DVD completed: Viktor Kortchnoi - My Life for Chess, Vol. 1

I recently completed Viktor Kortchnoi - My Life for Chess Vol. 1, one of the Friztrainer series DVDs that come with video analysis and an accompanying database, in this case of 1,799 of Kortchnoi's games from 1946-1979.  I purchased the DVD in the mid-2000s shortly after it came out; after a couple of different tries over the years, I finally finished it, having reviewed it again from the beginning.

The multiple tries required was the result of my previous low level of seriousness about chess study, rather than any fault of the DVD.  In fact, it is very well set up for study purposes, with each of the nine video segments running a half-hour or less and except for the introductory interview, focusing on a single key annotated game.  Kortchnoi has a great facility for explaining strategic ideas, ranging from basic to sophisticated, in a natural way as part of his explanation of each game.  While he can chop through move series rather quickly on the board, he does take care to explain the analysis behind what he considers the key moves.  Digesting one of these analysis sessions is easily done and in fact pleasurable, given the high quality of the narration and Kortchnoi's good humor.  The benefit of the database format is that you can also go over each game afterwards, at your leisure, if you want to delve into it further.

As is the case with other top grandmasters such as Carlsen and Kramnik, Kortchnoi demonstrates during his discussions an objective view of his games, painting the correct impression of chess as a game which can be mastered but never fully perfected or necessarily understood, especially when in the middle of a fight over the board.  Speaking of Carlsen, it was interesting to see that during the DVD interview (recorded in 2004), Kortchnoi was asked about the best future chessplayers and the one person he endorsed wholeheartedly was Carlsen.  (The only other name he mentioned was Karjakin.)

Kortchnoi has had both a remarkable life and chess career and this DVD manages to capture some of the magic in both, even if it does not try to be comprehensive with either.  I would say that as a training resource it is also quite useful, as is the case with any set of well-annotated games by a top player who was one of the participants.

Dan Heisman on paths to chess mastery

The following, an excerpt from NM Dan Heisman's January 10 Q&A session, addresses the central theme raised in "Do study techniques matter in chess?"

One player noted his FM coach has a certain training regimen and wondered what I thought about it. There's many ways to skin a cat - and many paths to chess mastery. Almost all these paths will contain some similar elements (see Every Good Chess Player...). Another viewer asked "Which is more important in becoming a top player: hard work or great talent?" While I said both were necessary, if backed to a wall, I guess I'd choose "hard work".

(The entire Chess.com Q&A article can be found here.)

Silman on Chess.com: To Master an Opening You Need to Embrace Defeat!

IM Silman's full article can be found on Chess.com and is in fact a deep and instructive treatment of a King's Indian Defense setup.  Some of the learning principles he cites are general in nature, however, and could for example be applied to Annotated Game #111: A first Dutch Defense - especially the following:

I might seem to be harsh, but Black’s mistakes are actually a healthy part of learning. He put in the work and absorbed various key setups – that’s great. And now he’s using them incorrectly, which is also good since he’ll learn a lot from this game (the pain of defeat is an incredible teacher). That’s how one gets better – a mix of study, trying to use the knowledge from that study, screwing it up badly and losing, making adjustments, and eventually getting it right and discovering that the wins start to fall into his lap.

It's useful to understand that losing badly is in fact a natural part of the learning process of a new opening - you just need to make the effort necessary to make sure that part of the process doesn't last for too long.

Annotated Game #111: A first Dutch Defense

This game, my first in the Dutch Defense, contains pretty much what you would expect from the occasion: an opening blunder on the kingside, lots of tactics, and unexpected resources by Black that (almost) save the day.  I was unfamiliar with the sideline my opponent chose - probably so was he - and learned the hard way the need to look for tactics in the Dutch from very early on, rather than proceeding only on opening principles.

White chose to let up on the pressure in the middlegame, however, and also missed a tactical blow from Black on move 16, which eventually let me equalize.  I should have entered the tactical complications of 17...Qxb2! after which White has no better than a perpetual, but even after spending a great deal of time on the calculations, could not definitively resolve them in my favor.  Even with the lesser move, a bishop retreat, I was able to transition into an equal endgame, but being tired (or lazy, depending on how you look at it) I allowed White to win a decisive central pawn, then called it quits after blundering another one.

The game showed how psychology and fatigue can influence both sides in what was a rather wild, see-saw match.  However, that's exactly what a Dutch Defense game should be, so I'll keep working on it.  Lesson learned in one sideline, at least.  On the positive side, my tenacity in the middlegame was good, as I constantly sought for opportunities to strike back rather than accept my fate.  My tactical vision (when I actively looked for it) was also good in places, for example with the exchange sacrifice sequence started on move 9, the need to play 13...e5 to try and free my game, and seeing the possibilities on moves 16 and 17, even if I failed to fully calculate the large amount of complications after the best move.

