One IM friend of mine, rated about 2400, told me fondly a few times a story how he first “held his own” against a 2650-rated GM, then got an “almost winning position” only to lose it in the end. The implied meaning of his glorious tale is that his true strength should be close to 2650. Typically, such a psychological mistake is typical of club players. You hear similar complaints all the time: “I have totally outplayed him, but…”. There is always this “but”! So, what’s wrong with this attitude? And why do we see so many rollercoaster games between Davids and Goliaths?

First of all, a lot depends on the strength of the opponents. For example, in a 1700 vs. 2000 match-up, both players are relatively weak by chess engines’ standards, so the computer is likely to find many mistakes for both sides. The one who makes the last blunder loses. 

In a nutshell, humans are terrible at chess by computer standards. If you revisit the books written in the pre-engine era, you will realize that many games there have this narrative of one player consistently outplaying the other, flawlessly executing his master plan. However, if you check the masterpiece with a modern engine, you will often realize that the opponent had chances to escape or even turn the tables with a brilliant tactical strike unacknowledged by the players and the commentators. 

Secondly, the stronger players often underestimate their opponents, which results in such undesired scenarios as playing superficially and waiting for the game to win itself; attacking too vigorously and recklessly in a position that doesn’t allow it because “it’s time to show the patzer who the boss is”. 

One experienced GM coach told me that the best way to play against candidate masters and below is to put your pieces on nice central squares, after which either the opponent’s position will fall apart by itself, or he will self-destruct. This recommendation is useful to some extent. You can often see experienced GMs not trying too hard against their amateur opponents. They quickly play the moves that are supposed to be “good enough”, and the amateur becomes excited, starts sweating, gets into time trouble, and blunders something silly. However, sometimes the rating favorites play too sloppily and get punished. There is a thin line between playing practically and quickly and making second-rate moves because you believe you can get away with them. 

Thirdly, the rating difference makes the favorites take more risks to avoid drawing the game; many of them overpress and end up losing.

Fourthly, there are fluctuations in form, especially among non-professional players. On a given day, a 2200 might play at a 2400 level, while his 2400-rated opponent might perform at 2200 level, basically reversing the roles in the match-up. 

Fifthly, nowadays, when you see the pairings, it is often not even exactly clear who the favorite is. I have briefly touched upon this topic in the post about rating inflation in chess. 

The ratings of some players haven’t scaled up yet due to them not having played an adequate number of rated games. For example, 16-year-old GM Rameshbabu Praggnanadhaa, one of the most talented chess prodigies in the world right now and the finalist of the recent Chessable Masters event, has an official FIDE rapid rating of…what do you think it is?

2700? 2500? What if I tell you the answer is 1927? 

Oh, how I pity the chess players who will face him in official rapid tournaments!

What is harder: to beat Pragg or to spell his name right? 

To summarize, it is essential to avoid the typical reaction of amateur players after such a loss. For them, the story goes: “At first the position was rather balanced, then complications started. At a certain point I was winning, but he GOT LUCKY, so I ended up losing”. The real story is that, as they say in Russia, “class has prevailed”, meaning that no matter how messy the game itself was, in the end, the more experienced player had the final say. 

So, the weaker players should focus on their own mistakes in such a case and try to make sure they don’t happen again rather than ridicule the weak play of the higher-rated opponents. 

Similarly, Goliaths who suffer a loss at the hands of Davids should also carefully analyze what went wrong and adjust their approach accordingly. 

It is impossible to completely eliminate mistakes from your chess game. What you can do, however, is take it to a new level by utilizing Magnus Trainer – a one-stop solution aimed to help you become a proficient chess player. Don’t miss your chance to study under the guidance of the reigning World Chess Champion! 

One does not simply win a chess game without making any mistakes! 

Why do Stronger Players Make Mistakes Against Weaker Players?

What thoughts are running through your brain when you get paired against someone rated a few hundred points above yourself? Are you an “eternal student” type of person, meekly expecting to lose, but to get a free lesson in return? Or do you spend your evening before the round trying to find a drawish line for White which is supposed to help you earn a much-desired draw? If so, I believe you are hurting your chess future! 

A true champion does his best to win every game. If he loses, he takes the medicine and learns the lesson. Players of a weaker spirit think in a different fashion. They rely on ratings and titles and start making calculations: “this guy is a GM, so a draw would be nice”; “that dude is 2200, so I have to beat him for my IM norm”. In fact, this shortcoming is typical even of average GMs, while only the very top guys have this ambition to excel and to take risks. 

In 1988, Garry Kasparov was giving a simul to six promising US juniors. In one of the games, Daniel Edelman (2360) started repeating moves against his opponent with White, clearly hoping for a draw. Garry was disgusted and shocked by such behavior: "You have White; you have to play. That is my opinion, sorry. When I was young, I would never have missed a chance to play the World Champion." Kasparov offered Daniel a chance to continue the game, but in the end the conflict was settled, and a draw was agreed. Since I have never heard about Edelman, I decided to check out his chess bio. It turned out that the guy has “only” reached IM level and the rating peak of 2420 over the course of many years. Now that’s not what one expects when being a 2360-rated junior, right? However primadonnish Kasparov’s outrage has been, one can’t deny that he was right in the sense of discovering a glaring flaw in Daniel’s psychology. Judging by what we know about his further chess career, lack of fighting spirit probably wasn’t Edelman’s only problem in chess. 

Unfortunately, all the videos of this accident seem to have been removed from YouTube. You can see the footage in the "American Gambit" (1989) documentary. 

Some people think that if their opponent plays a beautiful game, it’s OK to lose. I don’t. You have to be merciless.

Great champions are well-known for dominating their contemporaries. When Kasparov was in his prime, quite a few other top GMs had this aura of hopelessness right from the start of the game when facing him. For most of them, even making a draw was considered a good result, and very few dared to dream about defeating Gazza. On a psychological level, this is not particularly surprising when you realize how devastating the scores of most super GMs were against the 13th World Champion. Here are some of Kasparov’s stats in classical chess against the world-class players of his era:

·       8 wins, 0 losses, 5 draws against Evgeny Bareev

·       15 wins, 0 losses, 14 draws against Alexei Shirov

·       9 wins, 0 losses, 8 draws against Boris Gelfand

·       7 wins, 0 losses, 2 draws against Judit Polgar

·       3 wins, 0 losses, 8 draws against Valery Salov

Similarly, people from Carlsen’s generation, +-5 years, seem to be utterly intimidated by him. This reminded me of a joke that a much older person, chess legend Vladimir Kramnik, made when he finished second in one of the tournaments, right behind Carlsen. He stated that he had essentially won the event since Carlsen was in a different league compared to others. And this revelation was coming from a man who whitewashed Kasparov in a WCC match! Unsurprisingly, a common belief these days is that Carlsen’s peers will probably not be able to wrestle the crown away from him unless he decides to walk away undefeated. In contrast, the young and upcoming chess prodigies don’t seem to idolize him as much as players of the older generations. Even though they are still considerably weaker that Magnus, you can see how passionate they are to show their best when facing him. No chickening out into a draw from most of them. 

