Blown Opportunities

On Saturday I played the first three rounds of the Eastern Washington Open in Spokane with no intention of playing on Sunday as I had told my wife we could watch football together while I smoked some ribs. All of my games were against youth players, presumably underrated. I won two and lost one, causing my rating to go down 12. In every game, the losing player had a decisive advantage at least once during the game. Those blown opportunities are presented below.

My first round opponent finished the event in seventh place with 3.0. He had a draw and win against the other two A Class players whom he faced. Our game was his only loss.

White to move

21.f5!?

Liam played a forcing sequence, although 21.e5 or 21.Ng5 would have offered a more sure route to advantage.

21...Nxe4 22.Nxe4 Qxd2??

22...Nxf5 is equal

White to move

There are four ways to capture the queen.

23.Rxd2??

23.Bxd2 and White has a clear advantage.

The move played allowed me counterplay and a few moves later I had three pawns for a knight. In a minor piece ending with six pawns to three, my opponent erred again and gave up another pawn, then traded one of his bishops for my last piece, giving me an easy four pawns vs. bishop ending.

My second round opponent, Declan Pham, finished in third place with 3.5 and gained 141 rating points, lifting him over 1500, still well below his playing strength. The others with 3.5 were two A Class players and an expert. He beat another A Class player in round three and drew one in the final round. His only loss was to strong A Class player Michael Cambareri in round four.

He took advantage of my passive opening play to seize the initiative with Black, then he won a pawn. Things were looking grim for me, but he overestimated his control of the long diagonal when he snatched a second pawn.

White to move

19.Bb2??

I also overestimated his control of the diagonal. He went on to win a long endgame where I never had a chance except throwing up some smokescreens that obscured his advantage.

19.Qxc3 was a winning move in light of of 19...e4 20.Qe1 Bxa1 (the move that I feared) 21.Bf4! Qe7 22.Qxa1

A bishop and knight for a rook and two pawns is still a material deficit, but Stockfish insists that I would have had a clear advantage. What I might have been able to perceive was that White also gains domination of the dark squares and that makes the Black king somewhat vulnerable.

My third round opponent, John, played a strong game against me in the Inland Classic last February, but I was able to get some initiative against his uncastled king. He remembered that loss and told me before our game, "I learned to castle." "Oh," I said, "so, you are better?" "Yes", he said. "So, you'll beat me?" "Yes." "Good to know."

He had several opportunities to do so.

White to move

My opponent offered a draw. I informed him that the rules required that he make his move first and that I would record the draw offer on my scoresheet.

22.Qc5

22.Bxa6+- wins a pawn and severely weakens my queenside.

He also missed some opportunities earlier in the game to disrupt the coordination of my pieces and pick up some material.

Beginning at move 29 we had a knight ending. The game lasted 83 moves. Along the way, I missed a clear advantage here.

Black to move

40...Kg8

I considered 40...exf5, but neither looked beyond nor accurately assessed the position after 41.Kf4 h4. Black would have had a decisive advantage. The game went on with me pressing for a win without a real advantage. John's last chance to hold the draw came with his 60th move.

White to move

60.Nc5??

Both 60.Nb4 and Kd4 allow White to extinguish Black's remaining pawns with a knight sacrifice.

After 60...Nc4+ 61.Kd4 Nxa5, Black's win is only a matter of time, as White will eventually be forced to give up the knight for one pawn. John's rating also dropped in this event, but he will bounce back. He's getting good experience playing adults and learning from his errors.

Forcing Moves

From this morning’s tactics session while I drank my coffee.

White to move

Solve at the link: https://www.chess.com/puzzles/problem/1188690

I spent a little over four minutes working out the full sequence.

Be Alert

It is one thing to solve tactical exercises, but quite another to seize such opportunities when they arise in our games. Often we get caught up in our plans to such an extent that we carry on with a sequence of moves unaware that an opportunity for advantage arose.