[Event "DHLC Slow Swiss #11"] [Site "Chess.com"] [Date "2014.01.04"] [Round "2"] [White "MurkyLizard"] [Black "ChessAdmin_01"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A80"] [WhiteElo "1611"] [BlackElo "1435"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Houdini"] [PlyCount "61"] [EventDate "2014.??.??"] [TimeControl "45"] {A80: Dutch Defence: Unusual White second moves} 1. d4 f5 2. Nc3 {this move normally implies that Bg5 will follow} Nf6 3. Bg5 {with similar ideas for White as in the Veresov Attack (the same initial three moves, except with Black playing ...d5 instead of ...f5)} d5 {Black gets a lock on e4 and opens the diagonal for the Bc8} 4. e3 (4. Bxf6 {is by far the most common choice.}) 4... Ne4 {here I had no idea what to do, having expected the bishop to take on f6, so thought for a bit and figured that the best way to take advantage of White's omission would be to use the knight actively. I was wrong. This was a failure to correctly evaluate the resulting position, as well as a failure to consider the burden of proof on Black of violating general opening principles (not moving the same piece twice early on).} (4... e6 {would be a reasonable move, freeing the Bf8 and reinforcing Black's central pawns. Black would thereby head for a type of Stonewall position.}) 5. Nxe4 fxe4 {Black now has major problems developing his pieces and his king position is weak.} 6. c4 $146 {now out of the database; only one other game had been played previously in this line, a White victory.} h6 $2 {this move was played because I completely focused on my own "threat" against the bishop, assuming it would have to be retreated, and therefore missed White's next move. In the Dutch Defense, one has to be looking for tactics from early on, something which I forgot and was playing simply on (poor) principle. Specifically, Black after his first move has to guard the weakened h5-e8 diagonal.} (6... Qd7 {is Black's best try, according to Houdini, but this is still quite awkward.} 7. Ne2 e6 $16) 7. Qh5+ $18 Kd7 {the only move} 8. Bf4 g5 $2 {Black's game is strategically ruined by this point, but the text move makes it even worse.} (8... c6 {would put up the most resistance.} 9. a3 (9. cxd5 {was what I had worried about most, but Black has the useful maneuver} Qa5+ 10. Kd1 Qxd5) 9... e6) 9. Be5 {Houdini's evaluation function gives White the advantage of more than a full rook here.} e6 {the only move to allow Black to try and get some activity going, an exchange sacrifice.} 10. Bxh8 {White goes for the easy material gain, somewhat freeing Black's game (which is still losing objectively).} (10. Qf7+ {would be more effective for White's attack, at least temporarily passing up on capturing the rook.} Be7 11. Bxh8 (11. cxd5 $18) 11... Qxh8 12. cxd5) 10... Bb4+ 11. Kd1 Qxh8 12. Qf7+ Kd8 13. cxd5 e5 {my opponent apparently did not expect this and thought for some time here. As with the exchange sacrifice, it is Black's best (and only) attempt to generate some counterplay, based on attacking d4 and getting the Qh8 into the action.} 14. Rc1 Bd7 {I considered this the most active defensive move. Black protects c7 by interfering with the 7th rank.} (14... Nd7 {is what was preferred by the engine, although it's no solution to Black's problems.} 15. Ne2 Qf6 16. Qg8+ Bf8 17. dxe5 Nxe5 18. h4 $18) 15. dxe5 $6 {I was happy to see this, as it opens up the long diagonal and activates my queen. White is still winning, of course, but Black now has more chances.} (15. Ne2 {instead would bring another piece into the fight.}) 15... Qxe5 16. a3 $2 {ironically, White makes a similar tactical oversight as Black previously did on the kingside, when attempting to kick White's bishop.} (16. Kc2 {is the best defense, apparently, but would be difficult for a human to play without misgivings.} Bd6 17. h4 $18) 16... Ba4+ $1 $11 {I thought for a little while here, but the bishop move was clearly best, so saved my big think for the next move.} 17. Rc2 {the only move that prevents mate} Be7 $2 { my opponent, who was significantly lower on time, must have appreciated this defensive retreat from me.} (17... Qxb2 $1 {is what I spent most of my time calculating, but I could not see the end-state clearly after White's series of checks and thought that White would eventually be able to do something besides check the king. I was wrong, as it turns out White can pick up a couple of pawns, but has nothing better than to keep a perpetual check going, or suffer a similar fate from Black.} 18. Qg8+ {is actually what I spent most of my time on.} (18. Qxc7+ Ke8 19. Qc8+ (19. axb4 Nc6 {using an interference theme} 20. f3 Qxc2+ 21. Ke1 Rd8 $11) 19... Kf7 20. axb4 Qb1+ 21. Kd2 Nd7 $11) 18... Ke7 19. Qh7+ Kf8 20. Qxh6+ Ke8 {I thought I had to avoid this square, because of} 21. Bb5+ {which I thought would be a decisive deflection tactic, but it in fact loses. Black still has enough material left to mate.} c6 22. Bxa4 $2 Qb1+ 23. Rc1 (23. Ke2 Qe1#) 23... Qd3#) 18. Kc1 (18. Qg8+ $5 Kd7 19. Qe6+ Qxe6 20. dxe6+ Kxe6 21. Bc4+ Ke5 22. b3 $16) 18... Bxc2 $14 {the attack is over, so I cash in the material.} 19. Kxc2 Bf6 20. Qg8+ (20. Qf8+ $5 Kd7 21. Qb4 Qxd5 22. Bc4 $14) 20... Ke7 $11 21. Qe6+ {White has nothing better now than to head for the even endgame, as he has to exchange off the Qe5.} Qxe6 22. dxe6 Kxe6 23. Bc4+ Ke5 { the king is properly placed here, at an active central location, although I thought that it got in the way of my other pieces afterwards; it should have been strategically withdrawn to e6 at an appropriate time.} 24. Ne2 Nc6 25. Nc3 Na5 $2 {simply a lazy move.} (25... Rd8 $142 $5 $11 {was what I had originally planned. Then I had the idea of chasing the Bc4, without seeing that it could now move forward to d5 with the Nc3's protection. This was a thinking process failure, by not asking myself what the previous White move had accomplished (additional control of d5, attacking e4).}) 26. Bd5 $16 {Attacks the isolani on e4, notes Houdini via the Fritz interface. A positional characteristic (isolated pawn) I also should have paid more attention to when starting the endgame, from a strategic point of view.} c6 27. Bxe4 $16 {Things are now looking rather grim for Black, with the passed e-pawn. However, resistance is still possible.} Nc4 28. Rd1 Nd6 {not a bad move, closing off the d-file.} 29. Bg6 (29. Bf3 Rf8 $16) 29... Rg8 {this was a rather cheap threat.} (29... Ke6 { would be better here, untangling the king from the Bf6 and also covering the d7 square.}) 30. Bh5 g4 $2 {the last mistake. I had ideas of isolating the bishop on h4, but White's rook move ended that.} (30... Ke6 $16 {again would be best.}) 31. Rd4 $18 {Black will lose another pawn and have no counterplay remaining in the ending, giving the game to White.} 1-0