I am trying to beat the guy sitting across from me and trying to choose the moves that are most unpleasant for him and his style.

One may point out that the experience of the top players who face each other repeatedly in closed event is very much different from what most of us deal with. This is partially so, but the point still stands true. Besides, even if you play at the club level, you typically have your own “bosses” around, such as nemeses who keep crushing you over and over again in friendly blitz, or people who win the championship of your city year after year, and so on. If you want to overcome them one day, you should believe in your ability to give them a run for their money when you meet over the board. 

I can’t count the times I have lagged seemingly hopelessly far behind, and nobody except myself thinks I can win. But I have pulled myself in from desperate [situations]. When you are behind there are two strategies – counter-attack or all men to the defenses. I’m good at finding the right balance between those.

Another related topic that comes to mind is the “every Russian schoolboy knows” advice to play solidly in an event where the caliber of opponents exceeds your out. Some old-school coaches believe that, especially when reaching GM or super GM level, you should first learn how to handle the pressure and to make draws, and only then aspire to beating the rating favorites. However, I believe this tip works best for people who are relatively faint-hearted and easily dismayed by losses. On a separate note, even some very top GMs have this “glass jaw” issue: if they suffer a painful defeat, they have trouble pulling themselves together. Also, this approach can be detrimental to the young talent’s development in the sense that they get used to 50% being a great result. Consequently, some of them grow up too cautious and not ambitious enough. And if the audience was applauding them for being able to hold their own against the chess elite at age 15, when they hit age 25 or 30, they still hug that coveted 50% mark, but the applauses are no longer there. In my opinion, people who want to unlock their potential fully shouldn’t be afraid to take risks or discouraged by losing streaks. If you can’t cope with a few losses in a row, you will probably not stick around for long in competitive chess anyway. 

So far, we have mostly been discussing the psychological aspect of this issue. However, even in purely chess terms, it is much more preferable to play for a win than for a draw, not to mention feeling doomed and marking time before an unavoidable loss. Stronger chess players don’t like being pushed around, challenged. They enjoy being feared and love seeing the opponent naively try to exchange as many pieces as possible, usually making one small concession after another along the way. Then, when the underdogs reach a drawish or worse endgame, the favorites capitalize on their experience and grind it out rather effortlessly. I have seen this a gazillion times in my tournament practice.

While learning from other people’s mistakes is what we should all strive for, most of us learn the lesson better when it is a firsthand experience. For me the moment of truth was a game against an experienced candidate master rated 2200+. I was a kid back then and felt intimidated by the opponent’s rating and patronizing look. The fight fizzled out into an endgame where I was slightly better due to having a bishop pair (two bishops and a few pawns vs. his bishop and knight with some pawns). I was so proud of myself that I offered him a draw. This is the worst thing you can do in such a situation! The veteran gave me a stern look and played on. I felt insulted and disappointed and collapsed quickly, pushing pawns on the side where I was weaker, allowing him to create a passed pawn and eventually promote it. From that moment on, I have been going for the throat of any opponent, including top GMs when I was Black. And, I have to tell you, they didn’t like that, since when the opponent goes all-out against you, you can’t expect an easy walk in the park like the one I described above. 

Self-confidence is very important. If you don’t think you can win, you will take cowardly decisions in the crucial moments, out of sheer respect for your opponent. You see the opportunity but also greater limitations than you should. I have always believed in what I do on the chessboard, even when I had no objective reason to. It is better to overestimate your prospects than underestimate them.

Bottom line: I suggest you put up a fight in every game. You will enjoy chess more this way, and opponents will be afraid of you, even if they are higher rated. However, of course, playing for a win doesn’t imply being reckless or pressing the position too much when it doesn’t allow it. Also, there are certain situations when a quick draw is useful, for instance, when you are ill. Still, the “play for a win in every game” rule applies to most situations in chess.

The Play Magnus app does have an “offer draw” feature. However, when you challenge Magnus Carlsen, Judit Polgar, Wesley So or other character there, I highly recommend that you do your best to knock them out! 

“Not winning a tournament is not an option for me unless it’s no longer theoretically possible – then of course winning becomes impossible. But up to that point, not winning is just not an option.” – Magnus Carlsen. 

When playing classical tournaments, do you keep track of the amount of time you spend per move? Or, alternatively, do you analyze your online chess games, paying special attention to how long it took you to make a certain decision? 

For a time-trouble addict who always ends up playing on increment, writing down the time spent on each of the moves is crucial for eliminating the shortcoming. Prestigious events have electronic boards which do it for you, while online sites are also quite convenient in this sense. However, most of us have to resort to the good old “pen and paper” method. The “chess poor” have no servants!

In one of the books, I encountered an amusing advice: if you notice that the opponent is keeping track of his time distribution, then he is probably prone to getting in time trouble, so it makes sense to try to exploit it. This statement is only partially true, because many great players keep track of the timing for different reasons. For example, when going through Garry Kasparov’s junior games and Judit Polgar’s books, one may notice that they often refer to the time spent on a move by them or their opponents, viewing it as an important factor. Even as an outsider, I found these notes quite illuminating since they give you a sneak peak into the thought processes of top players, allowing you to understand better how they manage their time during the game. 

Recently, someone contacted our support department and inquired if we have a database of Carlsen’s games with timestamps for every move. I believe such a database doesn’t exist, unfortunately, but it would be instructive to have access to such information for every player. 

Anyway, how can you use this data to your advantage? After the game, you can analyze not only the quality of the moves, but also how long it took you to make them.

Feel free to come up with a list of typical time-wasters for yourself and classify the situations that occurred during the game into the appropriate categories:

·       Not deciding in advance what opening to play.

·       Thinking whether to deviate from a well-known opening line. 

·       Forgetting your home preparation.

·       Not being familiar with the opening or the corresponding middlegame plans.

·       Failing to make the only move right away.

·       Being afraid to intuitively sacrifice a piece, but still doing it after burning a lot of time on the decision.

·       Losing focus due to thinking about other matters, such as your personal relationship, work problems, etc.

·       Going to the WC at the wrong moment and returning 10 minutes after the opponent has pressed the clock.

