Contents
Title page 3
Explanation of symbols 6
Preface 7
Chapter 1 Do you study with the right mindset? 13
Chapter 2 Fifteen study methods 59
Chapter 3 Identify your study priorities 121
Chapter 4 Choose the right resources for your study plan 156
Chapter 5 Study your openings deeply 186
Chapter 6 ‘Dynamize’ your tactical training 233
Tactics Test 248
Chapter 7 Make your endgame study more enjoyable 253
Chapter 8 Systemize your middlegame knowledge 291
Positional mini test: piece exchanges 324
Chapter 9 Get organized – create a study plan 326
Index of names 375
Bibliography 379

Davorin Kuljasevic
How to Study Chess on Your Own
Creating a Plan that Works... and Sticking to it!
New In Chess 2021
© 2021 New In Chess
Published by New In Chess, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
www.newinchess.com
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written
permission from the publisher.
Cover design: rouwhorst + van roon
Supervision: Peter Boel
Editing and typesetting: Frank Erwich
Proofreading: Joe Petrolito, Mariska de Mie
Production: Anton Schermer

Have you found any errors in this book?
Please send your remarks to editors@newinchess.com. We will collect all
relevant corrections on the Errata page of our website
www.newinchess.com and implement them in a possible next edition.
ISBN: 978-90-5691-931-3

Explanation of symbols
The chessboard with its coordinates:
K King
Q Queen
R Rook
B Bishop
N Knight
2 White stands slightly better
3 Black stands slightly better
± White stands better
μ Black stands better

+– White has a decisive advantage
–+ Black has a decisive advantage
= balanced position
! good move
!! excellent move
? bad move
?? blunder
!? interesting move
?! dubious move
„ counterplay
ƒ initiative
TM only move
≥ better is
≤ weaker is
> strong (sufficent)
< weak (insufficent)
# mate
‚ attack
° compensation
... with the idea
ct candidates tournament
cr correspondence
tt team tournament
ol olympiad
m match

Preface
It is difficult to think of a question that chess players ask more often, yet get
a satisfactory answer so rarely, than ‘How should I study chess on my
own?’. I have become increasingly aware of both the importance of this
question and the complexity of its answer in recent years as I have
gradually replaced my playing activities with coaching ones. As a
professional chess player, you have the luxury of taking for granted all the
studies that you have done to get to that level; however, as a coach, you are
expected to transfer this knowledge to your students and other ambitious
chess players that you come across. And then, when you are put on the spot
by a hopeful chess student and all that you can come up with in response
are a couple of quick study tips, you realize, perhaps just as much as the
person that asked you, that you are not providing an adequate answer to this
essential question.
Prompted by these realizations, I have recently decided to approach this
subject more comprehensively, so that I would finally be able to provide
answers that would satisfy both curious students of chess and myself. And
so, at the peaceful beginning of what would turn out to be a turbulent 2020,
I set out to identify and explore the most important aspects of effective self-
study. After eight months of intensive work (more on that in a bit later!), I
produced the book that is in front of you.
Naturally, I understood that a book with this title and subject matter
would likely draw interest among a wide range of chess players (virtually
everyone who learned what I am writing about sounded genuinely excited
about it). Having this in mind, I have designed it for a broader audience, so
that anyone from a casual club player to a chess professional could, at the
very least, take away a reasonable number of original learning methods,
useful study resources, and practical ideas from it. However, I did not
intend for such an extensive subject to be merely a collection of self-
contained study advice. The two greater purposes of this book are to:

1. Encourage readers to study with a proper structure; and
2. Help readers become independent in their studies.
Let me quickly elaborate on these two important points.
Structure
From my experience, many chess players would like to approach their
studies in a structured way, but they lack either the tools or the discipline to
do so. Thus, I focused on providing a structured study methodology and
philosophy that could have a long-term improvement value for chess
players of various levels. For this purpose, I did two things. Firstly, I
categorized and classified the key concepts, such as typical study methods,
areas, and resources, in the individual chapters. Secondly, I have structured
the chapters in such a way that they can help you systematically build your
own study plan. The overview of the key issues in their respective chapters
below should give you an idea about this process:
• What the right and wrong chess study mindsets are and how to optimize
your learning processes (Chapter 1);
• How to develop good study habits and get rid of the useless ones (Chapter
2);
• Which study areas players should focus on in their chess study and how to
distribute the time between them (Chapter 3);
• Which kinds of study resources are appropriate for players of different
levels and how to make the best use of them (Chapter 4);
• How to study various aspects of openings, middlegames, and endgames
effectively on your own (Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8);
• How to design your own study plans and training schedules (Chapter 9).
As you can infer from this overview, the first two chapters broadly deal
with how we should study, Chapters 3 and 4 with what we should study,
while Chapters 5 through 8 contain specific study advice for different stages
of the game. And then, in Chapter 9, which is a sort of the culmination of
the book, we integrate all the previously discussed material into an

actionable study plan. My hope is that this systematic approach will
encourage you to organize your own chess studies in a similar way.
Be independent!
Yes, it is important to have the right study tools and this book will provide
you with plenty of these, but perhaps its main purpose is to promote a
quality of your chess study that is much more elusive – independence. I
would like to stress that I have not envisioned this book to be some kind of
a study program for you to follow literally. I think that we already have too
much of that in chess; in fact, so much so that it has come to the point
where many chess players, even those at a respectable 2000+ Elo level, tend
to rely too heavily on external directions for their chess studies, such as
assignments set by their coaches, online training courses, exercises from
books, and similar resources. I regularly meet chess players who are smart
and accomplished people in everyday life, yet when it comes to studying
chess independently, they often seem to be in the dark about the effective
ways to do it, and fall short in terms of the time investment, quality, or
creativity of their own work. Sometimes, they are not even aware that this
might be the main reason behind their lack of improvement in chess.
Therefore, one of the primary goals of this book is to teach you how to
become an independent student of chess, someone who will not just follow
instructions, but rather actively inquire, research, collect, analyze,
experiment, challenge assumptions, challenge yourself, and find your own
ways in chess study. It is often in these quiet inner moments of your study
that future improvement resides.
Who will benefit the most from this book?
In my view, it would be self-motivated players of any level and age who are
serious and disciplined about their chess study and have enough time to put
the methods from the book into practice. If you are looking forward to
doing regular game simulations like the one of Tomashevsky-Dubov (see
page 95) or spending a couple of training sessions analyzing the Aronian-
Anand endgame (see page 75), then you are just the kind of a reader that I
have in mind. If you change the way you approach your tactics training

after reading Chapter 6, or design a structured study plan similar to the one
proposed in Chapter 9, then this book will have done something good for
you. If even only the discussion from Chapter 1 helps you change your
study mindsets for the better, I will consider this book a success. The study
philosophy and methods laid out on its pages have worked for me, for many
of my students, and, according to my observations, for many other
successful chess players. At the end of the day, you should find in it what
you think will be the most useful for you, apply it, and see if it works for
you.
Let us now discuss some technical details that will help you study the
book more easily.
Diagram previews
The first thing that you will see at the start of each chapter, with the
exception of Chapters 9 and 10, are diagram previews. These are exercise-
type collections of the most important or interesting positions from each
chapter, and I would strongly recommend that you attempt to solve them
before reading any further. This way, you will not only get a chance to
practice your decision-making and evaluation skills, but also be better
warmed up for the discussions that lie ahead.
Tables
Something else that you will probably quickly notice throughout the book
are the multitude of tables, figures, and bullet-point lists. As I mentioned
above, I decided to categorize and classify various important aspects of
chess study to provide a solid self-study framework. Therefore, this book
contains more textbook-type graphics than your regular chess prose. I hope
that they will not take away from your reading experience, but rather
provide you with a better overview and structure of the topic at hand.
Games and exercises
You will probably find it refreshing that the majority of games and
exercises in the book are new in chess literature. Many of them are from
recent grandmaster practice, while some of them are from my own games,

analyses with my students, or their own games. Moreover, I have analyzed
many illustrative examples from angles that are different from the usual
annotating style, focusing on particular aspects of chess study, rather than
just the major themes and variations. While going through them, you will
not only have an opportunity to see interesting new material, but also learn
how to apply certain study methods, e.g ., how to analyze positions properly,
how to memorize complex study material, how to research typical pawn
structures, etc.
A quick word about the exercises in this book: there are not as many
typical ‘end-of-the-chapter’ exercises as you might be used to from other
chess books. While I have provided exercises in places where I saw fit,
generally speaking, this is not an exercise book as much as it is an
instructional work that aims to show you how to make the best of the
plethora of other study material that is available out there.
Study vs training
By now, you have probably noticed that I prefer using the term ‘study’ over
‘training’ to describe chess activities of this type. The distinction between
these two terms, especially in our context, is ever so slight, but I had to
choose one for the sake of consistency. After consulting with my publisher,
I eventually went with ‘study’ because I believe that it describes most
activities of chess players a bit more accurately than ‘training’. That is not
to say that I have completely abandoned the latter term; I have used it in
certain situations, especially when describing comparatively more practical
aspects of chess study, such as training sessions, tactics training, training
partner, etc. I wanted to mention this so that you are not left scratching your
head as to why I insist on ‘study methods’ and not ‘training methods’ and
similar minor details. In most cases, anyway, these two terms can be used
interchangeably.
Study vs playing
This is the final distinction that I would like to make, but it is a conceptual
rather than a semantic one. This is a book about how to study chess; that is,
everything that we do when we do not play chess. However, the importance

of playing (especially rated tournament games with long time controls)
cannot be overstated. As I explain in Chapter 1, playing and studying go
together hand in hand and influence each other in many positive ways. The
caveat is that it is best to have these two types of chess activities in a sort of
equilibrium, because too much of one or the other is not good for your
chess. On the one hand, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson’s well-known movie
quote, too much studying and too little play can make you a dull chess
player. On the other, I have witnessed many chess players, even very
talented ones, who think that they can improve primarily on account of their
practical experience and rather superficial study methods, only to hit a brick
wall with their progress at some point. I believe that it is exactly then that
they should be asking themselves the question from the beginning of this
book.
Writing in the time of COVID-19
As I mentioned earlier, little did I know that from the time I had begun
working on the book until I finished it, chess life as we have known it for
decades would virtually evaporate within a couple of months. Since I had
initially approached this project with an assumption that over-the-board
chess would be here to stay for the foreseeable future, the developments of
2020 have had an unwelcome impact on my writing ambitions and overall
inspiration. If I have to be completely honest, there were moments during
this period when my motivation to write about this subject had dwindled to
the point where I thought whether it made any sense. I mean, here I am
writing a book telling people how to study chess better so that they could
ultimately perform better in tournaments, increase their rating, make norms,
etc., when all of a sudden, no one knows when and whether at all our
normal ways of life, let alone the usual chess tournament activities, would
be resumed. Add to these unpleasant life uncertainties another unexpected
development – less than expected time to write due to parental duties of
raising a curious little toddler, and you will understand why this turned out
to be a mentally, emotionally, and logistically exhausting project. By
comparison, writing my previous book Beyond Material was a walk in the

park. Nevertheless, the very process of writing about such a fundamental
and multi-faceted subject has been immensely joyful, and I hope that you
will also enjoy the final product.
For the end, I would like to express my gratitude to two people without
whom this book would not have been possible in its final form. Firstly, to
my publisher Allard Hoogland who generously extended the original
deadline for the submission of the book manuscript, which allowed me to
complete it at the standard that I had set at the start.
Secondly, my warmest thanks go to my wife Iva for her infinite patience
and unconditional support while I was working on this project. I dedicate
this book to her.
Davorin Kuljasevic,
Plovdiv, March 2021

Chapter 1 – Preview
White to move
Before suggesting the best move, please consider the opponent’s ideas.
(go to the ANSWER)

Black to move
Please suggest the best continuation.
(go to the ANSWER)

Black to move
Please evaluate the position and suggest the best move for Black.
(go to the ANSWER)
Black to move
What is the best technical solution in this position?
(go to the ANSWER)

Black to move
What is the best way to continue the attack?
(go to the ANSWER)

Black to move
How would you respond to White’s attack?
(go to the ANSWER)
Black to move
How would you recapture on f1 in response to 23...Bxf1 ?
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
What is the best way to convert the advantage?
(go to the ANSWER)
Chapter 1
Do you study with the right mindset?
Many chess players approach their study with the question: ‘What should I
study?’. However, a more important place to start, I believe, is to ask
yourself ‘How should I study?’. Just as our beliefs and attitudes about
various aspects of life shape our behaviors, so does our study mindset in
chess direct our study efforts and results, even when we are not fully aware
of it. Therefore, I believe that the right place to start our discussion about
chess study is to examine the underlying study mindsets and learning
processes. Even if you consider yourself to be a strongly pragmatic player
who does not need such advice or you got this book primarily to learn

practical study tips, I still strongly believe that the ideas discussed in this
chapter will help you lay a better foundation for your chess study.
Quantity and quality of chess study
Mastering a complex game like chess takes
1. time; and
2. intelligent study.
In other words, both the quantity and quality of chess study are essential to
learn chess properly, keep improving, and achieve desired results.
Study time (quantity) is a prerequisite for any kind of serious chess study.
This might seem like an obvious notion, but it is not uncommon for chess
players of all levels to cut corners and look for ways to ‘save time’ in their
study. Does any of the following sound familiar?
• ‘I don’t have to study critical variations in the opening because there is a
playable sideline’.
• ‘I don’t need to study closed positions because I am a tactical type of
player’.
• ‘I don’t feel like solving endgame studies because they are not practically
useful’.
• ‘I will skip the analysis session today; let’s beat some patzers on lichess
instead.’
It is all too easy to come up with such alibis when you don’t quite feel like
going out of your study comfort zone. Therefore, I think that it is necessary
to point out one simple truth for anyone who wants to keep improving at
chess:
There is no substitute for study time.
You may have noticed that the best player in a club, team, tournament or
any other group where you play chess is usually the one that has invested
(recently or sometime in the past) the most time into chess study, and not
necessarily a person that you may perceive as the most talented one. Yet, for

some reason, it is still not uncommon for people to primarily attribute
someone’s talent to their success. While it is true that an individual’s talents
can, and often do, make a difference, even the most gifted chess players
have to devote countless hours to painstaking study in order to succeed. For
example, Mikhail Tal has been glorified for his unparalleled attacking
genius. There is no doubt that the chances that we will ever again see such a
bright chess talent are minimal, but would many of Tal’s famous
combinational masterpieces have been possible without his hard work on
chess? Here is what his contemporary, grandmaster Alexander Kotov, said
about it: ‘I often had the occasion to see how hard Tal does work. You only
have to look at his notes to games to see how much effort he puts in. These
variations, full of a web of complicated combinations, could only be
produced by many hours of study at home.’
Fairly recently, the chess world was hit by the news of a 10-year old
International Master Abhimanyu Mishra of the USA, the youngest ever in
history. One can only wonder how a boy at such a tender age can achieve
what most chess players have never achieved in their lifetime. Abhimanyu’s
coach, GM Arun Prasad, explained it this way: ‘Abhimanyu is a hard-
working kid. His thirst for knowledge is immense. I am working with him
since he was six. Basically, there were no difficult concepts for him. I can
teach him anything and everything and he will understand it relatively
easily. He has a phenomenal memory, excellent calculation and most
importantly he is hard working.’ Abhimanyu’s coach acknowledges his
outstanding learning abilities, memory, and calculation skills, which are
obviously extremely important in chess, but stresses ‘hard work’ as the
most important reason behind his success. As we can see from the
comments of people who were close to them, the talent of such exceptional
chess players is only a multiplier of the hours they put into study and not a
decisive factor on its own. Their natural gifts help them learn faster and
overall make better decisions over the board than most people. But without
the necessary work, they would have hardly been able to nurture this talent
and fulfil their potential.

What does this mean for someone who doesn’t particularly stand out in
terms of chess talent? Well, if your multiplier (talent) is somewhere around
average, then the simple arithmetic suggests that the best way to maximize
your learning effects is to increase the amount of study time. The ability to
work hard is something that anyone with enough available study time and
passion for the game can develop. Let us take the example of GM Jonathan
Hawkins. His path to the highest chess title was not a typical one. In 2001,
at the age of 18, he was only an average club player with around 1800 Elo.
Would you consider someone like that to be a realistic candidate for a GM
title? Probably not, because most people who become grandmasters display
a talent early in their careers that enables them to make quick progress and
become at least strong master-level players by that age. Well, Jonathan is a
prime example that one can become a grandmaster even with such humble
beginnings, because he gradually removed barrier after barrier to become
one in 2014, at the age of 31. His success story should be an inspiration to
all aspiring chess players, especially those who are not considered ‘talented’
in the traditional sense of the word.
I would like to take a quote from Hawkins’ 2012 book Amateur to IM to
illustrate two important aspects of chess study. He writes: ‘At some point
though, this all changed and I became addicted to studying the endgame. I
filled notebook after notebook with endgame analysis. This is what led to
my biggest improvement. It also felt as if my better understanding helped
me to assimilate more knowledge.’ If we focus on the first part of this quote,
we will notice the key role of passion and immersion* into the study
process.
* More on immersion at the end of the chapter.
When you approach your study in such a way, no matter if it is chess or
anything else, words like discipline and hard work lose meaning as studying
becomes joyful and effortless. In such a state, learning effects tend to
multiply. The second part of his statement: ‘It also felt as if my better
understanding helped me to assimilate more knowledge’ hints at the
compounding effect of chess study. This effect allows those who invest

more time into their studies to assimilate new and increasingly more
complex things more easily and more quickly. This is difficult to achieve
with insufficient or irregular study. Please bear in mind that learning chess
is not a linear process (e.g., like a subject in school for which you simply
have to memorize facts and reproduce them). Rather, increasing amounts of
chess study tend to accelerate one’s learning curve.
These days, we have so many great study resources, promising book titles
and good coaches at our disposal that it is easy to fall into the trap of
thinking that surrounding yourself with all that chess goodness will help
you become a better chess player by default. Please don’t get me wrong; to
some degree it does (think quality). However, if you have a huge chess
library, but most of your books are collecting dust; or you work with a good
coach, but don’t do much study on your own besides the lessons that you
take – this quality will usually not translate into a tangible improvement.
There is no coach, book, course or ‘method’ that can replace the work done
on your own. Therefore, if you find yourself not achieving your chess goals
or fulfilling your potential, the first question to ask yourself is: ‘Do I study
enough?’.
The second part of the equation – the quality of chess study, is just as
important. While there are many factors that influence the quality of your
work on chess (most of them will be discussed in the subsequent chapters),
the underlying foundation of quality work is the right study mindset. It is
the understanding of why you are doing what you are doing and how it will
translate into you becoming a better chess player.
Study mindsets
‘I consider the following three factors necessary for success: first, the
conscience of one’s own strengths and weaknesses; second, an exact
understanding of the opponent’s strengths and weaknesses; third, a higher
goal than a one-moment satisfaction’ – Alexander Alekhine.
I believe that the third factor of Alekhine’s famous quote captures the
essence of a proper chess study mindset. When you are process-oriented

and study without the need for immediate gratification from your study
efforts in the form of fleeting pleasure, recognition, score, rating, etc., you
tend to reap the greatest benefits from your study. However, chess players
are sometimes too outcome-oriented when approaching their study. Below,
we will examine four typical approaches that reflect this mindset, which
may not lead to the optimal chess study:
1. lack of objectivity;
2. shallow study approach;
3. short-run outlook; and
4. playing too much.
Lack of objectivity
Allow me to throw my diplomacy into a dustbin for a moment and be as
frank as I can: for many people, studying chess is too much about
themselves. In their efforts to get better practical results they focus
primarily on their own games; their own great moves and ideas; how they
evaluate positions, and what kinds of positions they prefer. This often
comes with high usage of ‘I’ and ‘my’ when they talk about chess. In
contrast, a more objective player would say: ‘Maybe White should play...’,
instead of ‘I will play’, or ‘Black’s position is probably better’ instead of ‘I
am clearly better here’. Lack of objectivity is a serious defect in the mindset
of a chess player who would like to reach new chess heights.
Of course, everyone should be a little selfish when it comes to improvement
in chess. It is only natural that we primarily focus on our own chess needs
and wants, and care less about those of others. However, this quest for self-
improvement should not interfere with a selfless desire to learn the secrets
of chess. I am talking here about a desire to analyze an interesting game or
a position that you don’t understand without worrying if it will ‘help you
improve’ or ‘be a waste of time’; to study an opening that you do not play,
just out of curiosity about its pawn structures; to go to a tournament with a
genuine goal to play interesting games and not to gain rating points or win a
prize. In the words of the ex-World Champion, Tigran Petrosian: ‘A

noticeable tendency in modern chess is the predominance of the sporting
element over the creative. The fact that nowadays the result is more
important is our misfortune, a misfortune which indiscriminating public
applauds. The masters of the older generations too wanted to win, but they
didn’t just think about how to win a game, but how to win it worthily.’
When one develops a mindset that the great champion talks about – that
places ‘chess’ in the primary role and ‘self ’ in the secondary – one can
achieve objectivity that is conducive to the deepest and most productive
kind of chess learning.
How does one develop this ‘objective’ mindset? We will talk more about
it throughout the book, but for starters, I would like to share two simple and
effective study practices that have helped me think more objectively. The
first practice is analyzing interesting games on your own without time limits
or particular goals in mind. I was fortunate enough that my former coach,
the late IM Vladimir Bukal sr., taught me a simple technique to do that
early on. Here is how it goes.
You pick a game that has caught your attention and begin by trying to
memorize it from the first to the last move. The preferred way of
memorizing is to make the moves on the board because the so-called
‘muscle memory’ helps you connect the logical or forced sequences of the
game better. It may take you several times to go through the game like this
until a ‘story’ of the game builds up in your mind and you can eventually
reproduce the whole game without a scoresheet. Then, when the game has
been fully internalized, you can put the scoresheet aside and start analyzing
the game with no aids. Since you haven’t played the game yourself, it is
easier to take a color-blind approach to the analysis, and try to figure out
why both players played their moves and how they solved the problems that
they were facing during the game. One such example from my youth that I
remember well is the following game:
Game 1
Vladimir Tukmakov 2582

Zdenko Kozul 2611
Solin/Split 2000 (7)
This game captured my attention because of its complexity. When I played
over it for the first time in a chess magazine on a sunny afternoon, I didn’t
understand the many maneuvers and decisions that grandmasters Tukmakov
and Kozul made. Since the game wasn’t annotated, I decided to take a
closer look and try to figure things out on my own. As you can imagine,
analyzing a complex game played between two strong grandmasters with
no aid is a fairly challenging exercise for a 2100-rated player (that I was at
the time). I do not recall the details of my analysis (20 years ago!).
However, I do remember that I had spent almost 4 hours analyzing it.
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.d4 0-0 6.Be2 e5
At the time, I used to play the King’s Indian Defense as Black, so this game
had some structural, if not strictly theoretical, significance.
7.0-0 c6 8.Re1 Na6 9.Bf1 Bg4 10.d5 c5

I think that I would not be exaggerating if I said that Zdenko Kozul is one
of the world’s leading specialists in this typical KID pawn structure. It does
not have a great reputation for Black, but a player with more practical
experience in such positions usually prevails, as Kozul has proven many
times in his career, including against yours truly.
11.h3 Bd7 12.Bg5
At the time, this was an unusual move for me – what if Black simply plays
12...h6 and chases the bishop away?
12...Kh8
Kozul refrained from playing ...h7-h6 in this game, preferring to unpin the
knight in another, less-weakening way instead. Some downsides of 12...h6
can be seen in the following instructive game played by Tukmakov one year
before his encounter against Kozul: 13.Be3 Be8 14.Qd2 Kh7 15.a3 Nd7
16.g3 f5 17.exf5 gxf5 18.Nh4 e4 19.f4 Bf6 20.Ng2 Rg8 21.Kh2 Qe7
22.Bf2!. From here on, White begins a series of impressive piece
maneuvers and slowly but surely outplays his opponent. 22. ..h5 23.Ne3
Bg6 24.Nb5 Bg7 25.Be2 Bh6 26.Ng2! Nf6 27.b4 Be8 28.Nh4 Bd7
29.Rab1 b6 30.Qd1! Rg7 31.Bxh5 Nxh5 32.Qxh5+– Rf8 33.Qe2 Be8
34.Nc3! Qf6 35.Nd1 Bd7 36.Ne3 Nc7 37.Rec1 Rgg8 38.Be1! Ne8 39.Bc3
Qe7 40.Qh5 Nf6 41.Qxh6+ 1-0 Tukmakov-Gallagher, Lugano 1999.
13.a3 Qc7
A somewhat odd-looking move at first sight, but consistent with Black’s
plan to prepare ...f7-f5 while ignoring the bishop on g5.
14.Nb5 Qb8 15.Qd2
This looked natural enough to me at the time; however, with today’s
understanding of these structures, I would prefer a different plan for White:
15.g3 Ng8 16.Bd2!. The bishop has completed its mission on g5 by slowing

down the ...f7-f5 break, so it clears the g5-square for the knight in
anticipation of 16...f5 (other possibilities are 16...Bxb5 17.cxb5 Nc7 18.b4!
cxb4 19.Bxb4± and 16...Bh6 17.Bc3!?±) 17.exf5 gxf5 18.Ng5 h6 19.Ne6
Bxe6 20.dxe6 Nc7 21.Nxc7 Qxc7 22.Bg2 e4 23.g4!±.
15...Ng8 16.Nh2?!
Again, I believe that 16.g3 should be preferred. In case of 16...f5 17.exf5
gxf5, White is better after 18.Nh4.
16...f5 17.exf5 gxf5 18.f4 Bxb5?!
I wondered why Kozul played this committal move at the moment when
White could open the center. I do remember investigating the more
straightforward alternative 18...e4 instead. 19.Nc3 (otherwise, Black can
make an exchange on b5 in favorable circumstances: 19.g4 Bxb5! 20.cxb5
Nc7 21.gxf5 Qc8! 22.Rxe4 Qxf5) 19...Nc7! (this precise move keeps open
the option of playing on both flanks; 19...Qe8 allows White to regroup with
20.Kh1 Qg6 21.Be2 Nc7 22.Nf1=) 20.Be2 b5ƒ.
19.cxb5 Nc7 20.fxe5 dxe5

(back to the PREVIEW)
An imbalanced and dynamic middlegame position arose in which it was
difficult to assess who stands better. This was one of the main reasons why
this game had caught my attention in the first place. Here, I realized that
Kozul’s idea was to transfer the knight to d6 via e8. At the time, I thought
that this, in connection with the previous exchange on b5, was a very deep
idea.
21.Rad1!
Preventing Black’s plan. The next couple of moves revolve around the
control over the d6-square. 21.d6 Ne6„; 21.Bc4? Ne8μ.
21...e4 22.Bc4 a6?
This looks like a clever positional intermezzo, but the engine is quick to
point out that it is actually a serious tactical oversight. The critical
continuation was 22...Ne8 23.d6 Bd4+ 24.Be3 Qxd6 25.Bxd4+ cxd4
26.Qxd4+ Qxd4+ 27.Rxd4, with a slight edge for White in the endgame

thanks to better centralization. It should be noted that Black achieves
nothing with 22...Bd4+, due to 23.Be3.
23.a4?
The oversight was mutual. Apparently, critical moments in complex
positions can be difficult even for grandmasters to spot. White wins with
non-materialistic powerplay: 23.d6! Nxb5 24.Bxb5 axb5 25.Qd5! (the key
move, stopping ...Bd4+) 25...Bxb2 26.d7!+– .
23...axb5 24.axb5 Ne8 25.Bf4!?
Tukmakov goes for a strategically more complicated continuation instead of
the simpler 25.d6 Bd4+ 26.Be3 Qxd6 27.Bxd4+ cxd4 28.Qxd4+ Qxd4+
29.Rxd4. This is the same endgame as after 22...Ne8, only without the a-
pawns. This small change is slightly in Black’s favor, which explains why
Kozul inserted 22...a6.
25...Nd6
Black has achieved his goal by planting the knight on d6. Both sides block
each other’s pawns with pieces, so the game enters a maneuvering phase.
The next few maneuvers are quite straightforward, although Black might
have also considered activating his other knight earlier.
26.Qf2 Qc7 27.Nf1 Qb6 28.Ne3

Those who have studied Gelfand’s Positional Decision Making in Chess
carefully will immediately recognize the blockade against the e4/f5-pawn
chain from Gelfand’s game against Alexander Grischuk.
28...Ne7
This is another interesting moment. Black decided to keep maneuvering
behind the pawn chains instead of winning a pawn with 28...Nxc4 29.Nxc4
Qxb5. This was a serious alternative that could have led to tactical
complications after 30.Nd6 Qb4 (30...Qxb2 31.Qxc5°) 31.Rf1°.
29.Bf1 Nec8
Once again, Kozul chooses the most solid option, although this feels a bit
static. When you analyze this position, you have to ask yourself what
happens in case of 29...Ng6!? 30.Bxd6 Qxd6 31.Nc4∞ ? Black gives up the
blockade on d6 in return for the dark square control. Both sides would have
their trumps in this double-edged position worth exploring in more depth.
30.Kh1

30...Ra4?
Up to this point, both players have been keeping the tension well and made
some interesting maneuvers. However, the plan that Kozul embarked upon
with this move is positionally bad. He should have improved the queen with
30...Qd8 and if 31.Nc4 Nxc4 32.Bxc4, then a positional pawn sacrifice
32...Nd6! 33.Qxc5 Rf6° would provide him with enough compensation for
the pawn, due to excellent control over the dark-square complex. Magnus
Carlsen once successfully sacrificed two pawns (!) for that purpose in a
similar way against Levon Aronian.
31.b3 Rd4
The rook looks mighty on d4, but this is only a mirage. It will be sorely
missed on the a-file soon.
32.Qg3!

White introduces the unpleasant Bf4-e5 idea while putting pressure on the
blocking knight.
32...Qd8
32...Nxb5 33.Be5+–.
33.Rc1!
I really liked this subtle intermezzo by Tukmakov. I recall that it took me a
while to appreciate why it is important to provoke ...b7-b6 as opposed to
playing 33.Ra1 straight away.
33...b6 34.Ra1
The point is that now the b-pawn will be weaker on b6 than on b7. White
can attack it with Ra6 or Ra1-a8-b8, followed by Nc4. In some cases, the
opening of the seventh rank may also come in handy for White.
34...Qd7
Quite passive. Black will not be in a position to win the b5-pawn. 34...Qf6
was a more natural alternative.
35.Ra8

Within only a couple of moves, the situation has turned into White’s favor.
He controls the a-file, while the black rook on d4 is useless. A simple plan
of strengthening his position would be Rea1, Rb8, Raa8, and Black’s
position would fall apart.
35...Nf7
It is clear that Black is already in a difficult situation. There was hardly a
satisfactory alternative: 35...Nxb5 36.Bxb5 Qxb5 37.Nxf5+–; 35...Qf7
36.Nc4 Rxd5 37.Rb8!+–.
36.Nc4 Rg8
36...Rxd5 37.Rxc8 Qxc8 38.Nxb6+– is always a problem.
37.Rb8 Qxd5?
The second big tactical mistake in the game is decisive. 37...Qa7 was a far
more stubborn defense.
38.Rxc8 Rxc8 39.Nxb6+–

And the rest was a matter of simple technique for Tukmakov.
39...Qd8 40.Nxc8 Qxc8 41.Bc4 Qd7 42.b6 Nd6 43.Ra1 Qe8 44.Ra7 Rd1+
45.Kh2 Bf6 46.b7 Bd4 47.Qg5 1-0
Another objectivity-developing practice that is particularly convenient these
days is to play over and analyze live tournament games in online
transmission. For example, there is a strong tournament like the Aeroflot
Open going on right now. You go to a website with live transmission of the
games. Firstly, you turn off the live commentary, live engine, and the chat –
these are very distracting when you want to think on your own. Then, you
go from game to game and analyze them, not necessarily with any
predetermined structure – in some games, you want to find the best move,
in others you might check only the opening; perhaps there was also some
interesting endgame from the previous round that you missed, or a
complicated position worth calculating more closely... and before you know
it, an hour or two might have passed as you get immersed in this leisurely
yet rather focused analysis.
It doesn’t matter if you are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ at these practices (you tend to
get better over time, by the way). The point is that they put ‘you’ as a chess
player in the observer’s position because there is no particular goal that you
are trying to achieve for yourself, except for simply looking at chess. Once
you develop such habits, you will have made a big step toward a more
objective study mindset.
Shallow study approach
There are many ways to study chess. One way that I like to classify them is
on the scale from low- to high-intensity (more on that in upcoming
chapters). At the left end of the scale, the lowest-intensity study method that
I can think of is playing over a game by quickly clicking the ‘forward’
button on your computer. On the high-intensity end, it might happen that we
have to solve a challenging puzzle with a time constraint, for example. The
difference in mental involvement between these two practices is huge,

obviously. Now, this does not mean that we should never do low-intensity
practices and only do the high-intensity ones. Every practice can have its
purpose and place in a study plan, as we will discuss in Chapter 9. The
problem, however, arises when most of one’s study practices are in the low-
intensity zone.
For instance, if you get into such habits as:
• solving mostly ‘check or take’ kind of tactical puzzles;
• analyzing mostly with a chess engine and rarely on your own; and
• studying games only by going through the annotator’s variations without
further reflection,
your learning process will be far from optimal. Taking the path of least
resistance is one of the biggest enemies of learning. People can fall into the
trap of thinking that all the busywork that they do will help their progress,
but reality usually slaps them right back in the face. Let me give you a few
real-world examples.
Several years ago, I worked with a young student rated around 2300 for
about a year and a half. After the first few meetings, it became obvious that
most of his home study was focused on openings. His analytical skills were
surprisingly modest for what you would expect from someone with that
rating. In mutual analysis, he would often have problems spotting critical
variations and evaluating positions accurately. There was also rarely much
depth in his understanding of strategic ideas, even straight from the opening
that he had memorized well. Despite several appeals to change his study
ways and embrace a deeper study approach, such as carefully analyzing his
own games and going into depth rather than width in his opening work,
sadly nothing had changed. Neither did, essentially, his rating after almost
three years of temporary ups and downs.
I can give my own example as well. In the spring of 2003, when I became
an International Master, I got my first laptop that I could bring to
tournaments with me. Before that, the majority of my tournament luggage,
as every pre-computer era player remembers, consisted of an Opening

Encyclopedia or two, a bunch of notebooks with hand-written opening
variations, several worn-out stapled model game printouts, and, if there was
any room left, a couple of inspirational chess books. Well, in 2003 all of
this had changed. Instead of the careful opening preparation that I used to
do on the chess set, I began relying on the ‘space-bar’ approach more and
more. Instead of chess books with sound general advice, my best allies in
pre-game preparation became the Fritz and Deep Junior engines. Young and
ambitious as I was, I had no doubt that going digital would help me reach
the grandmaster title in the near future.
Result? In October 2005, my rating and self-confidence were at a two-
year low (2381 and zero, respectively). Exactly two years before that, right
around the time when I began carrying a laptop to tournaments regularly, I
was rated 2429 and ready to take on any chess challenge. Instead of
progressing, I regressed. At some point, I came to realize that it was not the
technology that was to blame, but rather my study approach. Over time, it
had become superficial to the point where I would largely rely on the
engine’s way of ‘thinking’ and neglect my own logical reasoning and
experience. Time trouble became a frequent issue because I could not think
straight in unfamiliar positions. I even started losing against much weaker
players on occasion, and somehow gradually lost much of the joy to just sit
and study chess that I had in the years before that. This was a good lesson
on a personal level, and I believe that it can also serve as a cautionary tale
about the hidden dangers of a shallow study approach for chess players of
any level.
Thus, one of the primary goals of this book, apart from those mentioned
in the preface, is to make a case for deeper study methods and suggest ways
of incorporating them into your chess study. A study approach that
minimizes superficial practices and focuses on systematic and patient
efforts to understand chess better brings much more benefit in the long run.
Which brings me to the third misleading study mindset...
Short-run outlook

Alexander Grischuk is well-known as one of the wittiest players on the
super-GM circuit. In the 2018 Candidates tournament he was on a roll,
making all sorts of funny comments in the post-game press conferences
(there is even a compilation of these called ‘Grischuk Thug Life’ that you
can check out on YouTube). One of these comments actually struck me as
quite a deep, even wise, observation. When asked by the host how long he
had prepared for his game against Mamedyarov, Grischuk replied: ‘For my
whole life.’ This unexpected answer made everyone in the room laugh, but
you could also see by Mamedyarov’s smirk that he understood exactly what
Grischuk meant by this. He hinted at the fact that all the chess education
and practice that you have accumulated over the years is a much more
important preparation for a particular game than some variations that you
have reviewed from your opening file right before the game. An ex top-10
player, Evgeny Bareev, once said something similar: ‘It’s clear that now
talent alone, even the most brilliant talent, isn’t enough for victory, but
what’s demanded is professional, intelligent work that’s done over many
years...’
And yet, we can see chess players of all levels trying to get quick results
and neglecting some parts of their chess education in the process. Here are
some examples:
• Creating your opening repertoire around forced or strategically suspicious
opening variations to get ‘more winning chances’. Instead, choosing
opening systems that focus on proficiency in the middlegame or even the
endgame would serve a player better in the long run;
• Employing a strategy of choosing your openings according to the
opponent’s ‘weak spot’ in the repertoire, to ‘surprise him’. This approach
often ends up in you surprising yourself as soon as the opponent deviates or
your opening preparation ends. Been there, done that, strongly advise
against it. Instead, having a reliable opening repertoire that you understand
deeply and in which you can make small adjustments depending on your
opponent and tournament situation is a wiser long-term approach. You can

always change your opening after a couple of years if you would like to
play something completely new; and
• Not devoting enough time to study classical model games of strong
players. This is not a popular study method for people with a short-run
outlook, because it does not seem to yield immediate results. However,
omitting this fundamental element of chess education gets to haunt them
sooner or later.
Of course, short-term goals, such as patching up a hole in your opening
repertoire, scoring well in the next tournament, or gaining rating points are
important to keep us motivated to study diligently, but pursuing short-term
results at the expense of long-term benefits is rarely a successful approach.
Some things in chess simply cannot be learned quickly, and desired results
cannot always be achieved immediately, so we need to be patient if we want
to gradually master different aspects of this game. The accumulation of
skills and knowledge, as well as their manifestation in the form of
tournament results and coveted rating increase, are quite unpredictable and
very rarely follow a straight line. Most chess players rather face periods of
stagnation before making observable leaps in playing strength. It is,
therefore, best to keep a long-term perspective on things, as Grischuk had
implicitly, and Bareev explicitly, suggested.
Playing too much
I hope that I had made it clear in the preface that playing is at least as
important than studying. There are skills in chess that can only be
developed through practice and that no amount of study can help develop.
More importantly, playing and studying go together hand in hand, forming a
positive feedback loop. It works like this: when you study and prepare for
your games, you learn new variations, ideas, improve your skills, etc. The
best way to test and apply these learnings is to then put them into practice in
competitive games. After you have played a game, you come back to your
study – you analyze it, identify typical mistakes and possible weak areas,
you study new material to fix gaps in knowledge, hone your skills, etc. This
way, you get better prepared for the upcoming games and the new study-

play cycle begins... As this looping process perpetuates, you gradually
become a stronger, or at least more knowledgeable, chess player because
you constantly learn new things and improve the existing ones, both from a
practical and a theoretical perspective. In the section ‘Basic and deep
learning processes’ below, I provide a story of my chess improvement in the
year 2002, which can also serve as a good example of the positive feedback
loop between playing and studying.
However, some chess players play much more than they study, especially
when it comes to speed chess. While this approach helps them develop
practical strength, the relative lack of study feedback limits their potential,
as they may be prone to repeating the same kinds of mistakes in their
games. They also tend to show a lack of deep understanding at certain
points in their games. Isaac Boleslavsky, a famous Soviet grandmaster and
one of the pioneers of the King’s Indian Defense, said the following about
one young and strong player of his time: ‘... he was ready to play chess at
any time and under any conditions but considered that sitting at the board
by oneself is a boring business. This is a serious mistake as private study
covers not only the mechanical memorization of opening variations, but
also the consideration of middlegame problems which helps one to find new
approaches in actual play.’
Another related phenomenon is what I like to call a ‘chess nomad’. It was
well-described by the famous chess author Alexander Kotov: ‘Nowadays in
the West there are some talented grandmasters who wander from country to
country en route from one tournament to another. There is no time left for
analysis of their games since it is already time to be off to the next event.’
Kotov referred to grandmasters, but if you follow the results of international
open tournaments, which these days virtually take place on a weekly basis,
you can notice even many non-GMs who follow this path, usually those
hunting for rating, norms, and money prizes*.
* This sentence was written in pre-COVID-19 times and intentionally left in this
form in the editing stage based on the assumption that by the time the book is
published, tournament activities would get back to normal!

