17 October 2026

FritzTrainer completed: The Leningrad Dutch Defense by Svitlana Demchenko


I recently completed The Leningrad Dutch Defense, a ChessBase FritzTrainer by Svitlana Demchenko published in 2023; she holds the WIM title and is currently rated 2177 FIDE. The full contents list can be seen at the above ChessBase link, while a summary version from a screenshot (including the breakdown of sidelines covered) is pasted below. There is also a contemporary "Svitlana's Smart Moves" 22-minute YouTube video that serves as a sample of her commentary. 

I don't share the (rather common but perhaps understandable) prejudice of valuing opening resources based solely on the rating of the author. That said, of course someone should be considered reasonably authoritative and capable whenever presenting on an opening. My database shows 12 international tournament games for Svitlana in the Leningrad Dutch and sidelines (ECO A80-89), with 8 wins, 2 draws and 2 losses; both losses came against higher-rated opposition. While obviously she has also played the opening outside of formal tournaments, that record is sufficient for me to consider her as a relatively experienced practitioner, who has also done the necessary theoretical prep. She furthermore refers to her practical experience in similar King's Indian structures, with some crossover positions and themes.

In the "Main Lines" section, which covers positions after a White kingside fianchetto and standard development of d4/c4 and the knights to f3 and c3, Svitlana gives an in-depth theoretical treatment to the 7...c6 variation for Black; this is the most popular and respected in modern international practice. She provides some useful context in the video "7th Move Options for Black" on theoretical problems with 7...Qe8, which is the older preference (and still most popular in the database in terms of number of games, historically speaking) and 7...Nc6, which is considered a riskier line. Some other personal observations on the main line theory section:

  • Svitlana starts with separate videos on strategic ideas for Black and White. Although I'm largely looking at the opening from the Black perspective, I found that portion to be less detailed than her treatment of the White side's general plans, which to me were clearer and a bit more meaty in content. That said, White does appear to have more common and easily defined plans revolving around particular pawn pushes (h2-h4, e2-e4 and advancing the b-pawn on the queenside), while Black's responses and middlegame ideas can be more situational.
  • She does a good job of repeatedly highlighting thematic ideas on piece placement as logical reactions to specific White moves, while also showing important tactical points in the videos. "If your opponent does this, their plan is X, so prevent it by Y" explanations are often offered, along with ideas for pieces regarding what they can do on specified squares and why. Examples include the ...Na6 development, when and why to play ...e5, and tactical play Black can have on the h8-a1 long diagonal when it opens up. 
  • She tries to not make everything be about rote memorization - although the included files are fairly extensive - instead emphasizing during the videos an understanding of short sequences and plans for specfic pieces. She takes care to present why some of the lesser White moves don't work as well, and what Black should do to get an advantage or equalize easily. I also appreciated her addressing possibilities for early transitions to a queenless middlegame or endgame and showing how that can be good for Black, in contrast with a less sophisticated view of the Leningrad Dutch as only being useful for middlegame attacks on the king.

The sidelines section is very important, since if you answer 1. d4 with ...f5 to immediately enter the Dutch, regardless of which major setup you intend to play (Leningrad, Stonewall or Classical) then you have to look at all of the Anti-Dutch setups starting on move 2. Actually entering the Leningrad variation could be hard to accomplish without starting with 1...f5, so transpositional possibilities are limited, although if White cooperates 1...g6 (as given in a later model game) is one way to do it.

Svitlana provides the most comprehensive treatment in video format of these early sidelines that I have encountered, being especially useful on the more dangerous 2. Bg5 and 2. Nc3 options for White. The gambit lines are also presented clearly, with common ideas to defuse them. Since the London setup is so popular for White, the section on 2. Bf4 and other transpositional possibilities is similarly very useful for the Black side. In the Staunton Gambit, she selects a more modern option for Black (4...g6 rather than ...Nc6), which helped convince me to switch it in my personal repertoire. I have never really looked at the Dutch versus the English or Reti setups, but she presents some competitive lines for Black. With the Reti, a Dutch player also has to know how to handle the Lisitsyn Gambit, which to my surprise turned out to be a reverse Budapest Gambit, along with an independent line involving an early d3 and e4.

