Quest for Understanding

I have been trying to hold a draw against Stockfish from a position that Jan Timman failed to hold against Anatoly Karpov (Belfort 1988). The position was brought to my attention when I began rereading Jacob Aagaard, Excelling at Technical Chess (2004). Nearly twenty years ago, I read this book quickly and superficially, spending very little time with the instructive positions. I did read all the text and it had a profound impact on my game, particularly in my attitude towards offering or accepting draws when there is even a faint chance of battling for a win. In "Excelling at Technical Chess" (2011), I presented an annotated game where I prevailed in a minor piece battle, somewhat inspired by Aagaard's work.

Aagaard's annotations of the game elaborate the importance of activating your strongest piece. Timman does this well early in the endgame, but then seems to lose the thread and "play without a plan" (Aagaard 13).

White to move

Here, Aagaard writes, "everything has gone wrong for White", noting the passivity of White's rook compared to Black's active rook. However, according to Stockfish and tablebases, White's position remain a technical, however difficult, draw. A comment on chessgames.com credits Karsten Müller and Yakov Konoval, Understanding Rook Endgames (2016) with pointing out that the position is drawn.

Drawn according the computer is one thing, however, and holding such a position as a human is quite another. Aagaard points out in the next chapter of the book, "an advantage does not have to be decisive in order to win" (24). The defender must continue to find the best moves, while the side that is pressing for a win can try different things.

When Timman played his next move, 53.Ra3, the position was then technically lost. However, Karpov's technique was not without error. Five moves later, Timman again had chances to draw and missed the correct moves.

Likewise, playing 53.Ke3, 53.Rc4, or 53.Rd4 does not immediately secure the draw. Many subsequent positions offer a single move that must be found. Others offer two options, but no more. I played the position against Stockfish 18, needing help and takebacks at least half a dozen times to hold this position. Then I studied my efforts with the engine running, and practiced the ending again. After several efforts, I was able to hold the position against a weaker version of Stockfish on my iPad.

Alas, errors were made both by the weaker Stockfish and by me. So, more time was spent playing the latest Stockfish on a computer with the determination to reach such an understanding of the position that I can draw the machine with no errors.

One such exercise continued:

53.Rd4 h5 54.Ke3 h4 55.a4 Rf1 56.Rd8 Ra1

White's rook has become active, while Black's rook's mobility has been reduced.

White to move

I am beginning to understand that in this position (and likely similar ones) Black's rook must balance continuous checks with threats to capture the a-pawn should it be undefended. The king must get in front of the h-pawn.

57.Rd5+ Kg4 58.Kf2 Rxa4 59.Kg2

Each of White's last three moves were the only move to maintain a draw.

59...Ra2+ 60.Kh1 Kg3 61.Rd3+

The side check is the only chance.

61...Kf2

White to move

62.Rd5

This move both restrains the mobility of Black's rook with a threat on the pawn and prepares checks from the rear.

62...Ke3 63.Rc5

63.Re5+ Kd4 64.Rf5 also holds.

63...Kd4 64.Rf5 h3 65.Rb5 h2

White to move

66.Rb5+

The next 50 moves were efforts to get the engine to capture my rook for stalemate.

A Longer Battle

Starting from the initial position at the top of the post with a different move still led to a position in the line above.

53.Ke3 h5 54.Rd4 h4 55.a4 Rf1 56.Rd8

56.Rd7 also holds

56...Ra1 57.Rd5+ Kg4 58.Kf2 Rxa4 59.Kg2

Black to move

59...h3+

59...Ra2+ was played in the line above.

60.Kh2 Ra1

White to move

In this position, White has two viable moves, but for most of the next thirty or so, only one move holds.

61.Rd4+

61.Rc5 was the other option. Would it make subsequent moves simpler?

61...Kf3 62.Rd5

A check allows the king to attack the rook, so cannot be played. After 62.Rd3+ Ke4, White's rook can neither check the king nor attack the a-pawn. Hence, Black's rook becomes more active and the a-pawn becomes a credible queening threat.

At least, that has been my understanding. However, if Black attacks the rook with 62...Ke2, White is lost nonetheless. 63.Rd5 attacks the pawn 63...a4 is now the only winning move. 64.Rd4 a3. Again, Black had to push the pawn to maintain the win. After 65.Ra4 Kd2 66.Rf4, White appears close to setting up Vancura's defense, but 66...Rc1 refutes White's plan (Black also might slide the king back to the e-file temporarily). 67.Ra4 Rc3 Both of Black's pawns are secure and the king is free to move to b2 where all possible checks can be blocked.

62...a4 63.Rd4

Why does 63.Rc5 fail? 63...Re1 64.Ra5 Re4 65.Kxh3 Ke2 and Black's king will reach b2 while his rook is also more active.

63...Ra2+ 64.Kh1

64.Kxh3 was possible here, but not in many other positions that I reached during my training exercises.

64...Kg3 65.Rd3+

Of course, the mate threat must be stopped.

65...Kh4 66.Rd4+

66.Rc3?? The loss of a single tempo allows Black to reposition the rook with a winning advantage. 66...Rb2 (or Rd2 etc.) 67.Ra3 Rb4. An instructive line continues 68.Kh2 Kg4 69.Rg3+ Kf4 70.Rxh3 Rb2+ 71.Kg1

Black to move

Analysis diagram

71...Rb3 is the only winning move, but it is not difficult to find.

