Tactics Training

These days, it seems that I spend more time doing puzzles online (chessdotcom mostly, but also Lichess and Chess Tempo) than working with positions in books. Still, for serious improvement in tactical vision and calculation, books are superior.

After racing through Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018) in less than three months, I’m more highly motivated to keep 300 Most Important Tactical Chess Positions (2020) near the center of my chess activities through the rest of 2025. Four of the first five positions in the book have forcing continuations that run deep enough that I anticipate some challenge working through the book. Difficulty makes the enterprise worthwhile.

Today’s position arose in Mason,J.—Winawer,S., Vienna 1882. Engqvist’s analysis is instructive. At least three problems for players at different levels can be extracted from Mason’s combination.

Engqvist's position is before Mason's 40.Rxg5 (see photograph). If Black refuses the rook sacrifice, 40...Qf8 41.Rg6 controls the sixth rank. Then, 41...Rxf5

White to move

42.Qxf5! Qxf5 43.Rg7+ Nd7 44.Rxd7+ Kc8 45.Rxb8+ (only move) 45...Kxb8 46.Rb7+ and whichever way Black's king steps, Black's queen is coming off the board and White has a winning endgame.

After the line played in the game (40.Rxg5 hxg5 41.Qh7+ Nd7 42.Bxd7 Qg8--this position appeared as a exercise on chessgames.com in 2003--43.Rb7+ Kxb7), there is a more basic exercise position.

White to move

The discovery (44.Bc8+) is Engqvist's theme for this exercise, and the interference is an important aspect of why it works. Posters on chessgames.com and Engqvist valorize Mason's technique bringing home the full point for the resulting ending of queen and bishop vs. two rooks.

The Superiority of Books

For beginning students, the sequencing in such books as Sergey Ivashchenko, Manual of Chess Combinations (1997) and Susan Polgar, A World Champion’s Guide to Chess (2015) will lead to much more rapid growth in tactics skill than random positions online. Of course, with certain membership levels, chessdotcom and Chess Tempo allow training with particular themes and rating levels, so these can be tweaked with appropriate guidance.

For players who know basic patterns, but need work on strengthening calculation skills and assessing resulting positions after a combination, such books as Mark Dvoretsky, Secrets of Chess Tactics (1992), Paata Gaprindashvili, Imagination in Chess (2004), and Cyrus Lakdawala, Tactical Training (2021) offer abundant exercises.

Yakov Nieshtadt, Improve Your Chess Tactics (2012) is highly regarded for its organizational scheme and definitions, while Yuri Averbakh, Chess Tactics for Advanced Players (1992) articulates a notion of contacts that should be more common in chess literature.

Half-Way

The five positions from Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018) that I worked through today were all familiar from endgame work I did with a student six months ago or so. Two--a simple Philidor Position and a Lucena Position--I have been teaching eighteen years. Although review, one position composed by Max Karstedt and published in Deutsches Wochenschach in October 1909 confused me slightly because Stockfish made a move that differed from the solution that I knew.

In my struggle with the difference, I made an inaccurate move that was still winning, except that I could not win it.

White to move

In Karstedt's solution, Black's rook is on h1. Hence, Rc6+ sets up a skewer if the rook is captured. Nonetheless, 7.Rc6+ is still the best move and after 7...Kd5, both Rc8 and Ra6 are winning with a shorter distance to mate after Ra6. If 7...Kb5, 8.Rc8 wins.

After some contemplation, I played 7.Rb1. The computer could have opted for the idea in Karstedt's study nonetheless: 7...Rg8+ 8.Kc7 Rg7+ 9.Kb8 Rg8+ 10.Kb7 Rg7+ 11.Ka6 Rg6+ 12.Ka5 Rg3 threatens mate if White promotes, so 13.Rb5+ Kd6 14.Kb6 Rg8 15.Ra5 and the pawn will promote.

Instead, Stockfish 16 played 7...Rxb1 and I spent the next ten minutes being reminded that I have not learned queen vs. rook well enough to succeed against software.

Today was the 30th day in my quest to race through this book at five positions per day instead of the recommended five positions per week. Even this relatively easy day added another item to my "to do" list that is growing because of this pace. Yesterday, three positions game me some difficulty and this morning I spend some time looking through the first few chapters of Yuri Averbakh, Rook v. Minor Piece Endings (1978). The endings of rook and pawn vs. bishop (chapter 3 in Averbakh) serve as an excellent supplement to some ideas that Engqvist introduced yesterday.

I have now completed the first 75 positions on the opening and middlegame, and the first 75 endgames in Engqvist's book. I am on schedule.

