some of their students have many hours each day to spend doing things a computer would short-cut (the should cut might cut out some practice or learning of course). However I think this wisdom doesn't always translate well to the club player with a few hours each week to spend on their chess - plus limited concentration span for study when it's a hobby, hence the discussion.

The limitations of the computer need to be understood:
. Computers are bad at endgames, better now, but still need to improve unless it is a tablebase like or tactical position (I consider tablebase position use databases not engines).
. Computers often do not tell you straight out (without some investigation) why one move is better than another (unless the line clearly shows a tactical error etc). Certainly no explanation is given and the few tools that do are still in their infancy.
. Computers perform better in tactical positions than positional (though this is changing) because of the insufficient evaluation function coupled with very deep search ability.
. Centipawn measurements are a little arbitrary
. Psychological or human difficulty factors are not considered in an evaluation (including gambits) which is why the Benko or Sicilian variations get a hard time
. Sometimes computers need to run for a while to get a true evaluation even in positions that aren't so profound to humans.

What the above shows is it's very easy to misuse/read a computer, which is where a fair bit of the adage of don't use a computer comes from.

Second I take a little bit of disdain to mentioning ratings as if they are levels of skill. A 2200 is something that is on the face of it strong, but there is a big rating difference between a player who got 2200 by playing mostly strong players and the few draws or very occasional win got them there, versus someone who plays in clubs and lower level tournaments and the constant barrage of weaker players which the occasional loss or draw keeps the rating lower. The rating pool (sometimes artificially constructed by choosing which games a player plays) is very important. Similarly one might be 2400 in the Sicilian, but 2000 in the Benko, or 2400 in the endgame and opening, but 2000 in the middle game. They might be 1800 after a day at work, but 2000 on a weekend. The weakest point is probably going to determine the rating more than someone who is all round good. In addition rating does not equate with experience: there are plenty of players in the 1800-2000 range some who are pretty good (just not consistent or hobbled by just playing in a small pool of 1600-2000 players) who have been playing chess for 40 years, and there are plenty of 2200s who have been playing just a few years. The question is what does this 2200 really mean in terms of chess skill or maturity.

I feel the time factor for study really needs to be explored further. As I've mentioned elsewhere there are those who can spend 5 hours a day on chess, whereas some only get 5 hours a week. In the latter case it's 'getting the best bang for your buck'. Spending 15 minutes analysing to get an answer why a move was bad (after spending 15 minutes already looking at in the game but without the hindsight of what happen), is often too much of a task, so soon no analysis takes place at all. Similarly trying to understand master moves in a book of 500 positions/fragments/games will take years for just one book if you take this approach with only 5 hours study available per week - most will give up or not finish the course - and while they are studying it nothing else is getting worked on.

I'm somewhere in the middle for study time and here is where I use an engine:
. As a blunder check after online games, and to understand whether a marked inferior move was inferior and to try to tease why another move was superior.
. When I can't understand why a move was/wasn't played after a bit of thinking
. To check my own analysis
. To check for errors in published material before I commit it to memory (some errors in positional based material aren't necessarily a problem if the pattern is intended to be conveyed not the specific example).
. Openings when looking at the database for what was played as there is usually too much complexity for a non-master to properly make a decision on whether a plan or move was a bad one. Plus just because it's a game in a database played by someone strong, doesn't mean there are not errors.
. New ideas or things to consider in a position that I haven't seen before

Examples of where I would say is bad engine use:
. Studying tactical/analysis material before having a proper go at solving it

. To quibble over a couple of centi-pawns whether one opening move was better than another
. To find deep lines to study in openings so 'you know more' beyond what is appropriate in the games you have been facing
. Before actually playing through a published game at least once to get a feel of what went on
. When your eye is more on the engine than the material itself
. Getting definite evaluations of endgames
. As a substitute for thinking (aka the analogy of using a calculator vs mental arithmetic)

Finally what level would I say is appropriate (beyond blunder and material checks) from my own personal feelings (without the view a grandmaster or a coach has):
. You make few blunders, certainly nothing too serious in longer games
. You understand tactics well
. You understand positional concepts well

At least at this point you have the ability to question a computer evaluation as well as less likely to use it as a first point of call. Whether that is 1700, 2000, 2200 of course depends on the factors I've mentioned as well as the individual.