However, this overly practical approach is a double-edged sword because
there is little time left to study chess seriously in between the tournaments.
This could lead to a vicious cycle of playing incessantly and leaving too
little time for proper study that could make a difference. Consequently, the
enviable amount of practical experience that chess nomads collect does not
always translate into a significant improvement in the long run. Tournament
practice is extremely important in chess, of course, but balance is the key, as
in everything. If you notice yourself slipping into this category of players,
then I suggest two things:
1. Periodically, make at least a 1-month break between the tourneys, even
the blitz/rapid ones; and
2. Avoid playing three back-to-back tournaments.
This way, you make sure that you have time to recuperate physically,
conduct a serious training session or two in between the tournaments, and
be mentally fresh for the next stop on your busy calendar.
So far, we have discussed different study mindsets and only hinted at the
ways we learn chess. In the next section of this chapter, we will examine
learning processes in more detail to understand how our chess study can be
optimized.
Learning chess
‘Chess cannot be taught. Chess can only be learned’ – Mikhail Botvinnik.
This succinct statement of the sixth World Champion indicates that learning
chess is a highly individual process. You can have the best chess coach in
the world teach the same things to different people of a similar level, but
their learning experiences and outcomes will be different depending on
things like their learning abilities, passion, character, etc. I think that the
famous Botvinnik School is a good case in point – everyone knows
Botvinnik’s most famous pupils like Kasparov and Kramnik, but how many
people have heard of Boris Taborov, Vadim Ostrovsky, or Nadezhda
Nikulshina? These ‘lost’ talents were at some point also summoned to the
prestigious chess school as some of the most promising young players in

the Soviet Union and received training from the man who shaped careers of
the future world champions. Yet, they haven’t achieved much in chess. In
his autobiographical work, For Friends and Colleagues, the renowned
coach Mark Dvoretsky, who also worked in the Botvinnik School for some
time, explained it this way: ‘This suggests that daily study, guided by a
coach if possible, is the main influence on the development of a young
chess player. Studies at grandmaster schools, as useful as they may be, are
merely an additional contribution factor.’
This is why I was quite shocked recently to see a coaching advertisement of
a well-known grandmaster (who I will not name here out of respect) that
read: ‘I have produced numerous top-level players...’ Excuse me, but chess
players are not ‘produced’! Every chess player’s learning process is their
unique experience that cannot be replicated on someone else. To continue
on Dvoretsky’s thought; coaches can help, books, videos, and chess
software can help, but ultimately it is your personal qualities, the quality of
your own home study, and the quality of decisions that you make over the
board that will determine how far in chess you will go. On the other hand,
some chess players would like to ‘depersonalize’ their chess learning
process by searching for universal winning formulas, methods, and
improvement shortcuts, but this is also a wrong approach. There are no such
learning tools that would work in the same way for everyone. To be
successful in chess, players should aim to develop their own ways of
learning, thinking, and solving problems.
Despite a distinct individual element in learning chess, certain learning
processes apply to virtually everyone. I would like to list them here (with
typical examples in brackets):
1. Memorization of exact positions and variations (opening variations,
theoretical endgames, model games, etc.);
2. Gathering knowledge and skills (tactical and positional themes,
strategic methods, endgame techniques, etc.);
3. Basic pattern recognition (typical combinations, typical maneuvers,
typical plans, etc.);

4. Complex pattern recognition (less typical patterns, recognizing when a
typical device or pattern does not work, ability to apply or combine
typical devices and patterns in atypical situations, etc.); and
5. Developing intuition (‘feeling’ for the initiative, sense for piece
coordination, feeling for which position might be dangerous, which
endgame could be held, etc.) .
Basic and deep learning processes
The first three learning processes from the list above (let’s call them basic)
are familiar to every chess player – they take place while we memorize an
opening variation, read a book on chess strategy, or solve a tactical puzzle
with a well-known pattern. Of course, these are the foundational blocks and
every chess player needs to devote a fair amount of study time to them, to
create a large storage of useful ideas, patterns and basic skills that can later
be applied in games. Usually, when we learn something this way, we use
primarily our conscious mind – we consciously study something and we can
see a cause and effect between the learning effort (e.g., memorizing an
opening variation, drilling a tactical pattern, learning a specific positional
rule, etc.) and its result (acquiring a concrete knowledge or skill).
As essential as they are, basic learning processes are relatively ineffective
when it comes to building your own advanced mental library that consists
of complex patterns and intuition, the products of deep learning. Unlike the
basic ones, the deep learning processes take place in the subconscious mind
to a large degree and shape you as a unique chess player. Moreover,
experience shows that study methods which stimulate deep subconscious
learning help build chess strength more than any amount of the basic ones.
The following instance from my own career is a good example of the
importance of deep learning in developing over-the-board strength. Back in
early 2002 when I was barely an FM-level player, I had carefully studied
two books for several months: Typical Middlegame Positions by Boris
Zlotnik and Endgame Strategy by Mikhail Shereshevsky. When I say:
‘studied carefully’, I want to clarify that it means that I analyzed on my own
every single example from the book on the board and reread certain

chapters several times. Before studying these books, my understanding of
the middlegame and endgame has been based mostly on simple positional
and strategic rules, calculation of direct variations, and looking for tactical
opportunities – you know, the basic stuff. I could often hold my own against
an IM, especially in tactical battles, but I would almost regularly get quietly
outplayed by GMs like in the following game.
Game 2
Ivan Farago 2500
Davorin Kuljasevic 2286
Bizovac 2002 (7)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Nf3 Na6 7.0-0 e5 8.Re1
Qe8 9.Bf1 Bg4 10.d5 Nb4 11.Be2 a5 12.Be3 b6?!
An unnecessary long-term structural weakness, but such details were not
high on my list of priorities at that time. 12 .. .Na6 was the right way to
prevent 13.c5.
13.b3 Na6 14.Nd2 Bd7 15.Rb1

15...Kh8
Using Kozul’s maneuver from the game against Tukmakov.
16.Nf1?!
Interestingly, Farago decided to meet the ...f7-f5 break the same way as
Tukmakov. Similar to that game, it is not the best strategy for White. Better
was 16.a3 Ng8 17.b4 f5 18.f3 Bh6 19.Bxh6 Nxh6 20.Bd3! Qe7 21.Qe2,
and the knight on a6 has problems.
16...Ng8 17.Qd2 f5 18.exf5 gxf5 19.f4 Qg6 20.Ng3 Nf6 21.Rf1

(back to the PREVIEW)
Black can be happy with the outcome of the opening, but now he needs a
good plan for the middlegame. I chose
21...exf4?!,
opening the e-file and preparing to transfer my a6-knight to e4. However,
this apparently active plan is positionally dubious because it leaves Black
with an isolated f-pawn. Instead, a much better version of this idea was
21...h5! 22.Rbe1 (the prophylactic 22.Nh1 is strongly met by 22...Rg8!
23.Nf2 Bh6 24.g3 h4–+) 22...Nc5ƒ, and with ...h5-h4 hanging over his
head, White has some serious problems to solve.
22.Bxf4 Nc5 23.Bd3 Nce4?!
Continuing on the wrong path. It was better to keep the tension with
23...Rae8 24.Bc2 h5∞.
24.Bxe4 Nxe4 25.Ncxe4 fxe4

I was happy that I got rid of the f5 weakness and opened my light-squared
bishop at the same time, naively thinking that Black must be better in this
position with ...h7-h5-h4 to follow. However, this turned out to be a
superficial positional evaluation, as I had completely missed my opponent’s
next move.
26.Be3!
(back to the PREVIEW)
White transfers the bishop to the long diagonal. Suddenly, 27.Bd4 is an
annoyance for Black. However, I had failed to appreciate the strategic
importance of keeping the dark-squared bishop and played
26...Rae8?,
which is pretty much a decisive mistake. There was no time for the planned
26...h5 27.Bd4 h4, because of 28.Nxe4!+–, but I could have avoided the
bishops trade with 26...Kg8!, and if 27.Bd4 Bh6, this is a playable position
for Black.

27.Bd4±
It was already too late when I realized that after the trade of dark-squared
bishops I will be left with a useless Bd7, exposed king and weak e-pawn. I
could probably make White’s conversion task more difficult, but,
disillusioned by the turn of events, I went down pretty quickly.
27...Bf5?! 28.Bxg7+ Kxg7 29.Qd4+ Re5 30.Rbe1 Rf7 31.Rf4 Kg8
32.Nxf5 Rfxf5 33.Rfxe4+–
White won the weak pawn and soon the game as well.
33...Rg5 34.Rxe5 Rxe5 35.Rf1 Re2 36.g3 Qh5 37.Rf2 Rxf2 38.Qxf2 Qd1+
39.Kg2 Qb1 40.Qe2 Qa1 41.a4 Qc3 42.Qg4+ Kh8 43.Qc8+ Kg7
44.Qxc7+ Kg8 45.Qc8+ Kg7 46.Qd7+ Kg8 47.Qg4+ Kh8 48.Qf3 Qg7
49.Qe3 Qc7 50.h4 Kg7 51.Qg5+ Kf7 52.h5 Qc5 53.Qf5+ Kg7 54.Qe6 1-0
My lack of sophistication in positional and strategic matters in that period
should be obvious from this game. However, consistent study of the two
aforementioned books in the coming months, coupled with other chess
studies*, has somehow helped me develop a deeper, more strategic
approach to both phases of the game without me even noticing it.
* More on my 2002 study plan in Chapter 9.
It turned out that these were the right study resources at the right time,
because soon after I had a breakout tournament. In May of the same year, I
played a strong international tournament, the Pula Open, in which I was
once again supposed to be cannon fodder for GMs but ended up fighting for
the GM norm in the last round, missing it by one move. I remember
particularly two instances during the game below in which I could literally
feel that something had changed in my way of thinking.
Game 3
Antoaneta Stefanova 2473

Davorin Kuljasevic 2297
Pula 2002 (4)
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 e6 4.Nbd2 c5 5.e3 Be7 6.c3 Nbd7 7.Bd3 Qc7
8.0-0 h6 9.Bh4 0-0 10.e4 dxe4 11.Nxe4
In response to Stefanova’s opening of the center, I played a ‘quiet’ move:
11...Re8!?
This kind of move would have hardly even appeared on my radar in
previous tournaments. I was used to ‘trying to do something’ in virtually
every position and rarely thought in terms of quietly improving my
position. Before, I would have probably gone for some direct line like
11...cxd4 or kept developing with 11...b6. However, I remember that
11...Re8 somehow came naturally and I had played it with confidence. Just
to be clear, this is not the strongest move in the position and objectively it
might be even slightly worse than the alternatives that I had mentioned. The
point that I want to make is about the important mindset shift: instead of
constantly reacting to my opponent’s moves and trying to force the issue, I

was ready to let the game ‘come to me’. Also, the fact that my strong
opponent did not find a way to obtain the advantage after 11...Re8 testifies
that it was a reasonable decision.
12.Bg3
The point behind 11...Re8 (having the e7-bishop defended) can also be seen
in the variations 12.dxc5 Nxe4 13.Bxe7?! Nxc3! and 12.Qe2 Nh5!
13.Bxe7 Nf4.
12...Qb6 13.Qe2 Nxe4 14.Qxe4 Nf6 15.Qe2 Bd7 16.Ne5 cxd4 17.cxd4
17...Bc6
Another move that I played with confidence, since I read in Zlotnik’s book
that the structure with isolated c6-pawn against the one on d4 is usually fine
for Black. The classical precedent is Lasker-Capablanca, Wch 1921 (10), 0-
1.

By the way, 17...Qxd4? loses by force after 18.Rad1 Qb6 19.Nxd7 Nxd7
20.Bb5.
18.Nxc6 bxc6 19.Be5 Nd7 20.Rac1 Nxe5 21.dxe5
The position is roughly equal, but here I missed Stefanova’s strong
attacking idea.
21...c5?
A careless move. Instead, Black should have gone for kingside prophylaxis
with 21...g6, and if 22.Rc4 Kg7! 23.h4 h5=, White is not in time to launch
the attack with 24.g4?! because of 24...hxg4 25.Rxg4 Rh8μ.
22.Rc4!
This rook lift serves to support a pawn expansion on the kingside, as can be
seen in case of 22...g6.
22...Rad8
22...g6 is too slow now, as after 23.h4 h5 24.g4!‚, Black falls under a
decisive attack.
23.h4ƒ f5
Quite clearly, Black is in damage control mode if he needs to play this
move.
24.exf6 Bxf6 25.Qe4 Rd4 26.Rxd4
Fortunately, Black’s king is safe from the queen’s invasion: 26.Qh7+ Kf8
27.Bg6 Red8=.
26...Bxd4 27.b3 Qd6 28.Bc4±

(back to the PREVIEW)
White’s superior pawn structure, full control over the light squares, and the
exposed black king are a basis for long-term torture in the best-case
scenario for Black. All White needs to do is include her rook into the game
and the situation could soon become very difficult. This was the second
moment in the game in which I realized that my thinking was somehow
different from before. Usually, my level of play would drop in such inferior
positions against strong titled players (as in the game against Farago) and I
would lose the game. However, here I quickly decided to play
28...Rf8!.
This pawn sacrifice was inspired by something that I have seen in
Shereshevsky’s Endgame Strategy. I cannot put my finger on a specific
game or technique from the book, but it just felt like the transition into an
endgame without a pawn but with active pieces should provide me with
enough drawing resources.

29.Qxe6+ Qxe6 30.Bxe6+ Kh7 31.h5 g6 32.hxg6+ Kxg6 33.g3 Rf3
34.Kg2 Rd3 35.a4 Kf6?!
A waste of time. A draw could have been achieved immediately with
35...Rd2 36.g4 Kg5 37.Kf3 a5.
36.Bc4 Rd2 37.g4 Rc2?!
Another pointless move, giving White enough time to untangle her pieces.
37...Be5 38.Kf3 (38.Rh1 Bd4! 39.Rxh6+ Kg5=) 38...Kg5 would have still
been a difficult defense for White to break.
38.Kg3 Rc3+ 39.Kf4 Kg6?!
Obviously, my endgame technique, while generally improved compared to
before, was still rough around the edges. I had quite a bit of luck saving this
game.
40.a5 Bf6 41.a6?
A strange tactical oversight. 41 .Rd1 would have been winning easily, as
White brings her rook into the game.
41...Rc1! 42.Rxc1 Bg5+ 43.Ke5 Bxc1 44.f4 Bb2+ 45.Kd6 Bc3!

White can do nothing now to break Black’s blockade on the dark squares,
so a draw is inevitable.
46.Ke7 Kg7 47.f5 Bf6+ 48.Kd6 Bc3 49.Kc6 Ba5 50.Kxc5 Kf6 51.Bd3
Ke7 52.b4 Bb6+ 53.Kd5 Bc7 54.Be4 Bb6 55.b5 Bc7 56.Bc2 Bb6 57.Ke4
Kf6 58.Bb3 Bc7 59.Be6 Bb6 60.Kf3 Kg5 61.Bf7 Bc7 62.Bh5 Bb6
63.Be8 Bc7 64.Ke4 Kf6 65.Kd5 Ke7 66.Kc6 Bb6 67.Bh5 Ba5 68.Kd5
Bb6 69.Bg6 Bc7 70.Ke4 Kf6 71.Kf3 Kg5 72.Be8 Bb6 73.Bc6 Bc7
74.Be4 Bb6 75.Bc2 Bc7 76.Ke4 Kf6 77.Bd1 Bb6 78.Kd5 Ke7 79.Ke5
Bc7+ 80.Kd5 Bb6
Draw agreed.
While studying these books, it was not like I was consciously trying to
develop new thinking patterns in complex middlegames or achieve a better
intuition for endgames. At the time, this material was just a part of my
study plan to learn some new middlegame and endgame strategies. In
hindsight, I understood that careful analysis and contemplation about the
material from these books and other resources had allowed me to
imperceptibly acquire new advanced skills and indeed become a stronger

chess player (I made my IM title in less than a year thereafter). I have
noticed that it works in a similar way with many other chess skills – the
more you can rely on your subconscious suggestions in the game, the
stronger player you become.
Now, let us explore the deep learning processes, complex pattern
recognition and development of intuition, through additional illustrative
examples to get a better idea how they work and how to develop them.
Complex pattern recognition
Chess is a geometric game and despite its infinite possibilities, certain
patterns are bound to emerge on the 64 squares. Every educated chess
player learns basic tactical, positional, and endgame patterns consciously by
reading books, listening to lectures, analyzing games, etc. The number of
such ‘textbook’ patterns has increased immensely in recent decades thanks
to ever-improving data mining capabilities (some of them will be discussed
in Chapter 4). For instance, Dutch author Arthur van de Oudeweetering
(and I thought that my last name is difficult for foreigners to pronounce!)
has done a marvelous job of collecting many elusive positional patterns in
his two works Improve Your Chess Pattern Recognition and Train Your
Chess Pattern Recognition. He has brought to our attention numerous
patterns that appear in chess practice but that had not been systematically
featured in chess literature before. While the conscious study of these
patterns would enrich any chess player’s erudition and is highly
recommended, there are still many more complex patterns and their
exceptions that are learned in less direct ways simply by absorbing new
chess material while studying or playing. Sometimes, the recognition of this
pattern is so subconscious that even as we play a move that follows it, we
cannot recall where we have seen it before. Let me present several complex
patterns from my own ‘advanced library’.
Complex pattern #1: Tactical diversion ...b7-b5!
Whilst in the middle of a fierce tactical battle on the kingside in which
every tempo matters, how often do you consider a little pawn move on the

other side of the board? Well, sometimes such an unexpected diversion can
work very well.
Game 4
Vladimir Skreno 2189
Davorin Kuljasevic 2577
Split 2013 (2)
Black to move
(back to the PREVIEW)
Black has a strong attack on the kingside, but the position is trickier than it
might seem at first sight. White threatens to play 26.d6, which would
simultaneously shut down the powerful black bishop and revive his own.
There are many attractive options for Black here, all connected to the
kingside; however, I played something different.
25...b5!

This idea wasn’t unfamiliar to me – the ...b7-b5 diversion was quite
intuitive and I was anxious to make it work. However, if you asked me
where I have seen it for the first time, I couldn’t tell you. It is probably one
of those things that you pick up along the way when analyzing different
positions. Here, this move is actually quite strong, because it virtually
forces White to relinquish his only positional asset, the powerful central
pawns. It is also psychologically unpleasant, as such an unexpected
resource must come as a surprise to White.
The alternatives below show how complicated things can get if Black
doesn’t make the best choice in this position.
A) 25...Bxf1? 26.Qxf1+– with 27.d6 to come is awful for Black;
B) 25...d3 26.d6 Ne2+ 27.Kh2 Bxf1 28.Qd2!∞; a rook down, White is still
very much in the game!;
C) 25...Be5 26.gxf4 Qxf4 27.Bg3!. I saw in the game that White could spoil
my plan to checkmate him with this move. 27. ..Qxg3+ 28.Qxg3 Bxg3
29.Rfd1∞. I still have no clue how to assess this endgame;
D) 25...Rae8?! just allows White to improve his piece coordination. 26.Qd2
Bxf1 27.Rxf1 Nh3+ 28.Kg2±;
E) Actually, the engine points out 25...Ng2!? 26.Qd2 Ne3!μ. It was
difficult to appreciate the strength of this unusual knight maneuver during
the game, though.
25...b5! 26.cxb6
Sadly for White, he has no other choice. I found it quite amusing that in
case of 26.d6 bxc4 27.dxc7 Rae8–+, it is Black who suddenly has two
strong connected pawns in the center.
26.Bd3 Nxd3 27.Nxd3 Qxf3–+ .
26...Bxb6

27.gxf4?
The shock effect was strong – this move loses instantly. The relatively best
defense would have been 27.Qd2 Bxf1 28.Rxf1 Nh3+ 29.Kg2 Nxf2
30.Rxf2μ.
27...Qg6+?!
Black could win in a direct attack after 27...Rae8 28.Qb1 Qxf4, with
29...Bc7 or 29...d3 to follow.
28.Bg3 Rfe8 29.Bd3 Rxe1 30.Bxg6 d3+ 31.Kh2 Rxf1 32.Rxf1 Bxf1
33.Bxd3 Bxd3 34.Nxd3 Rd8 35.a4 Rxd5–+

After a pretty much forced sequence, Black has a completely winning
endgame.
36.Ne5 f6 37.Nc6 Kf7 38.Be1 Rd1 39.Bg3 Rd6 40.Na5 Bxa5 41.bxa5
Rd2+ 42.Kh3 Ke6 43.Bh2 Rd5 0-1
Game 5
Boris Chatalbashev 2551
Davorin Kuljasevic 2544
Bulgaria tt 2017 (3)

Black to move
I know what you are thinking, what the hell is going on in this position?
This game actually has a funny story behind it. I came to the Bulgarian
2017 Team Championship for a vacation and as a second to my wife who
played in the women’s competition. I looked forward to a nice holiday at a
Bulgarian sea resort, when on the very first day a friend of mine approached
me out of the blue with an idea to play two games for his club. At first, I
was against it, but after some persuasion I gave in and said OK. As fate
would have it, in the match that would decide the champion, I was paired
against GM Boris Chatalbashev, the best man at my wedding that took
place less than a year earlier (originally, I was supposed to play someone
else; if I had known that I would play Boris I would have declined the
offer). Ironically, the game between the best men turned out to be the
bloodiest fight of the tournament, as you can surely gather from the position
above. Coming back to our subject at hand, in this complicated tactical
position I also unleashed the b-pawn.
18...b5!?

This move took Boris by surprise. The main line of both our calculations
was: 18...Bxg4 19.Rxf6 (19.Ng5+ Kh8 20.Nf7+ does not work for White,
as he is not in time to trap the knight after 20...Rxf7 21.Bxf7 Rf8 22.Ba2
Re8! 23.b4 Be6–+) 19...gxf6 20.Nh6+ Kh8! 21.Nxg4.
analysis diagram
The engine evaluates this position as clearly better for Black, but during the
game it was altogether unclear to me how to evaluate a position with such a
material (im)balance. Also, will my knight on a1 ever get out? Then, I got a
clever idea. If I could throw in ...b7-b5 earlier, I could use it to support my
c-pawn to reach c4 and then the knight would be guaranteed an escape route
via b3. This is how I decided to play 18...b5.
It should also be noted that Black would probably lose in case of 18...Rxf7?
19.gxh3 Raf8 20.b4 c6 21.Bb2 Nd5 22.Rxf7 Kxf7 23.Bxa1±.
18...b5!? 19.Be6

This is the second-best reply. 19.Ba2?! would allow Black to demonstrate
his idea: 19...Bxg4 20.Rxf6 gxf6 21.Nh6+ Kh8 22.Nxg4. Now, we have the
same position as in 18...Bxg4 line, but with an important improvement for
Black, as the inclusion of ...b7-b5 and Ba2 is clearly in his favor. He can
start rolling his queenside pawns: 22...c5μ 23.Bh6 Rfd8 24.Nf3, and now
he has a pleasant choice between 24...b4 or 24...c4. During the game, it was
much easier to appreciate Black’s advantage in such a position with the
queenside pawns already advanced and Na1 being safe.
However, White’s strongest option was 19.Nh6+ Kh8 20.Nf7+ Rxf7
21.Bxf7 Bxg4 22.b4, trying to trap the knight on a1. Black can save it with
22...Rf8 23.Ba2 Bd1, but apparently White gets sufficient compensation for
two pawns after 24.Bb2.
19...Bxg4 20.Nh6+ Kh8 21.Nxg4
21...Rae8!
An important intermezzo that I had to see before playing 18...b5.
Otherwise, White would be in time to coordinate his minor pieces, as in the

variation 21...Nxg4?! 22.Bxg4 Rxf1+ 23.Kxf1 Nb3 24.Be32.
22.Nxf6
The best choice. If White tried to preserve the precious bishop pair with
22.Bf5, he would run into serious difficulties with his piece coordination
after 22...Nxg4 23.Bxg4 Rxf1+ 24.Kxf1 Nb3, and now we can see why
21...Rae8 was important – the dark-squared bishop cannot go to e3. In fact,
there is no safe square for it, so White needs to play 25.Nd3 (25.Bg5 h6
26.Bh4 runs into 26...Re4 27.Bd1 Nd2+–+, while 25.Bf4 is refuted by
25...Rf8–+) 25...Nxc1 26.Nxc1 c5, when Black has a clearly superior rook
vs bishop and knight endgame.
22...Rxe6 23.Nd7 Rxf1+ 24.Kxf1 Nb3 25.Bf4
After all, White reached a slightly worse endgame, but managed to finally
coordinate his pieces. The game ended in a draw soon, though, as I made a
couple of inaccuracies in time trouble (almost got my rook trapped in the
middle of the board!). Perhaps the final result was for the best, considering
the circumstances.

25...Re4 26.g3 c5 27.Nf3 h6 28.Kf2 Kg8 29.Be3 Rc4 30.Ne1 a5 31.Kf3
Nd4+ 32.Bxd4 1⁄2-1⁄2
Game 6
Fabiano Caruana 2832
Magnus Carlsen 2835
London Wch m 2018 (10)
Black to move
This position, and perhaps also the next move, should be familiar to most
readers from the tenth game of the last World Championship game between
Caruana and Carlsen. I was kind of happy to see that Carlsen used the same
tactical diversion at this point:
21...b5!?
While somewhat positionally risky, this is the most efficient move from a
development standpoint – it allows Black to quickly untangle his queenside

pieces. At the same time, he dislodges the powerful c4-knight thanks to a
nice tactic.
The preferred move of engines is 21...Qh6, but it is understandable that
Carlsen wanted to open the h3-c8 diagonal for his light-squared bishop first,
in view of replies such as 22.Bg4 and 22.Rh3.
21...b5!? 22.Nb6
The diversion would be successful in case of the greedy 22.axb6? Rxa3
23.Nxa3, in view of 23...f3! 24.gxf3 Ne5!, with a powerful attack since two
white pieces could not partake in defense.
22...Nxb6 23.Bxb6
If we look at the position in static terms, Black has weakened his b-pawn
and allowed White to have the a-passer. However, the dynamic potential of
his position has increased, as he can use the light-squared bishop in the
kingside attack now*.
* Dynamics is an important topic that we will discuss in more detail in Chapter
6.

In fact, instead of the interesting but risky 23...Qg5 that Carlsen played in
the game, he could bring the other bishop into the attack with a pawn
sacrifice:
23...b4!? 24.Rb3 Bf6! 25.Rxb4 Be5, with dangerous threats to White’s
king.
Complex pattern #2: Defensive prophylaxis with ...Nh7
Experienced players know that the knight is one of the king’s best
defenders. In positions in which you anticipate your opponent’s kingside
attack, you can sometimes act prophylactically by putting your knight on h7
(if you are Black; on h2, if you are White) before he even starts the attack.
Let us see a couple of examples of such useful prophylaxis.
Game 7
Rauf Mamedov 2660
Pavel Eljanov 2761
Khanty-Mansiysk ol 2010 (9)
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 c6 4.0-0 Bg4 5.d4 Nbd7 6.Nbd2 e6 7.Re1 Be7
8.e4 0-0 9.c3

This is a well-known theoretical position in the Réti Opening/Torre Attack
Reversed. Eljanov opted for an interesting prophylactic solution against
White’s e4-e5 push:
9...h6!?
The point behind this move is to clear the h7-square for the knight. On h7, it
will be an extra piece around Black’s king, making it easier to organize a
defense against a possible attack by White.
The latent attacking potential of White’s set-up can be seen very well in the
following, fairly recent game: 9...Bh5 10.e5 Ne8 11.Nb3 Nc7 12.Be3 a5
13.Nc1! c5 14.Nd3 cxd4 15.cxd4 b5 16.Nf4 Bg6 17.Nxg6 hxg6 18.Rc1 b4
19.Bf1!. The bishop goes to the attacking post on d3, clearing the g2-square
for the king (for Rh1 later) at the same time. GM Gabuzyan conducted a
textbook kingside attack from this point on. 19...Nb6 20.b3 Qd7 21.Bg5
Rfc8 22.Bd3 Ne8 23.Kg2 Rxc1 24.Bxc1 a4 25.h4 axb3 26.axb3 Ra1 27.Re2
Nc7 28.Qd2 Qc6 29.Bb2 Ra8 30.Qf4 Nb5 31.Qg4 Nc3 32.Rc2 Ra2.

analysis diagram
Black’s queenside counterplay is too weak and White is ready for a
breakthrough on the kingside: 33.h5 gxh5 34.Qxh5 g6 35.Bxg6! fxg6
36.Qxg6+ Kf8 37.Bc1 Bd8 38.Rxa2 Nxa2 39.Bh6+ Ke7 40.Qg7+ Ke8
41.Ng5 Be7 42.Qf7+ Kd7 43.Bf8 Nc8 44.Nh7! Kc7 45.Bxe7 Qd7
46.Bd6+ Nxd6 47.exd6+ Kxd6 48.Qf8+ Qe7 49.Qb8+ Qc7 50.Qa8 Nc3
51.Nf6 Qf7 52.Qb8+ 1-0 Gabuzyan-J.Wang, Las Vegas 2019.
10.h3 Bh5 11.e5?!
Mamedov decides to close the position, but a better choice would have been
11.Qb3 Qc7 12.exd5 cxd5, and if 13.Nh4!?, then 13...g5! 14.Nhf3 Bg6,
with a level position.
11...Nh7 12.Nf1
The knight maneuver starting with 12.Nb3 that was employed in the
previous game would be too slow, since Black could now anticipate it with

12...Ng5!=.
12...c5 13.g4 Bg6
The light-squared bishop is safe from exchange now, so it is difficult for
White to start a kingside attack.
14.Ng3 Rc8 15.Bf4?!
Mamedov misplaces his bishop. The right way to develop it was with
15.Be3 cxd4 16.Bxd4=.
15...b5 16.a3 a5 17.Qd2?!
After another dubious piece deployment by White, Eljanov uses his
dormant knight to a surprisingly strong effect:
17...Ng5! 18.Nxg5 hxg5μ 19.Be3 cxd4 20.Bxd4 Nc5 21.Qe3 Nb3 22.Bb6
Qe8 23.Rad1 Bc2–+
White loses the exchange with no compensation.

24.Nh5 Bxd1 25.Rxd1 Rc4 26.Bf1 Re4 27.Qg3 Qb8 28.Bd4 Nxd4
29.cxd4 g6 30.Bg2 gxh5 31.Bxe4 0-1
Game 8
Christoph Singer 2339
Pavel Eljanov 2663
Tegernsee 2019 (2)
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.c3 Qc7 6.Ne2 Bg4 7.0-0 e6
8.Qe1 Be7 9.Bf4 Qb6 10.Nd2 Nf6 11.Rb1 0-0 12.h3 Bh5 13.Ng3 Bg6
14.Bxg6 hxg6
While the exchange of light-squared bishops is generally a strategic
achievement for Black in such positions, he should still not relax, because
the pawn on g6 could provide a hook for White’s attack with h3-h4-h5.
15.Qe2 a5 16.h4 Qa6
Acquiescing to the queen trade would be a defeat to White’s attacking
ambitions. In that sense, Singer’s refusal to trade is understandable. It is

also unlikely that he had anticipated Eljanov’s defensive idea when playing
17.Qf3?!
Objectively speaking, better was 17.a4=.
17...Nh7!
Eljanov recycles a familiar prophylactic move, this time based on a
wonderful tactical idea.
18.Qg4
18.h5 is obviously met by 18...g5 so White tries to take the g5-square under
control before pushing the h-pawn.
18...b5 19.Rfe1 b4 20.Re3 a4 21.a3
An attempt to deflect the bishop from e7. Eljanov calls the bluff.
21...bxa3 22.bxa3 Bxa3 23.h5

(back to the PREVIEW)
White counted on Black not being able to play 23...g5 now, but he forgot
about:
23...f5! 24.Qf3
After 24.Qxg6 Rf6–+, the queen gets trapped.
24...g5–+
Black’s counterattack is decisive.
25.Bd6 Bxd6 26.Rxe6 Bxg3 27.Qxd5 Rad8 28.Qc5 Qd3 29.fxg3 Nxd4
White resigned.
Game 9
Artur Jakubiec 2508
Georg Meier 2622
Germany Bundesliga 2018/19 (12)

1.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.Ngf3 c5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Be7 7.0-0 0 -0 8.Re1
b5 9.e5 Nd7 10.Nf1 Bb7 11.h4 Qc7 12.Bf4 Rfc8 13.N1h2 Qd8 14.h5 h6
Practice has shown that this is a better defensive set-up than 14...a5 15.h6
g6, due to the long-term weaknesses on the dark squares.
15.c3 a5 16.Qd2
16...Nf8!?
White can attack the h6-weakness in two ways: with g3-g4-g5 or Ng4
followed by a sacrifice on h6. This deep prophylactic maneuver is aimed
against both these plans, as the knight will do a great defensive job on h7. It
is more common for Black to defend by putting his bishop on f8 in these
positions, for example: 16...b4 17.Ng4 Bf8.
17.a4
We can see how both direct attacking approaches fail:

A) 17.Ng4 Kh8! 18.Bxh6 gxh6 19.Nxh6 (19.Qxh6+ Nh7μ) 19...Qe8
20.Qf4 Nd8. Virtually all of Black’s pieces are on the last rank, but White
cannot seem to do anything about it: 21.Ng4 (21.Ng5 Bxg5 22.Qxg5
Nh7μ. The h7-knight holds the fort!) 21...Nh7 22.Nf6 Qf8 23.Nd7 Qg7
24.Nb6 Nc6 25.Nxa8 Rxa83;
B) 17.g4 Nh7μ, and White is stuck on the kingside in a similar way as
Mamedov was in one of the previous examples.
17...Ba6 18.Ng4 Nh7 19.axb5 Bxb5 20.Kh2
Once again, the sacrifice 20.Bxh6 does not work: 20...gxh6 21.Nxh6+ Kg7
22.Qf4 Qf8 23.Rad1 Nd8μ.
20...Bf8
By planting the knight on h7, Black has slowed down White’s attack on the
kingside considerably and can focus on queenside play. Both sides still have
their chances, but White’s maneuvering is more difficult, as the game
continuation shows.

