Druss Blog

More of a focus on playing

2006-07-08T09:34:00.000+01:00

Again, I haven't posted for a while. Partly this is because I've been busy at work. And partly I just haven't felt so enthusiastic about MDLM training.

I have still been plugging away at CT Art. Running it on a mobile device has been a real benefit, as I can fit in the odd half hour at lunchtime etc, and if it wasn't for this then I suspect things might have ground to a halt.

So I have been struggling through the 30s. The 10s are now easy, the 20s are OK and I can usually find the answer fairly quickly, but the 30s are worse. Not that I can't solve them, but that it takes that bit of effort. I find it difficult to get the motivation to solve more than 5 or 10 of them a day, and as a result it is taking a while to get through them.

However, recently I have been focusing more on playing 5 0 blitz on ICC. My real goal is to get a peak rating of 1500 here, and I'm not too far off. Here's my latest ICC rating graph:

A - when I first started playing on ICC, and (rather optimistically) said my rating was 1400

B - brought down to earth with a real rating of 1000

C - 1300 peak, after my first session of training, which was mainly reading opening theory and solving puzzles. This is also when I first discovered - and started - the MDLM training programme

D - 1300 peak, still, the last time I posted this graph

E - 1400 peak, after more focus on playing

So I'm getting there, and it has been interesting playing. I think that tactics are a large part of the game, but are not the complete answer. I find that I also have to have a 'plan' - even if it is something as high level as 'attack on the kingside' or 'push the pawns in the middle'. I'm also finding that if I'm controlling the game more, and my opponent is reacting to my attacks, then I'm more likely to get a tactical shot ... I suppose this is what they mean by initiative. However, I have to be careful not to over extend, or to push an attack to far when it isn't completely sound ... something I can get into the habit of doing after too much CT Art.

That said, the main reason why I've gone from my all time low of 1000 to my all time high of 1400 is tactical training.

I've won my first tournament!

2006-05-31T16:58:00.000+01:00

I've not posted for a while - been getting bogged down in CT Art level 50 problems, which I have now finished. I've started going through from level 10 again. Rattled those off in about an hour, and now working my way through level 20s. I can do these fairly rapidly, but not at the quick fire pace of the 10s. It will probably take me the best part of a week to get through them.

But more importantly, I have entered - and won - my first chess tournament! I feel a bit of a fraud though really, because it wasn't exactly a challenging tournament. I discovered it while wandering around one lunchtime at work - there was a notice in a cafe window saying "amateur rapid chess tournament". I phoned up and it was being run by this guy trying to start up a local chess league between cafes and bars in the area. Almost all the people who turned up hadn't played in years, and certainly weren't involved in intensive MDLM training! So I felt like I'd been cheating by using CT Art.

Thinking about it the day after, I concluded:
1) I'd forgotten just what it is like to be a novice. You miss all sorts of stuff and there are tactical shots all over the place. I now realise how far I have come since I first learned how to play, rather than looking at how much I still have to learn.
2) Most of the time I could tactically overwhelm people. I would just throw out a few opening moves and then win a tactical combination or two.
3) The most benefit I have got from endlessly repeating CT Art problems is from levels 10 and 20, and a bit of 30. If you get this stuff right, and rarely miss an opportunity when it arises, you can significantly increase your playing strength.

Slow progress through the 50s

2006-05-06T09:16:00.000+01:00

I've been working my way through the level 50s. It is slow progress, but I'm enjoying it. I've completed about 40 of them, and I'm scoring about 60%.

They are definitely more difficult problems. I'm really struggling to try and see all the possibilities, but I'm improving a bit.

This made me think a bit about what I'm really learning from this tactical training. My feeling at the moment is that it could be two things:

1) My ability just to see more tactics in the position. By this I mean instantly realising that there is a concealed check, a pin etc. And that this is reinforced by iterating through the problems a number of times - especially the lower level ones

2) Increasing my calculation depth. Being able to see the result of a longer sequence of moves, and also being able to visualise the resulting position more clearly and spot tactics in that position. For example, being able to see a knight fork after four or five forced moves. I feel this is reinforced by trying to do the harder levels. Although when they get too hard it can feel counter productive.