There is a robust amount of additional content beyond the theory sections which helps practically deepen the learning process. The six model games provided are at the master level and have a nice breadth of position-types and characteristics, including tactical kingside attacks of different complexities, middlegame maneuvering, and one with an endgame focus. Svitlana's presentations provide both practical examples of play and make the experience interactive with "guess-the-move" quizzes on key positions. 

Seven "opening disasters" follow, each one presented with less detail than the model games, but with the early main error highlighted, either for Black or White. These are all useful cautionary tales, and help reinforce what not to do, or alternatively demonstrate how to punish major deviations by your opponent.

The 30 tactical exercises included further reinforce the opening study with key middlegame ideas and common tactics that can result from the Leningrad variation, including the f5-f4 pawn lever (often a sacrifice), h-file attacks and rook lifts, and a thematic exchange sacrifice for White's dark-square bishop. This section did a lot to fill in my understanding of typical plans and tools for Black to use to break through in a position. Although there is a database included at the end under the "analysis" heading it only has the tactics fragments, not the complete games; however, I was able to use the ChessBase reference function to find most of them, to see how the full games developed and file them in a personal Leningrad model games database.

The technical production quality is good with clear audio/video. There are the usual number of "verbal typos" (misstated color on move, misidentification of squares, inadvertent confusion of "isolated" vs. "doubled" pawns, etc.) which as slightly detract from the presentation but should not overly confuse the viewer if they are paying attention. Occasionally the ChessBase board glitches and is not fully in sync with the presentation, most often by showing pieces at their final destinations without the intermediate moves.

Stylistically, Svitlana has an engaging and positive demeanor which works well for most of the video content, although I occasionally found some of her more general statements a bit vague or unclear, particularly regarding Black's plans; they appeared improvised rather than scripted. She also very quickly shows some of the latter parts of the model games quickly, after demonstrating the main idea being covered, but the database is available to review at leisure.

I've noticed that opening resources/courses compiled and presented by people who actually use them in tournament play have a better vibe (for lack of a better term) and more practically useful (vs. theoretical) content; this one is no exception. I would in fact rate it as the best single package for learning the Leningrad Dutch that I have encountered, although a student of the opening (as always) will need to find some additional material to cover lines not included. Studying both the database files and video lessons contained here should give someone confidence to play the Dutch, as well as useful resources to periodically go back to (and build on) for their chess career using the Dutch as a weapon.