·       Being a perfectionist and choosing for a long time between two continuations of roughly the same strength.

·       Calculating for the sake of doing so even though it was not necessary. For instance, some people have a soft spot for imagining outrageous attacks for themselves and spending a lion’s share of their time bank on their fantasies which never materialize on the board since the position doesn’t justify such play. 

Obviously, the list is by no means exhaustive. When analyzing the game, think carefully what exactly was the cause for spending too much time on a move. 

Alexander Grischuk is notorious for being a time-trouble addict despite having three World Blitz Chess Champion titles to his name! 

Another curious situation is when you believe you have spared a reasonable amount of time on your move, yet you made a mistake. The basic questions you should ask yourself in such cases are the following:

·       Am I lacking some theoretical knowledge? For instance, there is a sophisticated opening setup that is well-known to experts which you failed to find over the board. Or maybe you should have found a combination, but never seen the pattern before? Or you may have not known the theory of the endgame you ended up in. If so, try to learn from your mistakes and cover the gap. 

·       Did my skills let me down? Maybe your tactical vision was not good enough, or you miscalculated something. Obviously, you can focus on eliminating these weaknesses once you discover them.

·       Was it what they call an “inexplicable blunder”? For example, you are far more proficient and knowledgeable than what it takes not to make a mistake. Still, even super GMs sometimes hang pieces or blunder a mate in one. Make sure you understand what happened. Were you stressed out? Did you get distracted? Were you having some health issues? Did you feel tired? How good was your sleep before the round? Were you on some sort of meds or under the weather? For professionals who are merciless in their self-analysis, there is no such thing as “I was unlucky today and made a bad move.” Each mistake has its own prerequisite. 

Finally, playing too fast and superficially is a common shortcoming among chess players of any level. Let’s review some of the typical reasons why this happens:

·       Blitzing out moves in the opening on autopilot and recalling something wrong. In classical tournaments, make sure to spend a few seconds to check what you are doing even if you believe you remember the line well.

·       «Racing» your opponent, such as trying to intimidate him by playing quickly or keep up with him if he makes his moves swiftly. For some players, it seems to be a matter of prestige to prove they can play as quickly as their opponents. This is a bad idea since what you should be doing instead is taking your time properly and punishing them for their hastiness. 

·       Losing your head over an alluring combination and playing it out right away, only to discover that it was flawed! 

·       Failing to realize that the position is critical and requires a careful assessment. 

·       General nervousness and inability to concentrate when you feel pressured by the necessity to take your time for each move. 

·       Dopamine addiction. Some people get hooked up on the thrill of having to play fast. They start off by spamming 5m games, then move on to 3m per game, 1m per game, 30s per game. Back in the day, one of the playing zones had a 1m/game and 1s/move DECREMENT, and I knew a guy who enjoyed playing with this time control! 

·       Neglecting the “do not rush” endgame principle and forcing the issue too early instead of preparing carefully and giving the opponent a chance to err. 

·       Rushing to close out the game as soon as possible when you have a large lead and not paying attention to your opponent’s resources. This is how you occasionally blunder pieces or end up stalemating the opponent! 

·       Trying to wrap up the game since you have other plans for the evening, such as a date, following an important match live, etc. This sounds rather amateurish, but sometimes even super GMs become anxious in such situations. 

I realize that some of the readers may be bored by the recommendations presented above. It’s OK; not everyone is so serious about chess! Some of us lose or win a game and press “rematch” or “new game” right away, not bothering to analyze much what happened. In such cases and in general, it is useful to have an outsider’s perspective. You could ask your coach or training partner look at some of your games and come up with a list of problems that seem to be haunting you game after game. 

For example, I have a training partner rated about 2200 FIDE and roughly 2450 in blitz on Lichess. He is more of a practical player who prefers action to burning the midnight oil. By following his games, I made these observations and shared them with him:

·       He had poor time management overall, trailing pretty much every opponent on the clock and playing on increment from the middlegame in most games. That being said, he was reasonably strong in time trouble and often managed to outplay opponents despite them having a considerable time advantage. 

·       His knowledge of openings was rather limited. In some cases, he was out of book by move 5 or 6, and by move 10 it was more of the norm for him. For a person of his rating, this is unacceptable. The conclusion was that he was to give his opening repertoire an overhaul and focus on creating the necessary opening trees and checking out model games to become familiar with the associated plans and not waste time on reinventing the wheel. 

·       He was scared to sacrifice material for initiative or unclear complications. Trying to always calculate the line to a clear win, sometimes he wasted lots of time and didn’t dare to make the move. Or he went for it but was so down on the clock that he couldn’t handle the tension later on. In his case, it is important to learn to trust your gut instincts in blitz and to go over annotations of games played by GMs who are good at gambling and sacrificing material for initiative. 

·       Sometimes he would think too deeply. Knowing that the position is probably not critical at all, he would spend a couple of minutes on a small nuance, such as whether to insert the move h6 or not. In such cases, I advised him to ask himself how critical the decision is. If the difference in the evaluation is expected to be small (e.g., 0.2 pawns), then you just make the move suggested by your instincts. This is unlikely to break your game, while wasting two minutes like that may lead to blundering away the entire house in time trouble. 

·       He often missed tactical opportunities or spent too much time calculating them. The obvious cure is to solve puzzles daily and to study more tactical games, as well as adding some sharper openings to the arsenal in order to feel more comfortable navigating complications. 

Of course, he didn’t fix everything at a time, but he has made quite some progress since I had first pointed these issues out to him. Also, the result greatly depends on the person’s willingness to improve, which requires regular study and practice. 

Overall, I hope that from now on you will be paying more attention to your time management in chess! Improving in this area that is often ignored by people can make you a much better player. 

Wondering where to find a one-stop solution for your chess routine? Check out Magnus Trainer, an app created by World Champion Magnus Carlsen and his team of world-class experts in education, IT, and chess!

Recording the time spent per every move can provide more information about your game than you might expect!

Before playing a friendly game of chess in a casual setting, make sure to discuss what set of rules you will be following. For instance, some people believe it is acceptable to take moves back before the opponent has replied (or even after!). The “a move counts as one only once you release the piece” rule is even more widespread in amateur games. 

As you probably know, in tournament play, takebacks are not allowed, and the “touch-move” rule stands tall. That is, you have to say “J’adoube” if you wish to adjust the piece. Otherwise, you have to move it if you touch it, as long as it is legal. In blitz, Russian-speaking players often use the frivolous saying, “If you touch, you have to marry!”, to remind the opponent about the touch-move rule. 

Even though these rules are well-known to any serious tournament player, the temptation to break them is too large, especially when there is a lot at stake! Let’s recall a few such accidents. 

