One Year Back Into Playing Chess — Evaluating What Worked And What Didn’t

I’m almost exactly one year back into playing chess after decades away. I’ve been playing Rapid (10 minutes + 5 seconds per move) on Lichess and I’ve gained around 300 points on that platform in the year since my return. I hit a plateau in May and it took me a few months to (I think) determine what I could be doing differently to continue to gain rating. More on that subject lower down the post.

When I came back I started collecting books, which, from a “getting better” standpoint… many books won’t make you better at chess, especially when you buy a whole bunch of them and there’s not enough hours in the day, so some just sit on the shelf. But for me it’s fun to collect books about things I’m interested in, and I happen to work about two blocks from a used bookstore that’s on my way home. It was going to happen that I wound up owning a lot of books.

I now have 15-20 books on openings, most of which have been at least somewhat useful. One thing I’ve decided is that generally speaking “repertoire” books are mostly a waste of time. With only one exception I only use bits and pieces of the repertoire books that I own. So I wind up with 4 or 5 books on the Caro Kann and just use various chapters from each book. Alternately I just use them for reference ideas after I’ve decided on my opening lines on my own.

I also have another dozen or so books on strategy, about six or more game collections, and four or five books on tactics, and a hodgepodge of books that fit into multiple categories.

You don’t know what you don’t know. And I’m sure I still don’t know what I don’t know.

To summarize: I bought a bunch of books. I installed a games database handler (SCID vs PC) and made game collections of games based around openings from grandmasters I wanted to emulate. I created opening lines from the GMs and Lichess Opening Explorer, focusing on solid positions with pawn structures I’m comfortable in, and that the engine and peer results don’t hate. In the process I decided I was best as a positional player and I leaned into study of positional play. And that worked to a point.

One big eye opener was (finally) getting a weekly sparring partner who is around 300-400 rating points better than I am. Going in I knew I was going to lose a lot. I definitely didn’t think I’d lose That Much.

But that has been a good thing. It’s become extremely obvious what I could be doing better.

I’ve now realized what’s holding me back is mostly tactics. And blunders, but those two things go hand in hand. I thought my tactics were “fine” — “I’ve been playing chess forever, of course I know what a fork is, what a pin is, what a discovered attack is…” Hubris. The people who say chess is 99% tactics I think are overstating it somewhat, but tactics are massively important.

In the last few months I’ve acquired three books of tactic puzzles/problems:

Prior to getting the sparring partner I bought Laslo Polgar’s “brick” of 5334 puzzles. And it sat on the shelf for at least a couple of months. (“I know tactics”..) I then went through the first ~400 puzzles and it did seem to be helping, so it’s now the book I spend the most time with. The Mate In Two problems in particular have been very helpful with improving calculation and visualization. Initially I’d have to stare at many of the problems for a while before the answer would click. Having to stare for a while is much less common now, and I’m getting many more of the answers is a minute or two.

Then when I started getting my doors blown off regularly I decided I needed tactics books that were more specifically about “tactics”, I settled on these two books:

1001 Chess Exercises For Beginners. I’m about 250 problems in on this one. I like that it’s organized by tactic. Some of the problems are a little longer than two moves but nothing crazy. I think it’s a good start. I’ll either go through the book again when complete or move on to the 1001 Club Player level book. Or another lower level book. TBD.

Susan Polgar’s Chess Tactics For Champions is now back on the shelf. I made that decision after I encountered a solution to a problem that was five moves long and the solution involved a queen sacrifice, tossing a rook, and a pawn promotion to a knight. Never ever ever going to happen in a game. Maybe if I stuck with the book it would help my creativity and problem solving, but for right now I’ll plan to revisit it in the future.

If I had the year to do over again I may have still have collected a bunch of books because that was fun. As far as reading I would have focused on-

Opening books:

Fundamental Chess Openings. I think this might be the only opening book beginner/low intermediate players “need”. Terrific explanations of the first 5-10 moves of literally every opening.

The Slow But Venomous Italian is a great book and my go-to e4 opening, so it gets a *lot* of play.

The Nimzo books have been helpful, if far from essential. I especially liked the Easy Nimzo-Indian by John Emms — that produced a few “a-ha” moments for me. I like playing the Nimzo, and I’ll play Nf6 whenever I see 1.d4. I’ve enjoyed having the 3-6 Nimzo (and related) books in my collection. Having said all that, I wouldn’t recommend the Nimzo to new players. It can be played in a million ways and it has several distinct branches, so it’s not “plug and play”.

Middle Game:

I enjoyed Watson’s : Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances Since Nimzowitsch. I picked this up early on in a used book store for relatively little money. Given the last time I read books it was authors like Lasker, Nimzowitsch, and Kmoch, this book helped bridge the gap towards the turn of this century rather than the last one.