15 October 2026

Annotated Game #369: Play it again, Caro-Kann Exchange

In this final-round tournament game, I again had the experience of my opponent duplicating an opening from a previous round (Annotated Game #367), this time with me as Black in another Caro-Kann Exchange variation. While I normally do not conduct a full game analysis until after a tournament is done, while playing I do make a point between rounds of entering games into my personal database and running through them, both to capture my thinking process and identify any obvious problems that need correcting. I was therefore confident about my preparation in this variation, although my opponent ended up surprising me with 8. Ne5!? This lead to easy equality and a rapid liquidation into a drawn major-piece ending, which I considered a good result as Black against a higher-rated opponent. Two clean games in a row was also a good way for me to finish out the tournament.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Class A"] [Black "ChessAdmin"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Dragon 3.2"] [ECO "B13"] [PlyCount "57"] [GameId "2351890955262724"] 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. Bd3 {the Caro-Kann Exchange variation.} Nc6 5. c3 Nf6 6. Bf4 g6 {my opponent took a long time for his next move, indicating that he was not familiar with this variation. Black more often plays ...Bg4.} 7. Nf3 Bf5 {posing the question to White of how to continue - exchange on f5 or continue with development.} 8. Ne5 $5 {the first time I have seen this. White neither exchanges nor develops, instead moving the knight a second time, to the e5 post. It is the third-most played move in the database, however.} Bxd3 {following the normal rule to exchange on d3 if White fails to exchange on f5.} 9. Qxd3 Bg7 $11 {there is no better square for the bishop, and Black has achieved equality without much effort.} 10. Nxc6 {the only move that takes advantage of White's knight on e5, changing the pawn structure on the queenside and simplifying further.} bxc6 11. h3 {now ...Nh5 ideas for Black are not as useful, although the engine still likes it as an option.} O-O (11... Nh5 12. Bh2 Qb6 $11 {as is often done when the dark-square bishop is away for White, Black can annoyingly target b2.}) 12. Nd2 {this made me wonder if my opponent was considering queenside castling.} Re8 {the rook typically belongs on the e-file, or at least not just sitting on f8.} 13. O-O Nd7 {organizing for the e7-e5 break, which is Black's most active idea in the position.} 14. Nf3 e5 {I expected this would result in a general liquidation of pieces.} (14... f6 $5 {would insist on changing the pawn structure, not just prompting a series of exchanges. However, the position would remain equal, per the engine.} 15. Qd2 (15. Rfe1 $6 {interestingly just makes things worse for White:} e5 16. dxe5 fxe5 {and with the queen still on d3, Black now threatens both the Bf4 and the pawn fork on e4. White gains a tempo with} 17. Bg5 Qc7 {but Black has at least a small edge based on the central pawns after} 18. Qd2 e4 $15) 15... e5 16. dxe5 fxe5 17. Bh6 e4 18. Bxg7 Kxg7 19. Nd4 $11) 15. dxe5 Nxe5 16. Nxe5 Bxe5 17. Bxe5 Rxe5 {we now have a major-piece ending, with a few imbalances to perhaps make it worth playing, although the engine has it as completely equal.} 18. Rfe1 Qe7 {I saw no reason to give up the e-file.} 19. Rxe5 Qxe5 20. Qe3 {At the time I felt this unnecessarily saddled White with a weak e-pawn, but the position is still completely drawn.} Qxe3 21. fxe3 Kf8 {I thought for a while here and decided that I would first prioritize king activity in the center. White only has the half-open f-file for his rook, while I have a choice about where to place mine.} 22. Rd1 Ke7 23. Rd4 f5 {I thought for a while here and this is fine, if perhaps not ideal.} (23... Rb8 {immediately is probably better, or at least easier.}) (23... h5 $5 {would be the better pawn to advance to contest g4, as the king more easily guards the f7 weakness.}) 24. Kf2 (24. Rb4 {I would have met with} Rd8 $11) 24... Rb8 25. b3 Rb7 {playing solidly and keeping certain of control of the 7th rank.} 26. Kf3 Ke6 {pretty much anything draws.} 27. c4 Ke5 {with my king centralized and rook guarding the 7th, I have nothing to worry about. Meanwhile, White has no exploitable weaknesses either.} 28. cxd5 cxd5 29. b4 {and I accepted a draw offer, judging that the position was completely even. My opponent was much lower on time, although not in any immediate clock trouble.} 1/2-1/2

14 October 2026

FT article: "How I used AI to become a chess grandmaster at 16"

Indian teenage GM Aarav Dengla just had a high-profile opinion article on chess preparation and AI for education published in the Financial Times - see the FT.com article here. Stripping away the opinion part of it, there is a succinct and useful description of how he has employed chess engines and databases to prepare for particular games and in his general chess education. In particular, comparing different engine types and their recommendations for strategic plans is an example of typical high-level use.

Unfortunately, as in much of the abundant but shallow "AI" public discourse, different types of "AI" are mixed and (mis)matched in comparing and making assertions about the benefits of different types of use cases, as well as the user population. In the chess world, modern engines have incorporated AIML (machine learning) since the debut of AlphaZero and LC0 and of course have surpassed human players in strength for significantly longer than that, once sufficient computing speed and memory became available. No serious competitive player does without engine and database tools for reference.