21.Qc2 a4 22.Qe2 Na5 23.Nd2 c4 24.d4 Rcb8 25.Ra2 a3! 26.bxa3 Nc6
27.Nf3 Ba4 28.Qd2 Rb3 29.Bh3 Na7! 30.Ne3 Nb5 31.Rc1 Qa5 32.Nd1
Rxa3 33.Rxa3 Bxa3 34.Nb2 Bb3 35.g4 Qd8 36.Ra1 Be7 37.Rxa8 Qxa8
Black has already made inroads into queenside, while White’s advances
come too late.
38.g5 hxg5 39.Bxg5 Bxg5 40.Nxg5 Nxg5 41.Qxg5 Nxc3 42.f4 Ne2 43.f5
Nxd4 44.h6 Nf3+ 0-1
Complex pattern #3: Don’t centralize your king in the endgame
As soon as we make our first steps in chess, we learn certain patterns and
principles that serve to simplify our decision making. This is a natural
learning process for someone with limited knowledge about a complex
subject, since you want to rely on what works in most cases. However, as
players get more experienced and knowledgeable about chess, they realize
more and more that these principles are not set in stone and that in some
instances following them is not only ineffective but can even be harmful.
As far as I know, this notion was first explored in chess literature by John

Watson in Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy as ‘rule-independence’. While
there has been some debate about this idea, and perhaps GM Jonathan
Rowson described it more accurately as ‘transrules’ in Chess for Zebras, I
think that it is safe to say that the more aware a player is of exceptions to
hard-wired ‘rules’ and classical principles of chess, the better his
understanding of the game and the stronger he is. My impression is that we
usually learn exceptions to typical patterns and principles spontaneously,
rather than as a part of some organized study. For instance, several years
ago, a curious pair of examples that ‘refute’ the golden rule of the endgame,
‘centralize your king’, caught my attention while I was playing over some
games from top-level tournaments.
Game 10
Nikita Vitiugov 2734
Wei Yi 2724
Ningbo tt 2015 (3)
Black to move

(back to the PREVIEW)
This symmetrical endgame may seem drawish at first sight, but, as we will
soon find out, there is more than meets the eye here. Wei Yi decided to
trade the bishops with
23...Bxf1,
leaving White with apparently no choice as to how to recapture on f1.
24.Kxf1?
However, this natural reply is a big mistake. It is one of those moves that
we make on autopilot, because when is it ever bad to centralize your king in
a quiet endgame like this? Well, as the game continuation shows, even
extremely obvious decisions need to be checked.
Instead of the game move, White should have recaptured on f1 in a counter-
intuitive way, 24.Rxf1!, not only blocking the king, but also decentralizing
the rook somewhat. However, only with this move can he hold the balance,
as can be seen from variations below: 24...Bf8 (24...Rc2 25.Rc1= Rxd2??
26.Rc8+ Bf8 27.Bxf8+–) 25.Rc1! Rxc1+ 26.Bxc1=.
24...Bf8!
In case of 24...Rc2, White equalizes with 25.Rc1!=.
25.Bxf8
White has to make this exchange, because 25.Rc1?? fails to 25...Nc4!–+

analysis diagram
and here we can see why 24.Kxf1 was wrong – Black is threatening to take
on d2 with a check! If the king had remained on g1, this would not have
been an issue. My guess is that Vitiugov had missed this tactical detail
when recapturing on f1 with the king. If 26.Nxc4, 26...Bxa3 27.Rc3 Bb4
wins for Black.
25...Kxf8

White’s problem is that he cannot prevent the rook’s intrusion via the c-file
with Rc1 anymore. Nevertheless, he could have fought for a draw much
more stubbornly with 26.Nf3, followed by 27.Rd2. Probably affected by his
previous mistake, now he makes a fatal one:
26.Rb1? Rc2 27.Rb5 Rxd2 28.Rxa5 Rxa2–+

With so many pawns on the board, this is a technically winning endgame,
as Wei Yi convincingly proved.
29.g4 g5 30.Ra7 a3 31.Kg2 Ra1 32.Kg3 a2 33.Kg2 f6! 34.h3 e5 35.Kf3
Ke8 36.Kg2 Kd8 37.Kf3 Kc8 38.Ke2 Kb8 39.Ra3 Kb7 40.Kf3 Kc6 0-1
Game 11
Nikita Vitiugov 2725
Samvel Ter Sahakyan 2601
Baku rapid 2015 (1)

White to move
Incidentally, we have another quiet endgame with apparently nothing to
play for in which Nikita Vitiugov is White and which does not end in a
draw. However, this time around, it is his opponent who makes a mistake,
mislead by the same endgame principle.
20.Rac1 Rac8 21.Kf1
This game was played less than two months following his loss to Wei Yi. I
would like to think that Vitiugov thought twice before making this move.
21...Kf8?!
Ter Sahakyan makes the same mental mistake as Vitiugov in the previous
game! Of course, Black wants to get his king to d7 to make exchanges on
the c-file as soon as possible, but once again, automatic king centralization
has tactical drawbacks.

In hindsight, 21...b6 would have been the right move, as it would have
prevented White’s only idea in the position. This would have been a dead
draw.
22.Rc5!
Suddenly, Black needs to be careful.
22...Rxc5?!
This is perhaps not such a bad move as it is a practical mistake. The pawn
structure changes in White’s favor and suddenly he gets some tangible, if
ever so slight, motives to play for a win.
Black would still keep the balance with passive defense: 22...Red8!
23.Bh6+!?. Forcing the king back to g8. This check would not have been
possible in a similar position with the kings on g1 and g8. Fortunately for
Black, White doesn’t have any concrete ways to make use of his slightly
more active pieces after 23...Kg8 24.Ke2 b6 25.Rxc8 Rxc8 26.Kd3 Rc4=.
23.dxc5

23...Rd8?
This passive move, however, is already a serious mistake. It seems like the
trend of the game has been shifting in White’s favor over the last couple of
moves, which is pretty shocking considering how dead drawn this endgame
was at the start. Simply put, Ter Sahakyan lost control of the position.
The right continuation was 23...Bxb2 24.Rb1 Bc3 25.Rxb7 Re6!. Perhaps it
was difficult to appreciate the strength of this defensive move that stops the
c-pawn and clears e8-square for the king (25...d4? 26.Bh6+ Kg8 27.g4 d3
28.Rd7+–) . 26.Rxa7 d4 27.Bh6+ Ke82 and Black should have enough
compensation for the pawn due to his active pieces.
I would also like to point out the main tactical drawback of 21...Kf8. After
23...d4 24.Bxd4 Rd8,

analysis diagram
it would seem like Black is winning, but 25.c6! turns the tables. Because of
the exposed king on f8, Black is forced to defend an unpleasant endgame
after 25...bxc6 (25...Bxd4 26.cxb7 Ke7 27.Rxd4+–; 25...Rxd4 26.Rxd4
Bxd4 27.c7+–) 26.Bc5+ Ke8 27.Re1+ Kd7 28.b32.
24.Bd4 Bxd4 25.Rxd4±
Vitiugov has distilled his advantage into a typical rook endgame with a
queenside majority vs a blocked central pawn. Black’s defense in such
positions is a thankless task, as the game continuation shows.
25...Ke7 26.Ke2 b6 27.cxb6 axb6 28.Rb4 Rd6 29.Kd3 Kd7 30.Rf4 f6?
Probably a decisive mistake already. 30...Ke7 would prevent White’s idea
from the game: 31.Kd4 Rc6 32.Kxd5 in view of 32...Rc5+! 33.Kd4 Rc2=.

31.Kd4
Black’s pieces are too passive now and he loses a pawn by force.
31...Rc6 32.Kxd5 Rc5+ 33.Kd4 Rc2 34.b3 Rxa2 35.Rxf6

This looks like a technically winning endgame, and Vitiugov converted
without much trouble.
35...Ke7 36.Rf3 Rc2 37.Kd3 Rc5 38.Rf4 Ke6 39.Re4+ Kd6 40.Rd4+ Ke6
41.Rc4 Rb5 42.Kc3 Kd6 43.Rf4 Rg5 44.g3 Kc5 45.Rf7 Rh5 46.h4 Kb5
47.b4 Kc6 48.Kc4 Kd6 49.f4 Kc6 50.b5+ Kd6 51.Rb7 Rc5+ 52.Kb4 Rc1
53.Rxb6+ Kc7 54.Rf6 Rg1 55.Kc5 Rc1+ 56.Kd5 Rg1 57.Rc6+ Kb7
58.Rc3 Kb6 59.Rb3 Re1 60.h5 1-0
Intuition
The deepest learning process in chess is the development of intuition.
Intuition is basically trusting that your brain will figure out the right
solution without you consciously thinking about it. It is one of the most
powerful tools that one can possess in chess, on par with calculation skill
and strong memory. It is also about the only ‘edge’ (if only a moral one)
that homo sapiens have over classical chess engines, because sometimes
one look at the position can be enough to give the right solution or
evaluation, whereas an engine has to find it with brute-force calculation of a
large number of variations.*

* A new generation of chess engines such as AlphaZero and Lc0 have gotten
closer to human-like intuitive evaluation and decision making.
There are many situations in which we can see intuition at work. One of
them is deciding on a positional exchange sacrifice. The consequences of
such sacrifices often cannot be fully calculated, so one also needs to rely on
positional intuition and general experience to evaluate them. One of the first
such examples that made an impression on me was Alekhine’s exchange
sacrifice in the following game.
Game 12
Alexander Alekhine
Salo Flohr
Nottingham 1936 (1)
White to move
Alekhine decided to convert the advantage by sacrificing an exchange to
clear the path for his pawns.
46.Rxe6! Bxe6 47.Bxe6

In his book, Think like a Grandmaster, Alexander Kotov quotes Alekhine:
’This is one of these combinations which an experienced player doesn’t
calculate until the very end because he intuitively knows that the kingside
pawns have to break through.’
47...Rfb7 48.Bb3 Rh8 49.h6! gxh6 50.g6 Rg7 51.f5 Rf8 52.Bc2 h5 53.Rd6
Indeed, supported by the bishop and the rook, the white pawns are
unstoppable.
53...Re7 54.f6 Re1+ 55.Kd2 Rf1 56.f7 h4 57.Rd7 1-0
Here is a modern version of the same concept.
Game 13
Vladislav Artemiev 2736
David Paravyan 2627
Skopje Ech 2019 (6)

White to move
(back to the PREVIEW)
Having an extra pawn, White can play for a win with no risk by retreating
the rook to b1. However, Artemiev’s direct continuation is much more
inspiring.
37.Rxd5! Rxd5 38.Nxf6 Re5 39.Nxe8+ Rxe8 40.g5
Like Alekhine in the previous example, in return for the sacrificed
exchange, White obtained a promising pawn mass on the kingside
supported by the bishop. And while Artemiev had surely calculated the next
few moves, his decision on move 37 must have been largely intuitive. It
would have been virtually impossible to calculate the ensuing pawn race
precisely, but it feels like White should prevail.
40...Kd6 41.f6 b5 42.h4 b4

43.a4?
Artemiev understandably wanted to avoid the pawn trade, but this move
proves to be a crucial waste of time. White wins with 43.axb4 axb4 44.h5!
b3 45.h6 b2 46.h7 Ke5 47.Kg3 Rb8 48.Kg4, proving that Artemiev’s
evaluation of the exchange sacrifice on d5 was correct!
43...b3?
This also looks like the most intuitive move (push your passed pawns
quickly in a pawn race), but it enables White to win back the crucial tempo
by attacking the rook. Instead, Black should have moved the rook away
first: 43...Rb8!. However, the strength of this move is all but simple to
appreciate over the board.
The point is that after 44.f7 Ke6 45.g6 Kf6 46.h5 Kg7, the black king
would be in time to reach the g7-square before the white pawn gets to h6,
which is a draw, unlike in a similar position in the game with white pawn
on h7. 47 .Kf3 b3 48.Kg4 b2 49.Kg5 b1=Q 50.Bxb1 Rxb1 51.h6+ Kf8
52.h7 Rg1+ 53.Kf6 Rf1+ 54.Ke6 Rh1 55.Kf6=.

44.g6 Ke6 45.f7 Rb8 46.h5 Kf6 47.h6
White won the battle for the g7-square by a tempo. This will prove to be a
decisive detail in this sharp endgame.
47...b2 48.Kf3 Rd8 49.Kg4 Rc8 50.h7 Rd8 51.Kh5 Kg7
In a similar position with the pawn on h5 we analyzed in the 43...Rb8
variation, the black king needs to worry about only one passed pawn.
However, here the double threat of promotion completely ties down Black’s
rook and king to the defense of the eighth rank. Meanwhile, the white
bishop is placed perfectly, controlling both Black’s passed pawns and
defending the base of the pawn chain. So, Black can do nothing about the
invasion of White’s king, and his position is already lost.
52.Kg5 Rd5+ 53.Kg4 Rd8 54.Kf5 Rc8 55.Ke6 Rb8 56.Ke5
This zugzwang is a sign of things to come. Black will eventually lose all his
pawns this way.

56...Rd8 57.Bb1 Rb8 58.Kxd4 Rb4+ 59.Kc5 Rh4 60.Kb5 Rh5+ 61.Kc4
Rh3 62.Be4 Kf8 63.Bf5 Rh2 64.Kc3 Kg7 65.Bc2 Rh4 66.Kxb2 Rh3
67.Bf5 Rh5 68.Bd3 Rh4 69.Kc3 Rf4 70.Be4 Rh4 71.Kd4 Rh5 72.Kc4 1-0
As you see more such examples where the connected passed pawns
supported by the bishop dominate the rook, the concept becomes
internalized to the point where you already do not think about it
consciously. It will come to your attention almost automatically when the
opportunity arises, allowing you to make an intuitive decision. Let me show
you what I mean by that.
Game 14
Robert Zelcic 2526
Marin Bosiocic 2598
Zagreb 2019 (3) (analysis)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Nd7 4.d4 cxd4 5.Qxd4 a6 6.Bxd7+ Bxd7 7.0-0
e5 8.Qd3 Rc8 9.Nc3 h6 10.Nd2 Qc7 11.Rd1 Nf6 12.Nf1 Bg4 13.Rd2 Be7
14.Ne3 Be6 15.Ncd5 Nxd5 16.Nxd5 Bxd5 17.Qxd5 Qc6 18.c3 0-0
19.Rd3 Qxd5 20.Rxd5 Rc4 21.f3 f5 22.exf5 Rxf5 23.Bd2

23...Rc6!
I often give a position that arises after 23.Bd2 as a positional exercise to my
students. It is a test of their positional intuition. While most of them
automatically respond 23...Kf7 (remember Vitiugov’s games!), which is not
a bad move at all, I find Bosiocic’s move much more thoughtful. It is both a
prophylactic measure against White’s b2-b3, c3-c4 expansion, as well as a
way to activate his worst piece, the dark-squared bishop via d8 and b6, by
overprotecting the d6-pawn. After establishing this fact, I usually proceed
with analyzing the position after 24.b3 Bd8 (which is how the source game
continued). However, in one lesson, a student of mine rated around 2000
FIDE suggested a different move for White.
24.f4!?
While this move feels a bit impatient from a strategic point of view, I could
understand how White would want to take advantage of the clumsy position
of Rf5 with it. As I hadn’t analyzed this move previously, I had to look for a
good response to White’s g2-g4 threat over the board. Both 24...h5 and

24...Kf7 25.g4 Ke6! looked reasonable, but another idea caught my
attention:
24...g5!?
The point of this move is to meet
25.g4
with an exchange sacrifice:
25...Rxf4 26.Bxf4 gxf4
For the exchange, Black gets three connected passed pawns in the center,
two of which can potentially become dangerous passers. We have already
seen how potent this combination is from the previous two examples. Of
course, this was an intuitive sacrifice, with my initial evaluation as Black
having enough compensation. So, we continued analyzing, making some
natural moves for both sides.
27.Kg2
When I checked this position with the engine later, it suggested a better,
more active plan for White: 27.Rd3! Kf7 28.Rh3, although even here, after
28...Rb6! 29.Rb1 d5 30.Rh5 e4! 31.Rf5+ Rf6 32.Rxd5 f3°, we can see the
full potential of Black’s connected passed pawns.
27...Kf7 28.Rad1 Ke6 29.Kf3

As I felt like White’s play has become static and that Black might have
ideas like ...b7-b5-b4, at this point I asked the student how he would
evaluate the position; who is better? He seemed surprised, almost offended
by the question, and bluntly replied: ‘White.’ By answering this way, he
made it clear that he could not see past the material advantage and that the
positional exchange sacrifice of this type was not in his arsenal. However,
as we continued to analyze this endgame for a few more moves, he was
having increasingly more difficulty defending his case – Black was better in
many lines and even winning in some lines.
29...b5
The potential of Black’s position is exemplified by another interesting
resource: 29...h5!? 30.gxh5 Rc8ƒ, gaining access to the f5-square for the
king and planning to activate his rook on the h-file.
30.R5d3 Rc4 31.Ke2
Another line of our analysis went 31.b3 e4+ 32.Kxf4 Bg5+! 33.Kg3 exd3
34.bxc4 bxc4, and, interestingly, Black will win thanks to the connected

passers on the queenside!
31...a5 32.a3 b4 33.axb4 axb4
The initiative is already firmly in Black’s hands and White has to tread
carefully to save the game. Of course, White could have defended better,
but it is Black who seems to be playing for a win here, not White.
After this basic analysis, I was pretty convinced of the soundness of the
exchange sacrifice. However, when I checked it with the engine afterwards,
much to my surprise, the initial evaluation after 26...gxf4 was close to +1.00
for White on a reasonable depth. This would mean that Black has no
compensation after all. I wanted to understand why this would be the case,
so I analyzed a bit further with the engine, and then an interesting thing
happened – it began gradually decreasing its positive evaluation of White’s
position – first to 0.40, then even lower, until it was already at 0.00 after
29.Kf3. From my experience, this means that the position is either dead
equal, or that Black is already better, and the engine still doesn’t understand
it. Further analysis proved that my intuitive assessment was right – Black’s
position after the exchange sacrifice is indeed easier to play.
And then, what do you know, only two days after our analysis, in the first
round of the strongest chess tournament of the year, the following
happened:
Game 15
Ding Liren 2805
Wang Hao 2762
Yekaterinburg ct 2020 (1)

Black to move
41...Rg4! 42.Rh2 g6 43.Nxg4 fxg4+ 44.Ke3 Be7 45.Rac2 h4 0-1
Chess is full of such serendipities!
To conclude, I think that we could take away several things from the
examples above:
1. Enrich your intuition with regular and careful study of new material
and try to make connections between things that you have learned before;
2. Use your own mind in the analysis first – an interesting idea like
24...g5!? 25.g4 Rxf4 would have hardly occurred to you if you had turned
on the engine – it is not even in its top 5 choices!;
3. Engine evaluations, especially the initial ones, are not always
absolutely correct. In fact, in rare instances they can be misleading; and
4. Trust your intuition, unless proven otherwise!
Good intuition can be developed over time with increased exposure to high-
quality chess material (e.g., well-annotated grandmaster games) and

supported by good study methods (e.g., deep analysis). As you get into the
right chess habits over a long period of time, the analytical experience and
knowledge will accumulate, sharpening your intuition and making your
subconscious suggestions more accurate. Patience and experience are the
key; there are no shortcuts here.
There are other good methods for developing intuition besides deep
analysis. For instance, lightly analyzing a large number of games is a good
way to develop a feeling for the dynamics of the chess battle: transitions
between different phases of the game, critical moments, attack and defense,
conversion of an advantage, etc. Many 3-hour training sessions in my youth
consisted of going through 15-20 model games that my coach would select
in a certain opening of interest. We would play them out on the board, and
if there was an interesting moment in the game like a tactical sequence or a
noteworthy maneuver, we would stop and try to figure it out. We would
play out the whole game until the end, then move on to the next one,
discuss similarities and differences between them, and so on. The most
useful thing about this practice, as I realized only years later, was not so
much that it expanded my opening knowledge, but rather that it helped me
develop a decent intuition for all phases of the game.
Some players also develop good intuition by playing a lot of blitz. Due to
the permanent time pressure, many decisions that you make in this time
control tend to be intuitive rather than fully calculated, so with a lot of such
experience you learn to make good moves based on subconscious
suggestions, rather than exact calculation. However, this should be
understood as an auxiliary method to improve one’s intuition and not a
justification to play more blitz!
When we talk about learning in chess, it is essential to also address the
common learning obstacles that chess players can face and how to
overcome them.
‘Too many opinions’
In 2017, I participated in a FIDE Trainer’s seminar in Dubai that was taught
by GM Efstratios Grivas. Somewhere at the start of the first lecture, Grivas

asked the audience the following thought-provoking question: ‘Why do you
think that adults find it difficult to improve at chess?’ (I do not remember
the exact wording, but this was the point of the question). The answers
ranged from ‘They don’t have enough time to study’ to ‘They cannot learn
as quickly as young players’. When it seemed like we had run out of logical
explanations for this well-known phenomenon, our lecturer provided a
somewhat surprising answer to the question himself: ‘They have too many
opinions’.
This explanation makes a lot of sense. The older we get, the more set we
become in our ways and the less we are ready to change them upon learning
new things. We have already invested so much time into creating our
opinions and confirming their validity (in our minds, at least) that we are
ready to spend more energy defending than changing them, even if we are
aware that this change might be for the better. This is simply how our brains
work, and chess is no exception.
Indeed, I have found that adult players that I have worked with tend to
show a certain resistance towards an opinion different from their own, even
if it comes from a stronger chess player. Hell, even my father in law, whose
practical strength is about 1800 FIDE, argues passionately with me about
the evaluations of certain positions. It also seems more difficult for adult
chess players to learn from their mistakes and fix chronic weaknesses in
their play compared to young players whose minds are relatively more
flexible.
While none of this is necessarily a bad thing, it is good to be aware that
being too opinionated can be a serious impediment to learning and
improvement in chess (and life in general, if I may add). To get to a new
level, sometimes we need to let go of and ‘unlearn’ what we already think
that we know to make space in our mind for more advanced knowledge or a
new paradigm. There are always new ideas and skills to learn and aspects of
your chess to improve, so whether you are a young player or an adult,
keeping an open mind and accepting constructive criticism is the most
productive kind of attitude in the long run.

Dogmatic thinking
A related learning obstacle to the one previously discussed is dogmatic
thinking. While similar in some ways, dogmatic thinking is the more
problematic of the two because it covers a broader spectrum of opinions
and beliefs about chess that are much more rigid. Dogmatic players hold
limiting beliefs such as:
• One should try to attack in every position;
• The positional postulates of My System by Aron Nimzowitsch are the
absolute truth;
• There is ‘the method’ that one can use to find the best move in every
position; and
• The engine’s first line is always the best move in the position.
‘Converting’ chess players with such strong convictions is difficult and,
unless they realize the problem themselves, usually not worth it.
Unfortunately, at some point in their chess education they had been taught
or learned chess the wrong way. All that I can say is that chess does not
work in a way that allows for any strict set of principles to always be true.
The sooner players with dogmatic thinking acknowledge this fact, the more
chances they will have to unlock their potential for effective learning.
Staying in your comfort zone
At the very start of this chapter, I have given several typical examples of
chess players’ excuses not to study. We could probably fill a couple of
pages with such excuses, as chess players can get very creative with them!
Of course, pushing yourself out of your comfort zone is not an easy thing to
do. Whenever you try something new or challenging, there is a greater
chance that you will fail at it compared to something that you have done
many times before. This can lead you to perceive this activity as unpleasant,
giving rise to defense mechanisms to avoid future disappointment or
frustration. In itself, this is nothing unusual or unnatural, but if you make it
a habit to avoid things that make you feel uncomfortable in your chess
training, your learning and, consequently, your improvement will suffer.

Additional side effects of staying in your comfort zone too much are
laziness, lack of discipline and procrastination.
If you feel like this happens to you often, you should not downplay or
ignore it, but rather look for ways to overcome whatever psychological
hurdle prevents you from going into the new study territories. My favorite
approach to this issue is ‘get comfortable being uncomfortable’, a short and
sweet motto that I came across somewhere in sports psychology literature.
This means that you take on the challenge head on and allow yourself to
feel uncomfortable, but still push through the exercise, drill, loss or
whatever else discomforts you. Very often, the psychological inertia carries
you through the uncomfortable process – once you start doing something,
you come to realize that it is much easier to complete it than you had
initially thought. One of the best-known chess authors, GM Jacob Aagaard,
described this process well in his book Thinking Inside the Box:
‘Improvement includes overcoming frustration, knowing that it is
temporary. Once you get into the habit of training, you will feel the
resistance, but your interpretation of it will change. You will see it as a good
thing and you will feel a combination of pleasure and pain, as your strength
increases. Eventually, it will become addictive.’
At the end of the day, it all comes down to one’s degree of tolerance to
frustration. If you can tolerate frustration well, you typically:
• Have a higher threshold for situations or activities that make you feel
uncomfortable;
• Take a frustrating moment as another challenge or a problem to be solved;
• Accept the fact that you are not capable of doing something as well as you
would like to at that point in time and trust that things will take care of
themselves if you continue following the right course; and
• Try to make decisions rationally and calmly instead of impulsively and
impatiently.
On the other hand, people with low tolerance to frustration typically get
annoyed, discouraged, disappointed, or even enraged easily, and are more

likely to overreact to or quit what they perceive to be a frustrating situation.
Sadly, I have noticed that some chess players have a chronically low
tolerance to frustration. Whenever they encounter an obstacle in chess, they
quickly quit and move on to a different exercise/study
method/opening/book/coach... Usually they do not even realize that most of
their ‘problems’ in chess are merely mental constructions. Productive
learning in chess requires an open mind and a curious, problem-solving
mindset. This cannot be achieved if you keep finding excuses for this and
that.
To illustrate the discussion about high and low tolerance to frustration, let
us take a few typical study/play scenarios:
Table 1.1: Tolerance to frustration
Typical
study/play
scenario
Low tolerance to
frustration
High tolerance to frustration
Repeatedly
failing at a
challenging
practice/exercise
Gives up quickly
Keeps attempting until
achieving a decent success
Getting bored by
a study activity
Finds something else
that is ‘more fun’ to
study
Finds a way to make the
original activity more fun
Losing the first
couple of games
inanew
opening
Changes openings
frequently
Takes lessons from losses and
makes opening improvements
Having trouble
following a
study plan
Abandons the plan when
a couple of objectives
have not been
accomplished
Revisits and readjusts the plan
to make the objectives more
easily achievable

Typical
study/play
scenario
Low tolerance to
frustration
High tolerance to frustration
Losing a
game/missing an
opportunity
Gets discouraged or
despairs
Gets extra motivated to play
the next game better
Getting beaten
luckily in an
online blitz
game
Goes on a revenge
mission
Calms down, plays a couple
more blitz games and uses the
rest of the study time
constructively
Of course, there will always be situations when something is objectively
difficult to do no matter how hard you try, usually due to your current lack
of capabilities or resources. If this is the case and you still want to achieve
your goal badly, here is what I believe that you should do: get immersed in
it. I have used this strategy many times in my life (not only in chess) when I
realized that my knowledge or skill in the area that interested me was
insufficient. Being ‘bad’ at anything is not pleasant, but if you have chess
goals that you care about deeply enough, you may be surprised to find out
that you have more inner resources to endure temporary setbacks than you
initially thought you had. By fully engaging in the problematic area –
studying it twice or three times more than you normally would have – you
will be able to grasp it at some point. Maybe not in a month or two, but you
will at least build a base that will facilitate your learning in the future. For
example:
• If analyzing games on your own is too difficult, spend several weeks
studying grandmaster games with their annotations to understand their
analytical process. You will notice how strong players are very attentive to
the opponent’s threats, ideas, and hidden resources, and usually analyze an
important alternative for their opponent if it exists;

• If you do not understand how to play positions with a blocked center,
study in detail all games of Tigran Petrosian or Vladimir Kramnik as White
against the King’s Indian Defense; or
• If you struggle with tactical vision, create an intensive study plan that will
melt your brain, but make you a more acute tactician at the end.
Usually, the benefits of such ambitious projects remain with you for life.
However, if you give up on them too early, you will be missing out on a
good learning opportunity.
One last thing I would like to say about learning in chess is that it matters
much less where you are right now in terms of chess knowledge and skill
than where you are going, i.e., what your study mindset and habits are.
Chess has seen wunderkinds who stagnated and eventually quit chess and
average talents who have become strong chess professionals. Do not lose
heart if you do not see quick results. Rather, embrace a long-term
improvement perspective with a focus on correct study methods, working
your way toward your chess goals slowly but surely. Just as in the famous
tale, when it comes to chess study, tortoises also fare better than hares in the
long run.
Chapter 1 summary
• Mastering a complex game like chess takes
1. time (quantity); and
2. intelligent study (quality).
• There is no substitute for study time.
• Talent is only a multiplier of the hours you put into study and not a
decisive factor on its own.
• The compounding effect of chess study allows those who invest more time
into their studies to assimilate new and increasingly more complex things
more easily and more quickly.
• Learning chess is not a linear process; rather, increasing amounts of chess
study tend to accelerate one’s learning curve.

• The underlying foundation of quality work is the right study mindset. It is
the understanding of why you are doing what you are doing and how it will
translate into you becoming a better chess player.
• When you are ‘process-oriented’ and study without the need for
immediate gratification of your study efforts in terms of fleeting pleasure,
recognition, score, rating, etc., you tend to reap the greatest benefits from
your study.
• The ‘selfish’ quest for self-improvement should not interfere with a
selfless desire to learn the secrets of chess.
• When one develops a mindset that places ‘chess’ in the primary role and
‘self’ in the secondary, one can achieve objectivity that is conducive to the
deepest and most productive kind of chess learning.
• Taking the path of least resistance is one of the biggest enemies of
learning.
• A study approach that minimizes superficial practices and focuses on
systematic and patient efforts to understand chess better brings much more
benefit in the long run.
• The accumulation of skills and knowledge, as well as their manifestation
in the form of tournament results and rating increases, are quite
unpredictable. Most chess players rather face periods of stagnation before
making observable leaps in playing strength.
• Playing and studying go together hand in hand, forming a positive
feedback loop.
• ‘Chess cannot be taught. Chess can only be learned’ – Mikhail Botvinnik.
• Study methods that stimulate subconscious learning (most notably –
analysis) help build chess strength more than any amount of the basic ones.
• The more you can rely on your subconscious suggestions in the game, the
stronger player you become.
• The development of intuition is the deepest learning process in chess. It is
basically trusting that your brain will figure out the right solution without

you consciously thinking about it.
• To get to a new level, sometimes we need to let go of and ‘unlearn’ what
we already think that we know to make space in our mind for more
advanced knowledge or a new paradigm.
• The best way to unlock your learning potential and get out of your study
comfort zone is to ‘get comfortable being uncomfortable’.
• When something is objectively difficult no matter how hard you try, and
you care about it deeply, the solution is to get immersed in it, i.e ., study it
twice or more than you normally would.
• When it comes to learning in chess, it matters much less where you are
right now in terms of chess knowledge and skill, than where you are going,
i.e ., what your study mindset and habits are.

Chapter 2 – Preview
White to move
Please suggest a plan to improve the position.
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
How would you evaluate White’s winning chances in this endgame?
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
White to move and win by force!
(go to the ANSWER)
White to move
What is the best continuation?
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
Please suggest the best plan.
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
White to move and win.
(go to the ANSWER)
Black to move
Please suggest the best way to execute the ...e5-e4 break.
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
White to move and win.
(go to the ANSWER)
Chapter 2
Fifteen study methods
From this point on, we start exploring concrete aspects of chess study. In
this chapter, we will discuss study methods. Just to clarify, in this book we
use the term study method to denote a general procedure by which one
conducts chess study. Study methods are largely independent from
particular study areas (such as tactics, endgames, strategy, etc.), which is
another important term that we will use throughout the book. For instance,
the study method ‘solving’ can be applied to virtually any study area – we
can solve opening, tactical, positional, endgame, and other types of
exercises. Study methods should also be differentiated from study activities,

which can be much more specific. For instance, ‘playing a sparring game in
blindfold mode’ or ‘deep analysis of a model game from my opening
repertoire’ are examples of study activities. I wanted to make these things
clear right off the bat because we will use these similar-sounding terms
throughout the book quite frequently.
Another distinction that I would like to make is that not every chess-
related activity should count as chess study. Here are some typical activities
that chess players do for fun, entertainment, or to satisfy their intellectual
curiosity:
• reading chess news and following chess results;
• communication on chess-related social platforms (e.g., chats, forums);
• multitasking while watching chess videos, streams, etc.;
• playing casual blitz or bullet chess;
• reading biographies of famous chess players, historical articles about
chess, etc.; and
• analyzing material of little practical value (e.g., games of 19th-century
players; rare theoretical endgames; chess problems, helpmates, and similar
material).
I don’t want you to get the wrong impression – it’s cool to do all of these
things, and sometimes you can pick up an interesting practical idea or a
piece of advice in the process. But if you find yourself doing them
frequently and for extended periods of time, you are wasting your study
time. There are many more efficient and effective study methods, and we
will discuss them now.
In the table below, I provide an overview of the 15 most common study
methods, together with their brief descriptions and three quality criteria:
• practical relevance;
• study intensity; and
• long-term learning potential.