Go to the Source

Three of the past four days, endings with a knight against pawns have been the focus as I am racing through Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018). One of the positions and some of the analysis is from Yuri Averbakh and Vitaly Chekhover, Knight Endings, trans. Mary Lasher (1977). As this book was one of many that I acquired the year prior to turning 64, I pulled it from the shelf and began reading it (see "64 Endgame Books"). I skimmed the first two chapters and then looked at the analysis Engqvist referenced. 

Engqvist reaches position 41 in Knight Endings via a variation from a game played in Paris in 1848. This game is not in ChessBase Mega 2024, nor on chessgames.com, nor, as near as I can tell, anywhere else in online databases. But Engqvist offers a clue to help my search for the game: "Kieseritzky remarked that the ending was very interesting" (153).

Thanks to Chess Archaeology, it only took a minute to locate La Régence: Journal des Échecs, which Lionel Kieseritzky edited. It turns out that the source of the ending was the first game in the first issue. 

The journal offers a diagram after White's move 65. Engqvist played several training games from the position after 65...Ke5 more than twenty years before writing 300 Most Important Chess Positions. His analysis of this game, which Black could have drawn and in which both players made errors is instructive.

I played this position against the computer a couple of times on Friday and then read Engqvist's analysis more carefully yesterday. I also learned to read Kieseritzky's unusual notation: 65...E65 66. E47 E66 and entered the entire endgame into my database from the journal.

Some Easier Practice

While skimming the first chapter of Knight Endings, I paused on this statement by Averbakh and Chekhover: "Starting from any point on the board, a knight on move, can stop any pawn that has not gone beyond the fourth rank" (2).

Accordingly, I created an exercise to play against the computer. Stockfish on the iPad offered minimal resistance and was not worth the effort. I could have come to my office and used Stockfish 16 resident in Fritz, but was on the couch in the living room with my dog on my lap, so I tried using Lichess. This effort resulted in a game where I had to find a few only moves, but my composition was not as challenging as I hoped.

White to move

Almost any move works here, but I opted to only move the knight.

1.Nf7 b4 2.Nd6 Kd5

White to move

This position makes a better composition as only one move works.

3.Nf5 Ke4 4.Nd6+ Kd5 5.Nf5 Kc4 6.Ne3+ Kd3

White to move

7.Nd1

Only move, as are the next three. But they are not difficult.

7...Kc2 8.Ne3+ Kd3 9.Nd1 Kc2 10.Ne3+ Kc1 11.Nc4 b3 12.Ne5 Kc2

White to move

13.Nc4 Kc3 14.Na3

14.Nb6 and 14.Ne3 also work because 14...b2 would walk into a fork. I opted for the elementary 14.Na3 because of a known pattern.

14...b2 15.Nb1

The game went on until move 28, but there are no difficulties.

Corresponding Squares

My quest to learn 300 chess positions in 60 days is proving time consuming. Most of the time that I could spare today was expended laboring to understand number 37. The first day was a review of some pawn endings that I know: positions 151-155 in Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018). My quest is an effort to read all of this book in less than two months. On the second day, I reviewed some Paul Morphy positions that I know well. An obscure line in the Slav Defense captured my interest yesterday. Today, I went back into endgames with numbers 156-160 in Engqvist. Number 157 is a much analyzed study by Emanuel Lasker (some books employ the version published by Gustavus Reichhelm after Lasker and he discussed Lasker’s composition).

First, I set up Lasker’s position on my iPad and spent some time analyzing it. Then, I played against the engine, backing up and trying again when I failed. I have worked with this position in the past and knew the basic ideas, but have not developed well my ability to calculate the whole series of corresponding squares. Looking for help drove me into other books on the shelf. I confirmed that Jeremy Silman, Silman’s Complete Endgame Course (2007) lacks the position. I know that corresponding squares are mentioned early in Mark Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual (2003) and the concept is trumpeted in Paul Keres, Practical Chess Endings (1974). I opted to check John Speelman, Endgame Preparation (1981) and was pleased with the instruction.

Speelman offers a digested version of what he found in Yuri Averbakh and Ilya Maizelis, Pawn Endings (1974), which I consulted later in the day. My process was to read some in Speelman, and then construct a position derived from Lasker/Reichhelm. First, I sought to find positions with Black to move that were winning for White. With all the pawns fixed as in Lasker’s study, I placed the Black king on a8. Where must I place the White king for the position to be winning if Black is on the move?

Black to move

Then, I repeated the process with Black’s king on b8. After several such efforts, I went back to Reichhelm’s version of the original study and played against the computer. Then, additional modifications and more play against the engine.

This version was one of the easier ones.

White to move

After many hours of play against the engine and study of several books, I have the sense that I am beginning to scratch the surface of this difficult position.

Failed Twice

On Friday morning, I spent about ten minutes struggling with this chess problem, then gave up and looked at the answer in the back of the book. Friday's failure was a repeat of the same process with the same problem several months ago.