I got nothing out of Silman’s Reassess Your Chess. I thought it was a new coat of paint on old ideas and I thought it was somewhat remedial. And I don’t love his writing style. I think the Seirawan books are better, and I’ve seen those for as little as $5 at used book stores. Seirawan’s Winning Chess would be good for new players, his Winning Tactics, Winning Strategies, and Brilliancies are all good books.

Endgame:

I recently purchased Mastering Endgame Strategy and Fundamental Chess Endings. I own Silman’s Complete Endgame Course and didn’t love that one either. There are numerous recommended endgame books, so long as I stay out of the real deep end the two new books should be helpful — I’ve already learned things from the Mastering Endgame Strategy book and I’ve only had it a few days. I also own Capablanca’s Best Endings, I haven’t had a chance to get to it, but it’s supposed to be excellent.

Very Non-Essential Game Collections:

I always loved Alekhine’s games as a teenager, though I could never hope to play in his style. I’ve beeen going through his Best Games collection and it’s been very entertaining.

Others in the collection are Zurich 1953, Fisher’s 60 Memorable Games, Capablanca’s Immortal games, Seirawan’s Brilliancies, an older edition of The Mammoth Book of Games, and Understanding Chess Move By Move by John Nunn.

Final Thoughts:

Really, had I started with a good tactics book or two and Fundamental Chess Openings and played more I’d be about where I am now or possibly ahead. But it’s about fun, and I’ve enjoyed reading all the books and all the inexpensive thrift store or clearance chess sets — pics of the chess sets may get it’s own post at some point.

Trying To Catch The Deluge In A Paper Cup — Sorting Through An Ocean Of Ideas Related To Chess

There’s basically an infinite amount of information available for free or nearly free when it comes to learning about any specific aspect of chess. Especially chess openings, people as a group love books about openings. And used books are “nearly free”.

Part of the “problem” is sorting through so much information and determining what openings will be the best fit for you when you won’t really know what’s best for you until you get there. And even when you think you’ve gotten there you’re not really there, chess goes on forever, and it’s hubris to think you really know anything. You’re always doing the best you can with imperfect knowledge and that’s how it goes.

When I was re-starting the hobby I decided that I wanted to learn the Caro-Kann opening. The thing is, most books aren’t broadly about a selected opening — many or most are “repertoire” books. What that means is that the author has picked out responses to the moves that the opponent could play and that’s the cross-section ideas that the book presents. Often the moves will represent one general approach and they’ll be internally consistent with each other. Mostly.

What I ran into was that two Caro-Kann books each had ideas that agreed with how I wanted to play the opening, but I wound up using 70% of one book and 30% of another specifically because the 70% author decided to throw in a “twist” for one very common series of moves. The thing is, while I do settle on a specific repertoire for each opening I’m much more interested in the concepts behind each one. Knowing the ideas is at least as important as memorizing the move orders themselves. The foundational ideas make the memorization easier, and they give you a backup if you blank on a move during a game.

I’m also learning the Nimzo-Indian, and that’s involved three books because (I think) the writers feel like if they don’t offer something new and novel then they’ll either be accused of copying an earlier idea, or the book won’t sell if it doesn’t offer something “fresh”. The books are all a hodgepodge of “solid” stuff mixed in with somewhat interesting-probably-not-very-accepted novelties. One way I’ll check a line is to go Lichess Opening Explorer and see how that line performs at the master level and around my level. If the line is a dog at both levels I’m going to pick something else that still fits within the framework of stuff I’m comfortable playing. Ideally the line should agree with what my “guys to emulate” (The “Posse”) would play as well.

As I write this, it’s raining and the mail carrier came and went. I just rescued another used/new to me book from the mailbox. It’s a well-regarded book on the Slav opening, and it has an overview of the core ideas and annotated instructive games. At the very least it should help broaden my knowledge of Black’s responses to White queen pawn openings. As of right now I’m using a combination of the Nimzo/Bogo/Queen’s Indian defenses, so the new material might be fun for some casual games to get a feel for it, though at this point I’m enough invested with what I’ve already chosen that I wouldn’t make a permanent change away from that existing group of openings lightly. Additionally- of the nineteen guys in my “Posse” database, only one plays/played the Slav as Black as their primary opening. For the other 2/3rds it’s primarily Nimzo.

So hopefully I’m on the right track.

Emulating Role Models And How I’m Applying It To Chess

When I was a young basketball player I tried to copy the style of Kareem Abdul Jabbar. After a while I developed a very passable version of his Sky Hook.