I noted in "Two Donner Quotes" that A Class players have defects in their game. Yesterday, in the last round of the Eastern Washington Open, my opponent, a strong A Class player, missed an opportunity after my 23...Ng4? I had considered 23...b5, which Stockfish sees as slightly better for Black.

White to move

Five moves later, it was my turn to miss a chance for a decisive advantage.

Black to move

What would you play in these two positions?

Shifting Focus

For 34 consecutive days, I spent the first part of my day solving puzzles on chessdotcom. At some point during this time, it became a daily commitment. That commitment ended yesterday when I solved a single exercise from the book Improve Your Chess Tactics (2012) by Yakov Neishtadt. This book has sat idly on my bookcase for a year or more, but recently I started reading it. A few days ago, I solved the first five exercises after my chessdotcom session. Yesterday morning, I opted to start with the book.

Black to move

The position arose in Panno -- Bravo Sedamanos, Fortaleza (1975). It took me a few minutes, but I found the correct moves. The idea was known before solving because Nieshtadt organizes the book by themes. Hence, solving primarily involved calculation to verify the implementation of the deflection idea and the correct sequence. Most of my effort was expended finding the best reply by White.

After writing my answer, I checked my answers to the first six exercises in the back of the book. I failed one.

White to move

The position is presented by Nieshtadt as from Belov -- Ongemakh, Narva 1984. After seeing that I failed, I instantly saw the refutation of the move I had written.

Solving from books differs from solving for rating with online puzzles. Both methods have their benefits. I remain committed to doing both, but a daily commitment to one gets in the way of the other.

During my 34 day run from 18 May to 20 June, I attempted 599 puzzles, correctly solving 356. My rating started at 2993 and ended at 3051. It peaked at 3143 on 15 June and was as low as 2849 on 30 May.

I will return to the website and make a push to get the rating back above 3100 now that I've crossed that mark a couple of times. Also, I like to show my students that I solved more puzzles in the past year than the number of games I've played, although that number is considerable.

My focus has shifted towards books. Neishtadt, Improve Your Chess Tactics is one of the better tactics books available. Someone recommended it to me in a comment on this blog several years ago. It was a good recommendation for which I am grateful.

One Month of Puzzles

My training has rarely been consistent. Much of the time, it is not even training. I enjoy playing chess and enjoy studying it, too. Sometimes I set goals. Most of the time I achieve these goals.

Ten years ago, I began to abandon one of the few that I failed to achieve: a USCF rating above 2000. I had peaked at 1982 in 2012. In 2013, I recorded a series of training logs here on Chess Skills. In February 2014 and again in August, I fell below 1900. I rose back above that mark once more in August 2015 when I won a weekend Swiss for the first time (see “Winning an Open”). My most recent first place finish in a weekend Swiss was in 2023 (see “Misevaluation”). In that event, I was playing for the enjoyment of the game. Over the previous months, regular puzzles had been a habit and contributed to my enjoyment of the game during the tournament.

My USCF rating graph

Although my ambitions to cross 2000 USCF have dissipated, improving my knowledge and skills has continued. The goals are small and training related. I seek small achievements, such as getting my online rapid rating above 1800, playing through every game in a single issue of Chess Informant, memorizing a batch of classic games, or reaching the next century mark in puzzles.

I enjoy learning. The process of gaining knowledge or microskills* is often its own reward.

Nearly a month ago, I publicized a rating goal with chessdotcom puzzles. Dean Arond questioned the benefits: “but does it translate to your USCF rating?” The next four days saw my puzzles rating fall 200 points, but then some consistency brought it back up and I crossed 3100 on 9 June. Posting a link to Chess Skills, where I marked the achievement, provoked more skepticism and an informative discussion with Jon Jacobs. He offered a link to a 2008 blog post where his critical comment led to considerable discussion concerning the merits of following the tactics training regimen advocated by Michael de la Maza. There is a lot to process at that link and I appreciate the perspective that Jacobs offers.