These criteria indicate the degree to which a certain method contributes to
the quality of one’s study. The scoring scale is from 1 to 5; 1 being low, 3
medium, and 5 a high score. The scores are approximate, though hopefully
you will find them realistic and informative enough.
Table 2.1: Study methods and quality criteria
Study
method
Brief description
Practical
relevance
Study
intensity
Long-
term
learning
potential
Playing
over
briefly examining games or
positions
2
1
2
Watching
watching chess videos, DVDs
and similar media
3
2
3
Reading
reading chess books,
magazines, surveys, and
similar material
3
3
4
Light
analysis
analyzing games or positions
with a low to moderate level
of intensity
4
3
4
Deep
analysis
analyzing games or positions
with full intensity
5
5
5
Computer-
assisted
analysis
analyzing games or positions
with the help of a chess engine
4
3
4
Mutual
analysis
analyzing games or positions
with another person(s)
4
4
5
‘Find the
best move’
trying to find the best move in
a given position(s)
4
5
4

Study
method
Brief description
Practical
relevance
Study
intensity
Long-
term
learning
potential
Simulation
pretending to play a real game
by guessing the next move
5
5
5
Reviewing
deliberately committing
variations, positions, or games
to memory
4
4*
4
Solving
trying to find the solution to a
chess puzzle
4
5
4
Playing –
sparring
playing a pre-arranged game
or match
5
5
5
Playing –
speed chess
playing games at blitz or rapid
time control
4
4
4
Blindfold
doing any of the other study
methods without visual aids
4
5
5
Playing
against a
computer
playing out positions or games
with a chess engine as an
opponent
4
5
5
* Intensity level may vary from person to person, please check page 101 and 108
(in the ‘Reviewing’ section) for further explanation.
This overview should give you a good general idea about the pros and cons
of each method. When you create your own study plans (which we will see
how to do in Chapter 9), you can choose which among these study methods
are appropriate for this or that study activity. To facilitate this, I provide a
more detailed look at each of the 15 methods below.
Playingover(PR=2;IN=1;LT=2)

This is the simplest way to get acquainted with new material, such as
games, opening variations, instructive examples, etc. Typically, we play
over the games from chess books, magazines, databases, chess websites, or
using e-readers. There is something appealing about playing out the moves
with your own hand on the chessboard, though this is obviously a more
time-consuming way to do it. The main purpose of playing over games is to
get quick and easy access to chess information, and perhaps pick up a new
idea or two without investing too much time and mental effort. While it is a
very accessible method that has its place in a study plan, relatively low
scores across the three quality criteria indicate that this study method alone
is not a game changer.
Watching(PR=3;IN=2;LT=3)
Learning chess via audiovisual media has become increasingly popular in
the 21st century. Chess DVDs, video courses, live commentary, streaming,
banter blitz, YouTube channels... there are so many interactive ways to
present chess these days, which is great. I have even had one student who
claimed that he learned most things in chess only by watching chess videos.
And while there is nothing wrong with this approach as long as one is
focused on learning, reading should still be the better study method of the
two. It has been scientifically proven that reading engages your brain in a
way that stimulates important cognitive processes such as comprehension,
abstract thinking, and imagination. Watching, on the other hand, leaves your
brain somewhat more passive in these segments. It is a variation of the
well-known ‘books vs movies debate’ in which books usually prevail.
Another small disadvantage of watching as a study medium, as compared
to reading, is that there are more distractions in the audiovisual media. I
mean, if Scarlett Johansson explained move orders in the Najdorf, I am sure
that it would be the most-watched chess video ever, but I doubt that it
would be particularly useful in chess terms. This is an extreme example, of
course, but I am sure that you get the point.
With that said, I would like to point out several watching activities that I
believe are particularly useful:

1. Opening video courses
Opening videos are an excellent way to learn openings. In fact, I have often
found them to be a better media for that purpose than books/databases,
because they allow for a more interactive way of presenting, at times, rather
dry theoretical material. Also, in good opening video courses you may pick
up insights or explanations that you normally wouldn’t get from other
opening resources.
2. Middlegame/endgame video courses or series
There are hundreds of video courses out there on all sorts of middlegame
and endgame topics. Many of them are well-structured, well-explained and
with good instructive examples, so they can definitely serve as useful
learning tools. One video course that I can say I enjoyed immensely was
‘Calculation’ by the late Mark Dvoretsky (co-hosted by GM Jan
Gustafsson) on the chess24 website. I even did not mind Dvoretsky’s
limited English vocabulary and strong Russian accent that much because,
from a pure chess perspective, his examples and, in particular, his
explanations were top-notch and I feel like there is a lot to learn from them.
A course like that can be an eye-opener as much as any great chess book.
3. Live commentary
Live game commentaries by strong players, such as two brilliant Peters,
Svidler and Leko, are a treat to watch and a good learning experience,
because one can get exclusive access into the way these top players think.
There are, of course, many more excellent chess-commentators who may
not be top-level players, but provide valuable insights for chess players of
various levels. Once again, the key is watching the live commentary for
educational rather than entertainment purposes, so you should make sure
that you have the chat on ‘off ’!
I have to admit that I am not a big fan of the: ‘Incredible! Here the
computer shows that Aronian made a huge mistake!’ kind of live
commentary. While I understand that this may be a more accessible way for
the larger chess audience to follow the games of top players, I don’t think

that it is nearly as insightful as seeing the commentator actually break some
mental sweat to figure out what is going on in the game. This gives you, as
a viewer, an opportunity to think on your own and compare your thoughts
to those of a strong player in real time, almost as if you were analyzing with
him.
4. YouTube speed chess videos
This is a study activity that one can do even while eating breakfast. You
simply find a YouTube video of a game from the World Rapid or Blitz
Championship (for example). They are usually filmed from a good angle, so
the viewer can see the board and the players well. You can take it as a sort
of a timed ‘Find the best move’ activity (more on this study method shortly)
and try to predict the move that the players will make. As they start getting
low on time, so does your task of finding the right move get more difficult.
All the while, you can see players’ reactions, which are often good
indicators of whether they like their position or not, what was the critical
moment (spending a lot of time) or a turning point (change in body
language). It is a nice light calculation exercise and, thus, could make for a
good warm-up practice before a more intense training session.
Reading(PR=3;IN=3;LT=4)
Reading chess books, magazines and articles gives you access to condensed
chess knowledge, and this is the greatest strength of reading as a study
method. An important feature of this way of studying is that you have
plenty of time to pause and reflect on what you have read and make your
own conclusions (which, to revisit the old debate, is much easier than
constantly pausing and skipping back and forth through the video to do the
same). Let’s point out some other benefits of reading books, beyond the
general ones already mentioned in the ‘Watching’ section:
• In books, you can get many practical ideas and deep insights that you
might have never thought of yourself. One might say that you can get the
same kind of information from chess videos, but a big difference between
the two media is that writers have a luxury of thinking through, reviewing,
and revising their thoughts and conclusions. This allows them to usually

provide deeper and more accurate insights as compared to video presenters,
who cannot make ‘j’adoube’ once they have said something and may also
not always articulate their thoughts in the most concise manner.
• Reading enables you to learn about chess history, and not only about great
players and great tournaments of the past, but also about the development of
ideas in chess. I am aware that knowing the order of World Champions and
how each of them contributed to the development of chess is probably not
going to help you make better moves over the board (which is the only
thing that matters to some people), but it does make you a more well-
rounded chess player. This becomes especially valuable if you decide to
pass on your knowledge to other chess players someday, so you may also
consider reading as a long-term investment.
• Reading creates a large knowledge base that gives you confidence that
you have made the right decision during the game. It is easier to play a
certain move if you have already read about something similar in a best
games collection of a strong player.
Let me give you an example.
Game 16
Analysis with a student
2020
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.0-0 Bg7 5.Re1 e5 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.d3 Qc7
8.a4 Nf6 9.a5 Rb8 10.Nbd2 Be6 11.Nc4 Nd7 12.Ng5 Bxc4 13.dxc4 0-0
14.Be3 h6 15.Nf3 Rfd8

(back to the PREVIEW)
A student showed me this position from a blitz game in a chess.com’s Titled
Tuesday tournament. He had the white pieces and naturally considered his
position better. Yet, he lost the game after failing to find the right plan for
White. Since I also considered that White should have a slight edge in this
structure, mostly due to the passive black bishop, we set out to find a way to
prove it. At first, our analytical efforts were based around the c2-c3/b2-b4
break, with the aim to exploit vulnerable pawns on c5 and a7. However, as
you can see in the line 16.c3 below, this amounts to little or nothing with
Black’s best play. At some point during these futile attempts to prove
White’s advantage I realized that our most passive piece is the knight. Then
an idea dawned on me – we could activate it by playing on the kingside!
Thus, we changed the course of analysis and embarked upon
16.Qc1
Initially, our main direction was 16.c3 Kh7 (16...Nf8? 17.Qc1 wins a pawn
for White) 17.Qc2 (we had also looked at 17.Qb1 and 17.Qa4 without
success) 17...b6 18.axb6 axb6 19.b4 cxb4 20.cxb4 Nf8=.

16...Kh7 17.h4!
As I realized that White should play on the kingside, I immediately got a
flashback from the game Gelfand-Van Wely that was analyzed by Boris
Gelfand in his book Positional Decision Making in Chess. As you can see
in the next game, in a similar position in the Rossolimo, he also launched
his h-pawn to provoke weaknesses in Black’s pawn structure and combine
positional pressure on both wings.
17...b6
If Black prevents h4-h5 by playing 17...h5 himself, White would succeed in
his plan to activate the knight: 18.Ng5+ Kg8 19.Rf1!; by preparing f2-f4,
and White would take the initiative on the kingside.
18.b3
Waiting for Black to commit his knight. 18.h5?! is premature, in view of
18...g5! 19.Nh2 Nf6.

18...Nf8
If 18...Nf6, 19.Bd22, preparing Bc3, takes advantage of the knight’s
position on f6.
19.h5! Ne6 20.hxg6+ fxg6 21.axb6 axb6 22.c32
Having provoked the weakening of Black’s kingside, White has more long-
term trumps to play for a win, even though the position is still only slightly
better for him.
Game 17
Boris Gelfand 2703
Loek van Wely 2654
Plovdiv Ech-tt 2003 (6)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.0-0 Bg7 5.Re1 e5 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.d3 Qe7
8.Nbd2 Nf6 9.Nc4 Nd7 10.Bd2 0-0 11.a3 b6 12.Bc3 a5 13.a4 Ba6 14.b3
Rfb8 15.g3 Bxc4 16.bxc4 Nf8 17.Qc1 Qc7 18.Qb2 f6 19.Ra3 Ne6 20.Rb3
Bf8 21.Rb1 Ra6 22.Qc1 Bd6 23.Qf1 Qd7

24.h4!
In the book, Gelfand gives a diagram after 24.h4 (although he omits the
exclamation mark), while also providing the following comment: ‘If I were
allowed, I would love to play h4-h5 in order to create more weaknesses.’
Simple, instructive, and easy to remember and apply in a similar position.
24...h5 25.Qh3 Bc7 26.Bd2 Rd8 27.Kh1 Kh7 28.Rg1 Raa8 29.g4 Ng7
30.Kh2 hxg4 31.Rxg4 Nh5 32.Rb1 Rg8 33.Rbg1 Bd6 34.Qg2 Qf7 35.Rg5
Be7 36.Rg4 Bf8 37.Rb1 Ra6 38.Ng1 Bh6 39.Bxh6 Kxh6 40.Nh3 Kh7
41.Kh1 Rg7 42.f4 exf4 43.Nxf4 Nxf4 44.Rxf4 Ra8 45.Qf2 Rf8 46.Rxb6
Qc7 47.Rb1 Qe5 48.h5 gxh5 49.Rf5 Qe8 50.Qxc5 Kh6 51.Rbf1 Qg6
52.Qe3+ Kh7 53.Qh3 Kh6 54.e5 Rgf7 55.Qe3+ Kh7 56.Qf3 1-0
Before concluding this section, I would like to make one general remark
about reading chess books: they are not novels. If you go through a chess
book in a couple of days, you are missing the point. The most important
part of reading is the process, not the result; in other words – what you have
learned from reading the book (both consciously and subconsciously!), and

not the fact that you have finished reading it. Here are some tips to get the
most out of your reading:
• If there is a passage that you do not fully comprehend, reread it a few
times. If you feel like it, reread the whole book once more! I have reread
each of my first couple of chess books probably about 5-6 times over the
years and some parts of them even more than that.
• Make your own notes as you read or add post-it-notes in the book (e.g.,
important examples, noteworthy concepts, favorite quotes).
• If game continuations of interesting positions in the text are just below the
diagram, cover them with a sheet of paper or your hand and try to solve
them before looking at the moves in the book.
• Challenge the author’s assumptions. Here is an example.
Game 18
Boris Gelfand 2693
Daniel Campora 2549
Izmir tt 2004 (2) (analysis)

White to move
While we are with Gelfand’s Positional Decision Making in Chess, I should
say that I was impressed with the following example from the book. In this
position, Gelfand decided to exchange ‘heavy artillery’, as he puts it, and
tried to win the endgame with two pairs of minor pieces.
26.Rxc7 Rxc7 27.Rxc7 Qxc7 28.Qc1 Qxc1 29.Nxc1 Nfd7 30.Kf2
In the game, Campora continued 30...Nc5, and after that Gelfand created an
endgame masterpiece. However, he also noted: ‘Still, I cannot shake the
idea that if Black had played ...f7-f5, I am not absolutely sure if I could win
the game. I would have to show great technique, put the bishop on c8,
maneuver the knight around and see what happened. Probably it is winning,
but I do not feel the same degree of certainty.’ Since Gelfand didn’t provide
any variations to support his belief that the endgame after
30...f5!
would indeed probably be winning for White, I decided to find out.
By the way, the game continued: 30...Nc5 31.Ke3 Ke7 32.b4! Ncd7
33.Bh3! (this stopped ...f7-f5 for good and doomed Black to eternal
passivity) 33...Nf6 34.Nd3 Ne8 35.f4 f6 36.Bc8 Nc7 37.Kf3 Kd8 38.Bf5
Nd7 39.h4! Nf8 40.h5 Ne8 41.Nf2! Nc7 42.Nd1 Ne8 43.Ne3 Nc7 44.Bh3
Ne8 45.Bf5 Nc7 46.Bg6! (the key move, clearing the path for destruction
of g7-pawn) 46...Nxg6 47.hxg6 Ne8 48.Nf5 Kd7 49.Kg4! Kd8 50.Kh5
Kd7 51.Nxg7! Nxg7+ 52.Kxh6 f5 53.Kxg7 fxe4 54.Kf7 e3 55.g7 e2
56.g8=Q e1=Q 57.Qe8+ 1-0 .
31.Bh3
I operated under the assumption that this is White’s only real attempt to win
and I suppose that Gelfand did as well, considering his plan to put the
bishop on c8. However, when I checked my analysis with the engine, it

pointed out an unexpected resource for White: 31.exf5!?. This looks
completely anti-positional, in view of 31...Nf6, but White has 32.Bg2!
Nxd5 33.f4, opening the long diagonal.
analysis diagram
This endgame is different from the one that arises after 31.Bh3, but also
clearly inferior for Black due to a huge weakness on a6, so he needs to
show precision to hold it. Nevertheless, analytically speaking, he should be
fine after 33...Nf6 (33...Nb4 is also possible, but much more difficult to
hold) 34.Bb7 exf4 35.gxf4 Ke7, as he should most likely be able to hold
some kind of a fortress. White’s king can hardly break through. For
example: 36.Na2 (36.Ne2 Kd7 37.Nd4 Kc7 38.Ba8 Kd7=) 36...Nfd7
37.Kf3 Nc5 38.Bd5 Nbd7 39.b4 Nf6! 40.Ba8 (40.bxc5 Nxd5 41.Ke4
Nf6+ 42.Kd4 dxc5+ 43.Kxc5 Ne4+ 44.Kb6 Nd6! 45.Kxa6 Nc4 46.Kxb5
Nxa5 47.Kxa5 Kf6=) 40...Ncd7 41.Nc3 Kd8! 42.Ne2 Kc7 43.Nd4 Kb8
44.Bc6 Nf8=.
31...fxe4 32.fxe4 Ke7 33.Kf3 Nf6

(back to the PREVIEW)
If you compare this position to the similar one after 35.f4 f6 in the original
game, you will notice that the key difference is that the f6-square is
available for the black knight. This not only means that he has more
maneuvering space in general, but more importantly, that he permanently
controls the g4-square. This basically means that the white king has no way
to break in (as he did in the game). And without the king and the second
weakness (g7 in the game), I don’t think that White can win this endgame. I
tried some plans for White, including those that Gelfand mentioned in his
notes (Bc8, maneuver the knight; sacrifice on a6 or b5), but Black seems to
be as solid as a rock with relatively straightforward defense. In many cases,
he can afford to block the kingside with ...g7-g5, when White goes g3-g4. I
analyzed the following possibilities:
34.Nd3
A) 34.Bf5 Nbd7 35.Nd3 (35.g4 g5 36.b4 Ne8 37.Ne2 Ng7 38.Ng3 Nb8
39.Bc8 Kd8 40.Bf5 Ke7=) 35...Kd8 36.Nb4 Nc5 37.Nc6+ Kc7 38.b4
Na4=;

B) 34.b4 Nbd7 35.Ne2 Kd8 36.Nc3 Nf8 37.Bf1 g5= 38.Nxb5?? axb5
39.Bxb5 Kc7–+ .
34...Nfd7! 35.b4
35.Kg4?! Nc5 36.Nxc5 dxc5„.
35...Nf6 36.Bf5 Nbd7 37.g4
37.Ne1 Kd8 38.Ng2 Nf8 39.h4 g6 40.Bh3 h5=.
37...Kd8 38.h4 g5 39.Bxd7 Kxd7 40.h5=
Does this mean that Boris Gelfand was wrong in his assessment that this
endgame is probably winning for White? Well, this is a valid question, but
probably beside the point. Gelfand’s evaluation was based on his intuition,
not on computer-checked analysis. His feeling that the space advantage and
chronic weakness of the a6-pawn should still give White excellent winning
chances was not wrong, in principle. Yet, Black can hold a draw with best
defense. Would Campora have drawn that endgame in a real game, though?
Would you, against Gelfand? No one knows. The truth in chess is not
always clear-cut, and we need to treat human evaluations with respect, but
also keep a healthy dose of scepticism. If you have some doubts or
questions about positions, do not take anyone’s word for it and feel free to
clarify them through analysis. Whatever conclusion you arrive at, the
process itself will deepen your chess understanding.
Lightanalysis(PR=4,IN =3;LT=4)
As I mentioned in the first chapter, I believe that analysis should be the
cornerstone of a good study plan. The simplest analytical method is light
analysis, which means that you are using about 50% or less of your
analytical abilities to save time or energy. I already gave one example of a
study process based on this method in the first chapter (going through 15-20
model games with a coach in a 3-hour session). The following game would
be a typical product of such light analysis.

Game 19
Markus Ragger 2697
Warren Elliott 2238
Baku ol 2016 (3)
1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 a6 8.Qd2
b5 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Bd3 Qb6
10...d4 11.Nxd4 Bxd4 (11...Nxd4 12.Ne4 Qh4+ 13.Bf2 Qg4 14.Bxd4
Bxd4 15.Nd6+ Ke7 16.Be4+– Karjakin-Topalov, Kiev rapid 2013)
12.Bxd4 Nxd4 13.Be4 Nxc2+ 14.Qxc2 Ra7 15.0-0± Matsuura-Rodrigues,
Cordeiropolis 2015.
11.Bf2 Bxf2+
A) 11...b4 12.Na4 Bxf2+ 13.Qxf2 Qxf2+ 14.Kxf22 a5 15.Rhc1! Ke7?
16.c4 dxc4 17.Be4 Bb7 18.Rxc4+– 1-0 (38) Robson-Le Quang Liem St
Louis 2014;
B) 11...Bb7 12.0-0 Rc8 (12...0 -0!? 13.Bxh7+ Kxh7 14.Ng5+ Kg8 15.Qd3
Bxf2+ 16.Rxf2 Rfe8 17.Qh7+ Kf8 18.Rd1 (18.Qh5 Nd8) 18...Nd4!„)
13.Rae1 g6 14.f5! gxf5 15.Bxf5 Bxf2+ 16.Rxf2± 1-0 (23) So-Volkov,
Turkey tt 2015.
12.Qxf2 Qxf2+
12...Nc5! 13.0 -0 b4 14.Ne2 a5 15.Ned4 Nxd4 16.Nxd4 a4„.
13.Kxf22

13...Bb7 14.Ne2 Nc5
14...f6!?.
15.Ned4 Nb4?!
≥ 15...Rc8 16.Ke32.
16.Ke3 Rc8 17.a3 Nbxd3?
17...Nc6±.
18.cxd3+– Ke7 19.Kd2

19...Rc7?!
19...Na4 20.f5! Nxb2 (20...h6 21.Nh4+–) 21.fxe6 fxe6 22.Ng5+–.
20.f5 Rhc8 21.Rhf1 g6
21...h6 22.Nh4!+–.
22.fxg6 hxg6 23.Ng5 Ke8 24.Rf4 Re7 25.Raf1 Rcc7 26.Rh4 Bc8 27.Rh8+
Kd7 28.Nh7 Rb7 29.Rc1 1-0
As you can see, the game was annotated with no words, using only Chess
Informant style annotations (glyphs). This is the preferred light analysis
‘language’ for two reasons. Firstly, it economizes the time to record the
analysis. Secondly, it allows us to be more objective in the analysis as we
focus more on moves and variations and less on our own thoughts
(expressed in words). As far as the analytical part goes, we can see that the
game has not been analyzed in much depth: only several critical moments
were lightly analyzed and possible improvements, as well as the alternatives

in the opening, were mentioned. This kind of analysis allows us to get some
insights about the game, but it is still fairly superficial; for instance, deep
analysis of the moves 12...Nc5 and 14...f6 would reveal how strong these
alternatives really are. With a light analysis, we have only just scratched the
surface.
Besides this ‘Chess Informant’ type of light analysis, there is another one.
I believe that one of the main reasons why David Bronstein’s Zurich
International Chess Tournament 1953 has become one of the most popular
chess books of all time is in its instructive light analysis format. Most
games contain a minimal number of variations (some none!) and the focus
is on explaining the important ideas and critical moments from the games in
words. This kind of analysis also makes for a fairly light reading, since one
does not get overburdened with complicated variations or explanations on
every single move.
In conclusion, light analysis is a good study method if you are somewhat
limited with time or energy. You get to think about important issues in the
critical positions, which is definitely more useful than playing over the
game superficially. However, when it comes to analysis the real deal is...
Deepanalysis(PR=5;IN=5;LT=5)
Please read the following quotes about the importance of analysis from
some of the leading chess authorities and let them sink in:
Garry Kasparov: ‘Process of thinking during the game is the same process
of analyzing, just without moving the pieces. And the essence of chess
training is improvement of analyzing abilities.
‘I think that (other things being equal) the analytical method of studying
chess must give you a colossal advantage over chess pragmatism, and that
there can be no certainty in chess without analysis.’
Mikhail Botvinnik: ‘What does the art of a master consist of? Essentially
it is the capacity to analyze chess positions accurately.
‘Whoever aims to become a remarkable player should perfect skills in the
domain of analysis.’

Tigran Petrosian: ‘The criterion of real strength is a deep penetration into
the secrets of a position.’
If you ever had doubts around which method you should conduct your
chess study, then I believe that these strong statements by three ex-world
champions should reassure you. Analysis forces you to fully engage your
mental capabilities as you work on: ‘deep penetration into the very essence
of chess struggle, ... formation of plans, ... seeking the most deeply hidden
combinative possibilities, ... discovering the faults in one’s play, ... going
deeper into the secrets of the game and ... widening one’s erudition in
chess.’ (Alexander Kotov) I would add that deep analysis also enhances
important practical skills, such as correct positional evaluation, as well as
quicker and more accurate calculation.
In its essence, analysis is the process of working out the logical
possibilities in a certain position. When we analyze, we (often
unconsciously) create hypotheses about a certain move, idea, or variation,
test them through the exploration of various logical possibilities for both
sides, and form final evaluations and conclusions. A chess analyst should be
powered by curiosity. When you are curious about the possibilities in a
certain position, you will be asking yourself questions such as: what if...?,
why...?, how...?, what is the difference between...? etc. Such questions and
their answers will guide your analysis.
Analysis is also a deeply introspective process – when you analyze, you
learn about the way you think just as much as you learn about different
technical aspects of chess. Unfortunately, some people find it difficult to
analyze on their own, because they quickly lose interest or are not curious
enough to analyze to begin with. This is quite problematic because a desire
to understand the essence of chess positions is something that is crucial for
the development of one’s overall chess skill, and yet difficult to teach.
Hopefully, the above-mentioned quotes of chess titans and examples of
deep analysis that we will see throughout the book can inspire even the
most sceptical chess pragmatists to appreciate its importance as an essential
method to better oneself as a chess player.

In the first chapter, I have already mentioned a fascinating success story
of (now) GM Jonathan Hawkins. In his book, Amateur to IM, he reveals
that the main driving force behind his improvement from club-player to IM
ranks was analytical work done on endgames. Now, some people who have
read it think that it is an endgame book and that the title is misleading. But
this is a superficial way of looking at it. In essence, this book (in particular
its third part ‘Endgame explorations’) testifies to the crucial role of deep
analysis in one’s chess improvement. Hawkins correctly identified the
endgame as the area that perhaps has the greatest impact on raising your
general level of play (more on the fundamental value of endgame study in
Chapter 7), but what he had studied is a bit less important than how he had
studied it. It is primarily the analytical work that enables you to steadily
improve your overall chess skill, not just a strong knowledge of a particular
area of chess.
Analytical work has been instrumental in my own chess development,
too. When I was an improving young player, resources such as the Chess
Informant and games from chess magazines annotated by strong players
provided the analytical blueprint as to how a chess game should be
analyzed. I tried to copy these analytical approaches in my own game
analysis, and, although some of my early efforts seem naïve in hindsight, I
am glad that I adopted analysis as the main study method to complement
reading books and playing in tournaments. Therefore, I cannot stress
enough how important it is for a chess player of any level to embrace this
study method.
As an example of deep analysis, I would like to show an endgame that I
analyzed thoroughly recently. It all started by playing over the game
Petrosyan-Artemiev, Sharjah 2018, in which the following endgame was
reached:
Game 20
Manuel Petrosyan 2560
Vladislav Artemiev 2701
Sharjah 2018 (6)

Black to move
This type of endgame appears reasonably often in practice. The side with
the extra piece should be winning, of course, but if White defends in the
best way, this may not be a piece of cake, as we will see shortly!
39...Kf7 40.Rb7+ Ne7 41.h4 Kf6 42.Kg2 h6 43.Rb6+ Rc6 44.Rb2 Nf5
45.Ra2 Nd6 46.Ra4 Nc4 47.Ra8 Ne5 48.Ra2 Nd3 49.Ra3 Ne5 50.Ra2
Kf5 51.Rd2 Rc1

Artemiev has centralized his pieces, planning to invade the weakest point in
White’s position – the f2-pawn. Here, Petrosyan decided to defend actively
with
52.Rd8,
aiming to protect the pawn from the f-file. Unfortunately for him, the rook
soon runs out of good squares on that file. However, I could not find a
straightforward way for Black to win if White maintains a passive defense
with 52.Ra2. Although Black manages to eventually take control of the
second rank and force White’s rook to go to the f-file, White can set up a
much more stubborn defense than Petrosyan did in this game. The
following is a sample line: 52...Ke4 (to support ...Nd3) 53.Re2+ Kd4
54.Ra2 h5 55.Re2 Rc5 56.Ra2 Nd3! (forcing the rook off the second rank,
with ...Rc2 coming next) 57.Ra4+ Rc4 58.Ra6 Rc2! 59.Rf6! Ke4 60.Kg1
Ne5 61.Kg2. White’s rook was forced to the f-file, but if you compare this
position to the game, you will see that the black king is actually misplaced
on e4! Black needs to bring it back to take away squares on the f-file from
the white rook in the same way as Artemiev did. 61...Ng4 62.Rf8 Ke5 (the

active attempt 62...Kd3 is parried by 63.Kf1!) 63.Rf4 Ke6 64.Rf3!. This is
a clever defense (64.Rf8?! Ne5 more or less transposes to the game). The
point is that after 64...Ne5 65.Re3!
analysis diagram
Black will need to maneuver some more to get to the f2-pawn. Black’s win
was not obvious to me in this kind of position, which prompted me to
investigate this endgame in more detail.
52...Rc2 53.Rf8+ Ke6 54.Kg1?!
A more resilient defense was 54.Re8+ Kf6 55.Kg1, not letting Black trap
the rook with ...Ke7. I have also looked at this position in my subsequent
analyses.
54...Kd5 55.Kg2 Ke6 56.Kg1 Ke7 57.Rf4
It is too late for 57.Ra8, because Black can break the fortress with 57...Nd3
58.Ra6 Kf7 59.Ra3 Rd2! and White is forced to play 60.f3, when the

endgame is already technically won for Black. 60...Ne5 etc.
57...Rc4!
One of the key ideas for the stronger side in this endgame. White cannot
avoid the trade of rooks, which sinks all his hopes to save the game.
58.h5 Rxf4 59.gxf4 Nd3 0-1
While Artemiev won the endgame fairly easily, I thought that White could
have offered stronger resistance by keeping his rook on the second rank
instead of moving it to the f-file. Since I could not find any straightforward
winning plan for Black after 52.Ra2, I was curious as to how Black was
supposed to win this endgame, so I looked it up in Dvoretsky’s Endgame
Manual. It turned out that Dvoretsky has examined only a similar position
with the bishop instead of the knight, but not this one. I had no luck while
perusing other endgame sources either, so it transpired that I had to do my
own research to get to the bottom of this endgame. To find relevant games
to study, I used a wonderful ChessBase tool ‘Similar Endgames’*, which
provided a lot of study material.
* I would like to refer you to Chapter 4 for more information on it.
After sorting out the most important games and best plans for the stronger
and weaker side, I concluded that the critical position for this endgame
arose in the game Aronian-Anand. Below, I provide a full analysis of this
endgame. Mind you, this analysis is deep in the most literal meaning of the
word, and it may take you more than one sitting to understand its
intricacies. Therefore, my suggestion is to take out a chess set and
preferably break up the study of this endgame into several sessions. Let’s
dive into it!
Game 21
Levon Aronian 2812
Viswanathan Anand 2773
Zurich 2014 (1) (analysis)

Black to move
Black’s most stubborn defense is
58...Re1+,
to bring the rook to the seventh rank. In the game, Anand opted for active
defense, just like Petrosyan in the previous one: 58...Ke7 59.Ne4 Re1+
60.Kf4 Kf8 61.Rb8+ Kg7 62.Rb7 Rf1+ 63.Ke3.

analysis diagram
At this point, Anand already made a decisive mistake: 63...Kf8?. Black’s
king is not placed well here for tactical reasons. Aronian exploited this
detail swiftly with 64.Nd6, and Black was already in some sort of a
zugzwang – any rook or king move is a concession. 64...Rf6 (if he had kept
the rook on f1 by playing 64...Kg8, White would have a different way to
break his fortress: 65.Rb8+! Kh7

analysis diagram
(back to the PREVIEW)
and here comes one of the many brilliant tactical resources in this endgame:
66.Rf8!! Kg7 67.Ke2! Black’s defense collapses after this intermediate
move, in view of 67...Rf6 68.Ne8++–) 65.Rb8+!. Due to the fork on e8, this
check forces the black king to get outside the pawn chain, when White wins
fairly easily: 65...Ke7 66.Ne4 Rf1 67.Ke2 Rf5 68.Rc8! Re5 69.Kf3 Rf5+
70.Kg2 Re5 71.Ng5 Re2+ 72.Kh3 Rf2 73.Rc4!. Anand resigned because
the only way to prevent the rook exchange is to push the f-pawn, when
Black’s fortress crumbles.
58...Re1+ 59.Kf4 Re6 60.Nc4!
White maneuvers the knight to the safe e5-square to break Black’s seventh-
rank defense, as we will see shortly. In case of 60.Rb8+ Kg7 61.Rd8 Re7
62.Rc8 Re6, White does not seem to have a forced way to remove Black’s
rook from the seventh rank, because his knight is unstable on d6. This is
why we need to bring it to e5 first.

60...Re7 61.Ne5 Kg7
Generally speaking, this is Black’s most solid defensive set-up. While I was
sure that this endgame must be winning for White, proving it against
Black’s best defense turned out to be far from simple. I had analyzed it for a
couple of days until I finally came up with a multi-step winning plan. The
goal of each of these steps is to either improve White’s pieces or worsen
positions of Black’s king and rook to win the f7-pawn or force it to move
forward. Curiously, the main line of my analysis ends with a mating attack!
Let us see how this is achieved.
Step 1: Remove Black’s rook from the seventh rank and take control over it
with our rook.
62.Rd5!
Now we can see why it was important to maneuver the knight to e5 – to
support Rd7.
62...Re6 63.Rd7 Rf6+

Black will have to defend with the rook on the f-file, after all. The cunning
defensive attempt 63...Kg8 doesn’t work, in view of 64.Nxf7! Rf6+ 65.Kg5
Rxf7 66.Rd6!, and the rook endgame is lost for Black.
64.Ke4 Rf5
Step 2: Maneuver the knight back toward the key d6-e4-g5-f7 circuit to
introduce tactical motifs.
65.Nc4! Rf1 66.Nd6 Kf8
Black’s next line of defense is keeping the rook on the f-file. Consequently,
White’s goal at the next stage is to expel the rook from there. This can be
done by forcing the rook to the f6-square, where it would be tactically
exposed.
The natural alternative was 66...Kg8. After 67.Ke3,

analysis diagram
Black would not have useful pass moves, as we can see in the variations
below:
A) After 67...Kf8, White wins with 68.Rb7!, preparing to give the check on
the eight rank. This transposes directly into Aronian-Anand after 64.Nd6;
B) We can see what happens when White’s king is allowed to cross over to
the g-file: 67...Re1+ 68.Kf3 Rf1+ (68...Re6 69.Kf4+–) 69.Kg2! Rf6
70.Rd8+ Kh7 71.Ne4!.

analysis diagram
This is the key move that uses the unfavorable geometry of the black
pieces. 71. ..Ra6 (is forced on the account of 71...Rf5 72.Rd5!+– and
71...Re6 72.Ng5++–) 72.Rd7 Kg7 73.Nd6. Black’s rook has been cleverly
cut off from the f-pawn and the rest is agony: 73...Ra2+ 74.Kf3 Ra3+
75.Kf4 Ra4+ 76.Ke5 Ra5+ 77.Kd4 Ra4+ 78.Kd5 Ra5+ 79.Kc6+–;
C) The most resilient continuation is 67...Rf6 but even then White wins
with 68.Rd8+!, using the exposed position of the black rook to force the
king to 68...Kh7, when after 69.Ne4 Re6 70.Rd6!, we transpose into the
main line of our analysis after the move 78.Rd6!.
67.Ke3 Rf6
Now we cannot give a check on d8 because of ...Ke7, but, fortunately, we
have an important tempo in reserve:
68.Ke2!

Alternatively, an attempt to do the ‘Artemiev maneuver’ 68.Ne4 Rf5
69.Rc7 (threatening Rc5) can be parried with 69...Re5!.
68...Kg8
The only move to keep the black rook on the f-file, but this allows a check
on the eight rank. Now we have reached the next step.
Step 3: Force Black’s king to the worst square h7.
69.Rd8+! Kh7
Once the king has been forced to go to h7, we can finally expel the rook
from the f-file using some nice knight geometry.
Step 4: Force the black rook off the f-file using tactics.
70.Ne4! Re6
The key tactic is 70...Rf5 71.Rd5!, forcing the rook trade, which is
essentially how Artemiev won his game.