When it became clear I wasn’t going to grow to be over seven feet tall I changed the guy I was copying to Vinnie “The Microwave” Johnson. Vinnie is best remembered as the first guard off the bench for the Bad Boy Pistons of the early 1990’s. He was exciting and he could score in bunches from all over the place, hence the nickname “The Microwave”. He wasn’t much of a three-point shooter but he didn’t let that stop him. And that’s how I made the transition from “big” to “guard”, by copying a guy who was stylistically nothing like Kareem. A whole lot more of my practice time went into shooting jump shots and ball handling rather than Sky Hooks.

I think there are many times in life when learning how to do something that it’s helpful to find someone who’s good at that thing and try to emulate how they do it. It could be any activity from basketball to baking bread. When searching for a model to emulate I need to see their style as attractive and/or efficient, and it should be a style I think I can potentially copy reasonably closely, even if my version is pitched at a lower level.

When playing chess I’ve decided that I play best as a quieter positional player, rather than a player who’s more focused on fireworks and tactics. As a teenager – emphasizing tactics, deep calculation, and using memorization-dependent openings was a realistic way to play. As an adult With Things To Do I’m much happier squeezing opponents positionally until they crack.

In light of that, I used SCID vs PC to make a White database and a Black database for the players I’ve decided I want to try to emulate. I don’t think it’s a perfect list, but it does allow me to go to the Tree Window in SCID, look up a specific position, and see how it was played by my group of model grandmasters. The model grandmaster list is below, with a little (partially AI generated, then edited by me) blurb that describes a bit about how each one plays.

I’m sure I’ll add/remove guys from the list over time. But for now it’s enough total players, both old and new, that it should cover most situations I’m likely to run across over the board. It’s also enough of a sample size for Wisdom Of The Crowds to kick in. My nickname for the group is “The Posse”. As in: “Let’s see what The Posse has to say about this position”. I think the name is fun and irreverent, so there it is:

Adamsdeeply strategic, focusing on building small, incremental advantages without taking unnecessary risks
Anderssonextreme positional solidity, elite prophylaxis, and a “slow squeeze” technique
Botvinnikgrip his opponent in a vice straight from the opening,  then squeeze him methodically
Capablancasupreme simplicity, incredible speed, and profound positional understanding
Dorfmanhighly structured, positional, and “algorithmic” approach to chess
Dreevactive positional style
Fischeruncompromising, aggressive, and highly principled approach
Gelfandpositional and classical player known for deep strategic understanding, precise maneuvering, endgame
Girisolid, positional, and deeply theoretical style of play
Karjakansupremely solid, defensive, and positional player “Minister of Defense”
Karpovimproved his position by positional understanding. Few risks, few mistakes “Boa Constrictor”
Leko“cemento” (cement), “clean and clear” style focused on extreme solidity, positional mastery, endgame
NimzovichHis approach was strategic, patient, and often aimed at forcing zugzwang
Petrosianextreme caution, deep strategic planning, and an almost impenetrable defense
Reshevskygrinding. “calculating machine” who thrived in complex, closed positions
Rubinsteinpositional, logical, and technical style, often focusing on accumulating small advantages, endgame
Seirawanpositional, strategic, and classical. compared to a “19th-century player” for his complex, slow-burning games
Smyslovharmonious, profoundly positional style, often described as a modern-day Capablanca
Tiviakov“rock-solid” positional style, deeply rooted in the classical Russian school.

They all play differently. You could (correctly) say that some play very differently from others. But if I can play like a poor-man’s amalgamation of that group with any consistency I’ll be pretty happy with it. To date I’d mostly been “following” Adams, Karpov, and Tiviakov as models. I recently added Capablanca. Those four guys will be the tie-breakers when there’s a difference of opinions in the databases.

None of this is anything I could have conceived of as a teenager. It’s pretty neat that these tools exist now.

In conclusion, a picture of Vinnie because Vinnie deserves some love too. Here he is beating Danny Ainge off the dibble:

A New Training Plan For This Adult Improver

A ratings slump around the holidays has made me re-examine why I’m winning and losing. Like everyone else below grandmaster level, many of my losses are because I blundered material. I feel like the main reason I’m blundering material is because I’m so focused on what my plans and what I’m doing that I don’t do an adequate job of checking the threat associated with my opponents last move.

What I have been doing for practice is Rapid games and Correspondence games, puzzle tactics, opening study, and occasional endgame study (I feel I’m strong at endgames relative to my peers anyway). The other part of study has been walking through master games, specifically games that use an opening that I use, and I’m focused on the transitions from the opening to the plans of the middlegame.