The past month, since 18 May, I have attempted a minimum of ten rated puzzles every morning. During the solving, I have addressed a specific weakness that affects my playing performance, as well as my habits while solving tactics. I often see an idea and play it instantly or after superficial calculation. During my puzzle solving the past month, I have focused on accuracy. If I suspect a checkmate is present, I work it out to the end, laboring to find all manner of resistance.

Progress has been up and down. My tactics rating today (3027) is lower than it was on 18 May (3038). Nonetheless, I reached new highest ever ratings half a dozen times or more with a current peak four days ago at 3143. More important than rating level is the increase in my percentage of success. My puzzle accuracy (percentage solved correctly) over the life of the site (more than 15,000 puzzles) increased from 53% to 54%. In the past month, I have exceeded 70% accuracy during 16 sessions.

There have been three sessions where accuracy was below 50% and these were the longest sessions. Often I enjoy the process of solving puzzles, but experienced frustration on those days. Plans to solve daily seemed more of a burden on those days.

More than likely, I will not continue a daily regimen ten or more puzzles on chessdotcom much longer. There are other avenues for tactics, and other forms of productive learning. For instance, a book, 100 Soviet Chess Miniatures (1963) by P. H. Clarke, has been on the side table in my living room since January. I've gone through the first 23 games.

*I use this term for specific skills that are part of my teaching curriculum, such as specific pawn endings that I want my students to master, the Lucena and Philidor rook endings, or the not yet achieved queen vs. rook ending I plan to work on more in the near future. I expect to play against the computer every rook endgame in Jesus de la Villa, 100 Endgames You Must Know, new edition (2015). This practical book study is an example of microskill development.

3100+ Puzzle Rating!

This morning, I reached a new peak puzzle rating of 3121 on chess.com. Nearly 18 months ago, I crossed 3000 for the first time (see "Working the Puzzles"). On May 24 and 25 this year, I hit new peaks of 3071 and 3079. Then in answer to Max Illingworth's question on Facebook, I publicized a goal of reaching 3100. Illingworth posted in his group, Adult Chess Improvers, "New week, new start. What's on your mind today?" I replied, "Hoping to get to 3100 chessdotcom puzzle rating. Hit a new peak of 3079 this morning."

After publicizing this goal, my rating fell more than 200 points in two sessions over the next four days. That's smaller than my 428 point drop from 2975 to 2547 last August, but it is still significant enough that I began to regret posting the goal. Still, I knew what to do: keep solving ten or more puzzles each day, being careful to calculate accurately. Persistence leads to success. Since 18 May, I have started each day with puzzles and mostly solved with a great deal of care.

This morning's session started with four correct of the first five and a rating of 3093. Then, this this puzzle.

White to move

I saw immediately a sequence that failed, then I reversed the first two moves. The process of calculation and then moving took me 33 seconds. My rating jumped 15 points to 3108. I missed the next puzzle, but then got two correct and stood at 3121. It might have been time to quit if not for my resolve to solve at least ten each day. I could not quit after nine.

The next puzzle dropped me 13 points, so I kept going, failing three more. Now at 3073, one point below the day's starting rating, I felt that I had to continue. I was able to quit after solving the next five.

Distraction

This morning’s tactics session was suboptimal. After solving the first one correctly, I did so poorly that I dropped my rating 98 points from 3038 to 2940. I continued to solve with increased determination, ending at 3004. The last exercise, which I solved correctly in 4:59, offers a case study in distraction. How often do we focus on one area of the board, completely oblivious to what else is happening somewhere else.

I spend most of five minutes trying to make something work on the queenside, noting the threatened knight fork if my queen strayed. I looked at the contact between the bishops. In the last few seconds after expending so much time looking at unproductive lines, I noticed Black’s fatal problem on the kingside and executed the simple mate in two.

Easy Exit

This morning in an online 10 minute game, I knew I had an advantage, but suffered a failure of confidence without a clear checkmate. I forced a draw. The rating difference was such that the draw lifted me 6 points.

