Training quote of the day #55: Charlie Munger

 “It’s remarkable how much long-term advantage people like us have gotten by trying to be consistently not stupid, instead of trying to be very intelligent.” -- Charlie Munger

(Highlighted in the Medium article "Avoiding Stupidity: The Less Obvious Route to Success") 

Book completed: The Dutch for the Attacking Player

 

I recently completed The Dutch for the Attacking Player by IM Steffen Pedersen (Batsford, 1997), having originally purchased it in the 2000s soon after getting back into tournament chess. I previously looked at it mostly for casual entertainment purposes, although at one point I evidently transcribed some of the lines into my repertoire database. A little while ago I decided to actually learn (and start to play) the Leningrad Dutch, which has the image of being one of those cool, kind of scary openings that is only supposed to be for aggressive tacticians. This was certainly not my "playing style" for most of my tournament career, but I figure now is the time to put aside the fear of it and pursue something that brings more joy to to my chess experience.

Although this book is not my principal resource on the Dutch - I'll share details on that once fully completed - it was still good to seriously go through it after all these years, with a more knowledgeable approach to the opening, now that I have some other resources to compare it to. Some of its contents hold up better than other parts, which is what you would expect for a book published in 1997. 

Here is the contents page:

To provide some background and flavor from the author, below are two excerpts. 

From the preface: 

From a very early age I learned that the weakest spot from the very start of the game is f2 for White and f7 for Black. With this in mind, it seems that one ought to refrain from playing a move like 1...f5, but no one has yet demonstrated a concrete reason why it is wrong. From when I started playing international tournaments the Dutch has been a part of my repertoire. Even though I have come close to abandoning it on several occasions, I keep coming back to it.

At the outset, I should say that the Dutch can be an extremely difficult opening to handle, but please perservere, and I will try to show you that there is nothing better than winning with the Dutch. The funny thing is, though, I would never dream of playing 1 f4 as White!

The book is written for the ambitious player, who would like to play for a win as Black. Therefore, I have focused exclusively on the Leningrad variation. It is a repertoire book, i.e. against every system at White's disposal, I have chosen one or two lines that I believe have the brightest future (omitting lines in which I do not believe) and included suggestions against 1 c4 and 1 Nf3 as well. 

From the introduction:

The Leningrad Dutch can be a very difficult opening to handle. Indeed, I have suffered some terrible defeats with it myself and almost given it up. But believe me, there is no need to do that. Only by experience can an opening be learned and the occasional loss is inevitable.

Comments:

• As can be seen from the above excerpts, the author was a contemporary practitioner of the Dutch and (per the cover page) scored a grandmaster norm at age 16 using the opening. The best opening resources I have found come from people with real tournament experience in that opening; among other things, it gives them a practical feel for what works at the board, beyond pure theory. (This was similarly true before the era of modern engines, since there has always been a "best theoretical line" in existence at any given time.) It helps give the student more confidence as well, since the recommendations have been battle-tested. In this case, Pedersen includes his own tournament games among the examples.
• I appreciated the introduction containing broader structural ideas for Black and White (the ...e5 advance, playing on the kingside, playing on the queenside) before getting into the chapters on different variations and setups. Framing overall goals and showing key moves and typical piece placement help tie together opening concepts thematically.
• The first chapter on the Leningrad main line for the book I ignored, since it only covers 7...Qe8. This used to be the most popular choice for Black (and was played by the author), but it has since been largely dropped at top levels due to the discovery that White's line with Re1 provides a consistent theoretical plus. I'm sure it's still playable at the Class level, but 7...c6 has been the professionals' first choice for a while now.
• The rest of the book was still relevant for me, however, since there is a lot of territory to cover outside of the main line setup that begins on move 7. The Dutch is similar to the Sicilian opening in that respect, with early "Anti-Dutch" variations beginning as early as move 2 that cannot be ignored. Move-order and transposition tricks are common, and something that a practical player like Pedersen is able to provide useful insight into. One of the most important ideas is to avoid committing too early to ...g6 if White can advance the h-pawn and then get to h5 with their queen; this can mean postponing the fianchetto, or even going into hybrid Classical or Stonewall Dutch-type structures on occasion.
• Like any opening resource, the book was treated as informational input into my own custom-built repertoire, with each chapter's material evaluated and explored further with a database/engine setup. Some of the examples and variations, as you might expect, are outdated or do not hold up to modern analysis. However, older sources like this sometimes provide interesting ideas which engines can confirm are workable, but do not appear in contemporary practice. Looking at middlegame examples for piece placement and thematic ideas is also always useful on a general understanding level.
• On a technical level, in the latter part of the book I caught two serious variation errors (with missing moves that could not be reconstructed) and one diagram error (a missing rook). Other than that, the editorial quality was good.