71.Kf3 Kg7
It is very important that Black cannot reclaim control over the seventh rank
with 71...Re7, due to 72.Rd7!, which works, once again, because of a
tactically vulnerable king on h7.
72.Rd7
A similar position was referenced in the analysis of Petrosyan-Artemiev (in
the 52.Ra2 variation – position after 63.Re3!). White has accomplished a lot
by removing the opponent’s rook from the seventh rank and the f-file, but
he still has a lot of work to do before he can win the f7-pawn.
72...Kg8
The alternative 72...Kf8 is inaccurate since after 73.Nd6, Black does not
have the 73...Re1 defense from the main line of the analysis, so he has to
resort to the passive 73...Rf6+.
This position is similar to the one after 67...Rf6 in the main line, but an
important difference is that the white king can hide away: 74.Kg2! (White

can repeat the same sequence now, but with the king safely tucked away on
g2, Black will not pester him with 76...Re6) 74...Kg8 75.Rd8+ Kh7.
analysis diagram
Interestingly, this position was reached in a blitz game between Maxime
Vachier-Lagrave and Sergey Karjakin in Paris 2018. White wins with a
pretty back-and-forth knight maneuver: 76.Ne4! (MVL played 76.Kg1
Kh6? (76...Rf3 was still a game) 77.Rh8+, and Black resigned) 76...Ra6
77.Ng5+ Kg7 78.Rd7 Rf6 79.Ne4 Rf5 80.Nd6+–, and the f7-pawn is
finally lost.
73.Nd6 Re1!
The most stubborn defense. 73...Rf6+ loses pretty quickly to 74.Kg2 Kf8
75.Ne4 Rf5 76.Rd8+ Kg7 77.Nd6! Ra5 78.Rd7. Only later did I realize that
the position after 75...Rf5 was reached in another GM game, Giri-Krämer,
Germany Bundesliga 2013/2014, 1-0. Giri missed a chance to wrap up the
game with 76.Rd8+ and played a waiting move 76.Rc7?!, but Krämer
immediately erred with 76...Kg8? (76...Rd5!, stopping 77.Nd6, would have

left Black in the game) 77.Nd6 Rf6 78.Rc8+ Kh7 79.Rd8!, and here he
resigned because he is in a decisive zugzwang.
position after 73...Re1
I have to say that this was probably the most difficult moment in the
analysis. I just could not find a way for White to make progress and, at
some point, even thought that Black might have this fantastic defense with
Kg8 and Re1. And then, while comparing this position to a similar one I
had analyzed before, I realized that White could let the black rook come
back to the f-file after all.
Step 5: Triangulate the king to the e3-square.
74.Kf4!!
The point behind this subtle maneuver will be revealed shortly. 74.Kf2 Re6
75.Kg2 Re2+ 76.Kf1 Re3 77.Kf2 Re6 leads nowhere.
74...Rf1+ 75.Ke3 Rf6

Now we have the same position as on Step 4, only with White’s king on e3.
White has accomplished this by triangulating his king via f4 to e3. This
small detail makes a crucial difference, as we will see. White firstly repeats
the rook-knight regrouping from moves 69 and 70 with
76.Rd8+ Kh7 77.Ne4 Re6
The alternative is 77...Rf5 since after 78.Rd5, Black can now play 78...Rf1.
However, this doesn’t save him. White wins the f-pawn by force with
79.Ke2 Ra1 80.Ng5+ Kg7 81.Rd7 Ra2+ 82.Kf3 Ra3+ 83.Kf4 Ra4+
84.Ke5 Ra5+ 85.Kd6! (White king penetrates toward e8) 85...Rf5 86.Ke7
Re5+ 87.Kd8 Rf5 88.Ke8 Re5+ 89.Re7+– .
We have reached the position that is almost identical to the one after move
70, with only one small difference – White’s king is on e3, not e2. The fact
that the knight is defended allows White to perform Step 6: ‘Lose’ the key
tempo to put Black in zugzwang.
78.Rd6!
In case of 78.Rd7, Black holds the fort with 78...Kg8! 79.Kf4 Kg7

analysis diagram
and this is the first position of mutual zugzwang. White doesn’t have a
useful move to disturb Black’s defensive set-up. However, if it was Black to
move, he would be in zugzwang as either his king or rook would have to
leave their best defensive positions. After 80.Nd6 Rf6+ 81.Ke3 Kf8, White
would be running in circles, as this is the same position that he had on move
67!
A trickier, but still insufficient attempt would be 78.Kf4!?, when Black’s
only move is 78...Kh6! (he should not step on 78...Kg7?, because White
gets the better end of mutual zugzwang with 79.Rd7! Kf8 80.Nd6 Rf6+, and
since Black’s king is not on g7, he can go 81.Kg5 Rf1 82.Kh6! Rf3 83.Ra7
Rf6 84.Ne4 Rf5 85.Ng5 Rf1, finishing Black off with Aronian’s winning
maneuver 86.Ra3!+–) 79.Rd7 Kg7, and now White is in zugzwang.
78...Re5 79.Rd5 Re6 80.Kf4 Kh6! 81.Rd8!

Now we see the subtle point behind somewhat mysterious rook moves
78.Rd6 and 79.Rd5. It was not to play for cheap tricks, but to ‘lose’ a tempo
in the process, so that he can retreat the rook to d8 at the moment when
Black does not have a good move. In fact, this is the second position of
mutual zugzwang! Readers can check on their own that White could not
make progress if it were his move here.
81...Re7
The only move that does not lose on the spot, but here comes one of the
most beautiful moves in this endgame as a part of the crucial Step 7:
Threading the mating net.
82.Rg8!!
A quiet move of exquisite beauty. Suddenly, White changes his target and
goes directly after the poorly placed black king, using the weaknesses on
the dark squares.
82...Re6

White wins splendidly in case of 82...Kh7 83.Nf6+ Kh6
analysis diagram
(back to the PREVIEW)
84.Ne8!!, threatening checkmate, but, more importantly, taking away the
g7-square from the black king. 84...Kh7 85.Rf8! Ra7 (of course, 85...f6
would prolong Black’s defense, but White’s win would be just a matter of
time, because not only the f-, but also the black g-pawn would become a
weakness) 86.Kg5 Ra5+ 87.Kf6 Rf5+ 88.Ke7, and Black is literally getting
checkmated!
83.Ng5
Black’s king is now trapped in the corner. The knight is placed perfectly on
g5 as it takes away the h7-square from the king, while attacking the f-pawn
at the same time. The only remaining question is: can the white king deal
with the black rook on its own?
83...Re1!

This is the only way to keep the white king from crossing the e-file.
However, the answer to the above question is: yes, he can!
Thus, Step 8: Outmaneuver the black rook with the king and penetrate via
the e-file toward the f6-square.
84.Kf3!
Of course, not 84.Nxf7+?? Kh7=, followed by 85...Rf1+.
84...Re7
84...Rf1+ 85.Ke3 Rf5 86.Kd4 Rf6 87.Ke5+– .
85.Kf2
Black is in zugzwang. To keep the f-pawn protected, he needs to let the
white king cross over to the e-file. That gives White an easy pass toward the
f6-square. Therefore, Black’s last chance is to go after the white pawns
while White is busy capturing his.

85...Ra7 86.Ke3 Ra3+
We have reached the final stage of this complex endgame –
Step 9: Launch the mating attack.
87.Ke4!!
It was still possible to go wrong. 87.Kf4?! instead, is strongly met by
87...Ra5!.
87...Rxg3 88.Nxf7+ Kh7 89.Ra8
If Black goes after the h-pawn, his king will find itself in the mating net.
Otherwise, White can easily protect his h4-pawn and his win becomes a
matter of technique. Let us see the mating finale.
89...Rg4+ 90.Ke5 Rxh4 91.Ng5+ Kh6
91...Kg7 92.Ne6+ Kf7 93.Ra7+ Kg8 94.Kf6+– makes no difference.
92.Ne6!

The final nail in Black’s coffin!
92...g5 93.Kf6
With inevitable checkmate.
When I began searching for proof that this endgame is winning, I had no
idea that it would be more than 30 moves long and include some brilliant
tactical and endgame ideas! Of course, I might have missed a quicker win
in my analysis, even after triple-checking it with the engine, or just have not
been aware of this endgame being published before. If this is the case, a
careful reader is more than welcome to send me a better solution at
dkuljasevic@gmail.com!
Let us now talk about the important practical aspects of analysis.
One typical issue reported by some players is the difficulty of coming up
with strong moves for the opponent in the analysis. My impression is that
this could be a side-effect of spending more study time on solving than on
analysis. The thing is that when you are in the solving mode, your thinking
narrows down as you are trying to find a single solution. Because you need

to focus all your attention on the right, usually a relatively long and forced
variation, you are not interested in exploring any other interesting
alternatives nor the opponent’s ideas that are not a part of the solution. On
the other hand, when you are in the analysis mode, you think about a
broader range of issues than just the best move in the position in front of
you. In this mode of thinking, you are free to explore various possibilities
for yourself and the opponent, and as a result, you learn how to evaluate the
opponent’s resources more objectively and consider non-forcing variations
more seriously than you would in the solving mode. Yet, people are
generally more drawn to solving than analysis when they study chess. Of
course, it is good to solve a lot of exercises, but you should make sure to
strike a balance between solving and analysis.
On another note, a student recently asked me a good question in one of
our training sessions: ‘Where should you stop your analysis?’ He was
interested to know how deeply he should analyze down the line to reach a
satisfactory conclusion. It is difficult to give a universal answer to this
question, because every particular position has its own specifics that will
determine how deeply you should analyze it. If you analyze a long
combination, sequence of checks, exchanges, forced moves, etc., sometimes
you might need to analyze up to 10-15 moves deep. However, in positions
where there is no forcing play, the old adage: ‘Long variation, wrong
variation’ usually applies. It is usually more useful to look at several short
branches than one long variation to understand the contours of the position
in question. If we assume that Kasparov was right when he said that the
process of thinking during the game is the same as the process of analyzing,
the following practical advice by GM Lev Psakhis from his book Advanced
Chess Tactics could also be applied in an analytical setting: ‘Don’t go out of
your way to calculate long variations. A capacity for precise calculation to a
depth of 2-4 moves is usually quite enough’. Of course, this is just a rule of
thumb, but a good one, I think. We can see how it can be applied in the
following, you could say ‘regular’, position.

Game 22
Davorin Kuljasevic 2564
Davit Zarkua 2409
Turkey tt 2014 (4)
White to move
(back to the PREVIEW)
White is considerably better here, due to a large space advantage and the
possibility of playing on both flanks and squeezing Black even more. This
is the kind of position where it makes little sense to analyze long variations.
White should rather come up with a couple of ideas to strengthen his
position, explore 2-4 move long variations for each of them, evaluate, and
compare them. I often give this position to my students as a strategic
exercise (find the best plan) and below is the compilation of their answers:
16.a4

This was the move that I actually played in the game, but it was the first
step in the wrong direction, as the queenside plan that I had envisioned was
both slow and ineffective. Let us look at the other possibilities, sorted by
their strength, with short calculations of relevant variations.
A) 16.g4!. White should, instead, expand on the kingside. 16...g6 17.Bd2!.
The point behind this strong backward move is to prepare the march of the
f-pawn, while keeping the e3-square under control to minimize Black’s
counterplay on the dark squares. With the pawn on g6, White already has a
hook for the kingside attack. 17.. .Qd8 (17...Bg7? 18.g5 Nh5 19.Bf3+–)
18.f4, with a strong attack;
B) 16.Ne2 is obviously slower than 16.g4, but still in line with the correct
strategy to play on the kingside. A possible continuation is 16...g6 17.g4
Bg7 18.Ng3 Qc7 19.Rad1±;
C) 16.Rae1 is the most common suggestion and not a bad move, but in
principle it is not the right strategy to exchange major pieces in a position in
which the opponent is so cramped. After 16...Rxe1 17.Rxe1 Re8 18.Rxe8
Nxe8 19.Qe2 Qd8 20.h42, White will do a squeeze ‘à la Averbakh’, but
wasn’t it better to have the same position with rooks on the board?;
D) The point behind 16.Rab1 is to support the b3-b4 break, but this plan is
too slow and not easy to execute, due to the weakness of the c4-pawn.
16...g6 17.a3 Qc7 18.Rfc1 Bg7 19.Bf1 Ne5 20.Kg22. Yes, White is still
slightly better, but it feels like the black pieces have come back to life
compared to the initial position. 20...Nh5 followed by 21...f5 could possibly
provide counterplay on the kingside;
E) Finally, there is 16.Qd2, anticipating 16...g6 with 17.Bh6? but this is not
only a wrong piece trade, but also allows Black to obtain serious
counterplay on the queenside with 17...Bxh6 18.Qxh6 Qa5 19.Rac1 b5.
16.a4 g6 17.Bd2 Bg7 18.a5?!
Principled, but wrong. There was still enough time to revert to the right
strategy with 18.g4±.

18...Qc7 19.Na4?
This is just bad. Now 19.g4 is already not that strong, as after 19...h6 20.f4
Re7 21.Bf3 Rae82, Black has some counterplay along the e-file, while
White cannot mobilize his queen’s rook so easily, due to the exposed a5-
pawn.
19...Nh5 20.Rae1 Bd4„
With a draw offer that was accepted once I realized how badly I had
misplayed a position with such an overwhelming space advantage.
1⁄2-1⁄2
As the final step of the analysis, I would strongly recommend engine-
checking your work. The engine can indicate big tactical mistakes,
misevaluations, and important ideas that you haven’t considered in your
analysis. This is especially useful feedback because we not only discover
something new, but also learn which aspects of our analytical and general
skills can be improved. Let me give you a remarkable example of ‘divine
intervention’ into the analysis of a cool queen sacrifice.
Game 23
Analysis – with a student
2019

White to move
This position, which I have analyzed recently with a student, arose from
one line of the Najdorf Sicilian. Black just offered a queen trade, and White
will naturally decline it. However, instead of moving the queen away, I got
an idea to sacrifice it!
27.Nxe6!
Such sacrifices are quite thematic in the Sicilian Defense (I can remember a
similar one by Ivanchuk in the Sozin Attack), and I felt like this one might
just work considering Black’s undefended light squares. I believe that such
interesting ideas should always be checked in the analysis. If you don’t do it
then, how will you muster the courage to play them in a real game?
Of course, White can also just play something like 27.Qf4!?‚, with a great
position.
27.Nxe6! Qxf3 28.Rxd7+ Ke8

We had quickly established that 28...Kg8 ends in checkmate after 29.Bc4
Qc6 30.Nd8+ Qxc4 31.Re8#. It also did not take us too much time to
understand that White should play
29.Nc5+
since 29.Rc7 loses to 29...Qg4!, while 29.Ra7 to 29...Qf2!.
29...Kf8
(back to the PREVIEW)
While it had seemed like White must have something here, we just couldn’t
find a direct win for about 20 minutes that we looked at this position. At the
very least, White can hold a perpetual with 30.Ne6+, which is always a
useful fail-safe with such sacrifices. However, you should look for more
than just a draw. I believe that we concluded that 30.Ra7 is White’s best try,
getting a slightly better endgame.
Still, something kept bugging me about this position and I decided to check
it with the engine afterwards. It kept giving a decisive advantage for White

since the queen sacrifice, but when I arrived at this position, it showed a
surprising solution.
30.Rf7+!!
This study-like idea had escaped our attention. I guess that once you
sacrifice almost a full queen, you subconsciously override the idea of
sacrificing another major piece, because you will have nothing to
checkmate your opponent with! Well, this is not the case here, as White
checkmates with his three remaining pieces.
I should note that in the line 30.Ra7 Qd5 31.Nd7+ Qxd7 32.Rxd7 Re8!, the
engine, once again, found a strong resource: 33.Red1! (we had only looked
at 33.Rxe8+ Kxe8 34.Bb5 Be7!2) 33...Re7 34.R7d6±, with a difficult
endgame for Black.
30...Kg8
Black can only choose with which white piece he wants to get checkmated.
After 30...Kxf7 31.Bc4+ Kf8 32.Nd7#, the knight checkmates.
31.Rf8+

31...Kxf8
After 31...Rxf8 32.Bc4+ Rf7 33.Re8#, the rook.
32.Nd7+ Kf7 33.Bc4+ Qd5 34.Bxd5#
And in this line, the bishop. This beautiful idea would have most likely
remained hidden if I hadn’t consulted my all-knowing silicon friend. Which
brings us to our next study method...
Computer-assisted analysis (PR = 4; IN = 3; LT = 4)
Computers (chess engines) are an indispensable training tool for every
modern chess player, helping us learn new ideas and understand positions
better (thus a high long-term learning potential rating). They can speed up
the analysis and enable us to fine-tune our evaluations. This assistance
comes at the expense of a lower practical relevance (you can’t use the
engine while you are playing – or you will end up like Igors Rausis), and
lower mental intensity compared to analyzing on your own. Therefore, this
study method has to be used wisely and moderately. A chess engine is, as

they say, ‘a good servant, but a bad master.’ A typical analytical mistake
that people make while using engines is that they put the engine in the
driver’s seat in the analysis. When you do that, you are reducing your own
thinking power. Secondly, overusing the engine can give you a false sense
of comprehension – everything might seem clear to you once you turn it on
and see the lines and evaluations on the screen, but in reality, you can never
fully understand what is going on in the position until you have processed it
with your own mind.
Sure, the engine will usually provide accurate evaluations, but it is
important to understand that these evaluations are forward-looking. This
means that the engine does not evaluate the position that you see on the
board as -0.43, but rather some position that arises 10, 15 or more moves
later after both sides have played the best moves. This is where many
people make a mistake, because they take engine’s evaluation at face value,
not realizing that it is practically beyond human capability to foresee the
position on which the engine bases its evaluation. This may seem like an
irrelevant issue when you study chess at home. However, relying on
computer evaluations instead of your own may become a real problem
when you sit to play a game and have to actually think and make decisions
on your own. Thus, I suggest that if you feel like a certain position is still
not fully clear to you, do not take the engine’s word for it and stop
analyzing, but rather begin your analysis at that point!
As I already implied, the best way to analyze with an engine is to use it as
a partner in the analysis, rather than the leader. This is best done by feeding
it your own suggestions when you see an interesting option in a position
that you are analyzing. If you manage to resist the inevitable temptation to
let the engine suggest most of the moves, you could conduct a fairly
productive analysis session. Let us see how this can be done on the
following example.
Game 24
Csaba Balogh 2657

Wesley So 2760
Baku 2015 (2.1) (analysis)
White to move
I analyzed this endgame while preparing instructive material on the topic of
schematic thinking. Black is obviously better, since the d5-pawn is
surrounded, but he needs a breakthrough. Wesley So won the game
convincingly by opening the center with ...e5-e4 at the right moment,
although White’s defense left something to be desired. One of the first
possible improvements was
49.g4!
The point behind this move is the following: since Black’s main plan is to
push ...e5-e4, White would like to have the f3-f4 response available. For
that purpose, it is best to put the king on g3, which is why we push the
pawn to g4.

Let’s note that the game continued 49.Rd2 Rh8 50.Rd1 Rg8! (prophylaxis
against f3-f4) 51.Rd2 e4! 52.fxe4 Nxe4 53.Rd4 Nf6 54.Ng4? (this
exchange leads to a losing rook endgame. White could offer much more
stubborn resistance with 54.Kf3) 54...Nxg4 55.Rxg4 Re8!–+. This strong
rook maneuver was probably missed by Balogh, who had probably
expected his opponent to capture the pawn on d5, when he would get some
compensation. 56.Kf3 Re5 57.Re4 Rf5+ 58.Kg4 Rf2 59.Kxg5 Rxb2 60.g4
Rb3 61.Re3 Rxa3 62.Kf6 Ra1 63.Rf3 a3 64.g5 Rg1 65.Rf2 b4 66.cxb4+
Kxb4 67.Ke6 Kb3, and White resigned.
49.g4! Rh8 50.Kg3
(back to the PREVIEW)
White is ready to meet 50...e4 with 51.f4 now, so Black needs to find a way
to push ...e5-e4 in better circumstances. Since I had analyzed this position
with my engine on, I was quite perplexed by its apparent lack of ideas.
Even around depth 40, it was alternating between pointless moves like
50...Kb6 and 50...Ng8 as the first choice. In other words, it was time to find
an idea for Black on my own and feed it to the computer. The first one was:

1) 50...Rf8
Although it is not on the engine’s radar, this is the most logical way to
prepare the ...e5-e4 break, since f3-f4 simply won’t work due to the
discovered check on the f-file. However, the engine found a strong defense:
51.Rh1!,
leaving the d5-pawn for dead to take control of the h-file.
My initial idea was that if White sits with 51.Rd2, Black can go 51...e4
52.Rf2 exf3 53.Rxf3 Re8!, which is something similar to what So did in the
game. As a matter of fact, this position exactly transposes to the one after
55...Re8! in the line 50...Rh6!? below.
51...Nxd5
51...e4 52.Nf5!=.
52.Nxd5 Kxd5 53.Rh5
In rook endgames, a more active rook is often worth a pawn, and we can
see one such instance here. Black cannot make substantial progress.
53...Rg8 54.Kf2 Kc5 55.Rh6!
Preventing 55...d5.
55...Rg7 56.Kg3=
So (no pun intended!), it turned out that Black makes no progress with
50...Rf8 due to 51.Rh1!, and I had to look for another idea. It became
obvious that my rook should remain on the h-file, so I began with
2) 50...Rh7!?.

Black plays for zugzwang with this waiting move. With his next move,
White has to allow either 51...e4 or 51...Rh2.
51.Kg2
In case of 51.Rd2 Rh1 52.Kg2 Rb1, Black can combine the central break
with a permanent threat to the second weakness on b2. For example:
53.Kg3 Rc1 54.Kg2 e4μ.
51...e4
This move is also not among the computer’s first three choices, but it is the
principled follow-up. Anyway, it is difficult to see any other constructive
idea for Black, so this might be as good a moment as any to open the center.
52.fxe4 Re7 53.Rd4
My initial idea was to keep the rooks on the board with
53...Nxe4!?.
More testing is 53...Rxe4 54.Rxe4 Nxe4 55.Kf3 Nf6 56.Nc2 Kxd5

analysis diagram
but it turns out that he can hold this pawn-down knight endgame with
precise play: 57.Nb4+! (57.Nd4? Nd7! 58.Nxb5 Ne5+ 59.Kg3 Ke4–+)
57...Ke6 58.Nc6 Nd7 59.Ke4! Nc5+ 60.Kd4 Nd3 61.Ke4! Nxb2 62.Nd4+
Kd7 63.Nxb5=.
However, the engine indicated a strong defensive resource for White:
54.Nf5 Re5 55.Kf3 Nf6 56.Ng7! Nxd5 57.Re4!=
And White simplifies into a drawish knight endgame. Here is where I got
the idea to carry out the ...e5-e4 break with the rook on the eight rank,
because then 54.Nf5 wouldn’t come with tempo.
So, I switched to
3) 50...Rh6!?.
Black wants to ‘triangulate’ the rook to lose a tempo, the same motive that
we have seen in the analysis of Aronian-Anand!

51.Nf5
51.Kg2 Rh7! 52.Kg3 Rh8 transposes.
51...Rh7! 52.Ne3 Rh8
Now we have the same position, only with White to move. After
53.Kg2
Black finally opens the position with
53...e4 54.Rf1 exf3+ 55.Rxf3 Re8!.
I was almost certain that Black wins the endgame after this move, because I
managed to avoid all the knight tricks.
56.Kf2
56.Rxf6 Rxe3 57.Kf2 Rh3 58.Kg2 Rd3–+.
56...Nxd5 57.Nxd5 Kxd5

The engine was also fairly optimistic about Black’s chances, but in rook
endgames, you never know. Someone smart once said that all of them are
drawn. I had to analyze further to reach a conclusion.
58.Rf5+ Ke4!
Activity above material! 58...Re5 59.Rf6! Kc6 60.Rg6 Rd5 61.Ke2 leaves
Black a bit stuck.
59.Rxg5
59.Rxb5? Kd3 60.Rd5+ Kc2–+.
59...b4!
White has restored the material balance, but Black keeps the initiative with
this fairly thematic breakthrough.
60.axb4 Kd3 61.Ra5 Kc2 62.Rxa4 Kxb2

All has been forced up to this point, Black wins the c-pawn and has a
simple plan of pushing his passed pawn, which could prove decisive
considering that the white king is cut off. Nevertheless, we can see once
again how large the drawing margin is in chess – White saves what seemed
to be a losing endgame by a single tempo:
63.Ra7! Kxc3 64.Rd7
64.b5? loses, though, to 64...d5 65.b6 d4 66.b7 Rb8.
64...Kb2 65.Rxd6 c3 66.Kf3 c2 67.Rc6 c1=Q 68.Rxc1 Kxc1 69.g5 Kd2
70.Kf4 Kd3 71.g6 Kd4 72.Kf5 Kd5 73.g7 Kd6 74.Kf6=
And soon only two kings will remain on the board.

At the end, the analysis revealed that this endgame is most likely drawn
with the best play despite my and the engine’s optimism (its initial
evaluation was over -1.30, as in Black is nearly winning). This is yet
another reason why you should analyze certain positions deeply and not
take the engine’s evaluation for granted to fully understand them.
Mutualanalysis(PR=4;IN=4;LT=5)
The next best thing to analyzing on your own is doing it with someone else.
Such analysis can sometimes be just as intense as deep analysis, especially
due to a welcome competitive element when one side is trying to prove
their own move or point of view to be right while the other one is
(sometimes unconsciously) trying to refute it. Another added benefit of
analyzing with another person is that you discuss ideas that neither one of
you might have considered on your own. In other words, you get different
or new perspectives on the positions that you analyze.
Does this mean that the more people you analyze with, the merrier? Not
really. The ideal number of participants in a mutual analysis is two. If I am
not mistaken, it was Vasily Ivanchuk who once said, when asked about
analyzing with more people, that he doesn’t like it as much because there
are ‘too many hands’. Everyone wants to chip in with their own suggestion
and the analysis can become messy. However, when two motivated players
of similar strength analyze (the rating difference should ideally be within
100 rating points), this interactive analysis method can be just as good as
analyzing on your own. The important introspective element of deep
analysis is lost somewhat in exchange for a valuable swapping of ideas.
Therefore, if you have a chess colleague or a friend who has some spare
time to study chess, you can set up mutual analysis sessions to study pretty
much any area of the game. It is an immensely helpful study method in the
long run. We can see the fruits of such collaboration in the following game.
Game 25
Davorin Kuljasevic 2574
Martin Neubauer 2415
Sibenik tt 2012 (8)

In 2011 and 2012, I collaborated on openings with a strong Croatian IM
Darko Doric. The Grünfeld Defense was one of our topics, and the variation
that my opponent chose in this game was taken under our scrutiny several
months before this game took place.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Nf3 c5
8.Be3 Qa5 9.Nd2!?
We have mostly focused on this interesting move in our mutual analysis.
The main line is 9.Qd2.
9...cxd4 10.Nc4 Qd8 11.cxd4 f5!
After the analysis session, we made the following note about this position:
‘The critical variation. Need to dig some more.’ This was some time ago, so
I don’t recall the details besides what was recorded in our notes, but I do
remember us looking at many options for White at this point (12.f4, 12.Rc1,
12.exf5, 12.e5, 12.Ne5) and not being particularly excited about any of
them. Eventually, we concluded that

12.Rb1!?,
a novelty at the time, was the most promising move in the position. Going
into the game against Neubauer, I was prepared to play it should this
position arise over the board. Technically speaking, the idea behind this
move is nothing new in the Grünfeld – the rook puts pressure on the b7-
pawn, making it more difficult for Black to complete his development (the
most famous example is Kramnik’s win in his 2000 match against
Kasparov). Sometimes, you can spark up new positions by recycling old
ideas, as we will discuss in more detail in Chapter 5.
12...fxe4
The other important option for Black is 12...0-0. Here, the main line of our
analysis went 13.Ne5 (I am omitting sidelines as there are many) 13...Bxe5
14.Bc4+! Kg7 15.dxe5 Qxd1+ 16.Rxd1 fxe4 17.0-0 Nc6 18.h3 h5 19.Bd5
Bf5 20.Rb1 Rfd8 21.Rfd1 Rab82. Although the final evaluation is too
generous for White and Black is just fine, we felt that the endgame with the
bishop pair held some long-term potential. Perhaps an improvement could
be made for White a bit earlier.
13.Be2 Be6
To develop his knight to c6, Black probably needs to play this move, which
was the main motivation behind 12.Rb1.
13...0-0 14.0-0 Nc6 15.d5 Ne5 16.d6!ƒ.
14.Rxb7 0-0 15.0-0 Nc6 16.Ne5! Nxe5 17.dxe5

All of this was in our opening file. We also had 17...Bxe5 18.Qa4ƒ, so I
was obviously happy that the opening preparation was a success. It doesn’t
happen as often as one might think. However, then my opponent played a
different move:
17...Bd5?!
The endgame after 17...Qxd1 18.Rxd1 Bxa2 19.Rd2 Bf7 20.Rxe7 is
obviously good for White.
With his move, Neubauer probably wanted to simplify matters, but he
underestimated the following resource:
18.Rxe7!
18.Rxa7 Rxa7 19.Bxa7 Bxa2= is blah.
18...Qxe7 19.Qxd5+ Kh8 20.e6±
For the sacrificed exchange, I obtained a strong passed pawn supported by
the light-squared bishop. The e4-pawn is weak, as well, so I had no doubts

that White is better in this imbalanced position. I eventually managed to
convert the advantage.
20...Rfe8 21.Bc4 Rac8 22.Bb3 Qb4 23.Bxa7 Rcd8 24.Qg5 Rd3 25.Bc5
Qc3 26.Be3 Qe5 27.Rc1 Qxg5 28.Bxg5 h6 29.Be3 g5 30.Kf1 Be5 31.Rc4
Rxe3 32.fxe3 Bxh2 33.Rxe4 Kg7 34.Ba4 Re7 35.Bd7 Kf6 36.a4 Bc7
37.Ke2 Rh7 38.Rc4 Bd8 39.Rc5 Rh8 40.e4 Rf8 41.a5 Ke7 42.a6 Bb6
43.Rf5 g4 44.Kd3 Ba7 45.Kc4 Be3 46.Kd5 Ba7 47.Kc6 1-0
‘Findthebestmove’(PR=4;IN=5;LT=4)
One of the favorite activities that I used to do with my students while I was
a coach in the Dubai Chess club was ‘find the best move’ (from here on
‘FBM’) exercise. It was based on Daniel King’s column called ‘How good
is your chess?’ in Chess Monthly magazine. The format of these exercises
was such that you get a certain amount of points for finding a solution on
each consecutive move of an instructive game picked by King. Naturally,
you get the maximum score for suggesting the best move, but you also get
partial credit for a reasonable alternative. At the end of the game, you tally
up the points. The students loved this activity because of its competitive
aspect – they did their best to find the best moves and beat their classmates.
For any coaches who might be reading this, I warmly recommend this study
method for groups of 3-10 students.
Of course, you can also practice FBM using other resources to practice
decision-making in various types of positions. Here are some ideas:
1. FBM routine while watching live games online
As I already explained in the first chapter, following live games in an online
transmission is an excellent way to practice FBM and develop your
objectivity. You can pick an interesting game from a strong tournament to
do it, and even jump from a game to game, just like a good poker player
would do on multiple tables when playing online. I particularly like trying
to find the best move when players are in time pressure, because it is a good
simulation of a high-tension situation that can happen in a real game – a test

of your calculation skills and ability to focus. Upon completing the FBM
session, I strongly suggest recording your thoughts, analyzing, and
checking them with the engine in a similar way as we will see in the next
section.
2. Move by Move series by Everyman Chess
This is a well-known series of thematic books on a particular opening or a
famous player. Instructive games are presented, in which you are asked to
find the best move/plan usually only at the important or critical moment of
the game. Solutions are provided and explained right below the diagram.
3. Lessons with a Grandmaster by Boris Gulko and Joel Sneed
This book follows a similar in-game exercises format, asking you to find
the best move under a diagram. Nice additional features are that the
difficulty level of the exercise is indicated and that Gulko and Sneed discuss
the thought process of arriving at the solution.
4. Game fragments
This is an interesting format that I have first encountered in a book
published by FIDE called 64 Lessons, if I am not mistaken. You are given a
position and then a sequence of moves that was played from that position
until (usually) the end of the game. Your goal is to find mistakes and
suggest improvements within that variation. However, the key is that you
do not know on which moves nor which side were the mistakes! Perhaps an
example to clarify this unusual type of exercise is in order.
Exercise 2.1
Anatoly Karpov
Evgeny Gik
Moscow 1968 (5) (analysis)

Black to move
In this position, Black played the losing move 23...e6, but Karpov notes
that: ‘a more stubborn defense was
23...Ng6
(the game saw 23...e6 24.g6! Nxg6 25.Qxh7+ Kf8 26.Rf5!! Qxb3+
27.axb3 exf5 28.Nf4! Rd8 29.Qh6+ Ke8 30.Nxg6 fxg6 31.Qxg6+ Ke7
32.Qg5+! Ke8 33.exf5 Rc8 34.Qg8+ Ke7 35.Qg7+ Kd8 36.f6, and Black
resigned) but even then, White wins with
23...Ng6 24.Qxh7+ Kf8 25.Qh6+ Ke8 26.Qh8+ Nf8 27.Rh7 e6 28.g6
fxg6 29.Nd4 Qxe4 30.Qg8 Qxd4 31.Qf7+ Kd8 32.Qxf8+ Kc7 33.Qxa8
and there is no perpetual check.’
33...Qd1+ 34.Kb2 Qd4+ 35.c3 Qf2+ 36.Bc2 Qb6+ 37.Ka1 Qg1+ 38.Bb1

However, the variation given by Karpov that begins with 23...Ng6 and ends
with 38.Bb1 is full of tactical mistakes for both sides. Your task is to find
these mistakes and suggest improvements for both sides. To give you a hint,
there are 6 such improvements in this game fragment.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 2.1
Anatoly Karpov
Evgeny Gik
Moscow 1968 (5)
23...Ng6 24.Qxh7+?
First improvement: 24.Rh1! Nf8 (24...e6 25.Nd4 Qf2 26.Nf5!+–) 25.g6!
Nxg6 26.Qxh7+ Kf8 27.Ng3! e6 28.Rf1+– .
24...Kf8 25.Qh6+?!
Second improvement: 25.Rh1 e6 26.Nd4 Qf4 27.Nf5 Qe5! 28.Nxd6! Qxd6
29.Rf1 Be8 30.Qxg6 Qd1+! 31.Rxd1 fxg6 32.Bxe6±.
25...Ke8 26.Qh8+ Nf8 27.Rh7 e6?
Third improvement: 27...Be6! 28.g6 Bxb3 29.g7 Bxc2+ 30.Kb2 Qxe2
31.gxf8=Q+ Kd7 32.Rh2 Qb5+ 33.Kxc2 Qc4+ 34.Kd1 Qf1+ 35.Kc2
Qc4+=.
28.g6 fxg6 29.Nd4 Qxe4?
Fourth improvement: 29...Qf4TM 30.Nxe6 Bxe6 31.Bxe6 Qf1+ 32.Kb2
Qb5+ 33.Bb3±.

30.Qg8??
Fifth improvement: 30.Rxd7! Kxd7 31.Qg7+ Ke8 32.Ba4++–.
30...Qxd4??
Sixth improvement: 30...Qe1+ 31.Kb2 Qf2!–+ .
31.Qf7+ Kd8 32.Qxf8+ Kc7 33.Qxa8 Qd1+ 34.Kb2 Qd4+ 35.c3 Qf2+
36.Bc2 Qb6+ 37.Ka1 Qg1+ 38.Bb1 1-0
Now, this kind of study material should be obviously prepared by someone
else, whether it is a friend or your coach. This practical issue aside, this
study activity is a great way to improve your analytical skill and objectivity.
Simulation(PR=5;IN=5;LT=5)

Simulation is a study method that is similar to FBM, but even more intense.
The idea is to simulate the conditions of a tournament game as you take the
role of one player and try to guess all his or her moves. Essentially, you are
trying to do the same thing as you would when solving a puzzle or doing
FBM, which is to find the best move in the position in front of you without
moving the pieces. However, there are also important differences between
these three methods. Please refer to the table below that should clarify
them.
Table 2.2: Differences between FBM, Simulation, and Solving
Study
method
Source material
Conditions
Objective
Find the
best move
method
(FBM)
game fragments or
critical moments from
games
focused, but not
necessarily in
game-playing
mode
practise decision
making in various
types of positions
Simulation
method
full game
in game-playing
mode
simulate playing
an actual game
Solving
puzzles from a
specific area (e.g .,
tactical, positional,
endgame)
focused, but not
necessarily in
game-playing
mode
practise decision
making in a
specific type of
position
To get the most out of this method, you should remove all possible
distractions and schedule an hour or two to think deeply on your own
without interruptions except for essential breaks. It is easy enough to do it
on a computer (ChessBase has even added a function called ‘Replay
training’ which helps you practice simulations with hints), while old-
fashioned folks can use the good-old ‘cover the next move’ technique when
reading the game from a book and playing it out on the chessboard. This is,
in essence, a practice that I often did with my father when I was a kid – I

would try to guess the moves for the winner and he would administer the
moves for the other side.
Since simulation is not such a well-documented method in chess literature, I
would like to provide a practical example to show how it is typically done.
The simulated game is Tomashevsky-Dubov from the Russian 2018
Superfinal. In this simulation, I had the white pieces, trying to guess moves
of GM Evgeny Tomashevsky. The variations and ideas that I considered
during the simulation are given in italics, while my subsequent engine-
checked annotations are in normal font. In positions where my solution
differed from the move that Tomashevsky played in the game, I made a note
‘My choice’; otherwise, I have guessed the move that he had played.
Game 26
Evgeny Tomashevsky 2702
Daniil Dubov 2691
Satka ch-RUS 2018 (6)
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e3 e6 6.d4 cxd4 7.exd4 Nxc3
8.bxc3 Qc7 9.Bd2 Nd7 10.a4!?N

I skipped the opening through up to this position, because I had already
played over the first 10 moves of the game when I first saw it, and so my
simulation actually began on move 11 for White. Since 10.a4 was a new
move for me (the main line is 10.Bd3), this game also had some theoretical
interest. Also, the clash of two strong players with such diametrically
opposite playing styles was bound to be an interesting one.
10...Bd6
Even though White’s last move was aimed against it, perhaps Black should
prefer developing the light-squared bishop to the long diagonal after all:
10...b6 11.a5 Bb7 (11...bxa5 12.Qa42) 12.axb6 axb6 13.Rxa8+ Bxa8
14.Qa4 Bc6 15.Bb5 Bxb5 16.Qxb5 Bd6 17.c4 0-0 18.0-0 e5=.
11.a5 0-0 12.Bd3 e5
It was still possible for Black to play with the b-pawn: 12...Rb8!? 13.0 -0 b5.
13.0-0
The last three moves for White were straightforward and easy to guess.
13...Nf6?!
I thought that granting White the bishop pair in a fairly open type of
position was a somewhat surprising choice by Dubov. More natural was
13...exd4 14.cxd4 Nf6.
As expected, this was an inaccuracy. ≥ 13...exd4 14.cxd4 Nf62; 13...f5?!
14.Qb3+ Kh8 15.Ng5ƒ.
14.dxe5
I had also considered 14.Re1 exd4 15.cxd4 Bg4 16.h3 Bh5 17.Rc1.
White should go for the bishop pair. 14.Re1?! is an inferior option, in view
of 14...exd4 15.cxd4 Bg4 16.h3 Bh5 17.Rc1 Qd7=.