66...Kd3 67.Rd3+ Kf2 68.Rd4

Again, White must eye the a-pawn.

68...Ra1+ 69.Kh2 Ke3

White to move

70.Rc4

A rare instance when White has four viable options, all along the fourth rank.

After dodging many checks, Black advanced the pawn to a3 on move 78. White continued the checks from the side without difficulty as the position is essentially the same as found in the Vancura defense.

Then, 90...Ke4 offered White some choices.

White to move

Again, any move along the third rank that does not hang the rook holds the draw.

91.Rc3 Kd4 92.Rf3 Kc5 93.Rf5+

This check was unnecessary with Black's king temporarily on holiday.

93...Kb4 94.Rf4+

This check, however, was the only move.

94...Kc5 95.Rf5+ Kd6 96.Rf3

Either check from f6 or return to the third rank.

Both players shuffled their pieces for many moves until Black set a tactical trap: a discovery that wins a critical tempo.

White to move

After 120...Ra1

121.Kh2

121.Rf3 Kb2-+

After another two dozen moves:

Black to move

After 145.Kh2

145...a2

This move was what White had been anticipating, for now the ending has become a simple one that I have played many times.

146.Ra3 with an easy draw, but the engine took it out to move 195 when the game was drawn by the 50-move rule.

Has this exercise increased my knowledge in a way that might be applicable to new positions? The central theme of this ending, as analyzed by Aagaard, and as played out against the computer in the effort to improve on Timman's play, is the mobility of the strongest piece--the rook.

Playing Drawn Endgames

Do you play out a position that is technically drawn? Twelve years ago, here on Chess Skills, I inquired about an endgame that I was watching live. Levon Aronian made Fabiano Caruana play 36 moves in a dead drawn rook and bishop vs. rook ending. Some research showed that Aronian had won such endings in previous games. When time is short and one side faces no dangers, it makes sense to press and force the opponent to prove their skills in maintaining equality.

Thomas Engqvist makes this point in 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018) with several examples. First is Duras,O. -- Nimzowitsch,A., San Sebastian 1912.

Black to move

Engqvist writes:

Nimzowitsch tried to make his opponent tired and careless by doing nothing. As a matter of fact there is nothing Black can do. By playing in this "innocent" manner Nimzowitsch managed to fool his opponent. (230-231)

After 24 moves of seemingly pointless shuffling, the players reached this position.

Black to move

Duras erred with 57.Rg5. Nimzowitsch seized the moment with 57...f5 and Duras resigned ten moves later.

Engqvist adds Flohr,S. -- Vidmar,M., Nottingham 1936, where he notes, "In practice it's not easy to defend these kinds of endings and even famous masters and grandmasters make mistakes that eventually lead to a loss" (238). Vidmar resigned 16 moves after his critical error.

Then, in Chigorin,M. -- Tarrasch,S., Budapest 1896, Tarrasch offered a draw in this position.

White to move

"Chigorin correctly declined since White cannot lose anyway", Engqvist observes (240).

After 30.Kf4 Kf8 31.f3 Kg8 32.Ra7 Kf8 33.g4 hxg4 34.fxg4

Black to move

34...Ra1??

34...Kg8 was necessary. Engines need considerable search depth to perceive the error here, but Chigorin appeared to understand the moment.

35.Kf5 Rf1+ 36.Kg6 Rf4 37.g5 fxg5 38.hxg5

In this position, I recognized that White will be able to reach a Lucena position, although that took another ten moves.

My own insistence on playing on when there is the sliver of a chance of eventual victory developed as a consequence of reading Jacob Aagaard, Excelling at Technical Chess (2004) almost twenty years ago. Yesterday, I faced an opponent in online play who pressed when he had a slight edge in a technically drawn ending. I erred. He missed his chance. And then, he took the game almost to stalemate, even offering me opportunities to fall apart in an elementary pawn ending.

White to move

Stripes,J. -- Johnson,F. [A04]
Live Chess Chess.com, 19.02.2025

28.Ra1!= Rxa1 29.Rxa1 Ra8 30.Ke3?!

An inaccuracy

30.Ra6 Rb8 31.Rxa7 Rxb3 32.Rxe7 Rc3 33.Re8+ Kg7 34.Rd8 Rxc4 35.Rxd6=

30...Kf8 31.Ra6 c5

31...Rb8 32.Ra3 a5 33.Kf4 would be more difficult for White.

White to move

32.d5?

32.dxc5 dxc5 33.Kd3=

32...Ke8

32...f5 should win.

33.Kd3 Kd7 34.Kc3

34.g4 is White's best chance. It seems that both of us missed the strength of f7-f5.

34...e6?

34...f5!

I have survived my first error and the game is again drawn with best play.

35.e4 f5 36.dxe6+ Kxe6 37.exf5+ gxf5

White to move

38.Kd3??

38.b4= cxb4+ 39.Kxb4 Rb8+ 40.Kc3 Rg8! 41.c5! Rxg3+ 42.Kd2 Ke5 43.cxd6 Rg7 44.Ke3 Rd7 45.Kf3
38.h5!=

38...h5-+ 39.Ke3 Ke5 40.Ra5

Black to move

40... a6??

