100 Days in Review

Teamleague 37 Round 1 will be played in 2 weeks, so it's time to review my '100 Days to Chess Improvement' while there's still time to make some last-minute adjustments.

Did I put in enough effort, do enough work? The answer to that question will always be "No!", no matter what I've done. On the surface, I've added about 100 points to both my standard and blitz ratings. One point a day. If I can keep that work rate up I'll be a Grandmaster in 2 years. You all believe that will happen too, right?

I'm reasonably happy with my progress studying tactics. Ideally I would like to have 'completed' all 1001 positions and now be able to do a rapid review of the entire book, visualising each solution in a couple of seconds. I am at this stage with about 600-700 of the problems.

I had originally hoped to reduce the tactical motifs to the fewest possible basic ideas, but I have come to understand the opposite is more useful. "Did you know that Eskimoes have 70 different words for snow?". Of course they do, they live in it and naturally notice and name subtle differences. The same should be true of a Chess player. So we have a 'pin', and the term 'absolute pin' (a piece is pinned to the King) is also common. But a Bishop pinning a Knight to the Queen is a different sort of a pin to a Rook pinning a Pawn to a Rook. Perhaps the next objective should be to find a name for 'Knight pinned to Queen by Bishop that can capture a Pawn creating a mate threat' and such like. The point is to be able to describe a position by expanding the 'Chess vocabulary' in a way that is more descriptive and meaningful than by saying "everything is a double attack".

I am getting much better at deliberately naming the tactical motifs present in the problems although this has not yet fully extended to practical play, I still have to remind my internal dialogue to do it.

My board geometry and visualisation skills have noticeably improved. I can put the book down, wander off to do something else and conjure up quite an accurate representation of a position in my mind's eye. Before yesterday's game I did review problems for half an hour or so and was seeing the board quite well. Today I had not done that and found it much more difficult to 'read' the board. Un-solid... like words floating round on the page when you don't wear your reading glasses.

I'm more confident with my solutions to problems. To begin with, I checked the answers even on the second or third review. Now even at the first review I can say "here's the solution; Black might try this, but it doesn't work because of...".

There are a couple of Bette Noir problems that I stumble on every time, no matter how often I look at the solution. Some of them are sadly simple, I'll start noting them down to try and find the psychological blockage with solving them.

I had hoped to have time to review some strategy. I'd earmarked one of "Chess Praxis" (Nimzovitch), "Masters of the Chessboard" (Reti), "Pawn Power in Chess" (Kmoch), or "The Middle Game" (Euwe and Kramer) to work through again before Teamleague starts, but there won't be time now. Maybe I can spend next Sunday afternoon whizzing through "Judgement and Planning in Chess" (Euwe) or "Modern Chess Strategy" (Pachman), but I think doing such a quick rehash will be of limited value.

What to do about openings? My only Chess teacher who hasn't been dead for 50 years, a Master strength player who guided me when I was a teenager, told me that no one below 2300 need study openings beyond "sortez les pieces" ("get your pieces out!"). I still believe this is sage advice. Anyone who has had the pleasure of watching FlorinC(FM) play P-R4, P-R5, R-R4 in the opening, or DonConchi play the 'King Attack Opening' 1. e3 2. Ke2 3. Kd3 against strong computers and win will understand the folly of "opening theory".

Teammate Mapleleaf did some excellent work in the last teamleague providing us with a database of our upcoming opponents' opening preferences. I think I'll use that to get a basic idea in the systems they play then aim to duke it out in the middle game.

I'd wanted to apply my new-found tactical vision to playing through master games. I've always loved playing through master games and absorb the strategic ideas quite easily, but I haven't done it much lately. Rather than do it for pure entertainment I need to start applying the same technique as playing a real game, and review the tactical problems before I start.

Is the monkey ready for Teamleague 37? "So place the board that the sun shines in your opponent's eyes." I'll take any help I can get...