I had Black

White to move

32.a6

While replaying from the diagram against Stockfish, the machine played 32.Qc6. A queen ending was reached after the subsequent moves: 32...Ng3+ 33.Kh2 Ne2 34.Rxe2 Qxe2 35.Bc1 Qd1 36.Qc5 Qxb3 37.Bd2 h5 38.Bxb4 Rb8 39.a6 Rxb4 40.a7 Ra4 41.Qc8 Kh7 42.a8Q Rxa8 43.Qxa8

Black to move

Analysis diagram

My failure to convert the advantage in this ending highlights an area that deserves some study.

Returning to this morning's game.

32...Qe1+

32...Ng3+ is better.

33.Kh2 Qg3+ 34.Kg1

Black to move

At this point, I knew that I had an advantage and spent 58 seconds looking for a clear path forward. 

34...Qe1+

I opted to force a draw.

34...Ng5 created threats, but did not force matters towards a favorable conclusion.
I missed the option of returning to a previous position and easily winning White's rook. To wit, 34...Qe3+ 35.Kh1 Ng3+ 36.Kh2 Ne2 and White must give up the rook to stop checkmate.

The same situation would have occurred after 32...Ng3+

After the rook exchanges itself for the knight, Black's queen forks bishop and pawn.

White to move

I had no difficulty winning this position against Stockfish in my second battle with the silicon beat today.

Inspired by Ruy Lopez

This morning I had a familiar position although the opening moves were not anything I recall playing before. The position was familiar because it had the same critical elements (pattern) found in a game Ruy Lopez played in 1560 and that appears in my book, Checkmates and Tactics (2019). The exercises in this book are those I've been using with scholastic chess players since 2006 as part of my award curriculum.

I had White in the 10 minute game.

1.e4 e6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 d5 4.exd5 exd5 5.d4 dxc4?! 6.Bxc4 Bg4?

Bad pins often backfire.

White to move

7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Ne5+ creates a discovery against the bishop as well as forking king and bishop.

8...Ke8 9.Qxg4 Nf6 10.Qe6+

The game is continuing along the path shown by Lopez.

10...Qe7

White to move

11.Qc8+ Qd8 12.Qxd8

I considered 12.Qxb7, which Stockfish prefers, but reasoned that Lopez's combination was good enough to give me a clear advantage.

12...Kxd8 13.Nf7+

What we have of Lopez's game ends with this fork.

13...Ke8 14.Nxh8

My opponent made me play all the way to checkmate. Along the way, I won the other rook through another combination.

White to move

24.Rxe6

24.Rxb7+ is simpler and better.

24...Kxe6 25.Nc7+ Kf5 26.Nxa8

It's not often that I get to fork both rooks with my knights in the same game.

Lopez's game started with a King's Gambit Declined. His opponent is given in ChessBase Mega as Giovanni Leonardo da Cutri (spelling and name sequence differs from source to source).

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d6 3.Bc4 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4

The bad pin.

White to move

This position is number 21 in Checkmates and Tactics, available through Amazon both in print and Kindle versions. It is the third exercise in my Bishop Award set.

6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Ke8 8.Qxg4 Nf6 9.Qe6 Qe7 10.Qc8+ Qd8 11.Qxd8

Lopez's move is best, which differs from my game.

11...Kxd8 12.Nf7+

Tactics Binge

This morning I became obsessed with solving puzzles on chess.com. For some of them, I spent a few minutes calculating. For others, I moved almost instantly, believing the puzzle was simple pattern recognition. Errors were frequent. When I failed a puzzle, I tried again, working it until I found the answer. One puzzle was ridiculously easy. As it came after failing four of the previous five, I had the sense that the site’s programming is designed to poke fun at me.

White to move

At this point, I had solved six correctly and failed eight. My tactics rating had dropped 35 points.

As the session continued, my rating kept going down, then up a bit, then down again.

When I finally quit, I had attempted 169 puzzles. My rating rose three points from 3036 to 3039. At one point, I had dropped as low as 2939.