14...Bxe5 15.Nxe5 Qxe5 16.Re1±
I had also looked at this move.
My choice: 16.Qf3 Bg4 17.Bf4! Bxf3 18.Bxe5, with a slightly better
endgame.
The rook move is better than my choice 16.Qf3?! because of 16...Rd8! (the
move that I had missed in my calculation) 17.Bf4 Qh5 18.Qg3 Bf5, and
Black is fine.
16...Qd5 17.Be3
My choice: 17.Qc2 Rd8 18.Be3! Bh3 (18...Qxd3 19.Rad1+–) 19.Bf1, and
White should be better thanks to the bishop pair.
17.Qc2!? Rd8 18.Be3! is a reasonable alternative, indeed. White is better
after 18...Bh3 19.Bf1 Bf5 20.Qb2±.
17...Bf5 18.Bf1
My choice: 18.Be2 Qxd1 19.Rexd1.
I weighed between 18.Bf1 and 18.Be2, but finally decided on the latter to
keep the option of bringing the bishop to f3 at some point.
There is probably no big difference between the bishop’s position on f1 or
e2. 18.Be2!? Qxd1 19.Rexd1 Rfe8 20.Bf3 Be4 21.Bxe4 Rxe4 22.Rab1 Re7
23.Rb3±.
18...Qxd1 19.Rexd1±

I remembered seeing such endgames before (Grischuk-Roiz and Meier-
Caruana, for example), and was sure that White could put long-term
pressure on Black with no risk whatsoever.
The endgame is indeed clearly inferior for Black. White’s pieces are
positioned very well to harass weak black queenside pawns.
19...Rfc8
19...a6 20.c4 Rad8 21.f3±.
20.c4
My choice: 20.Bd4 a6 (20...Be6 21.Rab1 Rc7 22.Bxa7) 21.f3.
20.Bd4 is probably slightly inferior to the game continuation, as White’s
pieces are less flexible this way. 20...a6 21.f3 Rc72.
20...Be6?!
This natural move was perhaps not the best defense. ≥ 20...a6 was more
solid, keeping the rook away from the b-file. 21.f3 Be6 22.Ra4. Now Black

can reroute the bishop to protect the weak b-pawn: 22...Bd7 23.Rb4 Bc6
24.Kf2±. White is still clearly better, but Black remains solid.
21.Rab1!
I spent a long time on this position and honestly completely underestimated
this move.
My choice: 21.Rac1. I also looked at 21.Ra4 Nd7 and 21.c5 a6 22.Rab1
Bd5 23.Rxd5 Nxd5 24.Rxb7 Nxe3 25.fxe3 Rxc5.
This is a strong move. Tomashevsky was ready to make a transition into a
simpler endgame with very good winning chances. On a side note, I have
given this position as an exercise to several students and, just like myself,
none of them has suggested this move as the solution. It is definitely not the
most intuitive idea in the position for most people. Alternatives are 21.Ra4
Nd7! 22.Rb4 b62 and 21.Rac1 a6±, which is a reasonable choice, but
Tomashevsky’s move is simply more concrete.
21...b6
I think that I just thought that Black is only slightly worse after 21...Bxc4
22.Bxc4 Rxc4 23.Rxb7 a6.
In case of 21...Bxc4 22.Bxc4 Rxc4 23.Rxb7 a6, I reckon that
Tomashevsky’s idea was to force the rook trade with 24.Ra7! (a move that I
had missed because I did not calculate deeply enough) 24...Rcc8 25.Rxa8
Rxa8 26.Rd6±.

analysis diagram
This endgame would be the dream of every strong technical player. Black
has a big weakness on a6, passive pieces, and all that White needs to win is
to gradually centralize his king and create a second weakness on the
kingside by pushing his pawns.
22.c5!
This tactical idea wasn’t difficult to find, especially considering that Black
seemed to be solid in a pawn-down endgame after 22.axb6 axb6 23.Rdc1
Nd7 24.Bxb6 Nxb6 25.Rxb6 Ra5.
It is also interesting to note that in case of 22.axb6?! axb6 23.Rdc1 Nd7
24.Bxb6, Black can force a draw with a nice tactical idea: 24...Bxc4!
(instead of 24...Nxb6 25.Rxb6 Ra5 26.f32, when White can still apply
pressure) 25.Rxc4 (25.Bxc4 Nxb6 26.Rxb6 Rxc4=) 25...Rxc4 26.Bxc4
Rb8=.

However, I was surprised to find out that an even stronger move exists in
this position – the engine suggested 22.g3! to open the long diagonal for the
light-squared bishop. After the forced sequence 22...bxa5 23.Bg2 Rab8
24.Rxb8 Rxb8 25.Bxa7, White obtains a passed pawn supported by two
bishops, which often proves to be a decisive advantage in such endgames.
22...bxc5 23.Ba6
23...Nd5??
I was perplexed by this move. Instead, I calculated 23...Rc7 24.Rb7, with
the following variations for Black:
A) 24...Rxb7 25.Bxb7 Rb8 26.a6 (26.Bxc5 Nd7) 26...Nd7 27.f3, with a
nagging pressure in the endgame;
B) 24...Ne8 25.Rxc7 Nxc7 26.Bb7 Rb8 27.Bxc5. This position was
reminiscent of an instructive endgame win by Boris Gulko;
C) 24...Rcc8 25.Rxa7 Rxa7 26.Bxc8 h5 27.Bxe6 fxe6 28.Ra1, and White
dominates.

An ‘unforced error ’. It is still difficult to understand what Dubov wanted to
achieve with this move, because Black gets no compensation whatsoever
for the sacrificed exchange. Maybe he just did not like his passive position.
23...Rc7 had to be played, though White is clearly better after 24.Rb7 Rcc8
(24...Rxb7 25.Bxb7 Rb8 26.a6 (26.Bxc5 Nd7) 26...Nd7 27.h4ƒ) 25.Rxa7
Rxa7 26.Bxc8 h5 27.Bxe6 fxe6 28.Ra1 Nd7 29.f3±.
24.Bxc8 Rxc8
White is technically winning now.
25.Rb7
My choice: 25.Rdc1 c4 (25...Nxe3 26.fxe3 c4 27.Rb7 (I had also looked at
27.Rc3 Rc5 28.Rb8+ Bc8 29.e4 g6 30.Kf2 Kg7 31.Ra8 Rc7) 27...a6 28.Ra7
Rc6 29.Ra8+ Bc8 30.Rb1, and White wins) 26.Bxa7 Nf4 27.Kh1, and
White should be winning here with the a-pawn.
More than one move leads to a winning position in this endgame. However,
it is important not to get too relaxed in such positions in the simulation. One
should rather keep calculating as if the outcome of the game is still unclear.
White should also win after my choice 25.Rdc1 c4 (25...Nxe3 26.fxe3 c4
27.Rb7 a6 28.Ra7 Rc6 29.Ra8+ Bc8 30.Rb1+–) 26.Bxa7 Nf4 27.Kh1 c3
28.Be3!, and everything is under control: 28...Ne2 29.Re1 c2 30.Ra1 Bc4
31.a6.
25...h6
25...a6 26.Ra7 c4 27.Rxa6 c3 28.Rd6 c2 29.Rc1 Nxe3 (29...Nb4 30.Bd2
Na2 31.Rxc2+–) 30.fxe3 g6 31.a6+– .
26.Rc1
I wanted to play this on the previous move, so it was my first candidate here
as well.

A good alternative is 26.Rxa7!? c4 27.a6 c3 28.Rb7+– .
26...c4 27.Bxa7
My choice: 27.Rxa7 c3 28.a6.
White would like to exchange the rooks on b8. Also good is 27.Rxa7!? c3
28.Rb7!+– (I thought that 28.a6? wins, but I missed 28...Nb4!±).
27...Rc6
During the simulation, I was slightly concerned about 27...Nf4, but it turns
out that Black’s threats are empty after 28.Ra1! c3 (28...Nxg2 29.Rb8+–)
29.Be3 Ne2+ 30.Kf1 Bc4 31.Ke1 c2 32.a6+–.
28.Be3 c3 29.Rb5
Preparing 30.Rc5.
29...Nxe3
29...Kh7 allows the rook trade: 30.Rc5 Rxc5 31.Bxc5 Nf4 32.Ra1 Bc4
33.f3+–.
30.fxe3

This endgame should be technically winning for White, although I thought
that some caution was still needed.
30...Rc4 31.Kf2?!
We have already encountered this conditioned reflex previously. This
natural move is not a mistake since White is still winning, but the elegant
backward move 31.Rbb1! would have forced a, more or less, immediate
resignation. White’s rook gets behind the passed pawn, preventing ...Ra/b4
at the same time. Of course, this strong move was pointed out by the
engine. In case of 31...c2 or 31...Ra4, White simply goes 32.Ra1+–.
31...Kh7 32.e4
White would not mind exchanging his e-pawn for his opponent’s c-pawn, so
I also considered this move as the main choice to open the route for the
king.
32...c2

32...Rxe4 33.Rxc3 Ra4 34.Rcc5+–.
33.Ke3 Bd7 34.Rb7
There was some move repetition here, probably to get closer to move 40.
My choice: 34.Rd5 Bc6 35.Kd3 Bxd5 (35...Ra4 36.Rxc2) 36.exd5 Rc5
37.Kd4 Rxa5 38.Rxc2, and I was sure that this was a winning rook
endgame. I also looked at 34.Rb6, planning to push the a-pawn.
This was one of the rare moments in the game when my suggestion from
the simulation was stronger than the move that was actually played. White
would win more swiftly with 34.Rd5 Bc6 35.Kd3! Bxd5 (35...Ra4
36.Rxc2+–) 36.exd5 Rc5 37.Kd4 Rxa5 38.Rxc2
analysis diagram
and the arising rook endgame should be just lost for Black since his king is
so far away. For example: 38...Ra6 39.Kc5 Kg8 40.d6 Kf8 41.Re2!.
34...Be6

Neither can Black hope to save the game with 34...Bc6 35.Rxf7 Rxe4+
36.Kd2 Ra4 37.Rxc2 Bd5 38.Ra7 Bxg2 39.Rcc7+–.
35.Rb5 Bd7 36.Rb7
My choice: 36.Rd5.
Once again, I considered Rd5 instead of the repetition.
36...Be6 37.a6
I figured that White was not repeating the position for the third time, and
only this looked like progress for him.
37...Bc8 38.Rxf7 Bxa6 39.Rd7!
It took me about 10 minutes to find this precise move and calculate the
winning variation until the end. The idea is to prepare 40.Rd4 and 41.Kd2,
simultaneously defending the pawn on e4 and attacking the one on c2. The
problem in the line 39.Re7 was 39...Bb5 40.Kd2 Ba4. 39.Ra7 would also be
met by 39...Bb5.
This is indeed the best way to convert the advantage, not allowing Black to
complete the ...Ba6-b5-a4 maneuver. Now the c2-pawn is lost.
39...Rc3+
39...Bb5 does not work now in view of 40.Rd4 Rc7 41.Kd2, and the a4-
square is not available to the black bishop!
40.Kd2 Rc4 41.Re7 Rd4+ 42.Kc3! 1-0
This move forces immediate resignation.
Although, it has to be said that Black is also gradually losing the R vs B
endgame after 42.Kxc2 Bd3+ 43.Kc3 Rxe4 44.Rxe4 Bxe4 45.g3.

Another variation of the simulation practice that you can try out is with
well-annotated games of strong players. When I was younger, I used to do
this a lot using annotated games from Chess Informant. Here is how it goes:
1. Pick a well-annotated game from a chess book or a publication;
2. Find the same game without any annotations in a game database (raw
game score);
3. Do a simulation using the raw game score;
4. Once you are done, jot down your calculations and thoughts (as in the
italicized part of the Tomashevsky-Dubov commentary above); and
5. Compare your notes to annotations from the chess book/publication.
It is not a bad idea to make notes with mistakes that you have made in a
simulation, in the same way you would make a ‘List of mistakes’ when
analyzing games that you played (to be discussed in Chapter 3). When you
do enough simulations, you can identify patterns in your thinking and
discover typical mistakes. For example, here is a list of simulation mistakes
that I have compiled for a dozen recently completed simulations.
Table 2.3: List of simulation mistakes
Total number of simulations = 12
Type of mistake
Number of
mistakes
Deep calculation – not overcoming resistance
29
Getting too relaxed when converting an advantage
26
Calculation – missing candidate moves
23
Wrong positional evaluation
12
Calculation – missing candidate moves for the opponent
11
Missing opponent’s resources on the second or third
move of the variation
10

Total number of simulations = 12
Type of mistake
Number of
mistakes
Not understanding middlegames arising from my
opening repertoire
7
Calculation – missing important intermediate moves
3
This analysis revealed several patterns. Most importantly, it indicated that I
should focus more on precise calculation of long variations (beyond 2-4
moves) and evaluation of arising positions, consider more candidate moves
at the start of the calculation, and be more alert when converting an
advantage. Not surprisingly, these were some of the problematic areas in
my over-the-board play as well. In that sense, simulation is a good method
to anticipate typical mistakes that you could make in your games and point
to the areas in your game that could be improved. Overall, I find simulation
to be one of the practically most useful study methods, especially if you do
it right before tournaments, since it also prepares you well for the mental
intensity of the actual game.
Reviewing(PR=4;IN=4*;LT=4)
This is obviously one of the most important study methods in chess.
Reviewing an important opening line or a theoretical endgame can make a
big difference in the outcome of the game, so every chess player needs to
devote a fair amount of study time to this, sometimes rather uninspiring, but
necessary activity. However, once you have reviewed important material,
you have done only part of your homework. The second part – memorizing
what you have reviewed – is just as important and often trickier. First of all,
the passage of time doesn’t help our odds of remembering the details.
Secondly, if you have reviewed something superficially or your memory is
not that great to begin with, the chances that you will be able to reproduce it
in an actual game become quite slim. There are many memorization

techniques that can be used to improve these odds: spaced repetition,
making associations, visualization, muscle memory, etc. I believe that the
key to retaining the reviewed material for a long time is to memorize ideas,
rather than only the moves. When you try to memorize variations in terms
of ‘I play this, he plays that’, your brain stores them as temporary data in
your short-term memory. On the other hand, when you try to give variations
that you are reviewing a deeper meaning and connect them to your previous
knowledge, your brain stores them as ideas – meaningful information – in
your long-term memory.
Psychologists Jahnke and Nowaczyk compared similar concepts, called
maintenance rehearsal and elaborative rehearsal, and argued that the latter
works better as a memorization method: ‘Although maintenance rehearsal
(a method of learning through repetition, similar to rote learning) can be
useful for memorizing information for a short period of time, studies have
shown that elaborative rehearsal, which is a means of relating new material
with old information in order to obtain a deeper understanding of the
content, is a more efficient means of improving memory.’ Older scientific
research by Craik and Lockhart confirmed that: ‘... the more in-depth
encoding a person undergoes ... the more likely they are to remember the
information later.’
So, your primary goal when reviewing chess material should be to
develop a method of ‘encoding’ the information in such a way that it
becomes something that you understand deeply in terms of ideas, rather
than something that you need to be recalling consciously, move by move.
This way, you create mental shortcuts that allow you to retrieve the
necessary information more quickly and reliably. This comes back to our
discussion about basic and deep learning methods from the previous
chapter. To illustrate one such method, I would like to show you how to
memorize what is probably the ultimate test of a chess player’s memory –
the Philidor position in the rook and bishop vs rook endgame. Even though
the theoretical win was found by the great Frenchman many centuries ago,
to this day it remains of the most difficult theoretical endgames to

remember. The reason for that is that maneuvers that are necessary to
checkmate the opponent’s king are quite sophisticated and there are some
important subvariations to remember as well. Moreover, memorization of
concrete moves, as in ‘Rf1, Bd6, Ke8, etc.’ does not work here because you
can get the Philidor position on any of the four sides of the board and on
almost every file or rank. Thus, it is obvious that the study and review of
this theoretical endgame should be based primarily on the understanding of
ideas, such as good and bad defensive positions of rook and king, short and
long side, rook and bishop coordination, etc. Before seeing how this can be
done, let us look at an interesting practical case in this endgame.
Game 27
Deimante Cornette 2419
Gawain Jones 2660
Porticcio 2017 (6)
White to move

I happened to be in the playing hall while this endgame was unfolding. It
had been drawish for a long time, but it has come to the point where
Deimante Cornette had a minimal margin for error with her king on the
edge.
90.Rg8?
And here it is. This move allowed Jones to enter a theoretically winning
position by force. Instead, she had to remove the king from the light square
to 90.Ka5 to avoid the opposition. This would have still been drawn.
90.Rg8? Kc4 91.Rg4+ Bd4 92.Rg3
This alignment of kings and bishop means that we have the Philidor
position. Once this position was reached, you could see by Gawain Jones’
body language that he got more relaxed than he was before. It seemed like
he was familiar with the winning method (not all grandmasters are!).
However, he did not rush any of his non-obvious decisions until the end of
the game, and it seemed to me like he deliberately took his time to double-
check his calculations, move by move. This was the right approach because

even one small mistake can be costly in this endgame, due to the possibility
of the defender claiming a draw by the 50-move rule (I presented one such
case in my book Beyond Material!).
92...Rb8 93.Rg5 Rb7! 94.Rh5
I should point out one curiosity. The same exact position was reached in the
well-known game Caruana-Svidler from the 2016 Candidates Tournament,
only with colors reversed! You might remember that Caruana (playing as
the stronger side), did not manage to recall the winning method and let
Svidler off the hook. This draw turned out to be instrumental in Sergey
Karjakin overcoming him in the tournament to play Magnus Carlsen for the
World Championship title later that year. The moral of the story is: Kids,
learn your Philidor position!
94...Rb2! 95.Rh3 Bf2! 96.Rf3 Bc5 97.Rf4+ Bd4 98.Rf3 Rb4+!

Jones has displayed perfect technique so far, which was quite impressive to
watch. I have mostly witnessed tragicomedies in this endgame.
99.Ka5?!
This loses on the spot. A more stubborn defense was 99.Ka3, which we will
discuss shortly.
99...Rb7
White resigned, as a quick checkmate is inevitable.
Let us now discuss how to review this endgame so that it remains
embedded in your memory for a long time and so that you can reproduce
the narrow sequence of winning maneuvers in the fifth or sixth hour of a
tiring game, just as Gawain Jones did above.
Game 28
Rook and bishop vs Rook
Philidor position
(analysis)

Black to move
The first important thing to remember in the Philidor position is that even
though the stronger side is winning in this position, it is not possible to
checkmate if:
1. the king of the weaker side is on the square opposite to the color of the
bishop; and
2. his rook is on the second rank (in this case, the g-file).
Consequently, in order to win, Black (in this case, the stronger side) needs
to disturb White’s ideal defensive set-up with the help of precisely
coordinated rook and bishop maneuvers (the black king does not need to
move). If you make five right and only one wrong move, you will still not
be able to checkmate – the path to the winning position is very narrow. It
consists of three stages:
Stage 1: Worsen the position of opponent’s rook, i.e ., force the rook off the
second rank (here, the g-file) to the third rank (here, the f-file).

Stage 2: Worsen the position of the opponent’s king, i.e ., to the square of
the same color as the bishop (here, a3 or a5).
Stage 3: Execute the mating attack when the opponent’s king and rook are
not in their best defensive positions (not on a4 and the second rank (g-file),
respectively).
Let us see how this is done, step by step. We will pay particular attention to:
1. the intermediate steps at each stage of the winning plan; and
2. key images (diagrams) and moves to memorize to make smooth
transitions between successive stages of the winning plan.
Stage 1: Worsen the position of the opponent’s rook.
Step 1.1: We bring the rook to the long side with
92...Rb8
since it had less maneuvering space on the short side. In case of 92...Rb2?!,
White can play 93.Ka3, and Black cannot give checkmate on the a-file.
92...Rb8 93.Rg5
Step 1.2: We make a waiting move, forcing the opponent to worsen the
position of his rook.
93...Rb7!
93...Rb6?! would be the wrong way to wait, because White could again
safely approach with his king: 94.Ka5 Rb7 95.Rg6, and after 95...Rb2, he
could escape via 96.Ka6 Ra2+ 97.Kb7.
The f-file is the worst file for the rook, so White’s best defense is
94.Rh5

Once the opponent’s rook has been forced to the h-file, it becomes easier to
force it to move to the worst, the f-file. To accomplish this, we still need to
execute two precise maneuvers.
The first one is:
Step 1.3: Black’s rook swings back to the short side.
94...Rb2!
The point is that the key bishop maneuver to the third rank (in this case, the
f-file) is successful only with the rook on the short side. If Black tries the
same maneuver now with his rook on the long side – 94...Bf6?, White can
again approach with his king: 95.Ka5, and this is already a draw. Fabiano
Caruana made the same mistake in the game against Peter Svidler
referenced earlier!
95.Rh3
The approaching maneuver 95.Ka3 loses here because White doesn’t have
enough space to escape with his king on the shorter side of the board:

95...Rb1 96.Rh2. This is the only move, but as we will see shortly, h2 is an
unfortunate square for the white rook. 96. ..Rb8 97.Ka2 Ra8+ 98.Kb1 Ra1+.
White would like to have an extra rank for his king, but this is not possible
on the short side, so he loses the rook to a skewer: 99.Kc2 Ra2+–+.
And, finally, we have reached Step 1.4 of the first stage in which we can
force the white rook to the f-file with a clever bishop move maneuver to the
short side:
95...Bf2!
Diagram 1
It helps a lot to remember that we play this move only when the bishop is
protected by the rook on the short side. This diagram (let’s call it Diagram
1) is basically an image that you want to imprint in your mind so that you
know at which point you transition from Stage 1 to Stage 2: Worsen the
position of the opponent’s king.
96.Rf3

White could also try to keep the rook on the h-file by playing 96.Ka3
instead.
analysis diagram
This is an important defense to keep in mind, but the problem for the
defender is that he voluntarily worsens the position of his king; in other
words, he completes Stage 2 for Black! So, Black can directly proceed to
Stage 3a: The mating attack.
We start with Step 3.1a: The ‘sliding’ rook maneuver: 96...Re2!. We
threaten checkmate in 3, starting with the bishop check. The crucial detail
to remember is that the rook slides right next to the bishop. After the pretty
much forced sequence 97.Ka4 Re8 98.Rh5 (if the king goes to the short side
98.Ka3, 98...Bd4 puts the king in the mating net: 99.Ka2 Re1–+) we should
remember
Step 3.2a: The quiet bishop move: 98...Be1!. Again, it helps to imprint an
image of a rook defending the bishop on the same file. Since the check on
the 4th rank is not available to White (this is why we needed to force the

rook off the second rank), he has to worsen his king’s position with 99.Ka3
again, when we arrive at the final step.
Step 3.3a: The backward rook maneuver 99...Re2! threatens unstoppable
checkmate with 100...Bb4+ and 101...Ra2#.
Coming back to White’s most stubborn defense 96.Rf3, now that his rook
has been forced to the third rank, we start with
Step 2.1: Renewing the mating threat to win a tempo.
96...Bc5 97.Rf4+ Bd4 98.Rf3
This is the only way to prevent checkmate (for now). We can see why the
rook is placed the worst on the f-file in the variation 98.Ka3 Rb1, when
99.Rf2 is not available as the bishop controls this square.
Now, everyone who has seen this endgame at least once knows that the
stronger side is supposed to give a rook check on the seventh rank (here, the
b-file) at some point, but it is easy to confuse the right moment to deliver it.
So, let’s imprint the image of delivering the rook check
98...Rb4+!
Diagram 2

at Step 2.2: When the opponent’s rook is already on the third rank, we can
worsen the position of the opponent’s king in the most favorable
circumstances. Wherever the white king goes, we have transitioned in the
final Stage 3 of this theoretically winning endgame, where we are directly
going for the mating attack.
99.Ka3
White’s king should in principle go to the same side where his rook is,
otherwise, after 99.Ka5 Rb7, the king is already in the mating net, which is
what happened in Cornette-Jones.
We start the final stage with
Step 3.1: Black threatens checkmate from the long side with
99...Rb7
since White can defend from the short-side attempt 99...Rb1 with 100.Ka4.
100.Ka2

While the king is trying to run, it should not be difficult to remember
Step 3.2: The second rook check to bring the king back to the square of the
bishop’s color:
100...Rb2+!
Since 101.Ka1 loses to a discovered check, his reply is forced.
101.Ka3
And now that both White’s king and rook are placed badly, in
Step 3.3: Black threads the mating net with rook sliding to the 4th rank
(here, the e-file).
101...Re2!
This is the same maneuver as in Step 3.1a in the variation 96.Ka3. Once
again, we put the rook on e2 to threaten checkmate in 3 and keep it close to
the bishop, although the main point is slightly different here.

102.Ka4
White could try to defend against the mating sequence with 102.Rf4 as
well, but then 102...Re1 forces a different checkmate, since 103.Ka4 is not
an option anymore.
And here comes the final step.
Step 3.4: Cut off the opponent’s rook by sliding back the bishop:
102...Be3!
This is why we needed the rook exactly on the e-file and why the white
rook had to be forced exactly to the third rank. It is now completely cut off
from the white king, and this means that checkmate is inevitable.
103.Ka3 Bc5+ 104.Ka4 Ra2+ 105.Ra3 Rxa3#
At the end, summarizing the stages and steps of the main winning line
should help you create the mental shortcuts that we talked about in the
theoretical part of this section.
Stage 1: Worsen the position of the opponent’s rook.
Intermediate steps: long side – waiting move – short side – bishop to the
short side.
Transition: Diagram 1
Stage 2: Worsen the position of the opponent’s king.
Intermediate steps: bishop wins a tempo with a checkmate threat – rook
gives the first check on the seventh rank.
Transition: Diagram 2
Stage 3: Mating attack.
Steps: long side – return to the short side to give the second check on the
seventh rank – slide to the 4th rank – bishop slides next to the rook on the
4th rank cutting of the opponent’s rook on the 3rd rank.

Stage 3a (main alternative 96.Ka3):
Steps: slide to the 4th rank – the quiet bishop move – backward rook
maneuver.
If you memorize the winning method this way, it will not only be easier to
review this endgame move-by-move when you get back to it every 3-6
months, but you will also have an easier time recalling the right winning
plan if it happens in a game.
You can use the memorizing technique based on logical sequences, like
the one above, for anything else you would like to memorize: opening
variations, chess games, etc. I have found that creating ‘stories’ with
multiple stages, intermediate steps, and key positions (images) has helped
me absorb and retain chess content quite efficiently over the years. If you
have some issues with memorizing and reviewing, you do not have to use
this exact method, but at least try to develop your own based on the general
advice provided in this section.
In the quality criteria table, I have marked the intensity of reviewing with
‘4*’. This asterisk indicates that there can be some variance in the intensity
level due to individual memory strength. For example, I have noticed that
club players sometimes struggle to memorize opening variations. For them,
this method’s intensity might be closer to 5 because it requires them to put
in more mental effort than someone who has a stronger memory (for whom
this score would be closer to 3 or even lower). The good news is that
reviewing is one of the methods in which the compounding effect of the
previous study kicks in; in other words, regular practice tends to strengthen
one’s memory, as more efficient memorization techniques are adopted and
new mental shortcuts are created.
Solving(PR=4;IN=5;LT=4)
Solving is one of the essential study methods. There is hardly a better way
to practice specific decision-making skills than tackling thematic puzzles
and exercises. This method also keeps us mentally sharp and satisfies our
natural curiosity to find a solution to a challenging question. Since much

has been already written on this method, I will limit myself to a few
practical tips that you might find useful in your solving sessions.
Tip #1: Solve all sorts of puzzles and solve them whenever you can
The most popular type of puzzles that people generally solve is tactical.
While tactical vision and the calculation of forced variations are extremely
important, they cannot help us solve all the problems that we face in an
actual game. Thus, one should not overlook the importance of solving
exercises that target other skills and areas, such as positional play,
prophylactic thinking, endgame technique, etc. These days, it shouldn’t be
too difficult to find online resources or specialized books that allow you to
test your solving skill in various areas (some will be suggested in Chapter
4). Even most non-tactics chess books contain ‘Test yourself’ sections or in-
text exercises. Chess diagrams are literally everywhere, and one only has to
follow the advice of Tigran Petrosian to solve chess puzzles as often as
possible.
Tip #2: Solve challenging puzzles to get out of your comfort zone
Of course, there is also something to be said about the quality of such work.
Ideally, you want to strike a balance between solving puzzles that are
neither too easy, nor exceedingly difficult for you. In my experience, a 75%
success rate on puzzle solving is an approximate figure that will indicate
whether that type of a puzzle is challenging (consistently less than 75%) or
not (solidly over 75%). In some cases, you don’t really mind if the puzzles
are relatively easy; for example, when you do warm-up sets or solve
exercises with the aim of drilling a certain pattern. On the other hand, if
your objective is to solve puzzles to improve a skill, such as visualization or
spotting the opponent’s resources, then sooner or later you will need to
tackle challenging puzzles – many of them. This is usually a great
opportunity to grow as a chess player as you expand your comfort zone and
learn to be ‘comfortable being uncomfortable’, as we discussed in Chapter
1.
Tip #3: Record your solutions

The common and sound advice from authors of modern puzzle books is to
record your puzzle solutions. This practice keeps you accountable because
it is easy to tell yourself things like: ‘Oh, I would have seen it anyway if it
was a real game’ or ‘It does not matter if the move order is different, I saw
the right idea’ when you miss an important move in your calculations. If
you have your solution written down, you cannot fool yourself this way. Let
us see a typical example:
Game 29
Boris Savchenko 2576
Kumar Manish 2053
Hyderabad 2019 (6)
White to move
(back to the PREVIEW)
This was a puzzle from the New in Chess ‘Maximize Your Tactics’ section.
I thought I had solved it correctly, but it turned out that I had messed up the
move order.

38.Nf5!
The only correct way for White. The idea is to clear the h2-b8 diagonal with
a series of sacrifices to eliminate Black’s defense of the promotion square.
This is what I also had in mind when I calculated 38.Ra8? Nb8 39.Nf5
Bxf5 40.e6+, and here I thought that White wins the same way no matter
where the king goes, so I just instinctively assumed 40...Kxe6, when White
wins with 41.Rxb8 Rxb8 42.Rxe7+ Kxe7 43.Bxb8. However, Black can
escape the check on e7 with 40...Kg6 (or even 40...Kf6!?), when White
needs to play carefully not to lose: 41.Rxb8 Rxb8 42.Rxe7, and here he
solves the problem of the b8-square with a strong counterattack: 42...g3!
43.Bxg3 Rh8+ 44.Kg1 Bd4+, when White saves the game with only moves:
45.Kf1 Kf6! 46.Rd7! Be5 47.Rf7+ Kxe6 48.Re7+! Kxe7 49.Bxe5 Rg8
50.b8=Q Rxb8 51.Bxb8=.
38.Nf5! Bxf5 39.e6+
Since the knight is still on d7, Black has no choice but to take the pawn in
this version. This is the key difference compared to 38.Ra8.
39...Bxe6
39...Kxe6 is the same: 40.Ra8 Nb8 41.Rxb8! Rxb8 42.Rxe7+ Kxe7
43.Bxb8+–.
40.Ra8 Nb8 41.Rxb8 Rxb8 42.Rxe7+ Kxe7 43.Bxb8+–

We got the same final position I was going for with 38.Ra8? Nb8 39.Nf5.
However, a correct final position with a wrong move order does not mean
that you solved the puzzle correctly nor that you deserve partial credit. It is
simply the wrong solution due to sloppy calculation. It is easier to hold
yourself accountable in such grey areas if you put your solutions in writing.
Tip #4: Set a time constraint to challenge yourself
Finally, you can add another layer of challenge to puzzle-solving by setting
a time constraint. You can time yourself on any puzzles that you attempt to
solve, but you can also use modern technology. Many applications were
created for that purpose; for example Tactics trainers on most popular chess
websites reward quicker correct responses with more rating points, while
chess.com’s Puzzle Rush puts you under severe time pressure on every
puzzle. Solving puzzles with a time constraint gives your study more
practical value, since we are also often faced with limited time to make an
important decision in a tournament game. Just keep in mind that the priority
should always be to use the proper solving technique rather than rushing to
solve the problem.
Playing–sparring(PR=5;IN=5;LT=5)

Playing sparring games is perhaps the most practically relevant study
method. It is the best preparation for what awaits you in tournament games
in terms of calculation, decision making and time management. Of course,
it takes two to tango, so the prerequisite is that you find someone of similar
strength willing to spar with you. Finding a sparring partner where you live
is not always easy, but fortunately we have the internet, so there should be
no excuse not to try it out. As I explained in the section on mutual analysis,
it is best if this person’s rating is within 100 points in either direction – in
fact, if he or she is a stronger player, this means a greater challenge for you,
which is always good.
Let’s talk about some technicalities. The suggested time control for sparring
games is 25-30 min per player (perhaps with a symbolic increment to avoid
potentially flagging a person that was kind enough to join your cause) or, at
least, 15 min + 10 sec. Everything beyond that is a plus. You want to make
this a serious training exercise with enough time to think at the critical
moments, so I would avoid playing on any time control shorter than that, if
possible. There are many ways that sparring games can be set up. Some of
the more common ideas are:
1. Playing a thematic match
Usually an opening variation or typical middlegame position that you have
studied together. For this and other methods, it is a good idea to alternate
colors with the same position or variation.
2. Playing out an interesting middlegame position
Here is an example.
Example 2.1
Vitaly Kunin 2518
Noel Studer 2517
Radenci 2019 (7) (practice)

White to move
3. Playing out a theoretical or otherwise interesting endgame.
Example 2.2
Theoretical endgame – to play out in sparring
(practice)

White to move
Exercise 2.2
Sharp endgame – to play out
(practice)

Black to move
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 2.2
Sharp endgame – to play out
(practice)
1...Rxe3
Another interesting option is 1...Rxb2!? 2.Rxb2 h2 3.Rxb6+, when it seems
like the h-pawn is unstoppable, but Black needs to be careful not to lose!
A) 3...Ke5 4.f4+! (4.Rxg6?? h1=Q+ 5.Ke2 Qh5+–+) 4...Ke4 5.Re7+! Kd5
6.Rxg6 h1=Q+ 7.Bg1! Bxc3 8.Rd7+ Kc4 9.Rc6!2;
B) 3...Kf5 4.Rf7+ Ke4 (4...Bf6 5.g4+! Kxg4 6.Kg2 Kh5+ 7.Kh1!+–)
5.Rxg6 h1=Q+ 6.Ke2+–;

C) 3...Kd5! 4.c4+! Kxc4 (4...Ke4 5.Rxg6 h1=Q+ 6.Ke2 Qh5+ 7.f3++–)
5.Ra4+ Kd5 (5...Kd3 6.Rb3+ Bc3 7.Rh4+–) 6.Rh4 (6.Rxg6 h1=Q+
7.Ke2∞) 6...Rxb6 7.Rxh2 Kc4°.
1...Rxe3 2.fxe3 Rxg2
Black has full compensation here.
3.Rb7
3.b4 c4! 4.a4 Bxc3 5.Rb7 Be5 6.Rxb6+ Kf5 7.Rxh6 Rh2 8.Kg1=.
3...Be5
A) 3...Kf5 4.e4+! Kxe4 5.Re7+ Kd3 6.Rbe1±;
B) 3...h5 4.Rxb6+ Kf5 5.a4 Be5 6.a5 Rc2 7.Kg1 Rg2+ 8.Kh1 Rh2+
9.Kg1=.
4.Rxb6+ Kf5 5.Rxh6 Rh2=