Spoils the win.

40...Rb8-+ 41.Ra3 a5
40...Rg8-+

41.b4!=

The rest of the game was played well by both sides and a draw was the appropriate result. I never had winning chances, but there were opportunities for me to go wrong, so my opponent pressed.

41...Rc8 42.bxc5 Rxc5 43.Rxa6 Rxc4 44.Ra5+ d5

White to move

45.Ra8 Rc3+ 46.Kf2 d4 47.Re8+ Kd5 48.Rf8 Ke4

White to move

49.Re8+ Kd5 50.Rf8 Ke5 51.Re8+ Kf6 52.Rh8 Kg6 53.Rg8+ Kf7 54.Rg5 Kf6 55.Rxh5 Rc2+ 56.Kf3 d3 57.Rh6+ Ke5 58.Rh8 d2 59.Rd8 Rc3+

White to move

60.Ke2 Rxg3 61.Rxd2

61.Kxd2 f4 62.Re8+ Kf5 63.Ke2=

61...Rg2+ 62.Ke1 Rxd2 63.Kxd2

And now, in a drawn pawn ending, my opponent goes to remove my pawn, and then makes me show that I know where to place my king.

63...Kf4 64.Ke2 Kg4 65.h5 Kxh5 66.Kf3 Kg5 67.Kg3 f4+ 68.Kf3 Kf5 69.Kf2 Ke5 70.Kf3 Kf5 71.Kf2 Ke4 72.Ke2 f3+ 73.Kf2 Kf4 74.Kf1 Ke3 75.Ke1 Ke4 76.Kf2 Kf4 77.Kf1 Kg4 78.Kf2 Kf4 Game drawn by repetition ½-½

Having lost all four prior encounters against Atlanta coach and chess expert Frank Johnson, I'm very happy with the draw. My work on rook endings with Engqvist's book and Jesus de la Villa, 100 Endgames You Must Know, 4th. ed. (2015) made a difference in navigating difficulties, but did not prevent all errors.

Ten Books to Achieve 1800+

Having seen many lists of top ten chess books recommended for players at different levels, I thought it time to reflect on how books contributed to my rise from C Class to A Class. My first non-provisional rating was 1425 when I was in my mid-30s. I played chess competitively many years earlier, but no events were rated. In the late-1970s, I had a USCF correspondence rating. But when I returned to active play after graduate school, the USCF had lost the records of my postal chess.

I rejoined the Spokane Chess Club in late 1995 and played in my first rated OTB event in March 1996. In October, I played my sixth event and no longer had a provisional rating. By the end of the year, my rating had risen to 1495, but would not rise above that point until 2002. I remained in C Class until fall 2006. While on this plateau, I was gaining both knowledge and skills, but rating progress was slow. Too much online blitz may have held me back.

My journey from wholly ignorant beginner in the late-1960s, to competitive high school player in the late-1970s, to active C Class club member in the mid-1990s involved a lot of book study. Further progress from C Class in my 30s to high A Class in my early 50s included many books, active play, private lessons, chess videos, and I also started coaching elementary students in 2000.

It is no easy matter to choose ten books. By the time I reached A Class, I owned close to 300 chess books and there are very few I had not spent some time reading. At the same time, there are also very few that I read wholly. Some books, or my manner of reading them, may have held me back (just as hundreds of three minute blitz games every month may not have helped me).

The Ten

In November 1996, I played in the Washington Class in Federal Way. There was a book seller set up in one of the rooms near the playing hall. I spent a bit of time there talking with David Weinstock, owner of ChessMate. In our discussions, he recommended a book to me. I was skeptical. The title sounded more basic than my own self-assessment of my needs. Nonetheless, when I found the book at Auntie’s Bookstore when I was back in Spokane, I bought it and started to read it. It was transformative.

Consider my list of ten, pictured above and described below, as a provisional suggestion rooted in experience. What worked for me may or may not work for you. Read all recommendations with skepticism, but also with openness to trying something that might help. There are no magic books guaranteed to improve your chess, but only a few will fail to teach you something of value.

1) Georges Renaud, and Victor Kahn, The Art of the Checkmate (1953) was the book David suggested, and is my first recommendation. Having spent many hours in the 1970s learning the basic checkmates with heavy pieces and even two bishops, and having delivered many fine checkmates in many games, it was hard to believe there was much I could learn from such a book. Reading it, however, exposed me to new checkmate patterns, including some that I had seen, but not absorbed, from a book I studied in 1975: Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955). Renaud and Kahn not only taught me new patterns, but they gave me a framework for thinking about checkmate and checkmate threats.

As David Weinstock had, I began to recommend The Art of the Checkmate to any and all who would listen, and also to many who ignore what I say. I still do. This book helped me, and it can help you. But there are other books that could substitute, and might be even better. Victor Henkin, 1000 Checkmate Combinations (2011) takes a slightly different approach. It also teaches an abundance of vital checkmate patterns and greatly exceeds Renaud and Kahn in the amount of study material. Antonio Gude, Fundamental Checkmates (2016) is another option. It is comprehensive and to an extent combines the approaches of Henkin with that of Renaud and Kahn. One can find dozens of other books on checkmate patterns, but these three stand above the others. Get one of them, or even all three.