White to move and win

It was composed by Oldrich Duras and published in Deutsche Schachzeitung (October 1908), 310. The solution was published in January.

I encountered the position in Sergey Ivashchenko, The Manual of Chess Combinations, vol. 2 (2002). Reuben Fine presents it without a diagram in Basic Chess Endings (1941), 121.

While attempting to solve the puzzle, I had a faint recollection of some of the key ideas from a study by Alexey Troitzky that I had spent some time with last summer after getting a copy of Yuri Averbakh, Bishop Endings (1977). Troitzky's study also appears sans diagram in Fine, Basic Chess Endings.

White to move

I could recall the bishop maneuvers in the Troitzky study, but forgot the importance of the king's position.

In the Troitzky study, White wins with 1.Be6 Ke7 2.h6 Kf6 3.Bf5! 

I remembered this idea.

3...Kf7 4.Bh7

And this paradoxical move.

Black to move

4...Kf6 5.Kf4

This necessary move is not possible in the Duras study. The solution in Deutsche Schachzeitung (January 1909) reaches a similar position after one of the moves that fails, 1.Bc5, and the line was part of what I examined before I gave up.

Most of my effort, however, was spent trying to make 1.Bd6 work. That move was also the first one that FM Jim Maki tried when I showed him Duras's study during a youth chess tournament on Saturday. Black's drawing idea of the king taking refuge on and adjacent to the promotion square is one I learned the hard way in a tournament game a quarter century ago (see "A Memorable Lesson").

If Bd6 and Bc5 both fail, how can White win? I know now. Maybe I will remember the next time that I see this study by Duras.

One from Cozio

Position 132

Carlo Cozio (c. 1715 -- c. 1780) is best known for a book published in two volumes, Il Giuoco degli Scacchi o sia Nuova idea di attacchi, difese e partiti del Giuoco degli Scacchi (1766), and for an offbeat variation for Black against the Spanish opening. An original of his book is dated 1740, and was in the collection of Lothar Schmid, according to A. J. Roycroft in his article, "Cozio!, Part I", in the magazine EG (July 1973). Roycroft asserts, "occasionally the play is either atrocious or incomprehensible." Nonetheless, some of his work has been deemed to be of value. Roycroft published 9 of Cozio's studies in Test Tube Chess: A Comprehensive Introduction to the Chess Endgame Study (1972) and 18 more in his article in EG.

After a game that I played yesterday, I went looking in Yuri Averbakh, Rook v. Minor Piece Endings (1978) for some guidance regarding my errors. The position Averbakh gives is credited to Cozio.

After reaching an endgame of bishop vs. rook and pawn that I thought I could draw, I managed to throw the draw away no less than ten times in 31 moves. I drew because my opponent did not know how to exploit my errors. More likely, neither of us recognized the errors for the blunders that they are.

White to move

This position, which occurred in my game yesterday, is identical to Cozio's number 132 as it appears in Harold van der Heijden, Endgame Study Database VI (2020). If you read the Italian in the screenshot above, you will see that it mirrors diagonally the one in Cozio's text, but changes nothing vital. Colors are reversed and the defending king is in in the opposite corner. In Averbakh's book, Cozio's colors are maintained with Black defending, but the position is flipped vertically.

White's defense is relatively simple. Keep the bishop on the b8-h2 diagonal. Averbakh makes this technique clear. I had been reading this book last week, preparing lessons for my students on rook vs. bishop endgames, but had not yet gotten to the point where Cozio's study is presented (28). Otherwise, I would have known what I was doing. However, my confidence that I could draw stemmed from this study and practice with my students of similar endings--rook vs bishop without a pawn.  I reasoned correctly that a rook pawn did not change much. After some unfavorable developments, I raced my king to the "safe corner". My opponent should have prevented this journey.

77.Bc7 Kf3 78.Bb6??

78.Bb8 or 78.Kg1 hold the draw.

78...Rf1+ 79.Kh2

Black to move

79...Rb1??

79...Rc1 is the only move that wins here. Black must understand White's defensive idea and prevent the bishop's return to the critical diagonal. The direct attack on the bishop forces the bishop back where it belongs.

80.Bc7 Kg4 81.Bd6 Rf1 82.Bc7 Rf2+ 83.Kh1

We have returned to the position after my 77th move.

83...Rg2 84.Bd6 Kf3 85.Bc5??

This was the ninth time that my bishop wandered away from its duties.

85...Ke2 86.Bb6??

The tenth and last.

Black to move

86...Kf1

Again, Black should have prevented the bishop's immediate return to the correct diagonal with 86...Rg7.