Training quote of the day #54: Amishi P. Jha, PhD

 

From Peak Mind by Amishi P. Jha, PhD:

Time to Start Training 

Imagine a moment that calls for physical strength. Say you're about to help a friend move a piece of furniture. You approach the heavy couch, realize you're not up to the task and . . . drop to the floor and begin to do push-ups in an effort to gain the strength you need.

If that sounds silly, consider that this is what so many of us do every day, constantly, when faced with cognitive challenges - instead of developing a training regimen, making it a habit, and doing a little bit each day to build up our capacities, we drop and try to eke out a "mental push-up" or two once we're under stress or in crisis, the whole time believing that it will help and that we'll be able to stand up and "lift that couch." Instead, we'll only be more depleted.

We need to start training now, both for the period of high demand we may be in currently, and for periods of demand we'll face in the future. 

(Updated) game analysis for improvement in play

Game analysis setup with CB18

At the start of this blog, which coincided with a new phase of more serious (and continuing) chess improvement efforts, analyzing your own games was identified as the necessary heart of an improvement strategy. This continues to be the central driver of the process for me, which is essentially an ongoing cycle of self-diagnosing issues with my game, then investigating and applying the chess knowledge gained as a result.

There are multiple guides on doing your own game analysis out there that may be helpful - although I've found some of them lacking sufficient detail on the "how" part of it, or sometimes recommending particular procedures that I don't find practical for my own purposes. Since the methods (and some of the tools) I've used have shifted a bit since "Game Analysis For Improvement in Play" was originally published, I thought it would be worth providing an updated analysis methodology outline. Caveat: this is not necessarily a template that will work best for everyone's practice, or that should be followed 100%. Rather, the intent is to provide a example of practical study methods in action. (I am a big proponent of the "whatever works for you" school of training, covered in more detail in "Do study techniques matter in chess?")

Some core tools are required for any setup: databases (at minimum one with your games, paired with a large reference database for comparison); an analysis program/GUI; and a top-class engine. Widely available options, both commercial and free, are covered in detail in the Chess Computing Resources (2021) post. Despite the age of it, the relevant links still work, and you just need to make sure to get the latest versions of the products; some of the main computing resources are also permanently linked in the sidebar. (For reference, my current analysis setup is displayed up top: ChessBase 18 running with the Dragon 3.2 engine and Annotated Game #323 displayed.)

Here's a description of my current step-by-step process, which typically takes around two hours for a fully annotated game:

• The game is entered into the database; I have one for all of my tournament games and a separate one for training games. If you are playing online at Chess.com, lichess.org or other sites, normally you can simply download a pgn file of your game and copy that into your database. For OTB games, naturally you'll have to enter it manually via your analysis program GUI - unless you're part of the elite where you play on an electronic board that records all your moves in the cloud. 
• During a tournament, I will make sure to enter all the games into the database before it is over. However, this will not necessarily happen on the same day they were played, if I'm too tired. Because it would be too much of a time and energy suck, I won't do a full analysis of my games while the tournament is ongoing, but I will normally take a quick pass through them with an engine running in order to validate (or refute) my understanding of what just happened in them. (For example, I would feel stupid to get caught out by the same error twice in a tournament.)
• During the initial manual entry of moves, or as a first pass during the analysis process if the full game notation is already copied, I capture my thinking process on significant moves in text comments. This could start as early as move 1, if the opening selection choice is worth mentioning, or it could start at the end of a typical main line sequence. In any case, I don't worry about polishing the language for publication, since it is more important to first record the thought process (whether accurate or flawed) and any other significant considerations at the time (physical or emotional stress, time trouble, etc.) that may have affected decision-making. This is also a good time to record other candidate moves that you considered, along with any related commentary and/or sample variations.
• During a full analysis session, I review the game from the beginning move-by-move with a reference database and engine running. Normally I will also have my opening repertoire database up in a separate window, so I can refresh my memory of the relevant opening line and note any deviations made by myself or my opponent. Here is where I will also investigate any new moves in the opening - new to me, at least - and update my repertoire database as needed. Considerations at this stage include the move's score percentage in the reference database, combined with the engine's evaluation and my own understanding and preferences in the opening line we are following. It is often useful to review some of the master-level games in the database that continue in the line being examined, to get a better idea of resulting middlegame positions and plans.
• After the "book" opening phase is past, the analysis process is devoted to examining and validating (or refuting) the actual moves played in the game, comparing them with the engine's and database's top other moves (for as long as the database has identical games). I normally have the top 4 engine moves displayed for variety, to get an idea of what good candidate moves are available in the position. Key variations are identified, understood (important!) and entered into the commentary, including alternative viable strategic plans and any tactical opportunities/threats overlooked (sometimes by both players). During this process, while the engine serves as an excellent reference, it is very important to avoid simply taking the top engine line for granted as "best" in a position. This is something which especially should not be done if you do not understand the moves it recommends. ("Pitfalls of Computer Analysis" goes into more detail regarding the practical considerations of using an engine for analysis.)

It was surprising to me how much rich content could be derived from just one reasonably thorough analysis of a tournament game. Especially when done regularly and in a timely fashion - something I have not always been the best at - it also inevitably highlights meta-trends in your performance. For me, that has included the recognition of a lack of a consistent thinking process, recurring flawed moves in a particular opening, or a repeated failure to maximize piece activity. Perceiving and rectifying these types of bigger problems with your game, not just identifying individual blunders that are made, can represent a major investment and payoff in long-term improvement potential. Sometimes, of course, positive trends in our game are also highlighted; it's especially important to recognize and celebrate when your mental toughness helps you draw (or even win) a lost position.

Some other typical training benefits I've observed, after employing the above methods:

• Openings: playing, then reviewing and analyzing what occurred in the chosen opening, has been the most effective way for me to understand more deeply and then remember opening lines for future use. This process also naturally results in the refinement of your repertoire based on new information and the practical challenges being encountered in your chosen lines at the board; there really is no better feedback loop.
• Tactics (and not just for the middlegame): what tactics were completely missed? Seen but miscalculated? Visualized improperly? Recurring patterns such as missing the idea of potential backwards piece moves, not visualizing discovered attacks that appear after several moves of calculation, etc. are in fact common phenomena. Although we cannot completely eliminate them, being more consciously aware of these issues in your games and mentally calling them out can help us overcome these blind spots.
• Candidate moves: in both the middlegame and endgame, the number of different types of candidate moves considered (both positional and tactical) has expanded significantly for me. Other than highlighting specific forced wins or clear blunders, this I believe is the most important function of engine assistance in analysis: showing the player possibilities that they would not otherwise have considered (either at the time, or during unassisted analysis).

As mentioned above, I believe the exact methods used are probably not as important as the fact game analysis is consistently occurring at the effortful study level for a player. In fact, I think it would actually be rather difficult to avoid improving your game as part of this process, if it is done regularly and you deliberately follow up on what you discover with both curiosity and a positive intent to apply the lessons learned.

2025 U.S. Chess Championships off to a good start (for some)

The 2025 U.S. Chess Championships have kicked off. Round 1 featured some interesting games and decisive results, with two in the open section and three in the women's, including one by GM Irina Krush shortly after she was inducted into the U.S. Chess Hall of Fame. GM Fabiano Caruana won by taking his opponent (and normally his second) GM Grigoriy Oparin out of normal lines early - a good strategy against someone who knows your usual preparation.

Full round 1 coverage from Chess.com is at https://www.chess.com/news/view/2025-us-championship-round-1

The main tournament site can be found on the host St. Louis Chess Club's event page - https://saintlouischessclub.org/event/2025-us-chess-championships/

I've already begun downloading selected games of interest for at least an initial review. Some of those then I expect will be added to my (longstanding) queue for full commentary game analysis (see "Analyzing master games for training").