In 1961, GM Eduard Gufeld played 15…Qa5? in a decisive game of the Netherlands-USSR student match against Alexander Jongsma, allowing a well-known Nd5 trick with a discovered attack. According to GM Genna Sosonko’s memoirs, when one of Alexander’s peers decided to find him in the playing hall and inform the lucky guy about such a “present”, Alexander returned to the board only to allocate the queen on b6! Twenty years later, Gufeld confessed to his opponent that he had indeed played Qa5 in that game before taking a move back…

One of the most famous touch-move controversies transpired in the Judit Polgar vs. Garry Kasparov game at Linares’1994. An interesting recollection of the events is given in Judit’s “From GM to Top 10” book. There is no universal agreement on what happened there, but a widespread belief is that Garry did release the piece only to pick it up and put the knight on a different square. Judit instantly realized it and looked at the arbiter, but he either hadn’t noticed anything or, according to some theories, was on friendly terms with Kasparov and didn’t enforce the rule on him. Anyway, Polgar must have decided that it is not worth it to mess with Kasparov, who at that time could easily make sure that you would stop getting invitations to top tournaments. She didn’t protest and ended up losing the game. Interestingly enough, some reporters forgot to turn the camera on and recorded this footage, which led to a scandal! Ah, the good old days when there were no live streams…

You can challenge Judit Polgar at ages 5, 7, 9, 12, 17 (she played in Lineres’1994 at this age!) and 29 in the Play Magnus app. Judit will pretend not to notice if you touch one piece and move another, but please don’t take advantage of her generosity!

In 2003 GM Vladimir Malakhov allowed GM Zurab Azmaparaishili to take back a move after an obvious lapsus manus. Azmai said something like, “I have to trade first, of course!” and his intelligent opponent didn’t object, although he could have easily gotten a free point. As a result, Zurab won the game and the gold medal of the European Chess Championship, while Vladimir ended up being the runner-up. 

In the 2009 World Blitz Championship, Magnus Carlsen blocked with the wrong rook against Alexandra Kosteniuk and, in the heat of battle, tried to amend the situation quickly. Alexandra, a seasoned chess warrior even back then, stopped the clock and gave him a “no-no” look. Carlsen left the board in disgust, not bothering to offer her a handshake. As of this day, he still hates losing but has matured and acts as a role model in terms of sportsmanship. 

In the World Cup’11, David Navara assumed he had touched his king by accident in the game against Alexander Moiseenko. According to the video, he actually didn’t. Alexander decided not to call the arbiter, and Navara agreed to a draw in the game instead of checkmating his opponent. During the press conference, he explained that he didn’t want the match to be decided this way and felt guilty for accidentally touching a piece and not moving it. Both GMs went on to receive a special “Fair Play” prize. 

In 2016, Garry Kasparov repeated the same knight trick, this time about Hikaru Nakamura, who took it surprisingly light-heartedly and didn’t bother calling the arbiter.

These stories are just the tip of the iceberg. Now let me share a couple of personal anecdotes about the touch-move rule.  

When I was 9, I played in a championship for kids in Sweden. My opponent quickly lost the game but then declared that it was “unofficial” and suggested we play “the real one”. I didn’t speak Swedish, so it was hard for me to explain to the arbiter what had happened. I recall myself crying because of such unfairness, losing the second game to that little cheater and performing way below expectations in the entire tournament. I wonder how my opponent’s chess career and life in general went…Maybe he is a successful lawyer now? 

In 2021, I was playing the Nezhmetdinov Memorial in Kazan, Russia. I heard a heated discussion during the round, stood up from the board, and decided to check out what was happening. A middle-aged man was agitatedly complaining that his opponent, a sly-looking skinny kid, made a rook move and then took it back! As proof, the victim showed his scoresheet with the move written down. The boy, however, coolly shook his head and said that he had never touched the rook. Given the nature of the position, a rook move would be totally losing for the boy, and the move on the board would surely win. They called the arbiter, then the chief arbiter, then listened to the players sitting next to them. Still, no one has seen what happened, and it’s not like you can accept such a statement as definite proof. As a result, the chief arbiter ruled that it was a “your word vs. my word” case, and the game proceeded as if nothing had happened. The man turned red and lamented: “Don’t you have any conscience whatsoever? You know you did make that move!”. The boy remained silent and played on, pocketing a win shortly after. As you can see, even though chess is considered one of the fairest sports in the sense that the arbiters have minimal effect on the game, in some cases, their ruling can become crucial. We even joked at some point with my ex-coach that I could play in a tournament where he would be the chief arbiter and, if needed, call him up and say, “He touched this piece!”. And my coach would confirm: “Yes, I saw that as well! Make the move, please!”. There’s a grain of truth in every joke, though. 

Summarizing, I believe that Caissa is a strict but fair mistress. There is no need for either foul play or unsolicited “gentlemanship”. I neither ask nor give takebacks. Do you agree? Does the touch-move make sense to you or not? 

Wondering how they teach Norwegian kids not to grab pieces randomly during the game? They tell them to “sit on their hands”. You can find the lesson with the same title in the Magnus Trainer app, as well 600+ more interactive lessons and fun mini-games. 

Do you like and follow the touch-move rule in casual games?

Pretty much every person in the world can teach you something. This is especially true of the very best chess players. Still, a common mistake amateurs make is focusing too much on the shortcomings of the elite GMs.

The reasoning goes like this: “They are rated much higher than me, yet they do this. Hence, I can also afford not to work on this problem.” True? Not really.

All of us have individual virtues and shortcomings, as well as personal preferences. One should be careful when imitating the habits of top GMs. For example, if one of them doesn’t work on the opening much, the other – on the middlegame, and the third one dislikes endgames, then you might end up not doing any chess studies at all by combining all the three approaches! 

Nevertheless, I often hear people saying something like: “Magnus Carlsen doesn’t study the opening much, so scrap it” (this is an outdated myth, by the way!); “Hikaru Nakamura trash talks people after losing, so why can’t I do it?”; “Alexander Khalifman used to show up for the round on shaking legs with a hangover, so what is so bad about drinking alcohol during an event?”. The flaw in this logic is that one should focus on the numerous virtues of the top players instead of trying to copy their few weaknesses. For example, a much more feasible attitude would be to say: “I want to be such an amazing practical player as Carlsen, knowing how to set problems for my opponent at every stage of the game”; “I will learn from Nakamura how to excel at speed chess”; “Khalifman is a supreme example of a hard-working, self-made chess player and a top-notch theoretician.”