87.Bc5

Knowing what I do now, I would play 87.Bc7. But in this position, it is not critical. Black's king should be seeking to go to h3 after the pawn advances. That becomes possible if I keep leaving the key diagonal.

87...Rc2 88.Bb6 Rg2 and the game was drawn by repetition.

The moves Cozio gives in his book are less instructive, but he keeps the bishop on the correct diagonal.

White to move

1.Rc8+ Ka7 2.Rc7+ Ka8 3.Kb5 Bd4 4.Kc6 Be3 5.a7 Bxa7 6.Rc8 Bb8

We reach a position that I have been teaching to my students the past two weeks.

White to move

7.Rh8 Ka7 8.Kb5 Ka8

White cannot make progress.

9.Kb6 Stalemate.

Schlage -- Ahues 1921: Historical Inquiry

A substantial number of chess endgame books present a position said to have been from a drawn game between Willi Schlage (1888-1940) with White and Carl Oscar Ahues (1883-1968). The game was played in Berlin in 1921, but no event is listed. Nor has a complete game score appeared. Schlage missed a win, as later pointed out by Ilya Maizelis.

White to move

From this position, Schlage started well, but his second move demonstrated that he did not discover the critical idea.

1.Ke6 Kc3 2.Kd6 

Maizelis pointed out that 2.Kd5! would have won.

2...Kd4 3.Kc6 Ke5 4.Kb7 Kd6 5.Kxa7 Kc7 1/2-1/2

As this ending appears in Mark Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (2003), the position is on one of my pawn ending flash cards. Many of my students have tried to find the solution and then had it shown to them. When I encountered it this morning in Paul Keres, Practical Chess Endings (1974), I wanted to know more about the game. Searching for a game score took me down a rabbit hole of book after book. If no game can be found, then perhaps I can trace the analysis back to first publication.

It certainly did not originate with Jesus de la Villa, 100 Endgames You Must Know Workbook (2019) that a Wikipedia editor referenced. To the credit of the Wikipedia editors, Keres is also credited with presenting this ending.

Keres does not credit Maizelis, but Dvoretsky does. Chess Informant's Encyclopedia of Chess Endings: Pawn Endings (1982) has the position as number 65 and credits Maizelis with the solution.

My next step is the inquiry was Pawn Endings (1974) by Yuri Averbakh and Ilya Maizelis. An editor added to the text: "Maizelis was the first to point out the correct solution. so position No. 78 must be credited to him. Rabinovich indicated this in the first edition of his book, Chess Endgames, 1927" (26).

Happily, Mongoose Press brought out an English edition of the second edition (1938) of Rabinovich's text: Ilya Rabinovich, The Russian Endgame Handbook, trans James Marfia (2012). Rabinovich credits "I.M.", which he calls a pseudonym, with mentioning in the Soviet magazine 64 (1925, No. 6) that White's king "should move according to the most twisted, broken route" (as quoted by Rabinovich). Perhaps someone has access to old copies of 64 and can read Russian. I still have questions.

Knowledge

When does a player refuse a draw offer in a dead drawn position? If time is a factor, such a refusal could make sense. Often a draw offer is refused because a player does not know the position is a draw, or suspects that the opponent does not have the requisite knowledge to hold the position.

I had Black in this position this morning.

White to move

49.b7??

After this error, the game is a dead draw. White should have played 49.g4, or started moving the king towards the b-pawn. I offered a draw after a dozen moves, having reached this position.

White to move

Instead of accepting the draw, my opponent played another 20+ moves, eventually setting a trap with 84.Rh8?? (White's king was on e4). I could take the pawn, stepping into a skewer. Or, I could take the free rook. After I took the rook, White resigned.

I have played similar endgames before in all sorts of time controls (see one example at "Winning" [2016]). I am guided in the knowledge that my king must remain on the seventh rank and the g- or h-file. With the pawn on g6, the king cannot move. I recall reading about this technique in a book that included a discussion of the resulting skewer tactic if the defending king strays.

However, looking through my endgame books, I could not find the remembered passage. Even so several books contain examples that are close enough that an attentive reader can easily derive the relevant knowledge.

The Books

Nikolay Minev, A Practical Guide to Rook Endgames (2004) shows a stalemate trap when the stronger side has a useful f-pawn, but prematurely sets up the skewer (21-22). From Khiut -- Alalin, USSR 1952.

White to move

1.Kf4 Kf7 2.Rh8??

White sets up the skewer.

2...Rxa7 3.Rh7+ Kf6 4.Rxa7 stalemate.

Yuri Averbakh, Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge (1996) shows an interesting drawing idea from Johann Berger (67).

White to move

1.Kf7

Black cannot get to the seventh rank fast enough, but can avoid checks using the Black king as a shield.