Replies

Anti-Sicilian Part 1 2...d6 - Move 10. Bb5 or 10. Be3 what do you reccomend

In the last advanced section video 8...e6 at minute 1:00 in the video where Black has just played 10...dxe5, in the main video course you did cover this move earlier where you recommended 11. Bxc5 by White. However, in the advanced video course, you give the line 11. fxe5 by White but this seems to open the board up in Black's favor which is why you recommended the change to 10. Bb5 to avoid this. Is the 11. Bxc5 move instead playable or do you still recommend the change to 10. Bb5? 

Replies

Hello ChessMood family. Could you please provide your thoughts on which move is better so I may research more and update my database accordingly? thank you in advance! 

@Vishnu_Warrier.

Hello dear Vishnu, sorry for the late reply. Gabuzyan is playing the World cup and I may have missed to tag your post. Now I did it but I think that I can reply to your post myself.

The move 10.Bb5 as stated in the Advanced section is to be prefered since you are already watching the advanced videos.  The other move will lead to an equal position with not many chances to overcome your opponent because it will simplify too fast.

This is a favorite line of mine, but I would like to remind you a few key moves and concepts: 

Previously with the move 9.e5 we are leaving the c8 bishop out of the game. Then our plan  including this e5 move, should be the Ne4 follow up, bishop to e3, f2, h4 plan.

e5 is much stronger than Bb3 which is recommended in many books. [Bb5,Bc1-e3-f2-h4 are part of our plan if allowed]

And I wrote it 3 times but many, many people forget the Bishop transfer, keep it in mind when you reach this position...

Hi Vishnu,

I checked out the post and @Chessmood_Odysseus provided a very clear answer! Once again pawn on e6 is killing the bishop on c8 and as well we get space for the kingside game due to pawn on e5.

Early Qb6 in Caro

Hi -- after e4 c6 : d4 d5 : e/d c/d : Bd3 Nc6 : c3 my opponent played Qb6 straight away . This seemed effective, as it stopped Bf4 ( b2 is a tender spot). I was much higher graded, so didn't fancy an early exchange of Queens . Ended up playing Nd2 which didn't give me much. What is the best approach here for White ? 

Replies

I think 6.Qb3 is a good move, exchange of queens favours white in this structure, as white would get open a file and b4-b5 idea misplacing pieces and getting a grip on the position. I know that you dont want to exchange queens :), but gotta play what position requires sometimes

Hi Keven,

I do like how Paulius replied. I would also go Qb3. If black takes we are opening the a file which is great. Otherwise we are going to take and double black pawns on the queenside.

Repertoire against 1. Nf3 2.b3

I would love it if there is a Repertoire against 1. Nf3 2.b3,i know u guys are really working hard and are busy,but please chessmood team,if possible can u recommend a repertoire against the nimzo larsen,which starts with 1Nf3 2b3,repertoire against 1b3 is covered in youtube by GM EUGENE PERELESHTYN,thanks in advance

Replies

This is an easy one @Ritvik_Caringula. Against Nf3 we play always c5 trying to transpose to the Sicilian. Then if b3 is the next move, we go Nc6, Bb2, d6. Our next move is e5 reaching some transposition to the English repertoire.

I play 2...d5. Idea is if 3.Bb2 then f6 idea e5. See Petrosian-Fischer

Hi Ritvik,

I have also got this setup very often a black.

Against these structures as after Nf3 we play c5 I go b3 and d6 preparing e5 and trying to limit bishop on b2. Later on, I developed the pieces as we do in our English courses.

Playing Partners

If anyone interested in playing some training games on specific lines then add me up.

https://lichess.org/@/cat-prep-time

Replies

I would like to play!

Isn't this a winning move?

https://chessmood.com/course/classical-chess-endgames/episode/1919 6 min 37 sec in the video, I noticed that black can take on g2 with the bishop forcing white to play Kg1 (otherwise there will be some discovery), and then playing f3 with a protected passed pawn. Doesn't this work?