Most of us are “privileged” since we have so many chess weaknesses that the potential for improvement is enormous. However, even the best players in the world have to reinvent themselves from time to time to remain on top of the circuit. Here are a few examples.

No matter how self-confident and dominant Garry Kasparov was, he didn’t pass up the opportunity to invite players who were of interest to him for a training session. For instance, when Kasparov lost in the 2004 European Club Cup to Sergey Rublevsky, Garry offered him to participate in a training camp together. Apparently, the idea was to see if there was something special about the Russian Grandmaster that Kasparov could add to his arsenal. Needless to be said, this was by far not the only case of this sort.

Garry Kasparov, arguably the greatest chess player of all time, found a worthy successor in Magnus Carlsen. Image from 2009, ChessBase.com. 

It is common knowledge that Magnus Carlsen has at some point cooperated with most of the world’s top players. Since he is the forerunner when it comes to extending the human limits in chess, every little step forward at his level requires a tremendous number of effort. Magnus keeps an eye not only on his direct competitors but also on the promising juniors. This way, he had worked with Wesley So and Anish Giri before they became part of the top-10. Carlsen is also generous in the sense that his training partners have more to learn from him than he can rub off them. Still, he is willing to make this trade as long as he becomes a better player because of it. Another curious point is that in his junior years, Carlsen was more willing to learn from the experience of seasoned pros, such as his former mentor, Garry Kasparov. Nowadays, as Magnus has become a middle-aged man, he seems to be more interested in cooperating with junior players to not miss out on innovative trends. 

Viswanathan Anand and Anish Giri sharing a laugh during the Candidates-2016

In a Chess.com interview in May 2019, Anish Giri said the following about Vishy Anand, who as of this day remains a member of the top-20 at the age of 52:

His main advantage compared to others of his age is that he’s truly young at heart. For example, many people of his age don’t welcome change. They stop downloading the latest software versions of things or don’t update their apps, like young people do. But Vishy is the kind of guy who I am sure updates all the apps on his phone. The fact that he’s accomplished what he has and remained there for so long is because he’s able to reinvent himself, and change the way he works, the way he approaches things, just like a younger person does.

Vishy was quite entertained by this assessment and, when meeting Giri for the next time, showed him his smartphone, proving that he does keep all his apps updated! Another competitive advantage of Anand is that he has always been tech-savvy. The people who have worked with him attest that he is always on the cutting edge when it comes to squeezing the most out of chess databases and engines. This is a stark contrast to some other players of his generation, who like to make excuses about being “veterans” and prefer to work exclusively with real chess boards and books, leaving the computer analysis to their seconds or mainly ignoring it. 

Bottom line: you should pinpoint the very best qualities of the top players and try to replicate them instead of gloating over their imperfections. 

On a more general note, this tip works with respect to celebrities. A common mistake is to focus all the attention on their missteps, copying the worst in them. However, one should keep in mind that most of the world’s most prominent influencers became successful not due to their drinking habits, home violence, or promiscuity, but some serious achievements that require both enormous talent and sustained hard work for years and years. 

Finally, are there any exceptions to the rule formulated above? Well, of course, if you are inventive enough, you can come up with some. There are people, especially perfectionists and players with low self-esteem, who could use a confidence shot from time to time, getting it from looking over the top GMs’ most terrible games and realizing that even the chess stars are only human. Also, if you are specifically preparing against one of those players, it could also make some sense to pay a significant amount of attention to their weaknesses and ways to exploit them. Even then, you will need to form a balanced picture, giving due credit to your opponents’ strengths along with their soft spots. 

Wondering how to invite all these super GMs to your home for a training session? This is no easy task. However, since Magnus Carlsen has kindly done this work for you, there is a shortcut. Download our apps at a discounted price and let the World Champion and his team of world-class experts share some valuable insights with you!

When studying top chess players, be forgiving for weaknesses and focus on their strengths. 

Learning from the Best – Focus on the Virtues

Since chess players typically spend a lot of time at the chessboard playing tournaments, let me share some tips on how to do it more efficiently:

1.     Take care of the lighting. Sometimes it is not sufficient. In such cases, it makes sense to consult the arbiter in advance and to fix the problem somehow.

Mikhail Botvinnik was known for having a stern character and standing up for his rights. When he played in Wijk aan Zee in 1969, he already had poor eyesight and requested an additional lamp stationed on his table. As a result, the 57-year old former World Champion shared first place there with Efim Geller. 

2.     Grab a nice chair. For the World Chess Championship match against Boris Spassky in 1972, Bobby Fischer famously flew to Iceland a chair that he used earlier during his match in Buenos Aires against Tigran Petrosian. Generally speaking, the players meticulously check the chairs before important matches, ensuring they are comfortable enough. I am not suggesting you carry a chair with you wherever you go. Also, unless you are a top player, the organizers are unlikely to do you special favors. Still, if, for instance, you, as a big guy, find yourself seated on a tiny chair suited for kids, you may as well call the arbiter and see if this can be fixed. Don’t suffer unless there is no alternative! 

3.     Keep an upright, confident, yet relaxed posture. It is good for your back, neck, and general well-being. If you are accustomed to “half-asleep” or “hook back” postures, fix it by developing your back muscles via appropriate physical training, massage, and improving your bedroom. Sometimes finding the right pillow or mattress can work magic for your body. 

On the header image of the post, Magnus Carlsen demonstrates an example of how you should sit at the chessboard. 

You may want to experiment. On the image, you can see Judit Polgar at the Chess Olympiad in 1988. According to her, putting legs like that helped her concentration. You can challenge Judit Polgar at that age (12) in the Play Magnus app! 

4.     Breathe deeply and try to find a way to gain access to fresh air whenever possible and needed.

Even though you need a medical permit to play chess events in some countries, the regulation is often neglected. After all, most people don’t treat chess as “a real sport” and don’t perceive it as bearing any risks for your health. An old (and rather silly) joke goes that chess is a dangerous game since you can fall asleep during a match and land with your eye on one of the bishops! In reality, players experience severe increases in the heart rate and blood pressure during intense matches, especially in time trouble. Some Grandmasters have died over the board or shortly after the round – Vladimir Bagirov, Vladimir Simagin, Vitaly Tseshkovsky, to name a few. 

I recall playing the Chigorin Memorial in St. Petersburg. One of the players stood up from the board to take a routine walk around, made a few steps…and collapsed on the floor, losing conscience! The doctors had a hard time convincing him to take care of his health; the gray-haired veteran was eager to return to the board and play on at all costs! This is just a friendly reminder that regardless of how much you love chess and care about the result of the game, prizes, and rating points, your well-being is of more importance.