The novice's view of chess

2006-04-25T11:34:00.000+01:00

I overheard an interesting conversation between two people at work this week. One person was describing a technique a mate of his has for interviewing DBAs - he plays them at chess using yahoo instant messenger.

The other person questioned this technique. He said that if he were subject to such an interview, all he would do would be to google for grandmaster chess strategies. He would then be able to win easily by just following, presumably, the simple instructions he finds.

There is also a Alta Vista add featuring Kasparov where a kid playing a simul types How to beat Kasparov at chess into a search engine.

This seems to be a common misconception amongst novices. Googling for grandmaster chess strategies gets you a lot of links to Silman's books, and how to beat kasparov at chess gets you a link to IBM's deep blue page! So you either have to spend hours reading Silman, or build yourself a super computer ... neither easy options for passing that DBA interview.

Repeated level 40 until I got them all right

2006-04-11T16:13:00.000+01:00

Although I completed level 40 in CT Art a few weeks ago, I decided to continue to solve the 'erroneous' problems until I had scored 100%. In other words, to redo every problem until I got them all right first time. This is the same approach that I did previously with levels 10, 20 and 30. Although it is nice to achieve, it does involve trying to solve the same problems over and over. And, in the end it seems more a case of memorising the move order rather than solving, and I wonder if this is a bad situation. Am I building up a generic pattern recognition memory that will improve my tactical play, or am I learning how to solve specific CT Art problems? Also, it takes a fair slug of time to complete, especially at level 40. On balance, I like it though, and I feel it is helping by repeatedly exposing me to patterns that I miss. I definitely have tactical blind spots, and certain combinations are much harder for me to spot.

I have now completed seven circles of levels 10 and 20, six circles of level 30 and five circles of level 40. Above this, I have solved level 50 twice, and levels 60+ once.

Even with level 20, I have not managed to complete them all in one day. I have with level 10, and got it down to about 1 hour. The best at level 20 is 3 days. I'm getting a bit better at level 30, and managed to knock off 30 odd without really trying this morning.

According to MDLM I should be aiming for completing everything all in one day. At the moment I think this is unrealistic. I also think there is limited value going above level 50 problems. So my goal for this year is to try to complete levels 10 to 50 only in one day.

I am not fully convinced of this tuning the problem solving down to one day final stage - what do other people think who have achieved this? Personally, I find the iterating through the erroneous problems until you achieve 100% approach is more useful for me.

On another note, is the enthusiasm waning amongst the knights? People have commented that we are not as enthusiastic at rallying round people who are struggling. And also, I feel there is a lot of divergence in methods and more of a focus on chess improvement rather than MDLM methods. Is this bad?

Progress

2006-03-20T11:30:00.000Z

I have completed the level 40s, and scored about 64%. Not too bad. I'm now repeating the ones I didn't get 100% right, iterating through them until I do. I did this with the previous levels and found it a good way to improve.

Also, my 5 0 blitz rating on ICC has improved - my peak rating is now 1421. My goal is to try and reach 1500 which now seems in sight rather than a distant dream. I am certainly improving. Mostly this is as a direct result of the tactical training. After one year of tactical training this peak has risen by just over 100 points. Not the 400 points in 400 days though! But then I do have a job.

John Nunn was an early knight!

2006-03-04T18:23:00.000Z

Still plodding through the level 40s, but it is going OK with my new approach. I'm taking my time and trying to think deeply about the problems - I even get a surprising amount right!

On a more interesting note however, I came across this bit in Jacob Aagaard Excelling at Chess:

It is a game John Nunn played against Portisch in the Reykjavik World Cup 1988.

Black played 31 .. c5? and Nunn followed up with a nice tactical finish:
32 Re4 Rg8 33 Qxh7+! 1-0

Aagard says:
"Nunn had obviously intended this combination. It is no coincidence that in his Best Games Collection he writes that, as a child, he had solved every combination (999 in all!) in a book and this very same theme had featured."

Sounds like knight training to me, and even a grandmaster level game can be decided as a result!

Progress and a game against an IM

2006-02-22T12:14:00.000Z

Although I'm trying not to think about it and measure progress, I completed level 30 today, scoring 84%. Still reading the books though.

