For today’s video, Grandmaster Eugene Perelshteyn is back to tell you about his new website, ChessOpeningsExplained! You may have heard of his books, Chess Openings for Black Explained and Chess Openings for White Explained, and now they are coming to life online. Before I highlight some of the benefits of a ChessOpeningsExplained Membership, here’s GM Perelshteyn’s video on the importance of a consistent opening repertoire – in this case, the dark square strategy!
As mentioned in the video, becoming a member will not only grant you access to PGN versions of the Chess Openings Explained series, but also a video library with updated theory and high-level games, as well as a forum to ask specific questions you may have about the repertoire. As a bonus, becoming a member will give you a free game analysis code for AskAGM, the sister site of ChessOpeningsExplained, where a Grandmaster will go over any game you submit!
Make sure to check out the site, and let us know what you think!
My coach told me to relax this week and limit my preparation for the Carolinas Classic this weekend, so for today’s video, I decided to review a free game analysis submission from a few weeks back. Interesting game, important notes on opening fundamentals – don’t miss out!
As I briefly mentioned in my last post, I will be adding new authors to Chess^Summit after the US Junior Open. In today’s video, I take a few minutes to discuss the future of Chess^Summit, as well as reveal one new future author. I have a feeling that regardless of how Chess^Summit 3.0 turns out, I think it will be a fun and exciting project to be a part of.
As always, if you too would like your game to be analyzed, make sure to send your game PGNs to firstname.lastname@example.org, and I’ll try to go over it here on the site – either in article or video form.
That being said, I hope you enjoy today’s video, and make sure to check back next week to hear about my results in Charlotte!
Check out my video for today! In this video, I reset my tactics trainer rating to 1200 and tried to bring it up as much as possible in 10 minutes. With the exception of a small slip up in the end, I was nearly perfect! See if you can do better by pausing the video before I try and solve each puzzle.
I’ve used chess.com since my sophomore year of high school, with this coming November marking my fourth year of membership on the site. Aside from video viewership and Chess Mentor, one of the advantages of a diamond membership is unlimited tactics a day on chess.com. Since I started using the feature in 2012, I’ve attempted over 15,000 puzzles and climbed the ranks to reach 2700.
So as a coach and an active player, how do I assess progress on Tactics Trainer?
For most of my students, I believe that your tactics trainer rating minus ~200 points roughly represents your level of play. While that’s true for most 1400-2000 rated players, I think what TT represents after it gives you a 2400+ rating is very different from the original intentions of its functionality.
For master level players, chess.com’s TT features are great for warming up or practicing calculation while on a bus, but it no longer serves as an exact gauge of your tactical ability. Since most of the puzzles are member-submitted, the target audience is usually 1500-1900, and sometimes even lower.
Chess.com does two things two things make Tactics Trainer more challenging for stronger members: Limit the amount of time to gain rating points and more endgame puzzles. Once you break 2400 on TT, the emphasis becomes much more on speed in a position where perhaps you have many different pleasant options, and you have to find the best one. Endgame puzzles become more frequent at the higher levels too, but often times, simply knowing opposition and achieving it on the board is enough to reach 50% of the solution, merely finding forcing moves and the right move order should be enough to earn the other half.
Does this mean that Tactics Trainer is bad for top players? Of course not – you just have to realize that it won’t push you to be as creative as perhaps a position in Secrets of Chess Tactics because chess.com’s interface is programmed so that only one move can be correct. Which leads me to my next point.
No puzzle is a bad puzzle. It’s so easy to get a puzzle wrong, look through the answer, and think “this puzzle is bad” before moving on to the next problem. Already in doing this, you deprive yourself of the greatest learning opportunity you have: your own mistakes. Whenever we play a tournament game, our natural habit is to review the game (perhaps with the opponent) and spend lots of time calculating the lines of the most critical position. Chess.com’s TT lets you cheat in the sense that it takes away the rest of the game and only gives you a critical position. You getting the puzzle wrong means you failed to find the best resource in said position. From my experience, I’ve kind of learned the different tiers of wrong:
1) You weren’t wrong, you just weren’t right. Often I find that when I make an error in a puzzle my line works perfectly fine, it’s just that it is simply not as good as the best solution. This may be frustrating but it’s important to understand why your answer wasn’t as right.
2) Move Order! Move Order! Move Order! This is the next rung down the ladder, as now we make the descent into actual mistakes and game-losing blunders. A move order error could simply fail to win as much material/checkmate, or even draw/lose to a discovered attack. This is one of the main tests TT offers, and what separates the complainers in the comments from the users that give answers.