5.     Don’t get frozen over the board unless you are in extreme time trouble. Relax a bit by taking a walk while your opponent is thinking. This is good both for your nervous system and your body. 

This tip is easy to get across nowadays since this is what pretty much all the top players are doing. However, in the past, there were examples of a different kind. For instance, Bobby Fischer was famous for enduring the tension for hours, sitting over the board as if he was glued to it. However, this is detrimental to your health, and most players don’t have the physical and mental stamina to keep concentrating for so long. Even though on the surface it may look appealing to spend every minute of your time wisely, not getting up from the board at all, this is a poor idea. 

6.     Do some basic stretching exercises when away from the board. There are books that offer quite sophisticated lists tailored specifically at chess players, e.g., “64 Recipes of Success” (in Russian) by Simkin, Bodnarchuk, and Shtatnov. However, there is no need to memorize special techniques. Common sense is good enough. Don’t be shy; just find an uncrowded spot in the playing hall and get started!

I was a bit surprised when the commentators began mocking Vidit for his “dance moves” while he was following the basic guidelines. He got up from his chair on his opponent’s turn and made some simple moves that are good for your body!

7.     Make sure to bring a drink and some snacks with you. In this blog post, we won’t be discussing the important subject of optimal nutrition for chess players. Moreover, it is not possible to give universal advice. For instance, some of us have low blood pressure and could benefit from increasing it during the round. Others, in contrast, have high blood pressure and need to run like the plague from anything that can pump it up even higher. Since our focus is behavior over the board, it is worth noting that you can drink freely during the round (unless it is a prohibited beverage, such as alcohol or some sort of forbidden doping). With food, the situation is more complicated. Common sense and experience tell us that you can’t probably open a lunch box and start munching it in front of your opponent. That being said, at some tournaments, especially local ones, the arbiters will close their eyes on you doing something relatively innocent, such as eating a banana or some chocolate. However, according to official FIDE rules, you are not allowed to eat over the board since it could be potentially distracting for your opponent. What I have been advised to do in such cases was, for instance, to take the banana from your plastic bag and leave the board, walk freely around the playing hall, and enjoy your snack. 

8.     Quit smoking. The pseudo-romantic times when Mikhail Tal could smoke a few packs of cigarettes during a long game, shortening both his and his opponent’s expected lifespans, are long gone. If you consider the modern chess elite, Alexander Grischuk seems to be the only top GM left who has to bother wasting time leaving the playing hall for a smoke break. Smoking is hazardous for your health and a distraction during the game, making you essentially offer a time handicap to your partner.  

When you are not playing tournaments, how about taking advantage of a training program designed by Magnus Carlsen and his team of world-class experts? Check it out now! 

When it comes to sitting at the chessboard, every small detail counts!

After the concert, a high society lady approached famous pianist Arthur Rubinstein and expressed her admiration for his performance: “I would have given up all my life to learn how to play the piano as well as you!” “This is what I did,” Rubinstein replied. 

An indirect quote from "111 Motivationstipps für persönliche Höchstleistungen" by Alexander Christiani

Time is the most precious resource. Every day, we are facing a choice of what to prioritize and how much time to allocate to each activity. Some of us are meticulous and methodological in this respect. They use organizers and plan their routines by creating pie-charts of the time allocation. Others are more laid back and go with the flow, intuitively cruising through what life throws at them. 

One way or the other, our lives are unbelievably short. For example, 75 years sounds like a decent amount of time, but it is only 27,375 days. Or 657,000 hours. This figure looks particularly intimidating to most of us because we casually spare a couple of hours on movies that are not even particularly interesting or important to us. And don’t get me started on PC games. On one of them, I have spent about 1,500 hours; on the other – over 2,000. As to the MMORPG that I have been playing more than anything else, the count exceeds 10,000 hours. Basically, in the past, I have dwelled over a full year in Middle Earth! Do I regret it? Not exactly. After all, John Lennon once said: “Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted.” 

Whenever you feel like mastering something, and that normally takes at least 10,000 hours (hello, Malcolm Gladwell!), you had better realize how much you are investing and for what purpose. Let’s talk about chess. How important is it for you? What are you willing to sacrifice to become as strong a chess player as you can be? 

I give 98% of my mental energy to chess. Others give only 2%.

When I was younger and felt like I had more time for random stuff, I liked to discuss all sorts of imaginary philosophical situations with other people. For example, I have asked the members of one chess forum, “What period of time would you barter for the GM title in chess”? The detailed description was as follows:

Imagine that someone has invented the machine that can deprive a man of a certain number of years of life, i.e., make him older in an instant, while granting him a 2500+ playing strength and the GM title. Or, alternatively, a GM could use it to become younger but lose his chess prowess – not entirely, but, let’s say, down to grade A. What trade would you consider to be fair? 

There were relatively few replies, but the results looked somewhat surprising to me.

 “Less than a year” – 8 respondents.

“One year”, “two years”, “three years”, “four years” – none.  

The most popular response (“less than a year”) surprised me greatly. Do these guys frequent chess forums without really wanting to improve? Or maybe they have unrealistic expectations about progress? Or is it an “I want it all, I want it now” kind of answer? Or perhaps they are not fans of instant gratification and value the process of achieving the level much more than the outcome? One can keep guessing forever. 

The second most popular answer (“10 years”) is more adequate in the sense that most people who become GMs spend at least ten years treating chess as their primary occupation. I am not 100% sure, but I believe that’s what I voted for back then. Even though I still love chess immensely, now I would be more hesitant to spare ten precious years like that in the blink of an eye. 

The third most popular reply (“five years”) implies that for some people, chess is similar to university studies, which generally last from 4 to 6 years.  

The field of respondents was relatively strong and mainly consisted of proficient club players and a few masters, including GMs. 

And how would you reply to such a question? It may look too abstract and even somewhat absurd, but it will reveal a lot to you about your motivation to improve in chess, the role of the game in your life, and your current lifestyle. Once you answer it frankly for yourself, it will be easier to realize whether you are allocating too little or too much time to chess. 

Of course, I am by no means implying that in the real world, people directly trade years of their life for chess skills. Most of us agree that the journey is more important than the destination. The road to becoming a GM is a self-sufficient adventure with a nice bonus at the end in case it ends successfully. Still, the question stands. 

P.S. According to the latest Magnus Trainer survey, 25% of our apps’ users cite “becoming a professional player” as one of the main drivers behind their interest in chess. Nowadays, it is hard to imagine someone leading the life of a pro player without having the GM title. Therefore, we can proudly state that there are quite a few super ambitious players who enjoy training with the help of our apps! 