I returned to chess a few months back and I now feel like the openings are no longer the problem against players around my skill level. I’m pretty happy with my opening repertoire as a fit for how I want to play, and I feel like I have a reasonable handle (to a decent depth) on the openings and variations that I see with any real frequency.

My tactics studying has been either: Targeted Lichess puzzles, such as rook and pawn endgames, mating combinations, or king and pawn endgames. In an attempt to get faster I’ve been doing Puzzle Storm on Lichess.

I don’t think “faster” is the problem though. Unless it’s a super long game I’m always fine on time, and even then I almost always have more time left than my opponent. I need “deeper”, and I need to maintain better overall board vision and not get so fixated on what I’m doing at the exclusion of everything else. If anything Puzzle Storm is training me to disregard everything except finding my tactic to win the puzzle. And that’s when I run into trouble.

The new study plan is going to lean more heavily to reviewing masters games, but now it’s going to mostly be annotated masters games. I’m also going to try to often set up a real board and walk through the games guessing the moves as I go. It’s slower than just clicking through a game on my phone but I think it encourages me to think a lot more deeply about potential plans and combinations – both mine and my opponents.

To start I have selected three books featuring masters games from my mushrooming book collection:

Winning With The Slow (But Venomous) Italian. Especially chapter 11, which is the “strategy” chapter. Well over 50% of the players at my level answer e4 with e5 (king’s pawn with king’s pawn). I wind up in a lot of Slow Italians, and my usual plan is to attack the queenside because my opponent doesn’t prioritize that side of the board. The strategy chapter offers a lot of other alternatives that I need to get better at recognizing. This represents 26 games, which I have loaded as a private Lichess study as well.

Rock Solid Chess: Tiviakov’s Unbeatable Strategy: Volume 2: Piece Play. Now that’s a title that lacks any pretense of modesty, isn’t it? To be fair Tiviakov claims to have gone 110 games without losing. I’ve just started really focusing on the book and at least one idea has already won me a game. I feel like the book is making me re-examine what I’m prioritizing for the better. As of today I have my bookmark in the “Centralization” chapter, though I think the more of this book I can work through the better.

The last book even newer to me and I’m pretty excited about it-

Zurich International Chess Tournament, 1953 (Bronstein). I just received this a couple of days ago, but the combination of era, level of competition, and level of annotation makes many consider this book a classic and a must-have for annotated master games. Because it’s 1953 and because it’s pre-computers it makes the games more relatable for players who aren’t masters themselves. There are 210 games here, which is completely overwhelming. I did some digging around and came up with a list of 18 games that received multiple recommendations as “must sees”. My plan is to start with the “must see” Nimzo Indian games then go through games in groups that share an opening. The 18 games are listed at bottom of this post for posterity.

I’m going to use a couple of other books to supplement those three: Fundamental Chess Openings, mostly to clear up plans and ideas in out-of-fashion openings from 1953 that I’m not familiar with. And: Chess Structures – A Grandmaster Guide by Mauricio Flores Rios. I *may* play through some of the Chess Structures games as well.

One final tweak to the training plan will be doing Puzzle Streak instead of Puzzle Storm. Puzzle Streak is not timed, it starts easy and gets progressively harder the more you puzzles you get right. It ends when you miss. I think this will be a better use of my study time — it forces me to really focus on the puzzle at hand and not just guess because I’m under a time crunch and the move looks plausible.

And of course there’s Youtube for ideas and “not 100% engaged” entertainment. Naroditsky is still the best. I’ve been branching out to Bartholomew, Finegold, Hanging Pawns, and others but it’s not the same.

The Zurich 1953 games list:

Averbakh v Kotov, game 96, Old Indian

Bronstein v Euwe, game 39, Nimzo Indian

Euwe v Smyslov, game 19, Grunfeld

Euwe v Najdorf, game 58, Kings Indian

Geller v Euwe, game 9, Nimzo Indian

Keres v Smyslov, game 168, English

Najdorf v Stahlberg, game 68, Queens Gambit

Najdorf v Averbakh, game 148, Queens Indian

Reshevsky v Petrosian, game 12, Nimzo Indian

Reshevsky v Stahlberg, game 38, Queens Gambit

Reshevsky v Kotov, game 51, Kings Indian

Smyslov v Stahlberg, game 23, French

Stahlberg v Boleslavsky, game 7, Kings Indian

Szabo v Bronstein, game 31, Old Indian

Tiamonov v Averbakh, game 41, Nimzo Indian

Tiamonov v Euwe, game 54, Nimzo Indian

Tiamonov v Petrosian, game 134, Nimzo Indian

Tiamonov v Najdorf, game 28, Kings Indian