A business model for effective training programs

By coincidence I recently read a business article that I found very relevant for chess training programs, bearing on ideas discussed in "Do study techniques matter in chess?"  The article "What Makes Strategic Decisions Different" by Phil Rosenzweig - from the Harvard Business Review (HBR) November 2013 issue whose theme is "How to Make Smarter Decisions" - posits that we need to understand what type of decision to make in different situations.  This means not simply applying a single optimized game theory or decision-making process.  The idea is that such an "optimized" approach, which works well in simple models with fixed rules we cannot influence, fails to take into account dynamic factors such as our own ability to influence the situations we face - changing the rules, as it were.

The model the author uses is a 2x2 matrix of different "fields" with the axes (variables) being Performance (absolute vs. relative) and Control (low vs. high); diagram below is reproduced from the above link.



Training programs fall into the category of High Control - Absolute Performance ["Influencing Outcomes", the author's second field].  In this case, we can through our own efforts materially effect the outcome of our decisions.  In the case of chess, this is reflected in performance improvement as measured on an absolute scale reflected by our rating.  Progress requires analytic ability and effortful study (your "control factor" over the long term).  However, individual competitions (games or tournaments) would fall under the category of High Control - Relative Performance ["Managing for Strategic Success"], which calls for a different approach, namely emphasizing a strong positive attitude (your "control factor" in the short term) and making informed choices that also take into account your competitors' abilities when possible.

The most relevant portion of the article for chess training purposes is excerpted below.  It's worth noting that "The Making of an Expert" article cited below used as a case study the training and performance of the Polgar sisters, so it's certainly not a stretch to apply these types of ideas to the chess world, given that some of them in fact originated there.

Many decisions involve more than selecting among options we cannot improve or making judgments about things we cannot influence ["Making Judgments and Choices", the author's first field]. In so much of life, we use our energy and talents to make things happen. Imagine that the task at hand is to determine how long we will need to complete a project. That's a judgment we can control; indeed, it's up to us to get the project done. Here, positive thinking matters. By believing that we can do well, perhaps even holding a level of confidence that is by some definitions a bit excessive, we can often improve performance...

Some activities call for us to move between the first and second fields, shifting our mind-set back and forth. The approach known as "deliberate practice," which can lead to expert performance (see "The Making of an Expert," by K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely, HBR July-August 2007), is based on objective and deliberate thinking before an event, full commitment with a positive attitude while taking action, and then a return to dispassionate analysis after the event--what is known as an after-action review. The ability to shift effectively between mind-sets is a crucial element of high performance in many repeated tasks of short duration, from sports to sales.

What the article describes above seems to fit well the general process that I've outlined here, in various places, that emphasizes similar elements: crafting a structured training program, creating a positive mental outlook when going into a competitive situation, then objectively analyzing your performance afterwards.

Given recent discussions about training methods, it might be worthwhile to put up a more comprehensive and updated post outlining my training program and methods, which would be personally useful as a reference and perhaps offer a suitable opportunity for others to share their own ideas and comparative experiences.