Whether you are a casual fan of chess who has 5 minutes on it per day or a hardcore future pro who lives and breathes chess, you should enjoy the mini-games and chess lessons brought to you by Play Magnus – the ultimate chess training apps created by World Champion Magnus Carlsen and his star-studded team of experts. Subscribe now. The clock is ticking! 

If you had one shot or one opportunity, would you become a GM, or just let it slip?

How Many Years of Your Life Would You Sacrifice to Become a GM?

One of the evergreen and hotly debated topics in chess is whether you should pay more attention to studying the opening or the endgame. 

Over the last few decades, the late IM Mark Dvoretsky and other proponents of studying the endgame have made a leap forward in terms of changing public opinion on this topic. Nowadays, if you ask a dedicated chess fan what method is preferable, he might wink painfully and blurt out: “Yes, I know that endgames are more beneficial for your chess development in the long run!”. And having said that, he will run away from you, not waiting for other provocative questions, and purchase another online opening course or opening book. 

Numbers don’t lie: if you check out any chess bookstore, you will realize that books on openings are still vastly superior to endgame books both in terms of quantity and the number of copies sold. People are still obsessed with openings! 

In 2020, we conducted a survey among Magnus Trainer users. One of the questions was about their preferences when it comes to lessons. Somewhat surprisingly for me, “Strategy” turned out to be a clear winner with 29.9%. The second and third places were shared by “Openings” and “Can’t make up my mind” with 17.9% each. “Endgame” shared the last place with “Highlights”, scoring a meager 4.5% each. So, is the least tasty food the best for you? 

Now let’s briefly go over the arguments for each side and decide whether they look convincing enough.  

“It feels nice to get an edge and a comfortable position out of the opening; in contrast, if you play the opening badly, you might lose quickly and have no chance to demonstrate your endgame skills at all” – valid. We have all seen such knockouts, even at the very top level. No one wants to feel like a punching bag, getting blown off the board in 15 moves or so. And winning an excellent game and saving quite some time and energy is much appreciated. 

“That’s what the top players are mainly focused on, so everyone should adopt this approach” – an argument from authority. In this situation, it is a manipulation made possible by the fact that many people don’t understand that it makes no sense for a relatively weak player to copy the training routine of a super GM. At each level, different skills should be acquired, and the workload should be different. Mr. Olympia and an office worker who hits the gym two times a week for an hour should not have the same training program. 

“Knowing openings is helpful for being a commentator, author or second” – true. I recall one eminent Grandmaster settling his scores by comparing the careers of two fellow strong Grandmasters. At some point, he venomously stated that the first GM, who was more of an endgame specialist, basically became of no interest to the chess community after falling off his rating peak. The second guy, who was portrayed as a case of success, joined a team of a more promising Grandmaster. Hence the conclusion was that opening knowledge is more valuable than endgame knowledge. Still, this narrative applies to a tiny sample of professional players and is not something a chess improver should be concerned about.  

“Unlike opening theory, endgame theory is rarely revised, so it is more efficient to study it” – partially valid. If you review old endgame books carefully enough, you may notice that they are riddled with mistakes. Indeed, for positions with seven pieces on the board or fewer, we currently know the outcome of the game for sure if both sides play perfectly. The evaluations will NEVER change. But this wasn’t the case 20 years ago, not to mention older sources of information. Also, for many other popular endgames, most current evaluations are likely to stand the test of time. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement. We are not omniscient when it comes to the endgame and not even close to being so. 

“Most people play the endgame badly, so if you invest some time into studying it, your results are likely to improve drastically” – true for people who do play the endgame relatively badly. In the “develop your strengths vs. eliminate your weaknesses” argument, I am a big believer that you should focus on your strengths but also not forget to make “quick and dirty” fixes when it comes to glaring holes in your preparation. Let’s take an extreme example. If you have never studied openings and don’t know your lines for at least 5-8 moves, you will hugely benefit from learning this within a day. Or, endgame-wise, if you don’t know how to give basic mates, such as king and queen vs. king and king and rook vs. king, you will increase your rating tremendously if you master these techniques, spending a tiny amount of time compared to how much you generally allocate to chess. The same principle applies to more sophisticated concepts. 

“Endgame theory doesn’t require as much memorization as opening theory” – partially valid. Endgame theory is also quite extensive, and even top GMs regularly forget what they have learned earlier. For example, at the training sessions of the Russian Olympic chess teams, they often practice rook and bishop vs. rook and rook and knight vs. rook endgames that are prevalent in modern chess. Guess what? People still make blunders when these endgames occur in tournament games! 

This is something that really pisses me off in Dvoretsky’s “Endgame Manual”. Typically, for each endgame type, the author says there are just a few positions you should know by heart and assumes that they are easy to memorize once and forever. Well, alas, for most of us, it is hard to remember a few hundred chess positions and what exactly to do in them, even though I must agree that this is a modest amount of work as compared to the chunks of opening information stored by the minds of top GMs. 

Also, when Dvoretsky sadistically bashes players in the “Tragicomedies” section for allegedly being lazy and not studying this or that endgame, I shake my head, realizing that they have almost certainly looked at this endgame at some point…but forgotten the conclusions! Our memories are not perfect. Also, mistakes happen, particularly when you are low on time and under pressure. 

“By studying endgames, one understands better the abilities of each chess piece and learns how they can cooperate efficiently with each other” – true. This is the main reason why Jose Raul Capablanca advocated that one should start studying chess from the endgame. 

If you neglect the endgame, remember that Capablanca is watching!

The list is by no means exhaustive, but we have to cut it at some point. Anyway, who won? 

A few years ago, I was clearly on the “Endgame” team. Firstly, the arguments above seemed to tip the balance in endgame’s favor. Secondly, I have met people rated Expert or below who knew sophisticated long lines and were helpless out of the opening, as well as experienced masters who could get away with playing all sorts of troll moves in the opening and outsmarting their opponents later on. Thirdly, reading chess books, I have often seen chess players state that studying the endgame took their playing strength to a whole new level. For instance, if there was one thing you were to take away from GM Jonathan Hawkins’ “Amateur to IM”, it is precisely the fact that focusing on the endgame was the main reason why he was able to progress from a club player to an IM. And I have never seen anyone claim something like: “I sat and studied openings all day, and then I became a GM all of a sudden!” 

These days, my view on the subject is somewhat more balanced. I believe it makes sense to treat each person individually and to prescribe adequate “medicine” based on the symptoms that can be found by analyzing the person’s games. Here are some examples:

·        If you can’t make it out of the opening or often leave it with a position that is already beyond salvation, then you indeed should consider working on your opening repertoire. 

