05 June 2023

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.


02 June 2023

Knockout Blow

With five minutes remaining on the clock, my opponent used a minute to think and then sacrificed a knight to expose my king. This error handed me the win because my defensive resources were fully adequate.

White to move
The game concluded 23.Nxe6? fxe6 24.Bxg5 Kd7 25.Bxe7 Qxe7 26.Ng5 Kc7 27.Bg4 Bd7 and with eleven seconds remaining plus the five second delay, my opponent resigned. His attack is over in any case.

What was White's best move? What other move would have maintained a decisive advantage.

This position arose in round four of the Inland Empire Open, held in Spokane 20-21 May 2023. After this bit of luck, and some more help in round five, I won the event.

22 May 2023

Misevaluation

After fortune shined on me in the earlier rounds, I was paired against Michael Cambareri on board one in the final round of the Inland Empire Open. We led the field with 3.5 each, followed by several players with 3.0.

I reached a comfortable position out of the opening and early middle game, but then failed to understand the demands of the position.

Stripes,James (1821) -- Cambareri,Michael (2005) [A80]
Inland Empire Open Spokane (5), 21.05.2023

White to move

18.Qf7?!

18.Qh6 now, would have been wise.
18.Qxg6 did not feel safe. Anticipating 18...Rg8, I missed 19.Rxf6 Rxg6 20.Rxg6 when White is better.

18...Qd6 19.Qg7

19.Bxg6 Rh8 20.h3 Kc7 21.Bf5 would have kept the advantage, but I was reluctant to snatch a pawn on the file where my king stood.

19...Kc7 20.Qh6 Rh8

White to move

21.Qf4

Planned and forced. Most of White's advantage has slipped away.

21...g5! 22.Qxd6+ Kxd6 23.Rae1

I believed that I was still better, but Michael's rooks were coming to life with threats that I feared more than necessary.

Black to move
23...Rh4!

Michael's defense against my intended e4 break picks up a tempo for doubling on the h-file.

24.g3 Rh6 25.e4

Long-planned and finally played. It is the best move, although I no longer believed so as the game developed over the next few moves. I had the sense that I had thrown away an advantage against Michael, as I have done in so many games.

Black to move

25...dxe4 26.Bxe4 Rah8

26...Nxe4 simplifies the ending in White's favor. 27.Rxe4

White to move

27.Bf5?

Thinking, wrongly, that I was clearly worse, I desperately sought counterplay in a series of harassing checks.

I rejected 27.Rf2! because I did not know how to meet 27...Ng4. Analysis with an engine shows that 28.Rf5! would have satisfied the demands of the position and left White with the better game.

Here also 28.Rfe2 would have been adequate against 28...Rxh2? (but Black has the better choice of 28...e6) 29.Bg2+-) 28...Rxh2 29.Rxg5 Nf6 30.Bg2+-.

27...Rxh2 28.Re6+

Although I was desperately trying to complicate a lost game, the engine says the position is equal.

28...Kd5

White to move

29.c4+??

A game losing blunder. Michael can take either pawn with a winning position. Michael expected 29.Rxe7 and his assessment that it was a better choice for me is correct. 29...Kxd4 30.Rxb7 Nd5 31.c3+ with equality.

29...Kxc4 30.Rxe7 Nd5?

A lucky break from my point of view.
30...Rh1+ 31.Kf2 R8h2+ 32.Ke1 Rxf1+ 33.Kxf1 Rxb2-+
30...Rxb2-/+

White to move

31.Rc1+ Kb3

31...Kxd4 walks into a little combination with a discovery and interference that picks up a rook. 32.Re4+ Kd3 33.Rh4+ Ke2 34.Rxh2++- 

32.Rxb7+ Ka2?

The rest is easy, except that my focus on winning the rook blinded me to checkmate.

32...Nb4 was the only defense that keeps the game very much alive for Black with difficult play for both sides.

White to move
Analysis after 32...Nb4

33.Rxc6 a5 34.Rc5 Rd2 35.Re7! would have been hard for me to find (35.Rd7 Rhh2=) 35...Rxd4 (35...Ka2! These engine lines are not clear to me at all.) 36.Rxa5.

Back to the position that did occur.

White to move

33.Bb1+ Ka1 34.Bh7+ 

I missed 34.Bd3+! Ka2 35.Bc4#, but the interference with the bishop was sufficient to provoke Michael's resignation.

1-0

Michael understood the game much better than I, but his errors came later and determined the final result. This game gave me first place in the event.

21 May 2023

Bishop vs. Knight

A couple of days ago, I started reading Bishop v Knight: the Verdict (1999) by Steve Meyer. Then, I started studying Rosenthal -- Steinitz 1873, the first game in the book. Before the first round of the Inland Empire Open yesterday, I was analyzing this game with some other participants.

The imbalance appeared in my second round game. My opponent was Steve Brendemihl, who is returning to chess after many years away. We last played in 2006 in the Washington Challenger's Cup. I won that game and then we tied for first in the u1700 section.

Yesterday, I had Black. It was a long, complicated game which we both enjoyed.

Brendemihl,Steve (1578) -- Stripes,James (1821) [C03]
Inland Empire Open Spokane (2), 20.05.2023

White's 29th move won a pawn and set up a forcing sequence that led to the endgame imbalance.

Black to move

30...Rd7!?

Perhaps not objectively best, but it disrupts White's plan. Steve identified this move as the decisive moment in the game.