Replies

Well in the same timing. 6 min. 37 seconds Avetik says that if Rxg2 the King will go to h3, not back to the first rank, Kh3 is not good for Black. That is why the strong move is Kg4, taking the square h3 away from the King first. Then the capture on g2 is much stronger.

Happy International Chess Day!!

Hello everyone! Happy international chess day! How is Chessmood celebrating?

Replies

Sicilian Dragon opening gave me a good game - Thank you Chessmood!

Hey folks, I just wanted to share a game I played where I was able to implement the Sicilian opening I learned here on Chessmood.

https://www.chess.com/a/odjSGF4AxWdL

I know I am not highly rated, and I missed a tactical opportunity early in the game, but I did have a very nice Rook sac that led to a 6 move forced mate.  I don't think these always happen in games and they are fun to see so I thought I would share here for others to also enjoy. I also almost had a nice smothered mate that was possible because of the opening formation.

Thank you Chessmood team, I am very much enjoying the content!

Replies

Way to go @Leslie_Smith!!!

I can't find the daily puzzle link

Can anyone tell me where can I find daily puzzles sorry but am new so idk how to use this site well.

Replies

https://chessmood.com/daily-puzzle/18.07.2021

It's hidden on the site links at the bottom.

It really should be in the banner menu.

Benko b6?

Hi -- Cannot find how to deal with it when White plays c/b5 then after a6 just simply plays b6. Ideas please .

Thanks Keven 

Replies

Hi Keven, according to my notes this is covered in Section 4, Video #30. I will try to add my pgn-notes here.

And here my notes.

Approach to understanding a position/idea

This is roughly the approach I'm taking when studying a position idea over a number of moves. Ideas / suggestions for improvements welcome.

First I don't have hours and hours to spend on chess (though I do rack up quite a few at the moment as I'm sure my wife will tell you). So wisdom such as treat the position like a long-play game and guess the move 3 mins max a move probably isn't so useful for me. With a book such as Positional Chess Handbook containing just under 500 positions that would take at least a year for me to work through with that approach - fine perhaps if you have 8 hours to study a day and can sustain it, but impractical otherwise (not saying that the technique is bad when you do want to improve calculation skill, but then you wouldn't need to do all 500).

Second it's very easy to get lost in playing or reading the moves which is why I don't like playing from books or moving the pieces on a board, a pgn I can move through with a key press focusing on the game rather than losing sight every time I look away from the position, won't make wrong moves, and going back is a lot easier. It also lends itself to multiple repetition better.

I'm trying roughly the following steps:
Play through the game the first time, try to get the gist of what happens, not worry too much about well what if...
Play through a second time, try to make a narrative: e.g. king centralises, advance pawns, cause a zuzgwang to penetrate further, capture key pawn, force promotion
Play through a third time, check notes, try to answer some what-ifs with a computer if need be, note down positions of interest if any

Move on, only to come back if something is needed to be referenced later (say a similar concept) or to play from the position to test my technique (or lack thereof).

Other supporting ideas:

Between these takes I'll often use what I call 'the detective method' to give it a catchy name. Those who have read novels by Agatha Christie (famous author of murder-mystery books) will know the general format (at least from what I remember from reading them at school) is that there are often several theories and multiple suspects, but not too deep, where it all gets revealed (oh so obvious by the master detective) on the last couple of pages (so much so it's a joke that the best way to spoil such books is to remove or prevent reading of those pages). If you work backwards from the end though (or so I've read long after I read these novels) you'll see all the clues and it will be more obvious (of course you know what to look for and discard what doesn't fit the final narrative - cognitive bias). I sometimes find chess positions like this - go forwards and there are so many ways it could have gone, many things to look out for (often not relevant to the master) as well as questions (well why didn't they play that, what if...) however it can be useful to go from when the position is much clearer and you understand it fine and go backwards into the complications asking how did we get here (easier with pgns). Then you are looking for the key moves and strategies that made just that possible including the mistakes, and not everything else.