1...Kf5 2.Ke7 Ke5 3.Kd7 Kd5 4.Kc7 Kc5 5.Kb7 Rb1+ forcing Black's king back to the c-file.

Although it was fixed in my memory that I learned the technique employed this morning from Averbakh, it is not in Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge. I did find the idea expressed clearly in Edmar Mednis, Practical Rook Endings (1982), but I've known the technique far longer than I've owned this book. Mednis explains, "the stronger side wants to avoid the following two potential problems: immobilizing his Rook and depriving his King of shelter" (22). Both problems exist in the illustrative diagram. My opponent created the first with 49.b7. Pushing the g-pawn forward introduced the second, but there was no way to dislodge my rook from the c-file.

White to move

In his illustrative diagram, Mednis explains both Black's need to keep the king on g7 or h7, and the rook remains on the c-file, leaving only to check White's king when it gets near its pawn.

Two books that I have had for several years and have spent some time reading explain the ideas, too. One of the critically important blue diagrams in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (2003) shows the winning idea missed in Minev's example when the stronger side has an f-pawn (152).

White to move

White wins with 1.f6+ because taking the pawn leads to 2.Rf6+ followed by a8Q, while moving in front allows White to set up the skewer with 2.Rh8. Dvoretsky points out that a pawn on the g- or h-file, however, does not present problems for Black. Although Dvoretsky's description of the skewer does not match my recollection, it may be the book from which I learned this idea.

Jeremy Silman, Silman's Complete Endgame Course (2007) offers three pages of analysis with three diagrams with the white pawn on a7, and three more pages and diagrams with the pawn on a6. These are in the endgames for Class A. I recall that I read about that far within days of buying the book when it first came out. His "A key tactical idea" underneath the diagram below comes close to what I recall studying. Black attempted a "queenside trek" (230).

Black to move

So, I may have learned the idea from Dvoretsky, and certainly encountered it in Silman. It may also be in some other endgame books on my shelf. The simple idea appears in many books. My opponent either lacked this knowledge, or suspected that I did. In the end, he set up a skewer threat that was shocking enough I could have fallen for it on impulse. However, I took a few seconds to assess and grabbed the free rook.

Why Forks Matter

Inherent in all chess tactics are relationships between pieces. A White rook on e1 can attack a Black pawn on e6 if there are no pieces in the way. This relationship is one of offensive contact.* If there is a king shielded behind the pawn on e7 or e8 (a defensive contact), the pawn is unable to capture a White piece standing on f5 or d5. This restrictive contact is called a pin.

If two Black pieces sit on the sixth rank with three squares between them, they are vulnerable to attack from a White rook that can reach the sixth rank. These two enemy pieces can be attacked in a manner we call a pin, a skewer, or even a fork. The rook can attack both because they are on the same line. These attacks are the relationship I created in the first three exercises for my Essential Tactics worksheets.

Such tactical ideas as pins, skewers, and discoveries take place along a single line—rank, file, or diagonal. A fork also can take place along such a line, but forks are more commonly understood to take place along multiple lines. In this exercise from Essential Tactics, for instance, the correct move places the White king in offensive contact with the Black knight along a diagonal and with the Black bishop along a file.

White to move

Consider this game from the forgotten book, A Treatise on the Game of Chess (1808) by J. H. Sarratt (12-15). The notes are by Sarratt, and the book may be found at Google Books. At three critical moments in this illustrative game, White employs a fork. In the third instance, the fork attacks a king and a target square that must be occupied to put a stop to Black's counterplay.

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.c3 Nf6

This move, though very generally played, even by good players, is certainly a bad move.

4.d4 exd4

If 4...Bd6 White would win a piece, as will be shown in a Back-game.

5.e5 Ne4

Instead of this move the Black might play the Queen to his King's second square; or his Queen's Pawn two moves; but you would nevertheless have the best of the game, as will be demonstrated in two Back-games beginning at the fifth move of the Black.

5...Qe7;
5...d5

White to move

6.Bxf7+

Instead of this move, you might play your King's Bishop to the adversary's Queen's fourth square; but he would then sacrifice his knight for three Pawns, as will be shown in the second book.

6...Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Nf6 8.exf6 Qxf6

White to move

9.Qh5+

It seems that if you were to give check at the adv. Queen's fourth square, you would likewise win the Bishop; but he would cover the check with his Queen at his king's third square, and giving you check at the same time, you would be compelled to exchange queens.

9.Qd5+ Qe6+ 10.Qxe6+

9...Qg6 10.Qxc5 Qxg2

White to move

11.Qf5+ Ke8 12.Qf3+- and you will win the game, whether the Black exchange Queens or not.

Modern Grandmaster Play

On the way to winning the US Championship, which concluded Sunday, Hikaru Nakamura had this position with the Black pieces against Ray Robson.