·        If you get an excellent position out of the opening but have no clue what to do next, you should focus more on typical middlegame plans and positional play in general. Also, you might want to check if the opening you play suits your style at all.

·        If you get a good position and have no obvious trouble navigating it but somehow can’t convert your advantage or lose to unforeseen tactics from the opponent, then you should focus on dynamics & tactics. 

·        If you often draw winning or better endgames and lose drawish/slightly inferior ones, then probably the endgame knowledge & technique need improvement. 

Then, as you become more experienced and stronger, the training priorities change. The cycle goes on and on. 

Luckily enough, our chess apps cover all facets of the game! If you wish to improve in chess, you may as well see what the World Chess Champion and his team of world-class experts have in store for you.

What Should You Study More: Opening vs. Endgame

In part, this blog post was inspired by the movie “The World Champion” that is in theatres in Russia right now. It is based on the World Chess Championship match between Anatoly Karpov and Viktor Korchnoi, held in Baguio, Philippines, in 1978. I haven’t seen the film yet and don’t have high expectations based on what I have read about it. Still, I will check it out since movies about chess are a rare species. Anyway, Anatoly Karpov is a 6-time World Chess Champion and one of the best match players of all time. Interestingly enough, he was introduced to matches early in his chess career. For example, Anatoly fondly recalls a “serious” match he played in the city championship final when he was still a kid. 

Most of us will never get to participate in the World Chess Championship title, the World Cup or any other event where the match system is used. One might wonder: is there any reason for playing a match at all if you may never have to do it in your competitive practice? 

Here are the top-9 arguments why you may want to give this format a try:

Take your game to the next level. Matches improve your fighting spirit and help you learn more about yourself and your potential opponents. If the partners are of more or less equal strength, they are likely to discover the Achilles’ heels of each other, hence providing a plan for future improvement. Also, the matches themselves are beneficial for the chess development of the players since they help develop those chess muscles as you play in an intense environment. 

Find out who is the better player. Quite often, there is some friendly rivalry between peers if their chess expertise is similar. One game is not enough to find out who is the better player. A way to prove one’s superiority is to beat the opponent in a match spanning a relatively long distance. Of course, nowadays, such matches are more often played in blitz or even bullet, but good old matches with a classical time control are more indicative of a player’s true strength! 

That being said, many users of the Play Magnus app believe that beating Magnus Carlsen at a certain age once means that they have “passed the test.” However, to show true dominance, you had better not get a single win and run away with it but crush Magnus in an actual match! Actually, he should be happy to take on you since his Instagram profile states explicitly: “Beating someone once isn’t revenge!” 

Eliminate a specific weakness. This approach was advocated by Mikhail Botvinnik, who was known for playing serious training matches as part of the preparation for his World Chess Championship duels. For example, he suggested that someone who often gets into time trouble should play a training match, exclusively focusing in each game on time management. He also recommended using the method to get rid of other chess shortcomings.

Stay in shape. By far, not all of us play tournaments regularly enough. Training, playing blitz games, and other such means of staying in shape are not nearly as effective as real-life sparring.

Polish your openings. Let’s say you want to master a new opening. It will take a while until someone plays it against you. Also, you will not be prepared well enough due to a lack of practical experience. That’s why most of the pros use matches to test out new lines and get a feel of the opening. Of course, if you are aiming for this goal, you should discuss it in advance with your partner to know what type of positions will pop up on the board. 

Have fun. Chess matches are quite entertaining and memorable. You can hold your own “World Championship” and fight valiantly for the title against your friend! Just make sure you don’t spoil your personal relationships this way!

I remember how back in the day, we played a self-proclaimed “Chess & Poker World Championship" match against one of my friends in Moscow. First came the chess portion, and then the Texas Hold’em. As far as I recall, it was a tense battle that I eventually lost on the combined standings, but being the runner-up of such a “prestigious” event didn’t hurt! 

Roleplay. This takes the “have fun” principle to the next level. You and your opponent may consider dressing up for the occasion and recreating one of the legendary historical matches, including the ones that never took place. For example, let’s say you are a fan of Bobby Fischer, while your friend likes Anatoly Karpov. You don’t need a time machine to travel back to 1975 and see how the match between Fischer and Karpov would have unfolded! Just play it out yourself. 

Mark time. In the pre-smartphone age, chess has been known to be a popular time killer. Even though it is a less relevant pastime these days, it is still there. People still play chess with their companions when traveling by train, even though you have to choose your partners with caution. Also, in certain prisons, playing chess is an activity allowed for convicts. On a separate note, this practice could potentially lead to some controversial rating manipulations.  

Spice up your relationship. Growing up, I noticed some strange figures on my favorite chessboard. Something like 12.5-7.5 and so on. I asked my parents what this was all about. Even though they were by no means professional chess players and couldn’t be called ardent fans of the game, they still managed to play a reasonably large number of games between themselves in their youth. Of course, this tip has many limitations. First of all, the gap in chess proficiency should be relatively small, or else one might have to introduce a handicap into the equation. Secondly, not all people take chess defeats easily. There have been some grim stories about the loser murdering the victor, not to mention more prosaic outcomes such as quarreling. Nevertheless, it seems to have worked out fine for my parents, as they didn’t break up and are close to their 50th wedding anniversary! 

Last but not least, here comes a warning. Matches require a lot of energy and dedication. It is not a good idea to prepare for a tournament by playing a match if you don’t have a reasonably large time gap ahead. Make sure to end the challenge at least two weeks before the tournament, or even a month in advance, so you have enough time to analyze the games and make adjustments.

Good luck and have fun playing chess matches! 

Have you ever played a chess match? There is always a first time! 

Are you preparing for the New Year’s Eve celebrations? I definitely am!

As a control freak, I allocate a decent amount of time to planning what my goals and tasks will be for the foreseeable future. Here is a summary of how I keep track of everything:

·       I used to have a document where I wrote down my key long-term goals, answering the question, “Where are you going to be in five years?”. However, it didn’t work out particularly well for me. Maybe I lack focus, or perhaps my life is too diverse. Also, the pace of life tends to speed up, and there are all sorts of black swans flying around. For instance, imagine many of your plans getting shattered by COVID? Anyway, I try to foresee the future, but my focus is on what will happen over the next year. 

Why do Stronger Players Make Mistakes Against Weaker Players?

Play for a Win in Every Game

Recording Your Time Distribution

The Infamous Touch-Move Rule

Learning from the Best – Focus on the Virtues

How Should You Sit at the Chessboard?

How Many Years of Your Life Would You Sacrifice to Become a GM?

What Should You Study More: Opening vs. Endgame

Play a Chess Match

What are Your New Year’s Chess Resolutions?