Another trick I use, especially from understanding why a computer's move is 'better' is to swap repeatedly between the main line and the computer line. So let's say the computer says Be3 is superior to Be2, okay, so I play Be3, well now what, then perhaps there is a follow up a4 say, well let's see if I play Be2 as in then game then a4 then what. Maybe Be2 then Be3. This might go on several moves deep, but often it turns out that Be3 with a4 was necessary right now because of something the opponent was threatening (or would be given time to defend) that I didn't see. Also I might have discarded a move because of something I saw the opponent had - so try the same technique with the potential replies to find why I was wrong. I find this especially useful on post game analysis (especially auto-analysis of lichess) when the computer alternative is more subtle than just made the wrong decision, or some obvious tactical issue with my move - sometimes these quick checks are wrong of course and my move was better when the computer gets to think for a bit. I use the computer less on games where trying to understand positional ideas (as even if they are tactically unsound where they were played the concept is not). However, sometimes to answer the whatifs or check something the computer needs to get switched on.

Finally there is the mindset that a few positions progress every now and then is better than one or two big attempts and giving up and chop and changing too much between other things (guilty here). I try not to beat myself up (particularly after working all day) if I only get through two positions in an evening (when I first started I tried to get through everything quickly as if the next book would add something more and a few books later I'd be master level - which never happened of course).

Replies

Hi David,

I hear what you are saying as I am also not having enough time to study chess intensely. However, all these shortcuts, especially relying on computer suggestions, cannot replace time invested in  really understanding the chess positions. 

The only shortcut I see that could work is to knowexactly  what are your weaknesses and then you have an efficient method to learn how to work on them.

Otherwise, the amount of time need to invest will remain the same. It will just take you longer to reach the goal when compared with somebody else who has more time for chess daily.

Test your Pawn EndgameS!

It's black to move. share your evaluation with important variations.

Replies

Hello Abhi, can you please shorten the name of the jpg? Rename it to something like; picture.jpg

It looks that the images are not properly displayed with a long name. Thanks!!

Chessmood openings

Do our chessmood openings work at GM level?Why top GMs like Carlsen,vishy anand do not play such openings.plz reply

Replies

Chessmood openings are designed to beat below 2200 players. 

For example Grand Prix. Even if you follow any grand prix theory chessmood ones or other courses the lines are so sharp so its not so easy for below 2200 players to remember all theories and they lose easily.

So in order to beat below 2200 players we need a simple and solid and well presented opening repo. We don't need to remember lines . All we need is to understand ideas and plans and with the help of playing so much training games we also develop the feel of those positions and it help us in real life events.

Chessmood openings are solid, easy to understand and most dangerous for below 2200 to face over the board.

Much of it works (I'd say all at 15 minutes and below).

The problem is it's not deep or subtle enough that you can't get out prepared which will happen as you get to master level in long play games, particularly with hours to prepare. At the top levels technique matters so much so you need subtle difficult positions so as to outplay.

One of the beauties of the repertoire is (as a learner) not only do you need to know less positions because they work together as a whole, not have to constantly keep up to date, nor have to deal with subtle positional play or ultrasharp tactics, but particularly in the GP for example you can play open variations on some of the opponent's replies and not others, easing you into a more master level repertoire.

For now get to 2200 or so, sort out the other aspects of your game, then consider other openings seriously (i.e. to learn and play, not just get experience of other plans and ideas to improve your chess skill).

When you get to be a professional 2600 you might be able to spend hours and hours every week on your repertoire and keeping up to date and finding novelties, but for most of us amateurs with a job and maybe family, low maintenance without learning trappy inferior moves is a good medium.

Well, why not start with the Queen's Gambit Declined and take a look at Quality Chess. And if you want some words of one of the legends - there is an overview by Kasparov availability at ChessBase that I really enjoyed.

Thank you family for all your answers! Deeply appreciated! This question has been very well explained in the different replies. @Dhruvil_Dave But if you are interested in Quality chess books, I suggest that you visit their site, they also have a forum and they will be able to guide you much better. I am saying this because most of us can not follow up with all the new books in the market nowadays because we are working hard on the Chessmood courses.

    I, for one, could not be more grateful for the ChessMood Repertoire as before then, most of my opening "preparation" consisted of random YouTube videos and free Chessable Courses.  Now I have a bulletproof opening repertoire made by experienced GMs and I have confidence going into my games. But to answer your question about what level CM repertoire is good for, I'd personally say around the 1900-2350 rating range, as ChessMood openings are not immortal on the professional level; it is possible to prepare against them.  Hopefully this helps!