Also, I played a game against an IM on ICC yesterday. I've never played a titled player before, so it was an interesting experience:

This browser is not Java-enabled.

According to Fritz analysis I started drifting off about move 15. Instead of exchanging bishops, I should have noticed that the c3 pawn was pinned to the undefended black queen on c7 and moved by knight to d2.

Then he just outplayed me, winning pawns until I slipped up and let him pin my queen to my king with his rook.

He never seemed to make any amazing moves, just consistently kept on top of the tactics and picked up pieces. I suppose he didn't need to do anything else when he was playing someone as weak as me!

Modifying my approach

2006-02-15T11:28:00.000Z

In my last post I described how I'm bored with grinding through tactical problems. So I have decided to try and change my approach. I'm not giving up tactical problems, but I'm going to try and incorporate some positional training as well. I will continue to solve tactical problems daily, but I will try to think differently about my goal. My old goal was to solve CT Art problems in seven circles, getting quicker and quicker until I could solve the lot in a day ... as MDLM suggests. But I found this was driving me to grind through problems just for the sake of it, which was no fun and boring. My new approach is to think that I will spend a certain amount of day solving them, but with no long term goal in mind.

Aagaard's new book is interesting, and in a lot of ways is a response to John Watson's Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy and rule independence. Aagaard claims that there are positional rules, but you have to know when to apply them and when not to. He has some interesting examples (a number of which from Kasparov's games) where he points to a key, single positional move as being the crucial turning point in the game.

I have also bought a couple of Kasparov's DVDs on opening theory ... the Najdorf and the Queens Gambit Declined. Again, it is interesting that Kasparov emphasises key position aspects of the positions. For example, freeing black's light squared bishop in the Najdorf. However, he also emphasises the importance of tactics in the new age of computer chess. Tactics are vital, but so are positional and strategic play.

I'm coming round to thinking of tactics as essential, but not the whole answer. It is as if tactics are like grammar and spelling in a piece of writing. If they are poor then it is rubbish, they are an essential part, but they are not the whole answer.

So what to do?

Well, I will continue with my tactical training as I described. But also I am not going to forget positional play. Partly this will involve finishing reading Aagaard and other similar books, and of course all the Silman ones. But it may involve trying Chess Strategy by Convekta, which I have bought already but not experimented with much. I may even try a seven circles approach with Silman's Reassess Your Chess Workbook and Convekta's Chess Strategy program, but I'll see how it goes.

The other thing I want to try is winning won positions. I want to get an example of a position where some chess books says, "and white has a decisive advantage" and try playing it out with Fritz. Hopefully this will give me a much more intuitive feel for why positional advantages work, and when they don't.

However, one thing I need to think about is what are the positional advantages I want to try and play? What are the key positional advantages? Is there any book out there which lists them?

Bored

2006-02-08T16:27:00.000Z

I've finished the level 10s and 20s for the sixth time, but I didn't enjoy it. I rattled through them fairly quickly, but it was very boring. I find these final stages tedious ... when you are recognising patterns more than calculating. Starting the 30s is a better, but not exactly fun.

So I'm easing off a bit. Not totally taking a break, but planning to do other things as well as just solve CT Art problems.

So ... I bought Excelling at Chess by Jacob Aagaard (mostly because of the Rowson review in New In Chess). He has an interesting sentence in the first chapter:

"I believe that most tournament games are not won by superior calculation or imaginary power, as I used to think, but rather due to superior understanding of the very basics of the game."

Which sounds to me much like strategic rules! Anyway, interesting to find out more what he has to say, and a bit of strategy will be a welcome break from all this tactical calculation.

6th circle progress

2006-02-02T12:44:00.000Z

Last week I finished off the erroneous level 30s, which took some time.

I then started again at level 10 for the 6th time. I polished these off in a day, and have started the level 20s. I've completed 187 of these so far, with 99 left to do.

I am solving the level 20s a lot quicker - mostly in under a minute. However I worry that I am just learning these positions. Rather than calculating, I'm thinking, "Oh yes, this problem. I move my knight to g6. Now why do I do that? Oh yes, so that ..." Am I really learning pattern recognition, or am I learning to recognise CT Art problems!

It is also boring going through these low level ones again. I'm scoring about 92% on the level 20s, but I'm not 'solving chess problems' ... more like grinding through hundreds and hundreds of puzzles I've done loads before.