Steve expected 30...Rxa4 31.Rxa4 Rxd5 32.Ne7+ Kf7 33.Nxd5 Bxa4, which struck me as difficult to win. Of course, the game is objectively equal in either case.

31.Rxd7 Bxd7 32.Ne7+ Kf7

White to move

White is ahead a pawn, but Black's pieces are more active. The rook and bishop coordinate well to create threats. Black can win back the pawn easily if that seems best.

33.Nd5 Bc6 34.Ne3 Rf4

I am hoping to win the h-pawn.

35.Nf5 h5

White to move

36.Ne3??

One player's tragedy is another's victory.

36.Nd4 forces a rook ending with an equal number of pawns. 36...hxg4 37.Nxc6 bxc6 38.hxg4 Rxg4+=

With best play, the rook ending should be drawn.

36...Rf3

Threatening the rook on a1

37.gxh5 Rxh3 38.Ng2 Rxh5 39.f3 Bxf3 40.Kf2 Bxg2 41.Kxg2 Rd5 42.b4 Rd2+ 0-1

14 May 2023

Short Side

After playing a rook and pawn ending for 43 moves and keeping things level, my opponent erred.

Black to move
The king must go to the short side; that is Kg8. The rook can shift to the long side at the right moment to enable checking White's king from a distance. With such play, Black holds a draw.

63... Ke8?? 64. f5 Ra1 65. Rb8+ Kd7 66. Kf7 Rf1 67. f6 Rf2

White to move

68. Rb7+

68. Kg7 is a faster win Rg2+ 69. Kf8 Rf2 70. f7 Rg2 71. Rb4

68... Kd8 69. Rb4 Rd2

Black understands that White would like to drive the Black king another file from the pawn. But White has other means available. Means that I failed to employ.

70. Kg7

70. Kf8 is faster.

70... Rg2+ 71. Kf8 Rd2 72. f7 Rd1

White to move

73. Re4

Better would have been 73. Rf4 or 73. Rg4.

73... Rd2 74. Re8+

74. Kg7 Rg2+ 75. Kf6 Rf2+ 76. Ke6 Rf3 77. Re5

74... Kd7 75. Re7+

75. Kg7 Rg2+ 76. Kh6

75... Kd8 76. Re6 Rg2 77. Rd6+ Kc7

White to move

78. Rd4

My other small inaccuracies added a move or two each to eventual checkmate. Here when I played the second best move, eight moves were added to to road towards checkmate.

78. Ke7! Rf2 79. Re6 Rf1 80. f8=Q Rxf8 81. Kxf8

78... Re2 79. Kg7 Rg2+ 80. Kf6 Rf2+ 81. Ke6 Re2+ 82. Kf5 Rf2+ 83. Rf4 {Black resigned} 1-0

Remember always: king on the short side, rook on the long side.

23 April 2023

Fails

It seems that I pick up The Manual of Chess Combinations, vol. 2 by Sergey Ivashchenko once every other week to work a page of exercises. A few days ago, half a page occupied part of my morning. I solved three successfully. This morning, the fourth one on the page did not present difficulty, but the last two did. I also managed to err in the sixth exercise on each of the the next two pages.

Exercise 144 struck me as a study in corresponding squares on first glance, but I gave too little attention to the simplicity of Black's ability to gain and maintain the opposition. Had I considered the possibility of a sacrificial breakthrough, I might have more quickly perceived the floating square idea. I spent some time teaching the floating square to a couple of students last week and should have seen it.

White to move
1.Kf2 (or any other king move) fails. 1...gxh4 2.gxh4 Kg6 3.Ke3 Kf5 4.Kf3 Ke5 and Black can shuffle the king back and forth.

Instead, 1.g4! wins 1...hxg4 2.h5 (also 2.d6). 

Before that one, I thought I had correctly solved number 143, but had also overlooked something simple.

White to move
I tried 1.Kg5, overlooking that I had nothing after 1...e6 2.Kf6 Ke8 3.Kg7 Ke7 and somehow I had hallucinated there being possible an outflanking maneuver. After 1.Kg7 Ke8 2.e6! fxe6 3.Kg8 Kd8 4.Kf8 Kd7 5.Kf7 Kd6 6.Ke8, White has successfully outflanked the Black king.

Number 150 was familiar and I instantly knew the correct answer, but could not perceive the reason the rook had to move to d2 instead of d1, so I tried Rd1 against Stockfush. Again, simple opposition gives Black a draw.

White to move
1.Rd2! wins 1...d4 2.Rd1! Kd5 3.Kd7 Ke4 4.Kc6 d3 5.Kc5 Ke3 6.Kc4 d2 7.Kc3 and the rook captures the pawn on the next move. After 1.Rd1 d4 2.Kd7 Kd5, White can try 3.Rd2 Kc4 4.Ke6 Kc3 5.Rd1 d3 6.Ke5 Kc2 and the rook must be given up for the pawn.

My error in number 156 stemmed from failing to recognize the possibility of Black achieving a Philidor position.

White to move
Black got a Philidor-type position after 1.Kc4 Rg8 2.Kc5 Rg1 3.dxe6 Rc1+.

White wins easily either with 1.dxe6 fxe6 2.Ra7 Rf8 3.Ra8+ Kd7 4.Rxf8 or with 1.Ra7 straight away.





17 April 2023

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.




07 April 2023

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