Now everyone from GMs to amateurs can (and probably should) use a (free) engine and a large database of games to objectively check their analysis and help prepare for their next tournament. Links to computer resources are in this blog's sidebar for a reason, as I do the same - while keeping in mind the pitfalls of computer analysis. 

Even with excellent resources available to everyone with an internet connection, the overall mix of tool usage for chess training still varies widely in practice, with old school players extolling the value of studying classic games in books and using a physical board when possible, while some of the recent generation of professional players boast of having a 100% digital use profile. Having a spread of different study tools and techniques is very typical for any sufficiently large population, as different people will naturally absorb, integrate and (effectively) use material in different ways.

The cited article, however, takes a big leap from there as the author argues that his (and his similarly highly-educated friends') experience using "AI" with chess and language learning is a valid example of why generalizing usage of "AI" tools, to the broader population and for general educational assistance, should be supported as obviously having a positive impact on outcomes.

It is interesting that language learning was also included as an example that supposedly uniquely supports the case for general AI adoption, since - like chess - excellent computer tools have been available in that area since before the so-called AI boom. Major real-world issues involving the general population, such as widespread cheating on exams and AI-generated homework, are also ignored. This continues to be a major problem in the online chess world as well (and not just in the general population) - see the latest Chess.com "Fair Play update - while nowadays participating in OTB tournaments with large prizes sometimes feels like going through airport security (repeatedly).

Personally, I think people should "choose their own adventure" in life and bring to bear whatever tools are best suited for themselves, as long as others are not cheated in the process. Thankfully chess offers this possibility, with longer-format OTB tournaments still validated as the "gold standard" for competitive play. And, as pointed out by the author, AI cannot help you while at the board.