3) Calculation Error… Now things turn sour. Maybe you left a piece hanging, or the endgame you were analyzing is actually a draw because you missed the critical in between move. Full board awareness is a skill, and you have to develop it by asking yourself one question….
4) What can my opponent do? On some puzzles, the computer introduces the position by offering a move for the opposing side. Asking yourself why the opponent made that move and understanding his plan is the first step towards getting the answer right. Then you need to look for critical weaknesses and themes in the position. Is a piece overloaded? Is there a mating net? This can get you back on the right track.
As a coach, there isn’t a student I haven’t recommended Tactics Trainer to. It teaches discipline while simultaneously offering a lesson in full board awareness. That being said, as a player trying to become a master, I have come to terms that while TT is a great resource to warm up, ease into a practice, and get in the mindset of calculating, it simply isn’t enough to bear the weight of all my tactical studies.
Don’t believe that psychology plays a major factor in chess? Watch this video to see how my mentality changes after a mouse slip from my opponent … and how it almost cost me the game!
I didn’t think the level of chess was anything special this game, but after re-watching the video, I thought the shift in my mindset was very visible and a distraction to my calculation process. Take this as a lesson – the game isn’t over till its over!
For those of you who may recall, I did a video + analysis post on the Berlin last month, and today I decided to try a similar format for a new opening. I played 1 d4, hoping for a Queen’s Gambit or Nimzo-Indian, but my opponent instead tried a Dutch. In an effort to be different, and have something new to talk about Tuesday, I tried 2. Nc3 to immediately threaten e2-e4.
After going into a “Leningrad Structure”, I tried a thematic h2-h4-h5 push to bust open my opponent’s king for what should have been a routine win. However, being careless in my calculations, I missed a simple way to extract my opponent’s king and had to find a cool mating idea later to get the result. See if you can find the win before I did!
Since my opponent didn’t exactly play winning chess, I think on Tuesday, my goal is to answer 2 questions:
1) Why is 2 c4 more common than 2 Nc3 against the Dutch?
2) How is Black supposed to stop the h-pawn push in the Leningrad Dutch – and can White make it even more effective?
In last Sunday’s video, I tried playing 1…e5 in response to the King’s Pawn opening. Without much theoretical knowledge of the Berlin, I quickly got bogged down in a worse position and on the clock. Though I got back into the game with a sacrifice on g4, the position I reached isn’t desirable enough to want to play again. Let’s take a quick recap of what happened:
JoseBautista–leika (G/15 ICC, 2015)
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6
4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4
Nd6 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. dxe5 Nc4?
I’ll stop here since this questionable move already deviates from the Main Line which we will be discussing. When looking for a model game, I was lucky to find the Giri–Vachier-Lagrave match up from the London Chess Classic, in which Anish outplayed Maxime in a critical tiebreak match.
Giri won the game later on move 43, in what was arguably his best game of the tournament. While the victory may have been sweet, it was short-lived, as Maxime went on to win the next two tiebreak games, sending him to the final against Magnus Carlsen.
So what does this game tell us about the Berlin? Let’s take a look at the structure after move 17.
If you’re wondering why so many Grandmasters play the Berlin, you should start here. Structurally, Black is more solid and his king, thanks to the early queen trade is already in the center. With all of his early dynamic play, White has yet to define his structure, leaving his e5 pawn seemingly hyper-extended. If we think about how Vachier-Lagrave attacked Black’s weaknesses (17. Nb5), the threat of the c7 and a7 pawns only slowed Giri’s play but didn’t cause him long term problems, so already that position is at least equal. Let’s take this position to the next level.
Since White decided to give up the bishop pair with 6. Bxc6, we must also take this into consideration. While this minor piece endgame may be arguably tenable, it is clear that again, only Black can play for a win as the bishop dominates white’s knight. So with this assessment, we can say that Black is better in most Berlin Endgames.
Here’s another game where Black proved that solidarity was more important than initiative.
Now with a material advantage, Radjabov has a win to play for in the classical Berlin Endgame. Black went on to win 23 moves later.
So what do these games tell us about playing the Berlin as Black?
The Berlin won’t win games quickly. As evidenced by both games, endgame technique and defence are two critical skills needed to play the Berlin effectively. Black didn’t get an advantage until White erred playing for an edge.
Patience in the key. Remember, the main reason why the Berlin is popular for Black is because the computer gives it a favorable evaluation with the computer. Once the queens come off the board, the game is about strategic gains for either side as White tries to compensate for losing the bishop pair.
A Berlin Endgame is a good endgame. The biggest positive from today’s article. If White can’t effectively prove his compensation, he will be tortured in an uphill positional battle.