Vital

2) For a year or longer, Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book: 300 Most Important Positions and Ideas, 2nd ed. (2000) was my bedside reading. I read it cover-to-cover twice. Alburt’s book was the only tactics book I finished prior to early 2023 when I finished all 1320 exercises in Sergey Ivashchenko, The Manual of Chess Combinations (1999). It is not an ordinary tactics book for practicing basic ideas, but rather, a small set of carefully chosen positions with tactical and positional concepts. It also has a small number of vital endgame positions.

Many grandiose claims have been made by different authors about the legendary 300 positions, but there should be no doubt that careful and deliberate study of a small number of carefully selected positions will take your game up a notch. Alburt’s book helped me. A few years after completing it, I began study of another book focused on 300 carefully selected positions: Rashid Ziyatdinev, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000). More recently, Thomas Engqvist has gained my attention, now with a trilogy of books containing 300 in the title.

An Idea Worth Considering

3) Quantity matters, too, when it comes to tactics training. A classic that has lifted the skills of generations of chess players has also been part of my training. Fred Reinfeld, 1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations (1955) deserves a place in every chess player’s library. In 2008, I spent quite a bit of time playing these positions against the computer. Often I could find the tactic, achieve a clearly superior position, and yet still fail to defeat HIARCS (see "Where the Rubber Meets the Road"). Reinfeld organizes the chapters by themes—forks, pins, double attacks, and so on. I set my database containing these positions to open randomly so I did not know which theme to look for. But I also use the book, either solving from the diagrams or sometimes setting up the positions on a board.

Endgames have been vital to my success. In 2007-2008, I invested a lot of time teaching some elementary rook endings to my top student, the strongest third grader in my city. That summer, in the Spokane City Championship, I played two rook endings against FM David Sprenkle, drawing one game.

Currently, I’m on a collector’s quest to have 64 endgame texts in my personal library. The quest stems from my enjoyment studying positions with few pieces, my conviction that endgame knowledge is vital for all skill levels, and my involvement in an online community of book lovers, Chess Book Collectors on Facebook. During my rise from the 1500s in 2002 to high-1900s in 2012, much time was invested in endgame study.

4) The endgame book that did the most for me was Mark Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual (2003). As one of ten books to recommend to class players, Dvoretsky is a controversial choice. Many players find it too difficult for anyone below master. Poppycock! Chess books are not novels. One does not read every word. Read the part that makes sense and push through a bit that stretches and challenges you. I have read the long chapter on pawn endings in Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual several times and have flash cards containing the 48 blue diagrams that I use for review, study, and teaching (see "Pawn Endings Flash Cards"). I’ve struggled through perhaps half of the chapter on rook endings and made flash cards for the first 24 blue diagrams. Other chapters I have dipped into from time-to-time.

During the years spent studying Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual, other books have also supplemented my work. These include, Bruce Pandolfini, Pandolfini’s Endgame Course (1988); Jeremy Silman, Silman’s Complete Endgame Course (2007); Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht, Fundamental Chess Endings (2001); and several others. My top recommendation for those looking to begin endgame study is Yury Averbakh, Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge (1993). There are many choices. Choose that one that you like, but do not neglect the endgame. Make endgame study a priority if you want to play better chess.

Splurge

5) Jacob Aagard, Excelling at Technical Chess (2004) also concerns the endgame. However, it is distinct from the endgame manuals listed above. The core of the book focuses on “seven technical tools”—schematic thinking, weaknesses, domination, do not hurry, passed pawns, how to arrange your pawns, and freaky aspects. Aagaard develops each of these ideas with compelling prose and detailed game analysis. As he states in the beginning, this book follows an approach that has made Mikhail Shereshevsky, Endgame Strategy so highly regarded. The technical tools are worthy of detailed attention, and I hope to find time to explore them in more detail. I blazed through this book is a couple of days, reading all the prose and glancing superficially at the game analysis. However, this superficial reading was enough to transform my game. My endgame play became more resilient. Formerly, I would often offer or accept a draw in seemingly equal positions. After reading the book, I play out most positions to the end, often lone kings. If there is any reason to play on—an imbalance, a weakness of any sort in my opponent’s position, even a better king position—a draw is anathema unless it secures a tournament victory.

Annotated games have always been a regular part of my chess study. In my youth, I spent many hours playing through games from three GM tournaments that resulted in books that I purchased: San Antonio, 1972; Leningrad, 1973 (the 42nd Soviet Championship); and Wijk aan Zee, 1975. In addition, I bought and still have two books by David Levy that were collections of games by specific players: Karpov’s Collected Games: All 530 Available Encounters, 1961-1974 (1975); and Gligoric’s Best Games, 1945-1970 (1972). All these books influenced my play as a teenager as I sought to imitate the play of the world’s elite.

6) In my 40s, I had many more chess books to choose from and studied annotated games from many of them. One source of such games that I returned to frequently is Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, 5 vols. (2003-2006). Kasparov culls some of the best insights from many years of chess literature and presents many of the most important games of every world champion before him, as well as many contenders for that title who fell short. Chess history offers a reliable foundation for the development of chess skill. Although Kasparov does a poor job of documenting his sources (see my Patriots and Peoples blog for examples of sourcing problems in the writing of US history), the series remains an important practical overview of chess history.