13 October 2026

Annotated Game #368: Play it again, Colle

This next tournament game started out very similarly to the first-round Annotated Game #366. Although it is only an equal line in the Colle System, having just played the same opening successfully - and understanding where the previous middlegame went wrong - I felt confident and comfortable in it. My opponent by contrast was thinking on his own as early as move 3 and got into trouble coming out of the opening. By making moves that visually looked normal and good in an unfamiliar setup, he instead trapped his own queen and had to sacrifice a knight for a pawn to extricate it. After that the pressure was off for me, since I just had to follow a strategy of properly mobilizing my extra piece and simplifying down under favorable circumstances. I kept my focus, however, and found some optimal intermediate moves while never playing anything unsafe. A clean game from my end was certainly welcome.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "ChessAdmin"] [Black "Class B"] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Dragon 3.2"] [ECO "D04"] [PlyCount "65"] [GameId "2351903693869100"] 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 {this was played after some thought; my opponent did not seem familiar with facing the Colle.} 4. dxc5 e6 5. a3 Bxc5 6. b4 Be7 7. Bb2 O-O $11 {the most played in the database, by far; my earlier round game featured ...a5.} 8. Be2 {I'll need to castle, so might as well do it sooner. Developing with Nbd2 is equivalent according to the engine, with the idea of playing c2-c4 prior to castling.} Bd7 {now out of the database. This seemed to me at the time a bit passive placement for the bishop, but it now could support b7-b5. Therefore I played} 9. c4 {before it could be stopped.} (9. O-O b5 10. Ne5 a6 11. Bd3 $11 {would be an alternate strategic way to play in the center/kingside.}) 9... Qc7 $6 {this commits the queen early on a file which will soon be opened.} 10. Nbd2 Rd8 $6 {taking away a retreat square for the queen.} 11. cxd5 (11. Be5 Bd6 {I rejected this line after seeing the bishop interposition, not wanting to exchange pieces, but did not consider} 12. Bxf6 $1 gxf6 13. cxd5 exd5 $16 {although I've given up my beautiful dark-square bishop - which I hadn't wanted to do originally - Black's multiple structural weaknesses would be well worth it in exchange.}) 11... Nxd5 $2 {the centralized knight looks good optically, but now the queen is out of squares.} (11... exd5 {was necessary to give the queen an escape square on e6.} 12. Rc1 Qb6 $14) 12. Rc1 $1 {I made sure this was safe before playing, although it was "obvious".} Nc6 {there is nothing better than having the knight sacrifice itself to protect the queen.} (12... Qb6 13. Bd4 Qd6 14. Bc5 $18) (12... Bc6 13. b5 Qb6 14. bxc6 Qxb2 15. Rb1 Qxa3 16. cxb7 $18) 13. b5 $18 Qb6 14. bxc6 Qxb2 15. Nc4 {I played this intermediate move after a good deal of thought; it is validated by the engine. The knight gets to a better square with tempo, while preserving the a-pawn.} (15. cxd7 {would cash in the material immediately and is also fine, in objective terms.} Qxa3 16. Ne5 $18 {While White has a big plus, I didn't like giving Black two connect passed pawns on the queenside for counterplay.}) 15... Qb5 16. cxd7 (16. Nd4 {I only saw after I played the text move. During the game I kicked myself mentally for not playing it instead, but the engine evaluates it as only slightly better.} Qc5 17. cxd7 Bf6 18. O-O $18) 16... Qxd7 17. O-O $18 {Now it is only a question of mobilizing my extra piece effectively. I am not afraid of Black's 2-1 majority on the queenside, which is his only positive imbalance.} b5 $6 {this is premature, driving the knight to a better square and making the b-pawn a target.} 18. Nce5 Qb7 19. Qb3 {the queen development consolidates nicely for White.} a6 20. Nc6 {forcing a piece exchange, which brings me closer to victory by simplification.} Rdc8 21. Nxe7+ Qxe7 22. Nd4 g6 {evidently played to avoid potential future back-rank problems.} 23. Bf3 {mobilizing the bishop on the long diagonal.} Rc5 24. Nc6 {I took my time here; this is the most forcing/pressing move.} Qd6 25. Nb4 {now the Nd5 is once more pinned and under additional pressure.} Rac8 26. Rxc5 {time for more simplification.} Rxc5 27. Nxd5 (27. Rd1 {immediately is even better, adding pressure and pinning again.}) 27... exd5 28. Rd1 Qc7 29. Bxd5 {I spent a lot of time here making sure this was safe, due to my own back rank. I was fatigued enough to make it slower than necessary, but I had the time.} a5 (29... Rc1 30. g3 $18) (29... Rc3 30. Qb2 Qe5 31. Rd4 $18) 30. g3 {no more back-rank problems.} Kf8 31. Kg2 {safety first} a4 32. Qb4 {the pin against the king is the final nail in the coffin.} f5 $2 {Black was lost anyway, this makes it immediate after} 33. Rc1 {and the rook is doomed.} 1-0