Black to move

29...Qc4

Nakamura forks both rooks, although they easily protect each other. Nonetheless, this move brings the queen to a better square for the assault against the White king.

30.Ref6 a3 31.bxa3 bxa3 32.Qxa3

Black to move

Nakamura must have had this position in mind when he played 29...Qc4. White's move 29 that led to a simple fork of rook was to capture a bishop on e5. Nakumura now initiates a combination that recovers the lost minor piece with interest.

32...Rxc1+ 33.Rxc1 Qxe4+

Black is currently down a rook, but White's moves are forced.

34.Kb2 Qe5+

Another fork.

White to move

35.Rc3 Rb8+ 36.Kc2 Qxf6

With an extra pawn and a less vulnerable king, Black had the better endgame. He used a series of checks to win another pawn and force the rooks off the board.


*See Yuri Averbakh, Chess Tactics for Advanced Players (1992) for definitions of contacts as the foundation of chess tactics.

Patterns and Calculation

There has been quite a bit of discussion concerning pattern recognition the past week on Chess.com. An article by a philosophy student,* "Pattern Recognition: Fact or Fiction?", provoked several dozen comments, many challenging the author's analysis. There is also a forum thread that spins off this article, "'Pattern Recognition' DEBUNKED", and another thread on the topic in a closed group for over the board players. The private group's thread started in August and inquires into the practicality of creating a pattern bank. Would it need 10,000 positions? More? I have contributed to all of these threads.

These discussions reveal an absence of a clear and accepted definition of patterns in chess. Are patterns a static arrangement of pieces that crop up with some regularity? Are patterns dynamic relationships, such as all pins constituting either single pattern or perhaps a specific category of patterns? What about typical pawn structures, such as the Caro-Kann structure that also commonly crops up in the Scandinavian Defense (see Panayotis Frendzas' review of Vassilios Kotronias, The Safest Scandinavian)?

These questions linger in the back of my mind, becoming active while reading a chess book, solving tactics problems, or playing. I am currently reading with an aim to reviewing Paul Powell, The Fighting Dragon: How to Defeat the Yugoslav Attack (2016). Powell makes pattern recognition central to his approach to opening study. My last youth lesson before the holidays focused on a simple checkmate combination that occurred in a blitz game and is part of my Knight Award tactics set (see "Pattern Training"). Next week at a chess camp, I am teaching a class on the Qh6+ sacrifice that ended this year's World Chess Championship match. Sam Copeland created a video on the topic for Chess.com. My work begins with his challenge to find more examples of this pattern.

This morning I solved two tactics problems on Chess.com's tactics trainer. The first one had a 2002 rating but took me a mere sixteen seconds. I had seen the same problem a few days ago and spent several minutes calculating before solving it successfully. When I saw it this morning, I recognized it after about ten seconds. Instantly, I knew that I had to attack the queen with my knight. A few seconds were needed to either remember or quickly recalculate the correct square among the two possibilities.

The second problem gave me more difficulty.

White to move

Naturally, I quickly looked at 1.Nxd1, rejecting it in the light of the fork of knight and pawn by 1...Rd4. It was clear that I needed to push my pawns, but experienced a good deal of confusion about how that was possible. Not only did it seem that the rook could stifle the ambitions of either pawn, but also I quickly saw that 2...Rxa8 or 2...Rxd8 would be checkmate. I spent some time calculating lines that begin with 1.Kg8 with the idea to support the d-pawn. These fail.

After about six minutes, I realized the rook was overworked and knew the first move.

Slowly a learned pattern emerged in my memory. Two connected passed pawns on the sixth rank are too much for a rook. But, my pawns are separated. Nonetheless, a solution dawned on me! 1.d7, pushing the pawn that the rook is not behind (as one would do if the pawns were connected). 1...Rd4 2.a7.

The rook cannot stop both pawns! But Black has another resource.

2...Bf3

White to move

Both promotion squares are guarded. Time to calculate further. Earlier, during my confusion, I had looked at Ng4+, seeing that it led nowhere. But, now, this move decoys the bishop from protection of the promotion square.

The decoy theme is certainly a dynamic pattern.

Of course, the king can move out of check, so the bishop will not be distracted so easily. In my calculation, I began to comprehend why the problem composer put a pawn on h4 (I'm assuming the problem is composed).

During my calculations, another pattern revealed itself: interference. 3.Ng4+ is the correct move! 3...Kh5 (3...Kg6 allows 4.Ne5+ forking king and bishop) 4.Nf6+ Kxh4 5.Nd5!

Black to move

If the bishop captures the knight, the rook no longer guards d8. If the rook captures the knight, the bishop no longer guards a8.