7) Paul Morphy’s games are particularly useful to chess players who want to play well. Perhaps one day I will be able to report that I have played through every one of his available games. So far, I have been through at least one-third of them, some of them many times. His eighteen tournament games have been imposed by me on some two dozen students, who have been through all of them. I’ve shown the Opera game to students at least one hundred times and of course know it fully. For insights into Morphy’s play, few books are in league with Valeri Beim, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005). This book has enriched my study.

8) Chess Informant was long the indispensable source for current master games from before I took up the game in the 1960s into the twenty-first century. Now, of course, these games are readily available from many sources. In 1996, as I was coming back to chess with some seriousness of purpose, I was curious about Informant, which I had seen only in the USCF sales catalog. At the Washington Class, however, David Weinstock had some on the table. He allowed me to look at them and we talked about how they were organized. A month or so later, I included Informant 64 in an order of books from USCF sales. It aided my correspondence play in a concrete way (see "Playing by the Book"). More importantly, learning the Informant system of codes changed my thought processes during play. There are so many things that one contemplates during a chess game while looking for the right moves or the correct plan. Sometimes these thoughts are noise that interferes with clear focus on what matters. To an extent, the limited analytical possibilities in the Informant codes distills chess down to things that really matter in the quest for advantage.

As I grew as a player, Chess Informant was a useful tool. Today’s Informants are changing with the information explosion and are oriented more towards the needs of class players than they were in the past. Give them a try.

A Growing Collection

Of course, I did not rise from C Class to strong A Class without studying the works of Jeremy Silman. His endgame book is already listed above, although it was less useful to me than Dvoretsky. In fact, the day I bought it, I read everything through the section on B Class, finding very little that I did not know. Silman’s endgame book has done more for my teaching than for my own progress as a player. That’s plenty! His writing is compelling and many of his metaphors and personal anecdotes are unforgettable.

I bought and read (partly, of course) How to Reassess Your Chess, 3rd. ed. (1993); The Reassess Your Chess Workbook: How to Master Chess Imbalances (2001); The Amateur’s Mind: Turning Chess Misconceptions into Chess Mastery, 2nd ed. (1999); and The Complete Book of Strategy: Grandmaster Techniques from A to Z (1998). When it finally came out, I added How to Reassess Your Chess: Chess Mastery through Chess Imbalances, 4th ed. (2010), but my rating had risen above 1800 before then.

9) Of these books, Reassess Your Chess and the companion workbook were most useful in helping centralize imbalances in my thinking. When I need to win a tournament game, seeking imbalances from the very first move often proves vital.

The Complete Book of Strategy did nothing for my game and very little for my teaching. Its usefulness has been so slight that I struggle to show proper supportive enthusiasm when a young student has shown me that they just acquired it. I must remind myself that there is a difference between this book’s presence in a chess library of more than 400 volumes that includes several dictionaries and encyclopedias, and a chess library for which this book is the first book acquired. It is a good book, even though it does not meet my needs.

What about the Opening?

In high school, I spent many hours studying lines in I. A. Horowitz, Chess Openings: Theory and Practice (1964). In the 1990s, Walter Korn, and Nick DeFirmian, eds. Modern Chess Openings, 13th ed. (1990) took its place. Even more time was spent on opening monographs, including several on two related variations of the Sicilian Defense that feature an early e5 push by Black. There is some evidence this study hurt my game, or at least retarded my improvement. I tried to memorize lines and often faltered when my opponents deviated from the lines that I knew.

Use at Your Own Risk

In 2003, I began to switch from the Sicilian to the French as my primary defense against 1.e4. The French Defense is not superior to the Sicilian. It might even be a worse choice, but for me it marked a shift in how I approached opening study. Rather than grinding through lines in a book, I sought understanding of the principles, of basic concepts, such as one finds articulated clearly in José Capablanca, Chess Fundamentals (1921), of the ideas behind the moves. Unquestionably, I learned many lines, but when my opponents deviated from these, I was prepared. My play improved.

Detailed opening study and learning concrete lines has aided my preparation for specific opponents in several cases. At a crucial moment while still a B Class player, I won the Spokane Contender’s tournament, earning a shot at the title of Spokane City Champion. Expectations of victory were nearly non-existent. No one expected a B Class player rated in the 1730s to prevail over FM David Sprenkle, rated in the 2250s, down considerably from his peak. As preparation, I spent close to 40 hours on two semi-obscure variations: the Raphael variation against the Dutch Defense for when I had the White pieces, and a seemingly risky Nh6 idea for Black in the French Advance. It took Sprenkle 72 moves to compel my resignation in the French, and I drew my second game with White. It was a very good day.

Most of the time in tournament play, however, such extensive opening preparation is more of a crap shoot. Unless an opponent walks into your pet line, where is the benefit? Tactics win and lose games. Endgames keep chances alive as players grow weary or hungry.

10) Hence, my tenth recommended book is one that I’ve read very little, but that exemplifies how I have come to believe opening study should be pursued. Reuben Fine, The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings (1943) is out of date in terms of the line presented, as should be expected. But, players of the French Defense well-know that White’s pawn on d4 is always a target. The Sicilian Defense is always grounded in creating pawn imbalances and active piece play in the quest for equality and even winning chances.