Misses

In the Inland Classic tournament last weekend, I played reasonably well, despite giving up a 520 point upset to an underrated high school senior who has been one of the top youth players in my city since he was in elementary school. There were points where my play could be improved. The positions below highlight points when errors were made. How would you play?

1. Black to move

How should Black meet the fork threat?

Later in this same game, my round one loss, I had a clear advantage after errors on both sides. Choosing the wrong course from this position turned the game in favor of my opponent.

2. Black to move

In round two, I had a decisive advantage by move six. Nonetheless, I missed a quicker finish from the following position.

3. White to move

My round five game was a long battle and was among the last games to finish. Early in the middle game, I made a sensible move using a minute of thinking time. The position demanded more thought because another idea, which I considered briefly, was sufficiently complex that it could have offered my opponent the opportunity to go wrong.

4. White to move

Two moves later, I threw away a small advantage.

5. White to move

My error in this last diagram maintained a clear advantage, but there was a much better move.

6. White to move

Slipping Away

The round four battle with Nikolay Bulakh was my most interesting game in the 2023 Eastern Washington Open. He surprised me with 1.c4! and we both made unusual moves that had us out of book by move five. After Nikolay chose to keep his king in the middle, my confidence in the strength of my position soared. After a sequence of parried threats that had us repeating a couple of positions, Nikolay offered a draw.

Black to move

My response to the draw offer was to push a pawn.

27...a5

My silicon friend suggests that 27...Ne7, threatening f6-f5, offered prospects of an advantage. I doubt either of us would have found the engine's line: 28.h3 Bxh3 29.Bxh7+ Kf8 30.Rf2 with a slight advantage for Black.

28.Ng2

28.Bxd5 was possible 28...Bxd5 and several lines that White can choose keep the balance.

28...Nb4+

I continue with the idea  I was pursuing before the draw offer, now with the a-pawn on a5 instead of a7.

I recall glancing at 28...a4, which deserved deeper calculation.

29.Kd2 Rd8 30.Nf4 f5

White to move

31.Bf3 Bh6

By attacking both knights, I threaten to win the d-pawn, but White's defensive resources are sufficient.

32.Be2 Rdb8 

I keep shifting targets, but cannot generate any tactics that Nikolay does not parry.

33.Rfc1

"A strong move", Nikolay said during our postgame analysis during lunch. I concurred.

33...Nc6 34.Nd6

Black to move

34...Rxb3

I had been trying to win this pawn since I opted to defer taking it with my bishop on move 15. After the game, I decided that this move was the critical mistake, suggesting to Nikolay that I should have played 34...Rfb6. Stockfish agrees my suggestion is better, but not decisively so. "Am I in trouble here," Nikolay asked. Our lunch break was coming to an end as round five would be starting in about ten minutes. We analyzed a couple of lines quickly.

35.Rxc5 Bf8 is better for Black. However, 35.Nxe6 fxe6 36.Nc4 maintains equality. I don't recall whether we looked at this line.

35.Rxb3 Rxb3 36.Rxc5

Black to move

36.Ne7?

It would have been wise to play 36...Rb2+ 37.Kc3 Rb3+ when White has nothing better than letting Black repeat the position. Blocking the check on the second rank with the rook keeps Black's outside passed pawn and a knight vs. bishop ending that should be drawn. We would have played it out, of course.

37.Rxa5

Now, White has an advantage. Any chances that I thought I had slipped away. I played another 14 moves as my position grew worse and worse. Then, I resigned and we went to lunch with 50 minutes before round five would begin.

In the last round, Nikolay drew the tournament's top seed on board two, finishing in a tie for second place. I won my round five game quickly (see "Checkmate Exercises"), then enjoyed watching the battles on boards two and three.

Stafford Complications

I blame Eric Rosen for my interest in playing the Stafford Gambit. His Lichess study and accompanying YouTube video gave me a ready-made tactics and opening lesson for my students in an online group class in winter 2022. It has been an occasional weapon ever since. most notably giving me three quick wins in a nine-round OTB blitz tournament in May 2022. This morning my opponent played a move that I last faced almost a year ago. That game was a learning experience.