Article: How Grandmasters Memorize Opening Variations

Replies

The first question that needs asking is how do we remember? This needs to be considered.

Why do we remember our own phone number over say the number of our best friend (because we often repeat ours to others, and we autodial the friends number - before mobiles I could remember friends numbers). Repetition is one aspect.

Why do we remember what we were doing when someone very famous died in tragic circumstances (Kennedy assassination or Princess Diana for example) but we can't remember what we had for dinner last Tuesday - novelty, emotional content, standing out from other events.

When we can't remember where we left our keys, but work out where they are because of what we were doing when we last had them - reasoning

When we're completely unaware of a song we once heard many times, but someone hums the tune or mentions a lyric, and suddenly it's back, including where you were and what you were doing when you heard this song 20 years ago - association. Smell is very powerful in this aspect and can bring back a flood of memories.

Our memory is associative. Put simply, a key unlocks a memory. If the key is unique, and strongly associated to the memory, you will often remember (I can remember what I ordered last time I went out for dinner Friday, as well as a few weeks ago the previous time, but not what I ate on Sunday). The more keys to a memory the more likely any one of them will help you remember it.

The problem with chess, and one for non-professionals is that positions look similar. The flow is linear (I go here, they go there) and positions are slowly transformed. Not every move can be ascribed a reason that is very memorable, and even if so, many others will look like the same reason can be applied. Often several moves look good, but only one leads to positions studied. Sometimes these other moves are deep mistakes. The d6 anti-Sicilian is a problem with both its sharp nature and branching. Professionals have the advantage that more of their brain will be wired to recognise chess positions, and connections are stronger because they spend more time with chess positions. I can't tell similar looking cats apart, but I bet vets can. I struggle with names because I don't meet often and work in such an environment that names are important, yet teachers can remember all the pupils in several classes they take.

Understanding the moves is undoubtedly the most important piece (even if you did remember the move, what is it doing?), but this is still memory and memorisation. Here it is using reasoning as a key to find it. If you forget the reasoning, you may or may not be able to work it out from scratch. No one is going to tell you that you learnt a reason on this move. Not all moves have reasons, some moves are natural, fashion, the right move because others are bad and so on. Perhaps that's not such a problem for a GM who will also use their more developed chess skill and intuition to find the correct move (or at least dismiss some of the candidate moves), but it's a big problem for club players.

What's described by playing many games with a training partner is repetition (as well as active learning) which is a key aspect of memorisation. However when you stop repeating, things fade, and for anyone who has tried the chessable approach will know this problem as well as the overburden of workload. You can't just spend all your time repeating memorising openings, and you still make mistakes. Sometimes there is a lot to be said about cramming before a game if your opponent plays a specific line. It's short term, but it does the job.

Another memory difference between professionals and amateurs is chunking, in which a famous experiment showed that strong players can reconstruct chess positions better than lower rated players. However if a random position is set up, they didn't perform better. Thus the idea of chunking (having fewer bits of information to remember by being familiar with pawn structure and king positions for example) was seen as the explanation. Add in more experience, superior knowledge a master will have less they need to remember (compensated by them learning more difficult openings).

I get the idea of the article though that just trying to repeat the lines again and again, rewatching videos, or worse playing through them once and assuming that's it before looking for the next shiny thing isn't enough.

I don't yet have an answer, but aside from the article's suggestions, I would add:

reduction (reduce the load down to a few critical positions which can be repeated or other tricks used, leaving out all that you can find over the board). Less information is better. Use flashcards to repeat.

Cross referencing - often moves are chosen to keep similar positions to other openings we know, and the ideas will also be similar)

Frequency/application (study games from those openings so you see the position often in other contexts than your opening pgn)

Patterns and the rule of 3 (we take notice of things that form patterns or repeat, and 3 times or more is an indicator of a pattern). Especially if it's slightly different (a variant on play it as Black is flip the board left for right, the positions look different, and sometimes new things are seen).

and if all else fails, mnemonic devices (sparingly).