On another note, I discovered how to get a graph of my rating over time from ICC:

(a) is when I first joined ICC and rather ambitiously said my rating was 1400, which was quickly corrected.

(b) was when I started reading up on opening theory

My tactical training started in early 2005. And as you can see the results have been varied. The tactical training seems to have made me more unpredictable - sometimes I play well and rise, and then I can just get into a loosing streak. No definite upward trend however.

Toppy tactics at Wijk aan Zee

2006-01-25T18:42:00.000Z

It has been amazing watching Toppy's games at Corus. Both the games today and yesterday are very interesting.

Yesterday he had two rooks en prise, and he moved his queen. Admittedly into an excellent position, but one that was just full of tactics. Chessbase has an excellent write up: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2885 with white's response on move 35.

And then today he made two exchange sacrifices! And then was left in a winning position with two bishops vs two rooks. Again, tactics galore.

I wonder if he's just finished Maza training ... ?

Finished the level 30s

2006-01-20T14:05:00.000Z

For the fourth time. Slower than the 20s, but not too bad and I scored 72%. I'm now going to go back over the erroneous ones and repeat them. After that I'll try a few 40s, then maybe cycle back through the 10, 20 and 30s.

I had a bit of a think about where I'm improving. As a number of other knights have observed, there is definitely a pattern recognition thing going on. Especially around sacrificial attacks on the king's pawn shelter! But I'm also improving my look-ahead capability. I can see slightly further than I used to.

I recently subscribed to New In Chess, partly as a result of following (on www.chessbase.com) Toppy win the recent World Championship. The first edition of New In Chess that I received was heavily focused on this event. I am finding it easier to follow annotated games - MDLM said that, didn't he? - not that I really understand what's going on in them though! I was surprised about just how tactical the world championship games appeared. Some of the openings seemed crazy, I would feel very exposed and nervous playing them. The top chess players at the World Championship seem to be able to effortlessly combine tactics with a real mastery of the game. It is not what I would call strategy necessarily (or at least what I think of as strategic play), more exactly knowing when to swap that duff old rook for that knight.

Good progress with CT Art on my pocket PC

2006-01-10T11:48:00.000Z

I completed the level 20 problems (for the fifth time) last week, and started on the level 30s. I've completed about 60 of these so far - the pocket PC is proving to be an excellent way of solving CT Art problems. It is far more portable than a PC, and the slight limitations don't bother me. I'm finding that I can get more problem solving hours in each day as a result.

However my circles are becoming blurred. This is only my fourth cycle through the level 30s, and I've been through the level 10s six times. I've decided not to focus on a strict 7 times through in 7 circles approach. I'm going to cycle through each level enough times until I can solve the problems almost straight away ... or quickly enough so that I could sit down and do several hundred in a day. So I'm retaining MDLM's end goal of trying to have a final circle in which I solve all the problems in one day, but not sticking to a rigid 7 times through to achieve this, and also not trying to solve all the CT Art problems - capping it at level 50s probably.

Is it working? The continual question :) My online play isn't improving much, I think that focusing on tactical puzzles creates bad habits for real play. My sense of danger is not heightened enough - I think that I've got the superior tactical position and that the other side hasn't really got anything. Playing through the chess problems, even when oppo has a tactical shot you can always get yours in first! If only this were true in actual games ...

Mobile CT Art

2006-01-04T11:07:00.000Z

After thinking about it for a couple of days, I just went out and bought an iPaq. Then I went along to my friendly local chess shop and ended up buying not only Pocket CT Art and Pocket Fritz, but a couple of other convekta programs as well ... Pocket Chess Strategy and Pocket Chess Endings. I thought I might as well while I was there.

Chess Strategy and Chess Endings are almost exactly the same format as CT Art, but with different problems. I've had a bit of a play with them, but not that extensively. I'm still planning to mainly focus on CT Art. Chess Strategy feels different because there is not really a definite 'checkmate like' solution, so it is more vague. Fun though. I completely can't identify good moves to exploit weak squares though! ... the only theme I've explored so far.