This problem could have been solved by pure calculation. That it took me more than ten minutes to solve, suggests that calculation was my best resource. Even so, along the way, patterns that were not instantly clear to me guided me and aided the calculation.

Because the problem took me so long, I gained only one point on my tactics rating. The average solving time is 2:34, but 2/3 of those who attempt the problem fail.


*He identifies himself as a teacher who was trained in philosophy. Readers of Plato understand that Socrates always thought of himself as a student, as a lover of wisdom who pursues knowledge and truth.

Endgame Training

Eight to ten years ago, I played out one hundred pawn endings against the computer. I am now working through the same set of problems a second time. These one hundred problems are the first of three sets made available as PDF files by Michele Deiana at DejaScacchi. The selection contains composed endgame positions with instructive value for practical play. Many of these problems appear in standard endgame books, such as Mark Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual and Yuri Averbakh, Comprehensive Chess Endings.

Problem 14 in Deiana's collection is a study attributed to Jean-Louis Preti (1856). It is the same as a position that I posted last May, but with colors reversed (see "Three Pawns Problem"). It builds upon technique practiced while solving problem 11, attributed to Josef Kling, presumably from Chess Studies; or Endings of Games by J. Kling and Bernard Horwitz (1851).

White to move

1.Kc2 c4 2.Kc1

Black to move

This position is critical. White will step directly in front of whichever pawn Black moves forward. Soon, all three pawns fall.

2...b3 3.Kb2 d3 4.Kc3

Black to move

This position is the heart of a king versus three pawns. White's king stops all the pawns. However, if the pawns were one square closer to promotion, then one could be promoted to deflect the king from defense of the other's promotion square.

Playing these positions against the computer means playing until checkmate. I checkmated Stockfish 7 on move 24.

Hitting the Books

Context

A distinctive element of GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) draws in some readers and pushes many others away. Rashid Ziyatdinov's book contains diagrams without analysis. The author explains that the book is more of an exam than an instructional book. As such, it is an open book exam that can be taken and retaken until the desired score is achieved. Co-author Peter Dyson suggests that GM-RAM, "can be thought of as both a study outline and as an evaluation tool" (9).

Fifty-nine "classic games" are the source for 120 middlegame positions. Ziyatdinov addresses the definition of "classic". Games are not classic merely because they were played a long time ago. The games in GM-RAM:

...have been analyzed in great detail by many strong players from different periods, different schools of chess, and different ages and generations. It is only after a game has withstood these many different perspectives--these "tests of time"--that it can be considered a classic. (77)

Ziyatdinov directs his readers to analysis of these games by other writers. Alternately, he writes, "a chess trainer can help teach the necessary knowledge" (13). He provides a list of references. This list offers a secondary curriculum. Most, if not all, of the the endgame positions in GM-RAM can be found in Yuri Averbakh's Comprehensive Chess Endings, which comprises the bulk of the texts listed for endgame study.

The middlegame books listed are another matter. Most of the games are from the nineteenth century, but the recommended middlegame books include the two volumes of My Best Games of Chess by Alexander Alekhine; and Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable Games. Also listed are Averbakh, Chess Middlegames: Essential Knowledge; Paul Keres, and Alexander Kotov, The Art of the Middle Game; and Hans Kmoch, Pawn Power in Chess. There is minimal analysis of the games of Adolf Anderssen and Paul Morphy in these books.

Practice

For the past few months, I have been systematically working through Ziyatdinov's fifty-nine games at the rate of one each week. This past week, my game has been Bird -- Morphy, London 1858 (chessgames.com link). I have not done well on my study of this game. The week has been filled with activities that interfere with personal study, and an exciting new book arrived as well, Encyclopedia of Chess Combinations, 5th ed. (2014), putting my chess study time on another course. Hence, my study of this game will carry over another week. I will press on, though, adding this week's game: Morphy's Opera Game.

I have print editions of three good books on Paul Morphy: Philip W. Sergeant, Morphy's Games of Chess (1957); Macon Shibut, Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory (2004); and Valeri Beim, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005). In addition, I have the Kindle edition of David Lawson, Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess, new. ed. (2010) and access to older books, such as Frederick M. Edge's 1859 Paul Morphy: The Chess Champion, via GoogleBooks. Other books that contain analysis of Bird -- Morphy include Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, part I (2003); and Max Euwe, The Development of Chess Style (1968).

Kasparov's book offers a good entry point to the most important historical analysis and sometimes modern computer evaluation of this analysis. It behooves me to invest the time to work through the analysis of this week's and last week's games in all of these books.

Analysis

Ziyatdinov's GM-RAM contains two essential middlegame positions from Bird -- Morphy. These are separated by a single move. The positions are before 17...Rxf2 and after 17...Rxf2 18.Bxf2. Studying Kasparov's analysis last night focused my attention much earlier in the game.