The more things you do, the more likely one will succeed when you need it. Just don't be like the guy that tried to remember all the lines of Understanding the Chess Openings using mnemonics, because even if he pulled it off for all 200 or so variations (theoretically possible but difficult as well as to maintain and time consuming), it probably wouldn't be a lot of use practically. Sometimes it's just confidence we've done all we can and we'll play good chess at the board.

The problem of repertoire is that every student is different. I remember a Kramnik quote where he says that he was convinced that the way one plays reflects his character so one should choose (perhaps with the help of a coach) the openings where he feels more confortable.

About Chessable my favourite course is GM So explaining how he outplayed Magnus in the 960 WC (I am refering to his thought process). I think 960 is a great tool for learning. At the end what you do? Looking for weak squares in yours and your opponents camp. Finding good diagonals for your bishops, nice outpost for your knights, the pawn structure (few islands but that offer some open files for your rooks) and what is of most importance, grab space. So in 960 we must think about development just like in standard chess, but beginning in move one instead of move 10 or 20.

I remember when I started with 960 like most of my unexperienced opponents, we started to play the pawns to open diagonals for our Queen and Bishops, but as we swimmed in unknown waters we moved the pawns only 1 square ahead. Then I asked myself why I move 1 square when in standard chess normally we move 2. So I started to move 2 and grab space from my opponents and began winning many games.

Not allowed to join chess.com Chess Mood tourney

I tried to join Chess Mood chess.com tourney today but was not allowed!

A message stated I had played too few games (see attached screenshot). Anyone know exactly what this refers to? Too few chess.com rapid games or too few Chess Mood tourney games & importantly how I fix it to play future tournaments

NB-I cannot see screenshot img file displaying & not sure why this is also!

Replies

Hi Richard,

In lichess you need to have played several games with your lichess account (not sure how many) before being allowed to join a tournament. It is not a Chessmood requirement but a lichess requirement.

I guess chess.com works in a similar way. The way to fix it would be that you play several rated games with that account, so you reach the minimum to be able to join a tournament.

Hope it helps

Hi Richard,

Yes, as stated by some other members, at that moment, maybe you had played too few games in rapid mode in chess.com. We are sorry about this, but it is decided by Chess.com. We will be able to know more when we see the attached picture.

Ruy Lopez Repertoire for White

Hi, I am rated 1441 FIDE and 2000-2100 on lichess. I have not played OTB tournament for last 3-4 years. Have started studying and preparing for OTB tournaments post covid. While I am working hard on my tactical vision and positional chess, I want to learn and study Ruy Lopez for white and make it a part of my repertoire. Is anything wrong in this? And if not, can you please suggest me any source or method for studying and understanding it? Or will a course on it be done on ChessMood in some time?

Replies

I really love the way every move of an opening and all the ideas are explained in the courses here on chessmood. I wish if Ruy Lopez course was also done by the ChessMood team. It would be amazing.

Problem is it's a lot of different systems to study which will take a lot of time and effort. Is there anything wrong with learning the Scotch?

Thank you @Abhi_yadav. Will check both those courses. It will be great ones I believe.

The Lopez is a amazing opening. However its likely one of the most vast and complex openings around.

The amount of content it would need to do it full justice is probably not practical for what chessmood is trying to achieve. Likely 4/5 times the size of scotch. Plus the style of it also does not fit what chessmood is trying to do.

Thats to give open attacking options, not get crushed in the opening and then focus on middlegame and endgame play.

Some of the positions in the closed Lopez really require grandmaster level understating imo. Lines like the breyer for example is incredibly complex, then you very dull stuff like the Berlin...

Start with Scotch Sahil. I believe it's much easier to learn, fun to play and will get you great results even against stronger players.

Ruy Lopez is no doubt a great opening, but it requires deep understanding. There are many little nuances and strategic concepts that can be overwhelming especially for a new player. 

As for studying the opening, try to look at model games of Anand and Karpov in the Ruy Lopez. Analyze them on your own and find out the deep ideas. I guess that will help you build an understanding of Ruy Lopez.

f4 move in benko

hi coach, today I was faced with this f4 move in the Benko gambit after which he continues as in course, he easily achieved the e5 break and won the game. How must I respond to f4?