Other Books

Many other books helped me in my successful quest to reach A Class, and remain there for fourteen years so far, as well as my quest to rise into Expert Class, falling just short and less a goal in my 60s than it was in my mid-50s. Learning drives me. My knowledge continues to grow even as my performance in competition is less consistent.

The Wrong Move

Several days ago I was watching a recent PowerPlay video by Danny King. He featured a game that had an impact on the final standings at the Chess Olympiad in Chennai: Muzychuk,M. -- Kashlinskaya,A. After 27.Qd6+, black faced two possible legal moves.

Black to move

The safer looking move, which was played in the game, was the wrong move. It was the "losing" move, according to King.

Later that day, I was reading a book that had recently arrived: Jacob Aagaard, A Matter of Endgame Technique (2022). The first exercise at the beginning of the first chapter takes a position from Concio,M. -- Tin, Jingyao, 2021 played online in an Interzonal qualifier for the 2021 World Cup. Again, Black has two legal moves.

Black to move

Again, the move played in the game, and the one I might have chosen on impulse, was the wrong move. With Aagaard's book, however, I knew it was wrong, but failed to find the reason. Reading the book made it clear that I needed to calculate more deeply.

What is Reading?

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested; that is, some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read, but not curiously; and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon, "Of Studies" (1625)

What do you mean when you say you've read a book? Have you read every word?

During a class my first year of graduate school, my professor stated her view that for a master's degree, a history student should know 300 books. For the doctorate, she said, one thousand books was the expectation. Her statement was a little intimidating at first, for it meant reading one academic book every two to three days. Many of these books are densely written and run 400-500 pages.

For that class, we each bought the twelve required texts, and were each assigned one for our individual presentations, and two written assignments--an annotated bibliography and a 15-20 page paper. For my bibliography and paper, I "read" perhaps a dozen more books, and several journal articles. The assignment was to place the book in question in the context of other scholarship on the same topic.* Reading a book with this purpose meant spending as much as two hours identifying the central arguments and the nature of the supporting evidence of each book. An article should take fifteen minutes. With practice, and some familiarity with the subject matter, this level of reading can be achieved in about thirty minutes for most history books.

Reading a novel is another matter. It must be read in sequence and cover-to-cover. Some books may remain unfinished--there is a long list of popular classics that I started and did not finish because I did not like them. For other novels, reading only begins the second or third time through the book. This need for a second and third reading is a characteristic of the sort of dense fiction that I prefer. All reading is rereading, as some French theorist famously suggested.**

How do you read a chess book?

For some chess books, the practice of the historian--skimming, assessing, highlighting key points--might be all you need. A few weeks ago, I reviewed three chess books for beginners that were all terrible. Each was self-published and two seemed as if they were not written by chess players. The third read like a bad machine translation of a decent book in a language other than English. Perhaps two hours were required to read the combined 300 pages of these three books. I did not skip any pages, but did pass rapidly over the surface looking for points where the author said something of merit, or got something egregiously wrong.

There are many chess books on my shelves that I read for an hour or two on the day of purchase, often with the intent to go back and peruse with more attention to detail. Most chess books offer verbal discussion of key ideas, illustrative positions with diagrams, and detailed analysis of positions, sometimes with many branches of possible variations. Reading the text often does not take long, while pondering the variations can keep you tied up for years.

The day I bought Jeremy Silman's Complete Endgame Course (2007), I spent less than two hours racing through the first third of the book, pausing only to think through a few diagrams. Most of the content through what he calls "Endgames for Class C" consists of knowledge I assimilated before I bought the book. Even so, Silman's book transformed the curriculum I was using to teach elementary age chess players. He convinced me that checkmate with knight and bishop was an inefficient use of time, while the Lucena and Philidor rook endings deserved far more attention. Prior to buying his Endgame Course, some ideas presented in How to Reasssess Your Chess, 3rd ed. (1993) had worked their way into my teaching. I cannot say that I have read either of these books, except in part. But I have frequently reread a few parts of Reassess, both 3rd and 4th editions.

I read Excelling at Technical Chess (2004) by Jacob Aagaard more slowly and more deliberately, but still not wholly. It had a profound impact on my play that was vital as I rose from B Class to A within the USCF rating system. Where I was once eager to accept a draw in a seemingly equal position, I started refusing these offers after reading Aagaard. If there is an imbalance that allows me to create problems for my opponent to solve, I insist that we should play on at least a few more moves. I also began to see that some endings, while long and potentially difficult, were not at all equal. See "Excelling at Technical Chess" for an example of the fighting spirit Aagaard helped inspire.

Prereading

When reading some chess books, especially those that present whole games well-annotated, I often follow a longer process. First I locate the next game in the text in a database. I play through the game several times without reference to the book. The first few times, I use no aids, but seek the key moments in the game. Where did the player who lost begin to go wrong?

When I am comfortable with understanding some of the key tactical and positional points, I may use an opening database to research a bit. After I have worked to acquire a thorough understanding of the game, I read the annotations in the text.

Sometimes I will continue by looking at how other books present the same game. I have used this process for dozens of books on my shelves, but Logical Chess Move by Move (1998) by Irving Chernev is the only book for which I have taken this process all the way through every game. I went through the algebraic edition a few years ago, but also have vague memories of a more superficial reading of a library copy of the original descriptive edition in the late-1970s.