White to move

After 5...d5

Kasparov credits Johannes Zukertort with having pointed out the improvement from this position that refutes Morphy's dubious opening choice. Bird could have gained an advantage had he properly applied knowledge from the ancient work of Pedro Damiano.

Euwe does not offer a source, but notes, "Nowadays it is known that the answer to Black's chosen variation is 6.Nxe5! dxe4 7.Qh5+, White getting an irresistable attack in return for the sacrificed piece" (29).

Training Regimen

I am spending a little time each day working through Rashid Ziyatdinov, and Peter Dyson, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000).

One way that I am working through this book is to devote time to one of the 59 games each week. In late 2014, I went through a three of these games in some detail (see "Training with Anderssen," and "Anderssen -- Staunton 1851"). Understanding these 59 games lead to mastery of 120 middlegame positions (see "To Know a Position"). This week I am working through the Evergreen Game, which I have been through several times in the past. Several books on my shelf have detailed annotations of this classic game, including Graham Burgess, John Nunn, and John Emms, The World's Greatest Chess Games (1998). I am studying these annotations.

External works are essential to proper reading of Ziyatdinov's text. He explains:

This book presents the key positions which must be known to achieve chess mastery. It does not undertake an explanation of them. There are other authors who have adequately explained the positions presented here. A list of references is included. (13)

Studying the 133 endgame positions is another way that I am working through Ziyatdinov's text. Several years ago, I wrote a note in my copy of the text concerning diagram 16: "1-175 Dvoretsky presents more difficulties--kings on g5 and g7. White pawn on g4" (29).

GM-RAM Diagram 16

Yesterday, I set out to find what Yuri Averbakh had to say regarding this position. Ziyatdinov lists Averbakh's Comprehensive Chess Endings. I have access to the Chess Digest edition, so started going through "Two Pawns v. One" in Yuri Averbakh and Ilya Maizelis, Pawn Endings, trans. Mary Lasher (1974).

I did not get far enough to discover whether this position is in this text. Instead, I worked through several somewhat more elementary positions. First, I played them rapidly against Rybka 4 to test my instincts. Then, I read what Averbakh had to say about each one.

The first presented no difficulties.

Averbakh Pawn 145

Stripes,James -- Rybka 4 x64
Blitz 5m Spokane, 02.01.2015

1.g4+ Kxg4 2.Kg6 c5 3.h4 Kxh4 4.Kf5 Kh5 5.Ke5 c4 6.Kd4 c3 7.Kxc3 ½–½

The second one required a second attempt because I did not calculate. My instincts were close, but wrong. Alas, there is no partial credit in chess games. A wrong answer can be fatal.

Averbakh Pawn 146

Stripes,James -- Rybka 4 x64
Blitz 5m Spokane, 02.01.2015

1.Kg7 e5 2.g4+

My first effort: 2.Kf6?? e4 3.Kf5 e3 4.g4+ Kxh4 5.g5 e2 6.g6 e1Q-+.

2...Kxg4 3.Kg6 e4 4.h5 e3 5.h6 e2 6.h7 e1Q 7.h8Q Qe4+ 8.Kg7 Qd4+ 9.Kg8 Qd8+ 10.Kg7 Qd7+ 11.Kg8 Qd8+ 12.Kg7 Qd7+ 13.Kg8 Qd5+ 14.Kg7 Qd4+ 15.Kg8 Qd5+ 16.Kg7 Qd3 17.Kg8 Qd8+ ½–½

The third position employs the same idea.

Averbakh Pawn 147

Stripes,James -- Rybka 4 x64
Blitz 5m Spokane, 02.01.2015

1.Ke7 b5 2.Ke6 

2.d5?? Kxd5

Pawn race produces a queen ending

2...Kf3!

Rybka played the least obvious of three drawing moves.

I expected 2...b4 3.d5 b3 4.d6 b2 5.d7 b1Q 6.d8Q Qa2+.

3.d5 b4 4.d6 b3 5.d7 b2 6.d8Q b1Q 7.Qf6+ Ke2 8.e4 Qxe4+ 9.Qe5 Kd3 10.Qxe4+ Kxe4 ½–½

After these three, I went back to the previous page in Averbakh's text. The first position is a simple matter of triangulation if White is on move. He offers solutions with both White and Black to move. I played these out against Rybka.

Averbakh Pawn 143

After two pages of Averbakh's Pawn Endings, I pulled another book off the shelf, Lazlo Polgar, Chess Endgames (1999) and glanced through the "Elementary Positions" section looking for similar positions. I played these against the box.

One diagram appears twice--with Black to move first, and then with White to move several pages later.

Two in Polgar