Replies

Provide all the moves please.

hey kevin,in the game i played in the typical Benko fashion as shown in course but as u mentioned on looking at the downside of f4 which even GM Avetik mentioned in his daily lesson video , i feel that i shd play an early qb6 and then continue with other moves! As the g1-a7 diagonal is weak i feel Qb6 immediately and then following the Benko move order will be effective! What do u think?

I asked Avetik to take a look at this and he will. In the meanwhile, I had a recent game with this variation but this f4 is a bit dubious. The opening moves in my game went as in the picture, there may have been better moves, still I reached a very playable game and was unimpressed by White's artificial castling.

Question about todays position

Why 1.Ra7 Qb1 2.Bg7 doesn't works?

Replies

I guess the "daily puzzle software" only accepts 1 solution - but your line / move order is just as good as the given solution

So can i get 500 moody?

How to study Middlegames?

Hello! I think my main weakness chess-wise is my middlegame play.  The thing is, it is not really clear how to improve it.  For example, it is quite easy to improve Endgame play as there are many good books, such as Dvoretzky's Endgame Manual; the same goes for openings, as there is Chessable, Chessmood :), opening books, etc. However, there are very limited books and online resources for middlegames. 

How should I study them? How much time should I put into studying them?

Replies

Hi Brody, as a pro-member you have wonderful middlegame lectures within chessmood! My top recommendation would be “classical commented games”, followed by the course “Happy pieces” and “classical attacking games”.
And if your time allows pick some of the chessmood middlegame lectures on youtube “Daily Lesson with a Grandmaster”, where there are almost 200 great short lectures by now!
If you take your time to really try to understand that provided material, you will improve your middlegame skills!

Anti-sicilian d6 11.. Ng4 video 12 theory changed?

In this position, the video commentary (4:30) mentions a big advantage and a plan of d4 Rf3, Rxe3.

Unfortunately both my own analysis and computer analysis / matches puts this into doubt and perhaps this is one reason the Nb5 line doesn't appear as a widely considered option.

The position is R + 2P (3 if the e3 pawn can be captured without any loss) vs 2B. The problem is the concrete nature of this position, lack of open lines for White's rooks, lack of easily accessible targets (aside from e3) for White, the power of Black's 2B working together, and the fact Black has an extra piece of wood (ignoring the pawns) taking away any ideas of sacrificing back an exchange say.

Meanwhile both Black's single rook and queen and Bs do have open lines and targets (a4, b2, f4 [if g3 , then h3]).

The computer gives this position slightly (varying up to half a pawn) in Black's favour (though closer to equal with more chances for Black, but some too for White, is my own feeling). Black's plan is Kg8 and then Rc8 or f8. If White plays Rf3, then Bh6 attacks f4.


There are some different moves playable earlier, which might give White a very small edge and therefore keep the line alive in practical terms over the board, but again the computers make a lot of draws.

I'm not sure until this is resolved that the theory can be claimed to have been changed. Even if 12... a6 might not be found (not that it's not an obvious candidate), it only needs one game of yours to get in a database and this line will be found by the next person prepping a defence against you.

Is there any concrete analysis to support the claim of a 'big advantage'?

Replies

Bumping as unanswered so far.

@David_Flynn

I think that if I have this position in the board I would be more than happy as White. You need to see things from a human perspective. Just watching stockfish evaluations all day will not do much good I believe.
Where you see weaknesses I see potential. A weak pawn is the pawn that has no other pawn that is able to support him. This is not the case and even if all black pieces attack for exemple b2, there are only 3 pieces that can attack, and 3 defenders.

Also the e3 pawn will fall, no need to do it now right away, we choose the moment as White because we are in control. Black has to wait because they do not have a clear path. There is no Trojan horse ready and believe me, people lose control when they do not know what to expect. 

Anyway, I specially asked Avetik to reply to your post, but please try to not be so influenced by the engines, after all we are humans with human flaws...

David, practical big advantage and a big advantage for the engine are different. 
I don't understand the fun you're having, watching the courses, compare with different engines and ask these questions... 
I mentioned not once, that we appreciate and are eager to answer human questions.