Internet Opponent -- Stripes,J.
Chessdotcom 29.9.2023

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5.d3 Bc5

White to move

From this position 6.Be2 is most common and best. I have no less than 6 identical wins after 6.Bg5?? This error is met with 6...Nxe5 when the bishop must retreat to e3. Taking the queen gives Black a mate in two.

6.c3

Three prior games in my personal database have this move, all in 2022. 

6...Nxe4!

Previously, I played 6...b5?, managing two wins and a loss. White is objectively better after this foolishness.

7.d4

7.Qe2 is better.
7.dxe4?? loses the queen. That's what I learned after my game in October 2022.

7...Bd6 8.Bd3 Qe7 9.O-O O-O 10.Re1?

10.Nd2 is best.

Black to move

The fun begins now.

10...Bxh2+!

Played without hesitation. Next time, I'll try 10...Qh4 with some of the same ideas as in the game plus a wrinkle if White goes for 11.g3.

11.Kxh2??

11.Kf1 is approximately equal.

11...Qh4+-+ 12.Kg1 Qxf2+ 13.Kh1

Black to move

13...Qh4+?

Sometimes a combination that one has seen many times brings out routine play, oblivious to an additional resource.

13...Bg4! was the move I should have played.

14.Kg1 Nf2?=

There was still a chance to play 14...Qf2+ 15.Kh2 Qg3+ 19.Kg1 Bg4-+

15.Bxh7+! Kh8

15...Kxh7 16.Qc2++-

White to move

16.Qc2??

16.Qe2 is the only move to maintain equality.

16...Ng4-+ 17.Be4

I expected 17.Rd1, planning 17...Qh2+ 18.Kf1 Re8 with mate threats and a dominating position.

17...Qxe1#

I missed some things. My opponent missed more.

Thomas Engqvist's Study Plan

"Less is more", writes Thomas Engqvist in 300 Most Important Chess Positions: Study Five a Week to be a Better Chess Player (2018). His 300 positions are more positionally oriented than the 300 in Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book: 300 Most Important Positions and Ideas, 2nd. ed. (2000) and also include a larger number of endgame positions. I wrote about the first position in this book the week after I acquired it in 2019 (see "A New Book and a Morphy Game"), but have not been following his recommendation to study five per week. Nor have I followed any other disciplined training regimen. Even so, Engqvist's book has been a frequent reference and valued.

Study by J. Hasek

Although Engqvist asserts, "the less you know the less you'll forget. ... it will be easier to remember 300 positional ideas rather than, let's say, 1000" (7), his 300 series now constitutes a trilogy and contains 900 positions. The motivation to select five per week for serious study has been growing for me.

The fourth endgame position in 300 Most Important Chess Exercises (2022) caught my interest last Friday and again this morning because I set it up incorrectly Saturday morning while trying to show the critical idea to some youth players at a chess tournament.

At first glance, White's task appears hopeless (see photo). Going straight for the a-pawn leads to stalemate. Going after the f-pawn leads to a trebuchet (a position lost for White). The draw is better than a loss, but I had the sense that White should win this with a technique I was missing. After some trial and error playing against Stockfish on the iPad, I found the win, posted on social media the position that arose after two moves, and mentally questioned a response that identified the solution as one of taking the opposition.

The exercise is a study composed by Josef Hasek and published in Deutsche Schachzeitung (1928). Engqvist identifies the themes as "triangulation and corresponding squares" (222). I think it also bears similarity to the famous Reti study in which White draws by attempting simultaneously to accomplish two impossible tasks (see "Endgame Calculation"). Such is the power of the double attack.

Stripes, J -- Stockfish
14.04.2023

1.Kc6 Ke5 2.Kc7 Kd5

White to move

3.Kd7!

Yes, this move seizes the opposition and prepares an outflanking maneuver. But triangulation is a more precise term for White's idea.