12 October 2026

Annotated Game #367: For want of a (correct) square for the bishop

In this second-round tournament game, as Black in a Caro-Kann Exchange (very popular right now for White players), I enter a line that is (more or less) equal, but imbalancing and dynamic, if White exchanges bishops on f5 and changes the central pawn structure. However, I still have relatively little experience in it - White players often decline to change things up - and my lack of knowledge about a seemingly small thing, where to place the dark-square bishop (on e7 or d6), ends up being at the root of all my troubles. My opponent does a good job of consolidating his structural advantage, after which - like in the previous game (Annotated Game #366) - I lash out with an ineffective sacrifice in a desperate attempt for counterplay. The difference is that in this one I probably was lost in the long term anyway, but it is still not a good habit to get into.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Class B"] [Black "ChessAdmin"] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Dragon 3.2"] [ECO "B13"] [PlyCount "57"] [GameId "2351903693869099"] 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. Bd3 Nc6 5. c3 Nf6 6. Bf4 g6 7. Nd2 Bf5 {I thought for a while here, also considering ...Nh5 to hit the Bf4.} 8. Bxf5 {White decides to go for the critical line.} gxf5 9. Ngf3 e6 {a necessary move to open the f8-a3 diagonal and reinforce the f5 and d5 pawns.} 10. Ne5 Rg8 {my first real think. I liked the idea of an early ...Rg8 to seize the file, then see what White did.} (10... Bd6 {is the more popular - and correct - move, developing the bishop first.}) 11. g3 {my opponent decides to shut down potential g-file action before doing anything else.} Be7 $6 {misplacing the bishop. It is much better to oppose the Bf4 and fight for the center, along with ...Qc7 forming a battery.} 12. Qe2 $14 {my opponent clearly signals he is thinking about castling queenside.} a6 $6 {played after a significant think; I was worried about Qb5 ideas from White, and did not want to trade on e5 yet.} (12... Nxe5 13. dxe5 Nd7 14. O-O-O Qb6 $14) 13. O-O-O {unsurprising, but I had another significant think here to try and come up with a useful plan. I ended up playing the next move to protect the Nc6, in anticipation of pushing the b-pawn, and to get some pressure down the c-file.} Rc8 {this is unfortunately more of a cheap one-move threat (...Nxd4 exploiting the pin on the c-file). With the White king on the queenside, the rook is also well-placed on its original square.} (13... Qb6 {with the plan of pushing the a-pawn is preferred by the engine.}) 14. Kb1 $16 {a normal move to get the king off the file with the Black rook, also avoiding the tactic of ...Nxd4.} b5 $6 {the engine assesses this is not a threat to White. The problem is that I have no effective plans to execute, with none of my pieces in good positions.} 15. Rhe1 {now I have to worry about Nxf7 ideas because of the weak e6 pawn, so after some thought I reluctantly exchange on e5, a decision validated by the engine.} Nxe5 16. dxe5 Nd7 {White's space and activity advantage is visually obvious, especially with the e5 pawn cramping me in the center.} 17. Qh5 Nf8 {at this point I am being purely defensive, but I didn't see how White could break through on the kingside.} 18. Nb3 b4 $6 {played after my longest think in this critical position. I felt I had to go for counterplay on the queenside, rather than accept a structurally worse, maybe losing position.} (18... Bg5 {is the (objectively better) alternative I considered.} 19. Bxg5 Qxg5 20. Qe2 $14 (20. Qxg5 $6 Rxg5 $11)) 19. Bd2 {I had not considered this backwards bishop move option for White.} bxc3 {I thought there was nothing better, and was probably right.} (19... Qb6 $5 20. f4 a5 21. cxb4 a4 $18) 20. Bxc3 {now I didn't see a way to make progress, so decided to go for a speculative exchange sac, as the most interesting move.} Rxc3 $6 21. bxc3 Rg4 {attempting to at least cut off the White queen from the action.} 22. Rd4 $18 {I was expecting f2-f4, but this is just as good for White.} Rxd4 23. cxd4 {with no material compensation for the exchange and a still slow-developing attack, I am simply lost now, but decided to keep fighting.} Qb6 (23... Ba3 24. Qe2 Qb6 25. Ka1 $18) 24. Rc1 Qb7 {I decided covering the c8 square was necessary to prevent immediate disaster from a rook check.} (24... a5 25. Rc8+ Bd8 26. Qg5 a4 27. Rxd8+ Qxd8 28. Qxd8+ Kxd8 29. Nc5 $18 {I calculated as a winning endgame for White.}) 25. Ka1 Ba3 26. Rc2 Nd7 {a last hurrah trying to get the knight into the action.} 27. Na5 Qb8 28. Qe2 Qb4 {I was trying for a desperation threat and missed the following, but I was lost anyway.} 29. Rc8+ {with mate to follow, thanks to the e5 pawn and Nc6+ coming.} 1-0