This process of "chewing and digesting" a chess book is one that I advocate. Perhaps, if I find the time, I will complete other books in this manner. I started this process a bit over a year ago with Paul Keres, World Championship 1948 (2016), which is a terrific book. Alas, work and other chess books got in the way.

*I discuss this specific book and that graduate class in more detail on Patriots and Peoples, "Pandemic History".
**Roland Barthes, S/Z: An Essay, trans. Richard Miller (1974).

Excelling at Technical Chess

A weakness is a defect in one's position. It can take the form of a pawn, a square, a file or a diagonal. A weakness is of a permanent nature.
Jacob Aagaard, Excelling at Technical Chess

At some point during my Sunday morning game in the Eastern Washington Open, I recalled the effect upon my play of reading, several years ago, Jacob Aagaard's Excelling at Technical Chess (2004). This book helped cultivate my resistance to offering or accepting draws when there is an imbalance in the position, whether the imbalance concerns pawn structure, material differences, or clear initiative. If more than one of these is present, and one player has two weaknesses, the chances are great that the other should be playing for a win.

My game featured a long endgame in which I had one pawn more than my opponent, pawns were on both sides of the board, and I had a bishop versus a knight. The first draw offer by my opponent was a reasonable effort on his part to get out of a jamb. I recorded "DO" on my scoresheet, and made my move, signaling my refusal. His second draw offer irritated me. After the third offer, I scolded him with a threat of complaining to the TD, who could impose a time penalty. Two moves after the third offer, I blundered. Although my practical winning chances remained strong, especially as my opponent now had less than one minute remaining on the clock, I had let the technical win slip away.

I went through the game, entering my comments and evaluations. After doing so, I checked my evaluations with Rybka 4. Only then, did I discover the critical error in my endgame play.


Stripes,James (1824) - Joshi,Kairav (1886) [D02]
Eastern Washington Open Spokane (4), 02.10.2011

1.Nf3 c5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.c4 e6 8.0–0 Be7 9.Nc3 Bb7 10.Bf4 0–0 11.Qb3 Ba6 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Qa4

Black to move


I felt that I'd gained something from the opening: queenside pawn majority, bishops aiming at the queenside, rooks connected and ready to come to the open c-file and the half-open d-file. I would like to swap pieces and go into a pawn endgame. Trading my e-pawn for Black's d-pawn, or provoking the d-pawn to advance where it becomes weak are considerations. I have a comfortable game and a slight advantage with long-term chances for a better endgame.

13...Bb7 14.Rfd1 Qb6 15.Qb5N

Using the novelty annotation feature of Chess Base 11 brings up this game for comparison: 15.Be3 Qa6 16.Rac1 Rfc8 17.Qxa6 Bxa6 18.Bf3 Nd7 19.Bf4 g5 20.Be3 Ne5 21.Bg2 Nc4 22.Bd4 Bb7 23.b3 Nd6 24.Be5 f6 25.Bxd6 Bxd6 26.Nb5 Bc5 27.e3 a6 28.Nd4 Kf7 29.Bh3 Bxd4 30.exd4 Rxc1 31.Rxc1 Rc8 32.Rxc8 Bxc8 33.Kf1 Ke7 34.Ke2 Kd6 35.Kd3 a5 36.Kc3 Ba6 37.Bg4 h6 38.Bd1 e5 39.Bc2 e4 40.b4 axb4+ 41.Kxb4 f5 42.Kc3 f4 43.Kd2 Kc6 44.a3 h5 Eckhardt,C (2260)-Ozturk,K (2034)/Kusadasi 2006/CBM 111 ext/1–0

Is this game score complete and correct? The position appears even. Surely Black did not resign in such a position.

15...Bc5 16.Qxb6 Bxb6

As my opponent and I discussed in the postmortem, 16...axb6 seems better, activating the queen's rook.

17.Rac1 Ng4!

White to move


I had used eighteen minutes getting to this position, and now thought for seven minutes--my second longest think of the game. This was the only time in the game when Joshi's superior tactical skills were a significant factor in the game. I decided almost immediately upon the correct move, but realizing that my bishop would become trapped, had to find a compensating resource. It appeared to my opponent that this resource was more than adequate, and as a consequence, he opted to let my bishop escape. I added "to my opponent" to the previous sentence after going through the variations with Rybka, although during play I was far from certain that my resources were sufficient to secure the decisive advantage that I thought was just within reach.

18.e3

Rybka prefers 18.Rf1. In other words, my "correct move" was probably incorrect.

18...e5 19.Bg5 h6

The critical line that had me concerned after Black's move 17 begins with 19...f6! I planned to play 20.Bh4 in order to avoid opening the f-file, but also intended to go into another long think here. I believed that allowing Black counterplay along the f-file would neutralize my advantages elsewhere.

Rybka denounces 20.Bh4 in favor of 20.Nxd5 fxg5 21.Nxb6 (21.Ne7+ is no good 21...Kh8 22.Bxb7 Nxf2 with advantage for Black) 21...Bxg2 22.Nxa8 Bxa8 23.Rd2=.

After 20.Bh4, Black might proceed 20...g5, leading to clear advantage for White after 21.Nxd5 gxh4 22.Nxb6 Bxg2 23.Nxa8 Bxa8 24.Rd7. But, perhaps 20...g5 is not Black's best option. In any case, Black's 19...h6 was a relief.