I should also add that the book Sharp Endgames by IM Esben Lund
contains many endgame positions that are suitable exactly for this format.
Finally, don’t forget to do a post-mortem of the game with your opponent.
You might learn something useful from it.
Playing–speedchess(PR=4;IN=4;LT=4)
When we talk about playing speed chess (i.e ., blitz games) in the context of
studying chess, there are several possible benefits:
1. Getting practice with your openings
Such games are a perfect ground to test your openings, because you can
play many more games than in sparring and thus get more practical
experience with a broader range of opening variations.
2. Getting a lot of general practice
Just by playing a large number of blitz games, you get to see and process
many types of positions from all stages of the game. This can help increase
your knowledge base and improve your overall intuition, as noted in the
first chapter.
3. Calculation exercise
One should also not underestimate the calculation aspect of playing speed
chess. Playing under time pressure from move one is the best way to keep
you fully focused on the calculation of critical variations. It is highly
recommended to calculate variations on the opponent’s time with the same
level of concentration as on your own time, which is often easier said than
done, though.
4. Getting into a competitive mode
Playing speed chess gets your adrenaline flowing like almost no other study
method. I like to do daily 60- to 90-minute blitz sessions in the week before
a tournament to help me get into a competitive state of mind.
5. An opportunity to play stronger players

When you play online, you will inevitably get paired against higher-rated
opponents that you can learn from, whether it is an opening variation that
they knew better, a tactical shot that they saw in a split second (and you
missed it, of course), or a superior endgame technique. And, of course,
there is hardly a greater confidence boost than beating a higher-rated
opponent.
6. Obtaining new study material
Nothing is closer to us than our own games, so the blitz games that we have
played may serve as study material just as well as our tournament games.
Which time control should you choose for this purpose? When it comes to
blitz, in my view 5+0 or 3+2 are the best time controls. They ensure that
you have some time to stop and think about several critical moments in the
game. In a 3+0 time-control, time often becomes a dominant factor in the
game, so the quality of the game tends to drop significantly as players get
low on time. Playing blitz with this time control should be mostly for fun,
or just to get a bit more practice with your openings. Players who find it
difficult to play shorter time controls without making blunders or losing on
time regularly should stick to rapid games.
As a rule, I check all the online blitz games that I have played with an
engine afterwards. I would recommend to anyone to do the same. It is a
good learning experience, and, as I explained above, you get new study
material in all stages of the game that you can explore and that is relevant to
you.
Overall, speed chess can be a useful study method in multiple ways,
especially as a way to spice up your training routine if it becomes too
‘static’ (too much thinking, too little doing). However, it should not be
overused, because playing too much blitz can be a waste of study time, not
to mention counterproductive habits like bullet addiction, going on a tilt
after getting flagged, blitz binge until 6 in the morning, etc. I am talking
from experience here.
Blindfold(PR=4;IN=5;LT=5)

If there is any method in chess that is underestimated and neglected, it is
studying in blindfold mode. This is a demanding method because you have
no visual aids and the only board that you can ‘see’ is the one in your head.
Under such conditions, you need to invest all of your mental capabilities
and allow zero distractions to accurately visualize the position and
variations. And even then, you might come up short – missing that a square
is being protected or that a piece that you wanted to move has already been
traded off three moves earlier. As challenging as it is, this is also one of the
most rewarding study methods. Think of it this way, solving or analyzing
blindfold is to chess what playing with a medicine ball is to basketball.
After you have done such a toilsome exercise, every regular activity seems
to be a breeze.
Here is an interesting question for you: what do you think is usually the
relative strength of blind/visually impaired chess players – their tactics or
their strategy?
Most people instinctively reply that it is the latter, but actually the visually
impaired tend to be better tacticians and calculators than strategists. The
reason for that is simple: they are forced to use their tactical and calculating
skills to full capacity every time they play chess! Blindfold chess simply
pushes you to develop these skills, because you have to visualize the
interaction between the pieces and the chessboard precisely; otherwise, you
will almost certainly blunder something. Thus, studying blindfold has an
immensely positive impact when it comes to:
• improving visualization;
• reducing blunders, especially when you get mentally tired or the position
becomes complicated; and
• speeding up calculation.
If you feel like you are having problems in any of these areas, make sure
that you add blindfold to your arsenal of study methods. Let us talk a bit
now about some ways of conducting such training. Here are the most

common blindfold study activities, sorted by approximate order of
difficulty:
1. Blindfold reading
This is the simplest activity and the one that I would recommend starting
with if you haven’t had have much blindfold practice before. The idea is to
go through a game from the book without the chess set. As there are usually
around five moves (sometimes even less) between two consecutive
diagrams in a book, your task is just to visualize a sequence of moves
between the two diagrams. Then, you can check for the correctness of your
visualization by comparing the ‘image’ of the final position in your mind to
the next diagram in the book.
2. Blindfold solving
Solving puzzles without looking at a diagram is another simple, although
slightly more challenging, activity. Endgame studies are particularly good
for this kind of practice because there are relatively few pieces on the board
with fewer options that could confuse you. If I were new to this, I would
make simple endgame studies up to 7 pieces my starting point and then
work my way up to the more complex ones. Blindfold solving of tactical
puzzles with many pieces on a small area of the board (something that I
have referred to as ‘high traffic’ in my video courses on tactics and
calculation) are also great for the development of accurate visualization.
Here is an example of such puzzle (hint: try to solve it in blindfold mode!).
Exercise 2.3
High traffic

Black to move
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 2.3
High traffic
1...Rxe4!
is the right move.
1...Bxe4? 2.Bxe4 Rxe4? (2...h6 3.Bxf6 Nxf6 4.Bc62) 3.Bxf6 Qe8 4.Be5!±.
1...Rxe4! 2.Bxf6
Alternatives are:
A) 2.Bxe4 Bxe4 3.Bxf6 Bxf3 4.Bxd8 Bxh5 5.Bxc7 Rb7–+; and
B) 2.Nxf6+ gxf6 3.Bxe4 Bxe4 4.Qxe4 fxg5–+.

2...Rxd4!!
2...Nxf6? 3.Nxf6+ Qxf6 4.Bxe4+–.
The key move! White loses material in any case.
3.Qf5
A) 3.Bxd8 Bxf3 4.Bxc7 Bxh5 5.Bxb8 Rxd3–+;
B) 3.Qh3 Rxd3! 4.Qxd3 Nxf6–+.
3...g6 4.Bxd8 gxf5 5.Bxc7 Rc8 6.Bxf5 Rxc7 7.Bxd7 Rcxd7 8.Nf6+ Kg7
9.Nxd7 Rxd7–+
3. Blindfold analysis
This is already a more challenging type of exercise, and you probably need
a fair amount of practice with the first two types of blindfold activities to
analyze accurately without visual aids. This is something that we routinely

do after the game with our opponent or a friend if there is no analysis board
available, but it is also possible to do it at home. For example, sometimes
when I am doing chores around the house and my wife is on a computer,
she will tell me the moves from ongoing tournament games, and we would
analyze them in blindfold (me) vs regular (her) mode.
4. Blindfold playing
This is a great study activity that you can set up with your sparring or
training partner if you have one. Playing a blindfold game with a friend can
also be a fun challenge when you are on a long trip, for example, especially
if you add time limits to each move.
5. Blindfold simul
Unless your name is Timur Gareyev, you can do without it.
This study method has a big potential to make you a stronger player, but it
requires determination and high tolerance to frustration when starting out.
Once this technique is mastered, a lot of things in chess become clearer.
Sometimes you can even see strong players looking to the side when
calculating variations instead of the chessboard that is right in front of them.
At that level, the actual board can be a sort of a visual distraction since the
one inside your mind, in which the pieces are allowed to move freely,
provides a clearer picture of what will happen further down the line.
Playing against a computer (PR = 4; IN = 5; LT = 5)
The computer (chess engine) is the strongest sparring partner that you can
possibly have. Playing a game against it is usually a frustrating experience,
because computers are merciless at exploiting our, usually inevitable,
tactical mistakes. However, that does not mean that playing against them is
an exercise in futility; in fact, many chess professionals play out specific
types of positions against computers to strengthen their skills in particular
areas. For that purpose, here are some recommended study activities:
1. Playing out technically winning positions against the computer
Objective: conversion of an advantage against the best defense. Below is an
example.

Example 2.3
Technically winning endgame to play out against an engine
(practice)
White to move
Some websites have an option to play out typical technically winning
endgames, such as queen vs rook, against the computer. For example,
chess.com, as I write this, has over 60 endgame practice ‘Drills’ that you
can use for this purpose.
2. Playing out much better positions against the computer
Objective: improve defensive play by observing how the computer defends
inferior positions. For example:
Example 2.4
Endgame to play out against an engine
(practice)

White to move
You have the black pieces; the computer has the white pieces.
3. Playing out tactically sharp positions against the computer
Objective: appreciating the importance of concrete calculation and getting
used to a strong level of tactical play from your opponent. A typical
example is...
Example 2.5
Tactically sharp position to play out against an engine
(practice)

Black to move
4. Playing out full games against lower-rated bots
Objective: increase tactical awareness, get experience against different
playing styles.
Chapter 2 summary
• Not every chess-related activity should count as chess study. While chess
activities that chess players do for fun, entertainment, or to satisfy their
intellectual curiosity can sometimes be useful, doing them frequently and
for extended periods of time is not an effective way to study chess.
• The greatest strength of watching is that it is the most interactive way to
study chess content. However, one should make sure not to get distracted by
non-chess content to get the maximum benefit from this kind of study.
• Reading engages your brain in a way that stimulates important cognitive
processes such as comprehension, abstract thinking, and imagination to a
greater degree than watching.

• The greatest strength of reading as a study method is that it gives you
access to condensed chess knowledge in a way that allows for natural
processing and reflection on the content.
• Chess books are not novels! To get the maximum benefit from them, you
should study them carefully and with comprehension.
• Analysis should be a cornerstone of every good study plan.
• Light analysis is the kind of analysis in which you are using about 50% or
less of your analytical abilities to save time or energy.
• ‘Process of thinking during the game is the same process of analyzing, just
without moving the pieces. And the essence of chess training is
improvement of analyzing abilities’ – Garry Kasparov.
• Analysis is the process of working out logical possibilities in a certain
position. When we analyze, we create hypotheses about a certain move,
idea, or variation, test them through the exploration of logical possibilities
for both sides, and form final evaluations and conclusions.
• A chess analyst should be powered by curiosity, asking questions such as:
what if...?, why...?, how...?, what is the difference between...? etc. Such
questions and their answers guide the analysis.
• Solving mode is a kind of thinking, typical for solving chess puzzles,
when your focus narrows down as you are trying to find the one solution.
Even though people tend to be drawn to solving more than analysis when
studying chess, the analysis mode helps us think more broadly about
positions, evaluate them more accurately, and find the best course of action
more often than the solving mode.
• In positions where there is no forcing play, the old adage: ‘Long variation,
wrong variation’ applies often – it is usually best to analyze the position 2-4
moves ahead.
• A chess engine is ‘a good servant, but a bad master’.
• It is important to understand that engine evaluations are forward-looking,
and, as such, should not always be taken at face value by humans who

cannot calculate that deeply and accurately ahead.
• The greatest strengths of mutual analysis are the exchange of ideas and
competitiveness.
• ‘Find the best move’ and ‘Simulation’ are very practically useful methods,
especially when done with competitive elements such as time constraint or
imitation of real-game conditions.
• It is a good idea to make a list of your simulation mistakes to identify
typical thinking mistakes that could translate into your over-the-board play.
• Your goal when reviewing chess material should be to develop a method
of ‘encoding’ the information in such a way that it becomes something that
you understand deeply in terms of ideas, rather than something that you
need to remember consciously.
• Some tips for solving are: solve puzzles whenever you can, get out of your
comfort zone by solving challenging puzzles as often as possible, record
your solutions, and set a time constraint.
• Playing sparring games is perhaps the most practically relevant study
method since it is the best preparation for what awaits you in tournament
games in terms of calculation, decision making, and time management.
• Playing speed chess can have many benefits in terms of chess study
(openings, calculation, practical value, new study material), but it should be
played with moderate frequency.
• Blindfold is a study method with great potential to make you a stronger
player, but it requires determination and high tolerance to frustration when
starting out. Once this technique is mastered, a lot of things in chess
become clearer.

Chapter 3 – Preview
White to move
How would you convert the advantage?
(go to the ANSWER)
Black to move

What is the best continuation?
(go to the ANSWER)
Black to move
Please suggest a move for Black and provide an evaluation.
(go to the ANSWER)

Black to move
What is the best way to convert the advantage?
(go to the ANSWER)
Black to move
Which move would you choose: 31...Rxb2
or 31...Rc8 ?
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
Please analyze White’s most promising possibilities and provide an evaluation.
(go to the ANSWER)
White to move
Which plan would you suggest for White?

(go to the ANSWER)
White to move
What is the best continuation in this complicated position?
(go to the ANSWER)
Chapter 3
Identify your study priorities
When chess players talk informally between themselves, you can often hear them
say things like: ‘I really need to work on my endgames’ or ‘I am not good at
positional play’. These are pretty general statements that indicate which broader
areas of their chess they would like to see improved. However, when you sit to
study, it is better to have a clearer picture of which particular aspect of endgames or
positional play you want to focus on. Otherwise, you can spend too much time on a
topic that is not a real priority, or study a little bit of everything without a clear
focus, which are usually inefficient ways to study. On the other hand, if you
carefully determine which two or three specific study areas you want to focus on in
the upcoming period, you will be in a better position to optimize your study time
and resources.

One of the main goals of this book is to facilitate this process. To provide a basic
structure for it, we will make some classifications in this chapter. Firstly, we will list
five general study areas and then break them down into a number of more specific
ones. We will refer to this classification many times throughout the book; in fact, the
material in Chapters 5 to 8 corresponds to four out of five general study areas
presented here. Then, we will establish five categories of chess player levels based
on Elo rating and try to point out typical areas that demand attention at different
stages of one’s chess development. This division will also be important for much of
the upcoming material in the book, because players of different strengths and
experience have different needs in terms of study resources, study plans and specific
study advice. For example, it would be pointless to suggest an average club player to
study Dvoretsky’s works on the middlegame, because this material would most
likely be too advanced and because there are many more appropriate resources.
Finally, we will discuss how to identify key study areas, that is, those areas that are
your study priorities at a certain point in time. For anyone who has read a couple of
general improvement chess books, it should not come as a surprise that careful
analysis of our own games is the best way to determine what these areas are.
General study areas
The following five study areas should cover just about any study topic in chess that
one can think of.
1. Openings
2. Tactics
3. Endgames
4. Middlegames
5. General improvement
I believe that the roles of each of these five areas of chess should be clear to every
experienced chess player. Still, several quick ‘prophylactic’ explanations are in
order.
1. The order of study areas might seem a bit scrambled compared to the usual
‘opening-middlegame-endgame’ classifications. The reasoning behind my
classification is that tactics and endgames are relatively more fundamental study
areas for an improving chess player than the middlegame (more complex) and
general improvement (more advanced).

2. In this classification, ‘Tactics’ is used more broadly than normally to include all
dynamic aspects of chess (in addition to tactics itself), such as attack and defense,
calculation, double-edged positions, etc. I might have used a different name for it,
like ‘Chess dynamics’, but ‘Tactics’ is a simpler and much more common term.
3. The study area ‘Middlegames’ mostly encompasses all positional and strategic
aspects of middlegames, such as positional play, typical middlegame strategies,
pawn structures, etc. I think that it makes sense to merge these two related study
areas into one general area. Yes, there are differences between them, and I will
clarify them in Chapter 8 on middlegame study, but this is definitely not an
awkward marriage. Many study resources on positional play and strategy combine
elements of both, so it is just more practical to talk about these two themes in
singular.
4. Finally, ‘General improvement’ may seem like the vaguest area at first glance,
something like a random collection of topics that do not strictly belong to any of
the other four major areas. However, general improvement topics, such as the
analysis of your own games and game collections of great players, often include
instructive material from all stages of the game, so they are also an essential part
of chess study.
Please note that categorizations and distinctions between study areas are primarily
for instructional purposes. In reality, different aspects of chess are interconnected,
sometimes in unexpected, yet logical ways. Therefore, when we study a certain topic
or area, we should always keep this big picture in mind and try to connect the dots
between seemingly separate or opposed areas, such as tactics and strategy; opening
and endgame; attack and defense. I mention this because I have noticed that when
people study chess, they sometimes make a mistake of compartmentalizing study
areas. What I have in mind is that they tend to focus so much on a particular area
they are studying that they mentally disconnect it from all other areas. This
phenomenon can be illustrated well by the following simple example.
Game 30
Etienne Bacrot 2677
Robert Zelcic 2508
Zagreb 2018 (10)

White to move
(back to the PREVIEW)
I sometimes give this puzzle to students when we study positional play. White is
technically winning, of course, but since there is no forced win, the question is how
does he improve his position? Some students suggest moves like Bh5+, Bh6 or Qh4,
implying that the black king is the target. Others realize that the problem is more
subtle, and that perhaps the pawn on f5 is the weakness to attack. And here comes
the trap: it happened more than once that players in the neighbourhood of 1900-2000
Elo suggest 49.Qe5??, completely forgetting about tactics – the queen drops due to
the discovered attack 49...Ne3+.
One student tried to fix this mistake by quickly suggesting an ‘improvement’:
49.Qh3??, which loses to an even more trivial tactic – a 49...Ndf4+ / 49...Nef4+
fork.
In the game, though, Etienne Bacrot demonstrated an elegant positional idea to
convert White’s advantage:
49.Bd1!
Maneuvering the bishop to the better diagonal a2-g8, while also clearing the f3-
square for the queen. This way, White can combine the attack on the weak f-pawn
with x-raying the black pieces on the bishop’s new diagonal.

49...Qc6 50.Kg1 f4 51.Qg2 Qd6 52.Bb3 Ndc7 53.Qg5 Ke8 54.Qf5 Kd8 55.a4
Qe7 56.a5 bxa5 57.Bxa5 Ke8 58.Bxc7 Nxc7 59.Qc8+ Qd8 60.Qxd8+ Kxd8
61.Kg2 Na6 62.Kf3 Nc5 63.Bc4 Na4 64.b3 1-0
To remedy such tunnel vision in chess, I recommend doing whole game analysis
whenever possible, as opposed to primarily solving positions on diagrams or
studying game fragments with specific topics. For the same reason, one should
always try to complement study resources for specific areas with good general
improvement material, such as annotated game collections of strong players.
Now, let us break down the general study areas into more specific ones. Please refer
to the table below.
Table 3.1: Specific study areas
Openings
Tactics Endgames Middlegames General improvement
Opening
strategies
Tactical
motifs/patterns
Basic
theoretical
endgames
Basic
positional
patterns
Analysis of your own
games
Opening
repertoire/theory
-
General
Tactical
combinations
and problems
Basic
endgame
principles
Pawn play
Best
games/Tournament
collections
Opening
repertoire/theory
-
White
Attack and
Defense
Pawn
endgames
Positional
evaluation
and decision
making
Instructive game
collections
Opening
repertoire/theory
-
Black
Calculation
Rook
endgames
Positional
sacrifice
Biography/Inspirational
Double-edged
positions
Knight
endgames
Piece
coordination
General advice/Chess
psychology
Initiative
Opposite-
colored
bishops’
endgames
Bishop pair
advantage
Study program

Openings
Tactics Endgames Middlegames General improvement
Counterattack
Same-
colored
bishops
endgames
Spatial
advantage
Sacrificing
Endgames
with minor
pieces
Planning
Compensation
Queen
endgames
Typical
central pawn
structures
Visualization
Multi-
piece
endgames
Typical
middlegame
strategies
Imagination
Endgames
with
material
imbalances
Prophylactic
thinking
Endgame
technique
Increasing
advantage
Endgame
studies
Maneuvering
Strategic
decision
making
Piece
exchanges
Pawn
structure
decisions

This is by no means a definite list of specific areas that one can study, but it should
provide a rather comprehensive overview. Some of these areas can be studied from
resources that were specifically designed with them in mind, while others can be
studied indirectly from more general resources. For instance, if you would like to
study typical central pawn structures, you will surely find books (or a chapter within
a book) and video courses on that topic. On the other hand, finding study resources
dedicated to developing a sense for piece coordination will be more difficult. To
work on this aspect of your game, you may need to take an indirect approach; for
example, study games of players like Petrosian or Carlsen and hope that this quality
abundant in their play will rub off on you.
Chess player levels
In the book, we will use the following classification of chess player levels*:
* I use the international standard, the FIDE Elo rating.
1. Intermediate player (1500-1800 Elo)
2. Advanced player (1800-2100 Elo)
3. Improving youngster (1900-2200 Elo)
4. Master-level player (2100-2400 Elo)
5. Strong titled player (2400+ Elo)
Please bear in mind that the player levels above are approximate. We could argue
about things like whether a 1750-rated player who has recently beaten a few 1900s
is more than an intermediate player or whether a 2100-rated player is a master-level
player or not, but that is beside the point. While there will always be some obvious
differences even between players that have a 100-point rating difference, I decided
to round off the player level groups to 300 rating points for simplicity’s sake. If you
believe that you belong to a different group than what your current rating indicates,
you are free to make the upgrade (or downgrade, if you are self-critical!) and follow
the study advice for the level that you find to be the most appropriate.
I should also add a note about ‘Improving youngsters’. I decided to include this
increasingly important segment of chess players into this classification because it
was difficult to place them in any of the other rating-based groups. The first reason
for that is that while they usually improve quicker than regular club players do, they
are sometimes still ‘too green’ to be considered master-level players even when they
firmly cross into 2000+ territory. Secondly, and this is related to the previous point,
their performances, and, consequently, their rating (mostly due to the K=40 rating

change factor) tend to be more volatile than those of other groups of comparable
level. I know of several young players who have jumped from low 2000s to 2300
FIDE within a short period, only to lose much of their rating gains in the next couple
of tournaments. Thus, it is often difficult to assess the real strength of improving
young players just based on their current rating. Also, due to their typically rapid
bursts of improvement, they require some different study approaches than adult
players of a similar level. For all these reasons, I decided to put them in a separate
group for the purposes of this book.
One burning question that virtually every chess player has is: ‘Which areas should I
focus on and how should I distribute my study time between them?’. I do not think
that this question has a simple answer as different people have different study needs.
I have coached players of a similar level who had markedly different strengths and
weaknesses in their play, so they needed to focus on diametrically opposite things in
their study. As a matter of fact, any given chess player has had different study
priorities at various stages of their development. In that sense, the best way to
determine the right study mix is to identify your key study areas (discussed later in
this chapter) and create an individual study plan (discussed in Chapter 9).
That said, I believe that we can also make some generalizations when answering
this question. If we tap into the vast collective experience of chess players who have
evidenced all stages of chess player’s development, whether as players or coaches,
we can usually get some useful general information about the distribution of study
areas. For example, take a look at the study advice for improving players by three
grandmasters:
Garry Kasparov: ‘Analyzing abilities must be supported by the development of
calculation abilities, knowledge of typical plans and methods of play plus
knowledge of endgame exact theoretical positions.’
Csaba Balogh: ‘I would recommend to them to solve combinations, study the
classics and theoretical endgames. All World Champions had different styles, one
can master all elements of chess with them. They should learn the basics from these
three things if they want to be strong one day.’
Jonathan Hawkins, ‘In terms of memorizing variations, especially [for players
rated] below about 2000, I would tone [opening study] way down, maybe 10% of
your study time or less.
Tactical puzzles/analytical training is quite important. I would give 20% of time to
this. The remaining 70% is the part players find difficult. You need to study a

combination of master games, your own games, and be a student of the endgame.’
If we combine these answers and try to extrapolate some patterns, a reasonable
approximation of general study area distribution for an improving chess player
would look something like this:
• Openings: 10%
• Tactics: 25%
• Endgames: 25%
• Middlegames: 20%
• General Improvement: 20%
Surprised? Well, as I said, this is just an approximation, but it could be something to
think about. Perhaps you should think about reducing your opening work in favor of
endgames, after all...
Since I also believe that the distribution of study areas is an important issue for
chess players of all levels, I would like to contribute to this discussion with my own
insights. Below, I provide my general study area guidelines for each of the five
player levels listed above. Even if some guidelines may not apply to everyone, this
overview can be helpful to many people when creating their study plans. This is
especially true for players below the master level who have some typical gaps in
knowledge and skills they need to fill to become well-rounded chess players. So,
here we go:
1. Intermediate player (1500-1800 Elo)
Openings
• Create a simple opening repertoire with both colors, nothing too deep; usually
memorizing a couple of key lines 10-12 moves in depth will suffice. You might lose
an occasional game due to lack of opening knowledge, but against players of similar
strength the game will usually be decided in the later stages.
• Learn about typical opening ideas and strategies and how to fully appreciate the
importance of quick development in the opening. At this stage, this is more
important than memorizing forced opening variations.
• A 1.e4 or 1.d4 repertoire is the preferred suggestion with White to appreciate how
the role of the pawn center, natural piece development, initiative and space
advantage translate into the middlegame. There is no urgency to study the main
lines; sidelines or ‘systems’, if learned properly, are completely acceptable.

• With black, I would suggest defenses with simple pawn structures and active piece
play (e.g., Rubinstein Variation of the French Defense, Queen’s Gambit Accepted,
Tarrasch Defense). I would stay away from positionally dubious (e.g., the
Scandinavian Gambit), passive (e.g., Old-Indian) or theoretically demanding
openings (e.g., the Grünfeld) at this stage.
Tactics and Endgames
• The primary focus should be on increasing tactical and endgame skills. This is
where players of this level tend to show the most inconsistency that will cost them
tournament points.
• Tactics should be practiced daily to develop tactical triggers that allow you to spot
tactics quickly in your games, as well as to improve your calculation.
• Solve a lot of pawn endgames exercises and simple endgame studies. These are the
fundamentals of endgames and will also help you improve your calculation skills.
Middlegames
• Read/watch a couple of good fundamental books/video courses on middlegame
topics and track how these ideas were or could have been applied in your games.
• It is okay to make most positional and strategic decisions simply by following
well-accepted guidelines that work in most cases. Thinking outside the box is
usually counter-productive without a big enough knowledge base.
General improvement
• The help of a coach with game analysis and general advice can be greatly
beneficial for improvement at this stage.
• Study classical games of great players such as Capablanca and Alekhine regularly
to increase your general level of understanding and obtain inspiration.
2. Advanced player (1800-2100 Elo)
Tactics
• The main advantage of players at this level compared to intermediate players is
that they control the game better tactically.
• Keep practicing tactics regularly.
• Start challenging yourself with difficult tactical and calculation exercises at some
point.
Endgames

• Endgames should remain a large portion of a club player’s staple study.
• Knowledge of the most important theoretical endgames should be supported by a
more detailed study of typical endgames sorted by material balance (e.g ., rook
endgames, knight endgames, opposite-colored bishops’ endgames, etc.) .
• Study a good resource on endgame technique.
• Get into the habit of solving endgame studies regularly.
Openings
• The importance and complexity of opening work increases to a small degree.
• Consulting a more advanced opening resource or two will help you create a
reliable modern opening repertoire with both colors.
• Learning a strategically complex opening, such as the Ruy Lopez, the Nimzo-
Indian or King’s Indian Defenses, can be an excellent way to improve understanding
of various typical pawn structures and ideas in the middlegame.
• There is still no need for big opening work at this stage, like memorizing topical
lines and searching for new ideas, because much greater learning potential lies in
other study areas. It is best to simply follow variations and ideas from the opening
resources that you have chosen and focus more on the middlegame and endgame
study.
Middlegames
• Chess players at this level also tend to play conceptually more meaningful chess
than intermediate players, as they increasingly prefer mini-plans based on a
particular positional feature (weakness, bad piece, open file) to fleeting tactical or
positional threats, or attempts of a direct attack that are more common in games of
intermediate players.
• Expand your knowledge about pawn structures, typical middlegame strategies, and
start paying attention to exceptions from the well-known positional principles (‘rule
independence’), etc.
General Improvement
• As tournament experience accumulates, pick up a book or two on general
improvement and study it seriously.
• Analyze your own games regularly to identify strengths and weaknesses in play, as
well as to develop analytical skills.

• Study a couple of best/instructive game collections and try to study interesting
non-annotated games on your own in a similar way.
3. Improving youngster (1900-2200 Elo)
Openings
• This is probably the area to which improving youngsters tend to devote most of
their study time. However, this work must be:
1. balanced well with the study of other areas; and
2. done smartly.
Many a young player has fallen into typical traps of modern opening study:
overusing the engine, putting too much emphasis on memorization of forcing
opening lines, playing too many openings with superficial knowledge, etc. When it
comes to building an opening repertoire, it is better to specialize in one or two
systems/defenses with White and Black, instead of following the path of top players
who change their openings very frequently.
Tactics
• Usually young players are ahead of adult players of a similar level when it comes
to tactical skills.
• However, some typical shortcomings in this area are missing the opponent’s
resources in calculation, impulsiveness in attack, and misevaluating positions with
material imbalances. Consequently, these are typically the key study areas to work
on while honing other tactical skills.
Endgames
• Young players should take endgame study seriously (which is not always the case,
to put it mildly), especially the technical aspects. In the first chapter, I have already
shared my own experience of jumping from improving youngster/master-level
player to strong titled player category within a year after doing some serious work
on this part of my game.
• Young players should also try to solve endgame studies regularly.
Middlegames
• Positional and strategic concepts are often rather abstract for young players’
concrete approach to the game. Fortunately, they usually make up for it by playing a
lot and quickly learning about them through practice and analysis of their games.

• Nevertheless, it is strongly recommended for young players and their coaches to
devote a substantial amount of study time to improving positional understanding and
strategic ways of thinking, because it is usually here where young players have the
greatest potential for overall improvement.
• Mutual analysis with a knowledgeable coach is one of the best ways for a young
player to understand subtle issues like how to exploit weaknesses by improving the
position slowly vs forcing tactical complications; when to exchange pieces vs when
to keep the tension; how to play closed positions, etc.
General improvement
• Young players tend to be very impressionable, so it is important that they acquire
good role models in chess, whether it is an ex-World Champion, a contemporary
world-class player, or even their coach.
• Alexander Kotov said: ‘It is a duty of a young player to know the history of chess
and to study the best games of the past.’
• Study more advanced general improvement material and try to put into practice the
methods and advice from these resources. This is one of the best ways for young
players to mature their game and eventually make a seamless transfer from junior to
senior chess.
When it comes to master-level players and strong titled players, providing a similar
set of recommendations for particular areas is a less straightforward job. These are
already quite competent chess players whose command of various aspects of the
game is pretty consistent, so they are usually at the upgrade rather than the building
up stage. Therefore, their study needs will depend largely on their relative
weaknesses (things like gaps in the opening repertoire, calculation issues, lack of
positional finesse, time management, etc.) . Having this in mind, I would like to
share my observations about some of their typical strengths and weaknesses. If you
are a player of one of these levels yourself, you may use these notes to make your
own conclusions about areas that you might need to work on.
4. Master-level player (2100- 2400 Elo)
Typical strengths
• Ability to recognize well-known patterns, both tactical and positional, and apply
‘textbook’ methods of play.
• Playing positionally sound chess overall (paying attention to positional
weaknesses, king’s safety, and piece coordination).

• Ability to find and execute straightforward ideas (e.g., if you need to find a
winning combination or a plan to convert an advantage, you will usually do it).
• Feeling comfortable in familiar opening/middlegame schemes and strategically
simple positions.
• Solid overall general knowledge.
Typical weaknesses
• Lack of strategic depth (short-sighted plans, not proficient with pawn structures
and their transformations, simplifying position to your own detriment, not using
prophylactic thinking enough, etc.).
• Unconvincing endgame technique.
• Rarely finding strong counter-intuitive resources (backward moves, counter-
intuitive piece exchanges, atypical tactical ideas, etc.), due to a relatively high
reliance on the known ideas and patterns.
• Missing tactical subtleties and complex combinations.
• Having trouble evaluating imbalanced positions correctly.
5. Strong titled player (2400+ Elo)
International Masters and Grandmasters have a broad knowledge and a fairly deep
understanding of the game, which allows them to find the best move in a wide
variety of situations that can arise on the chessboard. Even if this may not be
obvious to lower-rated players, they also have shortcomings and weaknesses that
they need to work on. A 2700-GM can usually exploit the weak areas of a 2550-
GM, just as a 2550-GM can do it against a 2400-IM. As I have been in the
neighbourhood of 2550 for what seems to be an eternity and have myself spent more
than a few challenging years climbing up from IM to GM ranks, I think that I can
identify typical differences between IMs and GMs fairly accurately. I hope that the
overview of these differences below can help ambitious IMs pinpoint important
areas for improvement as they pursue the highest title in chess.
Compared to International Masters, Grandmasters are generally:
• getting more promising positions out of the opening, or understanding the
middlegame that arises out of the opening better,
• stronger at technical play: squeezing out slightly better positions, defending worse
positions, converting winning endgames, keeping tension in balanced positions,
maneuvering in static positions, etc.,

• better at finding critical continuations to keep the initiative, increase psychological
pressure, or fight back in an inferior position, and
• better at sustaining a consistent level of play in a tense game (i.e ., avoiding big
mistakes due to pressure or fatigue).
Key study areas
In Chapter 9, we will discuss in more detail how to divide study time between
different study areas. In general, it is a good idea to have regular study routines for
each major study area. However, this is not everything; you should also identify
problematic areas in your play and work on them systematically. They say that you
are only as strong as your weakest link, so it makes a lot of sense to prioritize
working on chronic weaknesses that you detect in your games. Or, to quote
grandmaster Grivas: ‘The difference in chess strength is determined by the
frequency of mistakes in one’s games. ... A chess-player who wishes to improve
must learn from his mistakes. The most important lesson to be learned is not to
repeat them with the same frequency.’ In order to avoid recurring mistakes in
problematic aspects of your game in the future, you should start by identifying your
key study areas. There are several ways to detect such areas in your play:
1. Analyzing your games carefully;
2. Asking an experienced coach to analyze your games for you (especially
recommended for lower-rated and less experienced players);
3. Solve a diagnostic test for a particular area (available as online resources or in
specialized exercise books);
4. Rely on the personal judgement or other people’s remarks (less reliable).
While the last three approaches have their merits (okay, the last one makes sense
only if you find yourself or the other person to be frank enough!), the analysis of
your own games is a time-tested approach for rooting out weaknesses and
strengthening other areas of the game along the way.
Much has been written on this subject in chess literature. Many strong players
regard it as one of the pillars of chess improvement. A well-known Ukrainian
grandmaster and coach Adrian Mikhalchishin reported that: ‘Alexander Grischuk,
after instructions of his trainer Anatoly Bykhovsky, started a program of analysis of
his own games at the age of 14. At the beginning he produced one page of analyses,
later it was more and more. At the age of 18, some of his analyzed games had 20
pages!’ I guess that now we know at least a part of the answer to the question: ‘Why

is Grischuk always in time trouble?’ – The man loves to analyze thoroughly, even
while playing a game!
Coming back to Mikhalchishin; in one of the FIDE Trainer Commission syllabi,
he provided a more or less definite overview of the benefits and possible problems
with the analysis of our own games. They are listed below (with some grammatical
revisions from the original source):
Benefits of game analysis:
1. Deepen our understanding of various positions and translate this knowledge into
a practical game.
2. Spot critical moments and typical mistakes in them.
3. Make a selection of mistakes at critical moments and analyze them technically
and statistically. You need at least 50 examples.
4. Identify areas where there are gaps in knowledge or understanding, as well as
strong areas of the game.*
* Points 3 and 4 in Mikhalchishin’s list refer to the identification of key study areas.
5. Understand better the psychological and emotional profile of yourself as a
player.
6. Repetition before every tournament helps to avoid these typical weaknesses in
future games.
7. Finding a proper set of exercises or classical games to eliminate certain types of
mistakes.
Possible problems during analysis, according to Mikhalchishin, are:
1. Low quality of the analysis. It leads to a wrong evaluation of the critical
moments.
2. Analysis is not deep enough on every move. Laziness.
3. Analyzing only your own moves, but not the opponent’s, which are just as
important and instructive. We must analyze the position, not just the particular
moves.
4. Absence of conclusions after the analysis.
5. Absence of typical mistakes selection.
Regardless of which exact procedure you uses for their your analysis, it is useful to
keep these general guidelines in mind. In the next section, I provide practical

suggestions for game analysis and offer actionable advice for an ambitious chess
player.
How to analyze your games
Technically, the analysis of your game starts right after it has finished – you might
exchange a few courteous words with your opponent while still at the board or do a
longer postmortem analysis outside the playing hall. On the way home or back to
your hotel room, the emotions from the game are usually still fresh, so you might go
over the critical moments in your mind or try to find a solution to a bugging
question from the game. Sometimes you also discuss the game with your friends or
club/team colleagues to get a few more insights and encouragement, but at the end
of the day, we all know where the answers to all our questions and doubts reside –
with its silicon majesty, the all-knowing chess engine on your computer.
It is very tempting to analyze the game with an engine right after it has finished. I
reckon that most people do it this way to obtain clarity or to satisfy their curiosity,
and I have often done the same in the past. However, I have recently come to the
conclusion that, in this particular case, ignorance is bliss. I have abandoned the
practice of turning on the engine after the game for already a few years now and I
will explain what and why I do instead. Please keep in mind that I have a typical
tournament scenario in mind (where games are played back to back or on the next
day) and not the weekly club or league games.
Firstly, when you analyze with an engine right after the game, you invest
additional mental energy. In most cases, you are already tired from the game and the
next game is either in the afternoon or the next day, so it is better to take some rest
instead. Secondly, this way you might also waste your emotional energy supplies
(which are especially important for a steady performance in a tournament) by
beating yourself up over missed opportunities that the engine points out and things
like that. It is better to take your mind off the game as soon as possible, regardless of
the result, and engage in something relaxing or fun to restore your mental and
emotional balance before the next game. Only if there was something important in
the opening that may influence my opening choices in the remainder of the
tournament will I consult the engine, but that will probably be on another day and
not right after the game, anyway. Finally, analyzing your game with an engine right
after the game makes it less likely that you will revisit it for a deeper analysis at
home, because you might feel like there is nothing more to analyze once you have
already checked the critical moments from the game.