3...Ke5

If Black tries 3...Kc5, the diagonal opposition is best because it threatens the f-pawn. 4.Ke7! From the initial position, White cannot imagine going after the f-pawn, but now this threat is what makes it possible to gain the a-pawn without getting trapped on the a-file.

4.Kc6

Because of triangulation, the position that has been reached is the same as after the first move, except that it is Black's move.

4...Kxf5

White to move

5.Kb7

Other moves draw. Black's king is now too far away to trap White's king on the a-file and White's pawn promotes long before Black's can make any progress.

1-0

300 Most Important Chess Exercises is divided into four sections of 75 exercises each. The first two sections are opening and middlegames with tactics emphasized in the second set. The last two sections are endgames, again with tactics emphasized in the final set.

I could see myself developing some consistency with Engqvist's study plan of five positions per week if these five come from all three books, instead of always following only one of them. Coming up soon in Exercises is the following position, the sixth endgame exercise. 

White to move

I have seen this position in other books and have trained with this it on chess.com. I know the idea--corresponding squares. Nonetheless, this is an exercise that I find difficult. The cases of correspondence which must be worked out encompass more than half of the board.

Surprising Puzzle

I solved this puzzle on Chess.com in 38 seconds. There were several surprises: first I gained 16 for solving it. That made me curious. It is rated 3080, only 38% of those who have attempted it get it right, and the average time is 1:44. There have been 1042 attempts. It is Puzzle 1412696, if you would like to try it on the site.

I also posted it on Facebook, where more people are getting it wrong than are getting it correct. Many claim it is easy, but do not post their solution. Follow-up questions with some of them reveals that they also failed.

Black to move

Black is on bottom

Working the Puzzles

The Puzzles feature on Chess.com has always been there, but I’ve used it only sporadically. That changed recently.

As of mid-December 2022 I had solved less than 5000 puzzles during 15 years on the site. Something motivated me to get to 5000 by the end of the year when I noticed that less than 300 more would get me there. Then, briefly on Christmas Day I peaked at a rating of 3002! Alas, my friend Anthony was at 3012. In the effort to catch him I fell back down to 2700 over the next hour. That session, one of my longest, logged a low of 2706, a high of 3002, and ended at 2802. I attempted 133 puzzles, getting 68 correct. The site shows a solving time of 2 hours and 15 minutes. 

In the past few months, I have completed over 3000 puzzles and finally got back over 3000 a couple of days ago. I hit a new peak of 3042 the morning of April 1, then 3043 in the afternoon. The next day, yesterday, I made it to 3044. Then, late at night when I was too tired to function, I pushed for more and fell to 2995. This morning the first three puzzles were fails, dropping me to 2944. However, by the time my coffee cup was empty, I had passed 14 and failed 8, ending with a rating of 3034.

Several friends remain higher. Anthony is currently at 3086. My top student is laboring to catch me. He certainly will. It is only a matter of when. It is my job to keep moving his goalposts as he nears them.

Books remain my preference for training. Currently, I’m working through Jesus de la Villa, 100 Endgames You Must Know, 4th ed. (2015) along with occasional work with the two companion volumes, The 100 Endgames You Must Know Workbook (2019) and 100 Endgame Patterns You Must Know (2021). Also on my table of active books is Sergey Ivashchenko, The Manual of Chess Combinations, vol. 2 (2002). I’ll likely repeat the sixth stage after I complete it because I fail half of the problems about every fifth page. Most often I correctly solve 5/6. Thomas Engqvist's 300 series also gets worked into the mix now and then.

Solving puzzles on Chess.com has become a principal part of how I enjoy that site. When I check my stats, I look at the quantity over the past 7, 30, and 90 days, expecting to see that the number of puzzles attempted exceeds the number of games played.  One goal over the next few months is to see more puzzles than games played over the past year. That will require a lot of puzzles.

Obviously, I have a long ways to go on puzzles to match and exceed my play.