20.Be7 Rfe8 21.Nxd5

At this point, having won the d-pawn, I become confident that my winning chances are very good.

21...Bxd5 22.Bxd5 Rab8 23.Bd6 Rbd8 24.Bc7

Black to move


I believe that I have a technical win. But there is much play ahead to demonstrate this advantage. I went on to win against my A-Class opponent, but this position merits practice against the engines. If it is indeed a technical win, can I win against Rybka? Houdini? Hiarcs? Fritz?

24...Rc8 25.Bxb6 axb6 26.Bc6 Re7 27.Bf3 Rxc1 28.Rxc1 Nf6 29.Rc6 e4 30.Be2 Nd5 31.a3 Rc7

White to move


32.Rxc7

32.Re6 is less good. A bishop versus a knight with pawns on both sides and a majority on the queenside is a technical win.

32...Rc5 33.b4 Rc1+ 34.Kg2 Nc3 35.Ba6
32...Rc1+ 33.Kg2 Rb1 34.Rxd5 Rxb2
32...Rc2 33.Rxd5 Rxe2 34.Rb5

32...Nxc7

Now I am certain that I have a technical win, and the plan is straight-forward. The majority must be converted into a passed pawn, tying down one of Black's pieces. Then with two active pieces to one, White shifts attention to the kingside in order to create another passed pawn.

33.Kf1

First, the kings race to the action.

33...Kf8 34.Ke1 Ke7 35.Kd2 Kd6 36.Bc4

attacking a vulnerability

36...f6

36...f5 gives the bishop a target

37.Kc3 b5

This move seems tactically necessary, but White wants Black's pawns on light squares.

White to move


38.Bf7

Observe the bishop's ability to restrict the knight. White is happy to trade minor pieces because the pawn endgame is a simple win.

38...Na6! 39.Kd4 Nc5

White to move


Now my longest think of the game: eight minutes. I will lose the f-pawn, and possibly the b-pawn, but will pick up the b-pawn and e-pawn in exchange.

40.Be8 Nd3 41.Kxe4 Nxf2+ 42.Kf3 Nd1 43.Bxb5 Nxb2 44.Ke4 Nd1 45.Kd4 f5 46.a4 Nf2 47.Be2

Black to move


Protecting the h-pawn

47...Ne4 48.a5 g6 49.a6 Kc7

Black's king becomes inactive. The white bishop, although tied to defense of the passed pawn, is nevertheless able to move about restricting the knight. Trading minor pieces remains a possibility because White's king is centralized and able to move over and gobble all the Black pawns before Black's king can return to the action.

50.Ke5 Kb6 51.Ke6 Nc3 52.Bd3 Nd1 53.Kf6 Nxe3 54.Kxg6 Ng4 55.Kxf5

Now, I can give up the h-pawn.

55...Nxh2

White to move


56.g4??

My plan is to eliminate Black's last pawn and force the knight to trade itself for my g-pawn. The rest will be easy. This plan came to fruition, but my opponent found some complications. He might have found a fortress after this error, but had less than one minute on his clock. I had forty-seven minutes remaining at this point. I have traded the technical win for practical winning chances.

56.Be2 was the correct move, trapping the horse.

56...Nf3 57.Kf4 Nd4 58.Kg3 Ne6 59.Bf5

I wanted to transfer the bishop to b7. This plan reduces the bishop's flexibility, but also reduces its vulnerability. It can be captured, but at the cost of the knight. The remaining pawn game on the kingside is easily won.

Black to move


59...Ng7

59...Nc5 makes things more difficult for White 60.Bc8 Ka7 61.Kh4 Nd3 62.Kg3 Nc5 63.Kf4 Nd3+ 64.Kf5 Nf2 and White is making no progress.

60.Bc8 Ka7

60...Ne8 makes White's job difficult 61.Kf4 Nd6 62.Bb7 Nc4

61.Kf4

Black to move


Again I have a clear win, and not only because my opponent is down to a few seconds.

61...Kb6 62.Ke5 h5! 63.g5

I gave this move a box.

Rybka sees a second alternative: 63.a7 Kxa7 64.g5 Kb8 65.Bh3 h4 66.g6 Kc7 67.Kf6 Nh5+ 68.Ke7 Kc6 69.Bg4 Nf4 70.g7+-

63...h4 64.Kf4 Ne8 65.Kg4 Nd6 66.Bb7

Black to move


66...h3

66...Nxb7 67.axb7 Kxb7 68.Kxh4 Kc7 69.Kh5 Kd7 70.Kh6 Ke7 71.Kh7+-

67.Kxh3 Kc7

67...Nxb7 68.axb7 Kxb7 69.Kh4 Kc7 70.Kh5 Kd7 71.Kh6 Ke7 72.Kh7+-

68.Kh4 Nb5 69.g6 Nd6 70.Kh5 Ne8 71.Kh6 Kb6 72.g7 Nxg7 73.Kxg7

Black to move


The rest is elementary.

73...Kc7 74.Kf7 Kb6 75.Ke7 Ka7 76.Kd6 Kb6 77.Kd5 Ka7 78.Kc5 Kb8 79.Be4 Ka7 80.Kb5 Kb8 1–0