Pocket Fritz is good, although it was very difficult to install. The standard out-of-the-box install program didn't recognise the newer Window Mobile operating system, and I had to hack around using a patch update installer from the chessbase website. Got there in the end though.

Pocket CT Art definitely does the job, but is a cut down version of the PC edition. There is no 5x5 help board if you go wrong, and you can't play a position against Crafty in practise mode. I would recommend using the PC version initially, and use the Pocket PC version for practise on subsequent circles.

There is a bug in CT Art though - selecting tactical themes from the drop-down list doesn't properly work, and the number of new vs solved exercises is wrong. Playing a practise game first in the themed mode solves this.

I've started my 5th circle on my Pocket PC now. I completed level 20 on my PC in my 4th circle, and then decided to start from scratch again on the Pocket PC.

I whizzed through level 10, and I am progressing swiftly through level 20 and have completed about 70% of the problems. Level 20 is becoming a lot easier and I'm solving them in less than 1 minute on average. So I can sit down and do 20 to 30 in a session. However, I can still only dream of doing this for the level 90s! Maybe one day ... or more like maybe one year!

Progressing through 4th circle

2005-12-27T10:13:00.000Z

Some progress on my 4th circle, but not rapid ... I'm about two thirds of the way through the level 20s. Enjoying them though.

I don't get as much time to solve chess problems now that I've got a kid. So I'm thinking of getting a Pocket PC and buying Pocket CT Art ... and probably Pocket Fritz while I'm at it. Then I can get in some chess training at lunchtime while I'm at work and when I'm commuting.

Has anyone tried Pocket CT Art? It looks like it has the same functionality as the PC version, but I don't know how easy it is to use. What about Pocket Fritz?

Chess For Zebras

2005-12-22T09:08:00.000Z

The new book from Jonathan Rowson arrived through the post yesterday - Chess For Zebras.

Rowson is one of my favourite chess authors, I really like reading his thoughts about chess. So I dived straight in as soon as the brown cardboard Amazon parcel thudded through my letterbox. This latest book doesn't disappoint.

The first footnote in his opening chapter is interesting:

"...I agree with the advice of FM Ken Smith who said that until you are about 1800 "your first name is tactics, your middle name is tactics and your last name is tactics" ... For players rated below 1800 who desperately want to improve I recommend Michael de la Mazza's thoughtful and honest book, Rapid Chess Improvement"

Started by 4th circle

2005-12-19T15:47:00.000Z

I have started solving CT Art problems again, after a break of about a month, and decided to start my 4th circle. I was plodding through the 40 level puzzles in my 3rd circle, but have decided to abandon these and start off my 4th circle from level 10 again.

Although the 40+ problems are interesting, and good for improving my concentrated thinking, I think that if I could just master the 10, 20 and 30 level ones then I would improve dramatically. I have been playing my chess computer a lot, and also playing 5 0 blitz on ICC. The majority of games that I loose are because of a tactical slip - and one that isn't that difficult ... about the 10, 20 or 30 CT Art level.

So I have decided to forget about the complicated stuff for the moment, and just repeat the low level CT Art stuff until I can nail them. I will still try and achieve MDLM's goal of repeating these puzzles enough times until I can solve them all pretty much at one sitting (which hopefully will not take more than 7 times!).

I started my 4th circle just over a week ago. I finished the level 10 problems in one sitting reasonably easily, however the level 20s are taking longer. I can solve them, but I have to think a bit. I can generally only do about 10 or 15 at a stretch before having a rest, so they can take a while. I'm about half way through these.

It occurred to me the other day that chess is a surprisingly rich tactical game. Much more so than I used to think! CT Art really highlights all the possible tactical hits out there, and I'm missing so much of the basic stuff in my games. If I could just get on top of these then I would see a definite improvement.

So my new goal is to get my ICC 5 0 blitz rating "all time highest score" above 1500. Which is achievable, but will take some time. It is 1330 at the moment.

Tangible progress at last!

2005-12-06T12:51:00.000Z

I have been beating my chess computer more regularly now. This game was the latest and I won as white against it on level 3:

This browser is not Java-enabled.

The computer doesn't have that high regard for its king safety!

It has taken me 20 years to beat this chess computer. I had progressed in my chess ability as a kid until I tried playing this machine, and failed to get close to winning, as I described on my first blog post

So I'm really pleased. This tactical training has paid off. It has allowed me to play a sharper game against this computer without blundering. Computers aren't so tough when you don't fall foul of their tactical shots.

Fritz doesn't really like 9 h3 though!

Back at work, but even less progress

2005-11-28T11:02:00.000Z

I've started work again, but have found myself with even less spare time. I'm working, or I'm looking after my daughter ... not much else.

I'm still playing my Kasparov Cosmos chess computer, but not solving any CT Art problems. I think I will have to take a bit of a rest from my tactical problem solving. Although I am having a lot of fun playing my chess computer. There is definitely a real difference trying to spot and create tactics in real games, as opposed to solving problems when you already know that there is a tactical shot in there somewhere.

No progress on CT Art

2005-11-21T20:14:00.000Z

I'm still off on paternity leave looking after my daughter, which is turning into a full time job at the moment. I'm due to go back to work on Friday, when things might get more back to normal, but so far I haven't tried to solve a single CT Art problem since she has been born. It has been too difficult to get a large enough chunk of concentrated time to sit down and think about them ... I've been put off by other things.

However, I have been playing my chess computer a lot. It is a Kasparov Cosmos, which I bought a few years ago. I've lost a fair number of games, but actually started drawing some after a while. And then I beat it on level 2, which I've never done before, playing black. Still haven't beaten it with white yet though.

I'm a lot better at playing against it than I used to be. It used to just hammer me all the time. Tactical training has definitely worked in this regard - it is quite a tactical player. It will quite often charge out with its queen very early on, or play some speculative pawn gambit ... which makes me think I'm in the lead positionally ... but then it's got some cunning tactic up its sleeve. I used to fall foul of these all the time, but they are easier to spot now. I still don't see them all the time, and indeed more often than not it gets me with its tricksy moves, but I'm blocking it more than I was.

It is also interesting playing full games rather than solving isolated tactical problems. I am more aware of when tactical shots might be in the air, but playing a real game where they might not actually appear is certainly different from solving countless CT Art problems. CT Art can lead you down a dangerous path of thinking that there is always some cunning tactical sacrifice, if only you looked hard enough to find it.

Playing against a good tactical computer is good training as well ... one slip and it nails you.

Anyway. Normal CT Art training should be resumed soon ... although I'm thinking of going back and doing levels 10, 20 and 30 again ...

thanks

2005-11-10T12:05:00.000Z

Thanks for all the congratulations. Having to type this one handed with her in my other arm!

Having a kid makes me wonder ... how soon can you start them playing chess? I think I remember Karpov saying somewhere that he started when he was 4. I've got a nephew who is 4 and 3/4 ... should I try and start him off this Christmas? Any suggestions on the best way? I remember seeing some CD designed for kids somewhere.

Not a lot of progress in the last week

2005-11-08T16:43:00.000Z

My daughter was born on Saturday, which was fantastic. But as a result I have played virtually no chess in the last week. I imagine it will be a few weeks before things get back to normal.

At the moment though it is very hard to concentrate on those tricky level 40 ones. My mind keeps getting distracted :)

Progressing with 3rd circle

2005-10-31T10:46:00.000Z

I've now finished level 30s and started the level 40s - I've completed 50 of them, or about 25%.

The 40s are definitely harder than the 30s, but not a lot so. I find myself either solving them quickly, or being stumped. But I felt that with the 30s as well.

Thoughts on more difficult problems

2005-10-26T10:32:00.000+01:00

Some interesting feedback on my last post. Phorku described level 30 as 'rearranging the pieces' to make the tactics work, and that there aren't really any new ideas. I think this is spot on.

Pale Morning Dun said that the jump between level 20 and level 30 is one of the more dramatic, and that don't rush the early problems. Again, I agree with this.

Both these made me think that following the plan of stopping early and not completing all the difficult problems above 50+ is good. Also, repeating the erroneous problems on levels 10 and 20 until I got them right is worth while. When I first read about these two approaches I was sceptical. Shouldn't tactical training be about solving all the problems in CT Art? I thought this approach of stopping early was wimping out. Now I'm glad I've switched. Yes, it is about solving all of them eventually, but the easier problems feel like the foundation.