Here is what I usually do when I get to my laptop after the game (and I would
suggest doing the same to anyone):
1. Enter the game into the ‘My games’ database;
2. Do not turn on the engine at any point;
3. Try to briefly recollect my calculations and thoughts from relevant moments of
the game and record them;
4. Make a note of the time spent on longer thinks and mark the start of time
pressure (if there was one);
5. Save these raw notes and move on.
This process takes about 15-20 minutes for one game. It can be done in the evening
if you didn’t have time for it during the day. It is also possible to do it right after the
tournament has finished, although your memories of certain calculations will be
blurry, so I prefer the above-mentioned approach. As a rule, I analyze the games
from a tournament in detail at home, when I am emotionally less involved in them
and have more time to properly analyze them. The raw notes and time spent that
were recorded during the tournament are a good starting point for a more thorough
analysis.
One quick note before we move on: I suggest that you keep a database with all of
your rated games on all time controls (classical, rapid, blitz) and analyze each one of
them. This requires a little bit of discipline, but it is the best way to track and stay
focused on your progress.
Now, let us talk about the actual game analysis process. I will not lie to you – I
usually analyze the game at home with the engine turned on. However, most chess
players should avoid analyzing their games like this. I will explain below why
experienced players like myself can get away with this double standard.
While I analyze the game and the engine is running in the background, it is usually
not a problem for me to insulate my own ideas from the engine’s constant stream of
suggestions and to think deeply about the problems in the position when necessary,
especially since I have already pondered many of them while playing and briefly
analyzing the game. Sometimes, the engine will suggest a move and I will think of a
reply that seems logical, or I will come up with an idea myself, feed it to the engine
and wait for its reply. That way, the analysis can be done without the engine
completely dominating it, as we have already discussed in Chapter 2. In addition,
the experience of evaluating chess positions on my own and of working with an

engine for many years help me challenge the engine’s evaluations and suggestions
when they seem a bit off. For example, in a certain position the engine might give a
0.10 evaluation, but I might already feel like the position is easier to play for Black;
or a -0.30 evaluation by the engine might just be an unclear position with mutual
chances in which it overestimates static factors in the position, like a space
advantage, so one has to dig deeper for a more accurate evaluation.
However, for most chess players, the above is usually not the case. In the first
chapter (section ‘Shallow study approach’), I already reported about my own engine
misuse due to inexperience with it, even though I was already at a decent IM level
back then! The thing is that when chess players with a lack of general analytical
experience and engine-analysis mileage analyze like this, it becomes highly likely
that the engine will take over the analysis and that their creative input will suffer
greatly. The lower your overall chess level is, the more this is true because you trust
the engine as the only authority to a greater extent. Thus, unless you are a seasoned
chess analyst with a plenty of experience working with chess engines, I would
advise strongly against running an engine while you analyze your games if you want
to get the most benefit from this process. Instead, I would suggest you to loosely
follow the procedure below:
1. In the first round of analysis, analyze the game on your own without the
engine’s help according to deep analysis principles that were covered in Chapter 2.
You can analyze the game with a coach or a training partner just as well.
2. Focus on a thorough analysis of the critical moments in the game.
3. Check the variations that you calculated in the game, but also look for
alternatives that you or your opponent might have missed.
4. Add comments where necessary (there is no need to write a ‘Dear diary’ of your
thought process on every single move, though).
5. Attach your evaluations at the end of each analyzed line.
6. Once you have detailed notes of your game, check the analysis with an engine.
If it helps, think of the engine check as a reward for the work that you have done
on your own.
7. If the engine points out another important idea or branch, analyze it more
thoroughly. If it disagrees with your evaluation of a certain line, try to figure out
why and revise it.

8. Once the game has been fully analyzed, make a list of mistakes that you have
made.
Here is what a final product of such an analysis would look like:
Game 31
Zdenko Kozul 2596
Davorin Kuljasevic 2549
Croatia tt 2017 (4)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Bd6!?
I prepared this interesting system carefully before the game to surprise my opponent
who had certainly prepared for similar positions with the bishop on e7.
6.Nf3 0-0 7.0-0 Nbd7 8.Qb3 c6 9.Bb4
This move is typical for Kozul’s playing style. The exchange of dark-squared
bishops is positionally useful for White in the long term. However, by playing like
this, he begins lagging behind in development slightly. Objectively speaking, the
strongest move was 9.Nc3, preparing e2-e4 at the right moment. White has chances
to obtain an advantage.
9...Bxb4 10.Qxb4 a5 11.Qd6?!

This is an unusual move, although I quickly understood my opponent’s logic. He
realized that the best square for the queen would be on f4, so he wanted to maneuver
it there via d6. If he could also manage to play Nbd2 and a rook to c1, his position
would be better. However, this idea runs into a tactical problem – the c4-pawn is
hanging, and the white pieces are not well-developed. White players are accustomed
to sacrificing this pawn in the Catalan, so Kozul probably underestimated my reply.
In case of 11.Qb3, I had planned to continue 11...b5 12.cxb5 cxb5, and in my
opinion, despite weaknesses on the dark squares, Black should obtain good play
thanks to his better pieces. For example: 13.Rc1 Ba6 14.e3 Ne4 15.Nc3 Nd6
16.Qd1 Qb6 17.Ne2 b4 18.Nf4 Rfc8 1⁄2-1⁄2 Slugin-Turov, Russia tt 2010.
11...dxc4
A few alternatives existed, such as 11...Ne4, followed by 12...b6 or 12...b5, but the
game move was by far the most attractive and I spent most of my time on it. After
calculating some important variations, I concluded that this principled move should
give me good play.
12.Nbd2
Other options for White are 12.Na3 Ne8! 13.Qf4 b5 14.Ne5 Nxe5 15.dxe5 Qb6
16.Rfd1 Nc7 17.Rd6 Nd53, and, relatively the best, 12.Rc1 b5 (12...Ra6!? 13.Rxc4
c5 14.Qf4 b5 15.Rc1 cxd4 16.Qxd4 Bb7 17.Nbd2 Qa8=) 13.Qxc6 Rb8 14.Qd6 Rb6
15.Qf4 Bb7∞.
12...b5!
This is the point behind taking on c4 and a move that, judging by his body language,
Kozul had either missed or underestimated. White would obtain a pleasant edge
after 12...Nb6 13.Qxd8 Rxd8 14.Rfc1, of course.
13.e4
Probably the best practical choice, although White will not have enough
compensation in this type of position. In case of 13.Qxc6 Rb8, Black’s position is
for preference considering his strong queenside pawn majority. For example:
14.Qd6 Rb6 15.Qa3 a4 16.e4 Bb73.

13...Bb7 14.Qf4?
Carelessness on White’s part. It was necessary to undermine Black’s queenside
structure with 14.a4 at once.
14...c5?
Of course, I saw that I could freeze the queenside with 14...a4, with a clearly better
position. However, here one flaw in my play – IMPATIENCE – reared its ugly head.
I wanted to initiate active play in the center with the game move immediately, but
there was no rush to do it. I was unduly concerned about 15.e5 Nd5 16.Qg4 c5
17.Ne4 and failed to calculate a couple of moves further. It turns out that Black is
just winning after 17...cxd4 18.Nd6 Nxe5! (or even 18...Bc6 19.Qxd4 (19.Nxd4
Nxe5–+) 19...Nb4–+) 19.Nxb7 Nxg4 20.Nxd8 Raxd8. This kind of SHALLOW
CALCULATION happens quite often.
15.a4„
Of course. White is still worse, but now he at least obtains some counterplay on the
queenside.
15...bxa4

A simple solution that I had prepared on the previous move. However, the other
candidate move 15...cxd4 that I had not calculated properly, also leads to a good, if
not an even better position for Black. After 16.e5, Black has a very promising piece
sacrifice that hadn’t crossed my mind in the game: 16...c3! 17.bxc3 (Black does
even better in case of 17.exf6 Nxf6 18.Nb3 cxb2 19.Rab1 bxa4 20.Nc5, and now
20...a3! 21.Nxb7 Qb6μ. All eight black pawns are still on the board, mind you!)
17...dxc3 18.exf6 Nxf6 19.Nb3 b4μ, with a great position.
16.Rfc1
The strongest move in the position, preparing Rxc4. My impression is that Kozul
generally shows his greatest strength exactly in positions where one has to find the
best piece arrangement or a certain positional finesse.
16...cxd4
The other candidate I had was 16...Qb8, but I thought that after 17.Rxc4 Qxf4 (or
17...cxd4 18.Qxb8 Rfxb8 19.Nxd43) 18.gxf4, White would had better chances to
defend without the queens on the board. For example 18...Nb6 19.Rxc5 Nxe4
20.Nxe4 Bxe4 21.Ne5 Bxg2 22.Kxg23, and White seems to be active enough.
17.Rxc4
Another possibility was 17.e5 when I calculated 17...c3! 18.bxc3 dxc3 (however, I
completely missed the idea 18...Nd5! 19.Qxd4 N5b6 20.c4 Rc8, when Black has a
substantial advantage (over -1) according to the engine) 19.exf6 cxd2 20.Nxd2
Bxg2, but here I got disappointed because White has an intermezzo 21.fxg7,
virtually eliminating Black’s advantage. During the game, I thought that the white
pawn was still on b2 in this position, which testifies to POOR VISUALIZATION of
long variations.

(back to the PREVIEW)
This was an important moment.
17...Qb6?
Of course, the principled move was
A) 17...d3, keeping the d-pawn alive. Naturally, I saw the move and considered it to
be a good candidate, but quickly decided against calculating it. There were two
reasons for that. Firstly, I was under the strong influence of the previous round in
which I ended up in severe time pressure in a similarly complicated position. As I
did not want to watch that movie again, I decided before the game to play
reasonable moves quickly (here 17...Qb6) instead of calculating everything, to save
time. The second reason was, once again, IMPATIENCE. I wanted to develop my
queen and connect the rooks as soon as possible, not wasting time on the pawn
move. However, this is a superficial way to make decisions, especially in positions
of this sort. In fact, White’s job would be far from simple after 17...d3, as the
variations below prove:
A1) 18.Rd4 Qb6 (this is stronger now, as White cannot transfer his queen to d4)
19.Nc4 Qb5 20.Rb1 Nc5μ;
A2) 18.Rcxa4 Nc5 19.Rd4 Qb6 20.Nc4 Qb4μ;
A3) 18.Raxa4 e5! (a strong move that allows Black to win material; 18...Ba6 19.Rc1
Qb6 20.e5 Nd5 21.Qd4 is also better for Black, but White may have better drawing

chances here) 19.Nxe5 Nb6 20.Rd4 Qe7 21.Ra3 Nh5 22.Qe3 Qxe5 23.Rb3 Qc7μ.
B) I also considered 17...Qb8 18.e5 Nd5 19.Qxd4 N7b6 20.Rcc13, which I ended
up disliking since White has good piece coordination;
C) However, an interesting alternative existed: 17...Re8!? 18.e5 Nd5 19.Qxd4, and
now 19...N5b6!.
analysis diagram
I absolutely ignored this move in this and similar variations. I have also noticed in
some games from recent tournaments that such COUNTER-INTUITIVE MOVES
escape my attention. The difficulty in appreciating the strength of this move is that
the knight retreats from an active square (d5) to a square that could be used by the
more passive knight. Also, wouldn’t it be more natural to move the knight forward
(to b4) instead of backward? Obviously, chess is not such a straightforward game.
Concretely, 19...N5b6 opens the long diagonal for the bishop, while the other knight
is placed quite well on d7, in fact, defending the c5-square and keeping contact with
the e5-pawn. 20.Rc3 Rc8μ.
18.e5
In case of 18.Rcxa4 Nc5! 19.Rxd4 Qxb2 20.Rb1 Qa2μ, Black is up a healthy pawn.
18...Nd5 19.Qh4?

I think that my opponent overestimated his chances. However, as I thought about
this game later, I realized that this was an interesting psychological moment. Kozul
is a fighting player who tends to avoid drawish continuations and is ready to take a
reasonable amount of risk to win the game. This explains why he avoided a probably
drawn endgame after 19.Qxd4 and went for the riskier and objectively worse game
continuation. So, after 19.Qxd4 Qxd4 20.Nxd4! N7b6 (20...Nxe5 21.Rcxa4=)
21.Rc5 Rfc8 22.Rb5, White should be able to simplify into a drawn endgame. I
missed the knight recapture because I instinctively thought that White should protect
his e-pawn. I counted only on 20.Rxd4 Nc5μ, even though the above-mentioned
idea 20...N5b6! might be even stronger.
19...Rac8
I quickly spotted the tactical motif 19...Ne3!, but the position after 20.fxe3 dxe3
21.Ne4
analysis diagram
was not entirely clear to me. Intuitively, I felt that Black should have a good position
after taking on b2. Still, White’s pieces did not look that bad, and I was not fully
convinced that I should sacrifice a piece (even if it is for 4 pawns!) for seemingly
unclear consequences. This was how I thought in general, but I cannot say that I had

clearly calculated any of the following (truth be told, complicated) variations that
prove Black’s superiority:
A) 21...Rac8!. This is the best move. White has several options, but none of them
seem to suffice:
A1) After the exchange of pair of rooks 22.Rxc8 Rxc8 23.Re1 Qxb2, the a-pawn is a
runner: 24.Qf4 a3 25.Qxe3 a2 26.Qd4 Rc2–+;
A2) while in the variation 22.Rcxa4 Qxb2 23.Rxa5 Rc1+ 24.Rxc1 Qxc1+ 25.Bf1
e2–+, it is the e-pawn;
A3) 22.Nd6 Qxb2 23.Rf1 e2 24.Re1 Rxc4 25.Nxc4 Qb4 26.Rxe2 a3–+, and White
cannot stop the march of the a-pawn in a satisfactory way. His queen is isolated on
the kingside.
B) 21...Bd5!? is another good option: 22.Rcxa4 (22.Rc2 Rac8 23.Re2 Rc4 24.Ne1
Nc5–+) 22...Qxb2 23.Ne1! Nxe5 24.Qf4μ;
(back to the PREVIEW)
C) The immediate 21...Qxb2 is not as strong due to 22.Rcc1! a3 23.Rcb1 Rac8!
24.Ne1!, with the following amusing line: 24...Nxe5!? 25.Rxb2 axb2 26.Rb1 Rc1
27.Nc3 Ba6∞. This is one of those imbalanced positions that you might want to
analyze as an exercise to improve your tactical skills.
Of course, no one can calculate all of these complicated variations over the board,
but one should at least make an effort (which I didn’t). My superficial impression
was that White would also be able to develop his own play on the kingside, but these
variations show that he simply has no time for that, as Black is the one that controls
the tempo and holds the initiative. The a-pawn is strong in many lines, the white
queen is isolated and his piece coordination is poor. While the alternative played in
the game is decent, the mistake I made here was not OVERCOMING
RESISTANCE to calculate the critical move 19...Ne3.
20.Bf1
This move had surprised me, but it is also quite typical of Kozul’s way of thinking.
He usually looks for the best squares for his pieces. The bishop seems to be doing
nothing on g2, so it is rerouted to d3 from where it attacks the kingside, blocks the
d-pawn and controls some important squares in the center. However, once more in
this game, his slow maneuvering play runs into a dynamic problem.

I should also point out that the main idea behind 19...Rac8 is that after 20.Rxd4
Qxb2 21.Rb1, Black has 21...Rc1+–+ . Objectively speaking, the strongest was
20.Qxd4 but a few people would ‘admit their mistake’ like this.
20...Ne3!
Of course, there was no way that I would miss the second chance to play this move,
even more so because new tactical motifs have appeared, rendering the knight on e3
immune.
21.Bd3
In case of 21.fxe3 dxe3, Black threatens to win a piece in two ways. In the game, I
saw a nice line: 22.Rxc8 Rxc8 (22...exd2+ also wins, though) 23.Nc4 Rxc4!
24.Bxc4 Bxf3, and the white king is in a mating net.
21...Nf5?!
Again, displaying IMPATIENCE and trying to force the issue. I did not consider the
cool-headed 21...h6 at all. White has a choice of moves at his disposal, but none of
them helps improve his position.
A) 22.fxe3 dxe3 23.Ne4 allows Black to grab a bunch of material with a forced
sequence: 23...e2+ 24.Kg2 Rxc4 25.Bxc4 Qxb2 26.Re1 Nxe5 27.Rxe2 Nxf3–+;

B) 22.Rxd4 Qxb2 23.Re1, and here Black has a beautiful winning combination:
23...Nxe5! 24.Nxe5 Ng2!;
C) 22.Rxc8 Rxc8 23.Qxd4 Qxd4 24.Nxd4 Nxe5 25.Be4 Bxe4 26.Nxe4 a3! (a cool
intermezzo) 27.bxa3 Nd5 with excellent winning chances for Black in the endgame.
22.Qf4?
Here I understood that White had lost the control of the game. It was necessary to
enter a worse endgame with 22.Bxf5 exf5 23.Qxd4 Qxd4 24.Rxd4 Nc5μ which,
incidentally, is quite similar to what happened later in the game.
22...Rxc4 23.Nxc4 Qc6
The engine likes 23...Qb3!?–+ even better, but I find the continuation from the game
to be more straightforward.
24.Ncd2 Nc5!
A strong move that Kozul, by his own admission, had missed. The point is that
...Nb3 is the winning tactical shot in several lines.
25.Bxf5 exf5
Black should be completely winning now.
26.Rc1
The only move that stops 26...Nb3. Taking either one of two hanging pawns would
lead to a quick end in view of the knight jump to b3.

(back to the PREVIEW)
This was the critical moment. Time trouble was approaching, and I saw a line in
which I get a clearly better endgame with no risk, so I played
26...Qd5?!.
However, by playing it safe, I simplified my opponent’s defensive task. I knew that
it was better to keep the queens on the board and had considered 26...Rd8, but I was
bothered by the move 27.Qh4. I stopped calculating here, even though a simple
solution existed: 27...Rd7!, and Black is completely winning, since White cannot
take advantage of the pin on the c-file nor the back-rank weakness. Throughout the
game, I kept OVERESTIMATING OPPONENT’S CHANCES and repeatedly failed
to OVERCOME RESISTANCE in my calculations.
27.Qxd4 Ne6!
This is the best way to enter the endgame. Other knight moves allow White to
develop some counterplay: 27...Nd3 28.Rc7 and 27...Nb3 28.Qxd5 Bxd5 29.Nxb3
axb3 30.Nd4.
28.Qxd5 Bxd5
Black controls all the important squares on the c-file, forcing White into passivity.

29.Ne1 Rb8 30.Nd3 Be4?!
This was a somewhat careless decision. I had about 10 minutes left to make the last
10 moves before the time control and I kept making moves at a fairly quick pace,
not calculating variations PATIENTLY enough. It was necessary to secure the back
rank with 30...g5, when Black can strengthen his position as he pleases. For
example, 31.Kf1 and now even 31...Be4 works because Black’s king is safe
(31...Bb7!? preparing 32...Ba6 also looks good): 32.Nxe4 fxe4 33.Nc5 Rxb2
34.Nxe4 a3 35.Ra1 a2 36.Nc3 Rb3 37.Nxa2 Ra3–+ .
31.Nc5
I underestimated this move. I mostly focused on 31.Nxe4 fxe4 32.Nc5 Rc8 33.Nd3
Rxc1+ 34.Nxc1 Nc5, when Black should get a winning knights’ endgame. Even
though the move is not exceptionally strong, not taking it into account when playing
my 30th move had an adverse psychological effect, resulting in an immediate
mistake.
(back to the PREVIEW)
31...Rxb2?
I dropped down to a couple of minutes and ended up making this move in a rush,
thinking that it still gave me good winning chances. However, I completely

misevaluated the minor pieces endgame that I could force with 31...Rc8 32.Ncb3
Rxc1+ 33.Nxc1. After the game, Kozul pointed out 33...g5!, a strong move that
isolates the e5-pawn since f2-f4 is not possible anymore, while also clearing space
for the black king. He was confident in Black’s winning chances in this endgame,
while I thought that I would need to keep the rooks on the board to win. Obviously,
my evaluation of TYPICAL ENDGAMES turned out to be a big problem here.
Further analysis confirms my opponent’s assessment: 34.Kf1 Kg7 35.Ke2 Nd4+
36.Ke3 Nc2+ 37.Ke2 Kg6 38.f3 Bd5 39.Kd3 Nb4+ 40.Kd4 f4! 41.g4 h5 42.h3
Be6 should be gradually winning for Black.
32.Ndxe4 fxe4 33.Nxa4
The only move.
33...Rb5?
A very naive mistake in time trouble. Of course, the most natural move and the one
that I wanted to make initially was 33...Rb8 34.Rc4, but I did not see a nice
desperado: 34...e3!? 35.fxe3 h6, and Black keeps winning chances. I calculated only
the transition into the knights endgame with: 34...g5 35.Rxe4 Rb4 36.Rxb4 axb4
37.Kg2 Kg7 38.Kf3 Kg6 39.g4μ, but I could not assess if it would be enough to
win. On a second inspection, the outside passed pawn definitely gives Black
winning chances.
34.Rc8+ Nf8 35.Re8=
White is active enough now to hold a draw. I saw this move in advance, but thought
that I would quickly untangle with ...g7-g5 or ...g7-g6 and proceed to convert the
extra pawn. However, as I calculated hectically in time trouble, I missed that
White’s knight could reach the f6-square once I move the g-pawn.
35...g6 36.Nc3 Rb4 37.Nd5 Rb1+ 38.Kg2 Kg7 39.Nf6„
White is much more active than Black, and a draw is inevitable.
39...Rb4 40.h4 h5 41.Ra8 Rb5 42.Ne8+ Kg8 43.Nf6+ Kg7 44.Ne8+ 1⁄2-1⁄2
Here is a summary of the typical mistakes I made in this game:

1. HAZY CALCULATION
Especially in seemingly unclear positions and when under time pressure. Becoming
nervous already 10-15 minutes before time trouble starts, which affects the accuracy
of my calculations. Not using my opponent’s time to calculate as much as I could.
2. NOT OVERCOMING RESISTANCE
Stopping my calculations too early because of laziness to calculate further or
premature intuitive evaluation of the position.
3. IMPATIENCE
Trying to go for forced lines so as not to give the opponent an opportunity to make a
move I might not have expected. Avoiding calculation of non-forcing variations.
4. POSITIONAL and TACTICAL DOGMATISM
I sometimes miss moves (for myself and the opponent) that go against some well-
known positional or tactical principles, such as the bishop pair, open file, activity,
pin, back rank weakness, etc. Not taking dynamic possibilities into account enough
when evaluating positions and lack of flexibility when making decisions.
5. LACK OF ENDGAME KNOWLEDGE
Endgames with typical material balances, pawn structures, etc. I realized this in the
post-mortem when Kozul quickly evaluated all endgames that had and could have
arisen accurately, while many of them were not clear to me.
You can see that the analysis of this game checks virtually all the boxes in
Mikhalchishin’s overview above (except for the statistical analysis of mistakes and a
study plan to eliminate them, which we will discuss shortly). Now, a fair number of
games that we play in tournaments are either smooth technical wins or uneventful
draws, so they may not be so interesting to analyze this way, even though you can
still put in the effort to do that. However, when it comes to well-fought and content-
rich games like this one, it is absolutely necessary that you analyze them thoroughly.
List of key study areas
You can also see that there is a List of mistakes (a term that you are surely familiar
with if you have read Axel Smith’s Pump up your rating or one of Dvoretsky’s early
works) at the end of this game. I suggest making such lists for all games, also those
that you won. It is important to be objective and self-critical even when we are
successful. Once you compile a good number of analyzed games, you can create an
aggregate list where you have an overview of your mistakes by type and frequency.

Mikhalchishin recommends using at least 50 games for this purpose, while Smith
suggests that 30 games are enough. More is better, of course, as the sample becomes
more representative. Below is one of my checklists for the period May 2017-May
2018, right around the time that game above was played. The sample size was about
100 analyzed FIDE-rated classical games. The mistakes were broadly grouped
according to the common area.
Table 3.2: List of mistakes
List of mistakes (games from May 2017-2018)
Total number of
mistakes in games
Calculation
Lazy calculation, not calculating deeply/concretely enough,
not overcoming resistance
73
Not considering relevant candidate moves
34
Not considering relevant candidate moves for the opponent
–
missing the opponent’s resources
28
Positional play and strategy
Superficial understanding of typical middlegame positions
36
Wrong or lack of strategic thinking
43
Too dogmatic positional decision making (space advantage,
bishop pair advantage, pawn structure)
11
Time management
Wasting time in positions with several non-forcing
possibilities
25
Mistakes due to time pressure
37
Tactics
Wrong evaluation of double-edged positions and positions
with material imbalances
18
Inaccurate play in double-edged positions
15
Tactical carelessness
17

List of mistakes (games from May 2017-2018)
Total number of
mistakes in games
Inaccuracy/Lack of creativity in attack/when having the
initiative
9
Psychological mistakes
Overestimating opponent’s chances (unreasonable fear of
counterplay, avoiding risk)
14
Avoiding imbalanced positions/tendency to force balanced
positions
27
Rushed decisions/not improving the position patiently
26
Endgames
Inaccurate play and wrong evaluation in endgames
17
Openings
Shallow opening preparation
14
Table 3.3: Big and decisive mistakes
Big and decisive mistakes (games from May 2017-
2018)
Total number of
mistakes in games
Avoiding imbalanced positions/tendency to force
balanced positions
17
Mistakes due to time pressure
16
Rushed decisions
13
Not considering relevant candidate moves
12
Inaccurate play in double-edged positions
8
Wasting time in positions with several non-forcing
possibilities
8
Mistakes due to nervousness or psychological instability
7

Big and decisive mistakes (games from May 2017-
2018)
Total number of
mistakes in games
Lazy calculation, not calculating deeply/concretely
enough, not overcoming resistance
6
Superficial understanding of typical middlegame
positions
6
Not tenacious enough in defense of worse positions
5
Quality of calculation and concentration falls as the game
lasts longer
5
Poor endgame technique – allowing counterplay
4
This kind of statistical analysis provides a good indication of the general and
specific areas that one should focus on in a future study. Psychological and
emotional aspects of my play also made the list and I suggest that you pay special
attention to these factors in your own game analysis, too. They can often go under
the radar as we attribute our mistakes to some technical deficiency in our play, while
there is actually a ‘human’ factor at the root of a mistake. Sometimes, we only need
the courage to admit that we were afraid, hasty, nervous, etc. to realize the real
problem in our play.
While all mistakes are serious, particular attention should be given to the most
common mistakes at the top of both tables. These mistakes tend to affect one’s
results the most, so I would extract them into a List of key study areas to work on in
the future. In this particular case, I identified the following eight key study areas:
List of key study areas:
1. Tactics:
1a) Overcoming resistance in calculation;
1b) Candidate moves;
1c) Opponent’s resources; and
1d) Double-edged and imbalanced positions.
2. Middlegames:

2a) Positional decision making;
2b) Maneuvering in static positions;
2c) More flexible thinking about positional and strategic issues; and
2d) Deeper analysis of middlegame positions from the opening repertoire.
Taking action
Becoming aware of shortcomings in your play is the first step to improvement, so
creating such a list is a good start. However, I do not subscribe to the notion that just
being aware of the problem and trying harder next time is the solution in itself. We
are creatures of habit and unless we do something proactive to change the faulty
habit, it is likely that we will repeat the mistake in one way or another.
Many people get stuck on this step, however, and never really create a study plan
or, if they do, not follow through with it. Sometimes life happens, and our chess
plans have to be put on the back burner. However, many times, we just get creative
in finding excuses not to do something that we actually can do. Therefore, my
suggestion once you identify your key study areas is to:
1. Devise a study plan with specific objectives to be accomplished for each of the
key study areas; and
2. Keep working on it.
We will talk in much more detail about study plans in Chapter 9. There, I will show,
among a couple of others, the study plan that I created in 2018 for the List of key
study areas above.
Developing analytical skills
In the final part of this chapter, I would like to briefly discuss another important
benefit of analyzing your own games – development of analytical skills. When we
analyze our games with an engine, it is quick to point out a certain move or a line
that would change the evaluation of the position or the outcome of the game
dramatically. I have seen some people fall into the trap of focusing too much on
these critical moments pointed out by the engine, attributing the final result of the
game to this one move. This is usually followed be a superficial conclusion along
the following lines: ‘I missed a strong move in the opening. If I had seen it, I would
have had a nearly winning position. The rest of the game is not important.’
However, if you focus only on one or two critical moments of the game, you are
missing out on a deep analysis of the game. There are many more things to analyze

in the game than just critical moments. If there was an interesting variation in your
game that was left behind the scenes, it would be a pity not to analyze it on your
own, even if it had no impact whatsoever on the final outcome of the game. I would
like to quote Boris Gelfand on this: ‘... to ponder about such things retrospectively
makes sense, as it helps us to improve our understanding of the game and sharpen
our intuition.’
Let me give a couple of examples of such analysis. In the first example, a risky-
looking move that I quickly rejected during the game revealed some fascinating new
possibilities in the analysis.
Game 32
Thomas Henrichs 2475
Davorin Kuljasevic 2555
Austria Bundesliga 2017/18 (2) (analysis)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3
Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Nd7 12.Kh1!?
This was probably the only move that I failed to review before this game, even
though I knew about its existence and the ideas behind it. While it is a decent
waiting move to see how Black will complete his development before committing in
the center, the main idea behind it is to eventually close the center and launch the

typical kingside attack with g2-g4, Rg1, etc. It is obvious how 12.Kh1 fits into this
plan.
12...Rb8 13.d5 Nb6 14.g4
All of this was pretty standard, and, in the game, I played a developing move
14...Bd7 without much thinking, after which we kept maneuvering in a typical
double-edged Ruy Lopez blockade*.
* This kind of position will be discussed in Chapter 5.
Later, I made several inaccuracies and too many mistakes and my opponent crushed
me: 15.Rg1 Nb7 16.Nbd2 c4 17.Nf1 Kh8?! 18.Ng3 g6 19.Be3 Na4 20.Rb1 Nac5
21.Qd2 Qc7 22.Bh6 Rg8 23.Nh2 f6 24.Be3 Nd8 25.f4 exf4 26.Bxf4 Nf7 27.Be3!
Ne5 28.Bd4 Bf8? (≥ 28...a5 29.a3 Rb7 30.Rbf1 b4 31.axb4 axb4 32.cxb4 Na6
33.Bc3 Rgb8 34.Nf3 Nxb4„) 29.Rbf1 Bg7 30.h4! Nxg4?? 31.h5! f5 32.Nxg4 fxg4
33.Rf7 Qd8 34.Rxg7 Rxg7 35.h6 Qh4+ 36.Qh2 Qxh2+ 37.Kxh2 Kg8 38.Bxg7 b4
39.cxb4 Rxb4 40.Rf1 Rb8 1-0.
However, as I analyzed the game at home, I remembered one old game in which
Keres answered Fischer’s g2-g4 with ...h7-h5 in a similar position. While this idea
had briefly occurred to me during the game, I thought that it is too risky, considering
that White can put his rook on g1. Nevertheless, I decided to check this idea in the
analysis. To my surprise, it turned out that
14...h5!„

is not only playable, but also injects an unexpected dose of dynamics into this
maneuvering battle.
15.gxh5
This is the most principled, of course. 15.Rg1 is more cautious, but, at the same
time, it cannot pose any problems to Black. After 15...hxg4 16.hxg4 Kh7! is
particularly strong, preparing to bring the rook to the h-file. 17.Nbd2 Rh8 18.Rg3
Kg8+ 19.Kg1 Bd7 20.Nf1 g63.
15...Qd7!
The point. I doubt that I would have seen this move and its follow-up in an actual
game even if I tried, to be honest. 15...Bxh3?, which I had briefly considered in the
game, is obviously bad in view of 16.Rg1 Kh8 17.Ng5‚.
16.Ng1
Another critical line is 16.Rg1 Qxh3+ 17.Nh2 f5!.

analysis diagram
(back to the PREVIEW)
Black can justify his risky strategy on move 14 only with such active play. White
has several promising-looking options, but Black has a good answer to all of them:
A) 18.Rxg7+!? Kxg7 19.Qg1+ Kh8 20.Qg6 Bf6 21.Bh6 Bd7 22.Bxf8 Rxf8=;
B) 18.h6 f4! 19.Rxg7+ Kh8 20.Rxe7 Qxh6‚;
C) 18.Rg3 Qh4 19.exf5 (19.Qg1 Bf6 20.h6 Rf7 21.Nd2 f43) 19...Bb7 20.Kg1 Nxd5
21.h6 Rf7 22.Rg4 Qh3 23.Rg3=.
16...f5! 17.exf5 Bb7 18.Be4 Rxf5!

Of course! Black would be happy to eliminate the powerful light-squared bishop.
Both sides have chances in this double-edged position. What is more important,
Black has a much more active position than in the game. Some possible lines that I
analyzed after
19.h6
were:
A) 19...g6 20.f3 Rh5 21.Re2 Kh7 22.b3 Rg8 23.c4! bxc4! 24.Qd2 Bd8 25.Qxa5
Bxd5°; and
B) 19...Rxf2!? 20.hxg7 Nxd5!! (20...Kxg7? 21.Qh5+–) 21.Bxd5+ Kxg7 22.Re4
Bxd5 23.Qxd5 Rh8 24.Qd3 Qf5 25.Re3 Qxd3 26.Rxd3 e4°, with good play for the
sacrificed piece in both cases.
In the following game, I found it interesting to analyze three different versions of a
very unusual central formation with two passed pawns on d5 and e5.
Game 33
Davorin Kuljasevic 2567
Ivan Salgado Lopez 2605
Skopje 2014 (4)

White to move
(back to the PREVIEW)
The game started as a Grünfeld Defense, but transformed into a more of a King’s
Indian Defense type of middlegame. My initial plan was to prepare the typical a2-
a4-a5 march by removing the bishop from a4, but in the end I decided to open
another front with
21.g3.
I wanted to initiate action on the kingside before Black would have time to regroup,
although it might have been more clever to provoke a weakness on the queenside
first with 21.Bd1 Bf6 22.a4 a5 23.Nd2 h5 24.Rb1 Nd7 and only then strike with
25.g3!±.
21.Bb5 was a tactical idea that crossed my mind during the game. The point behind
this move is to answer ...a7-a5 (after White plays a2-a4) with Bc6, when the b6-
pawn would be hanging. White’s idea can be seen in the variation 21...Nh7? 22.a4
a5 (or 22...a6) 23.Bc6 Bxc6 24.Qxb6!+–. However, Black has a simple defense in
21...Rd8!, making the bishop on b5 look ridiculous.
21.g3 g5

Salgado went for the most ambitious, although risky, option.
A) Another important variation was 21...Qf6 22.Qd2 g5 23.gxf4 Qxf4 24.Qxf4
exf4, with a transfer into the endgame. After 25.e5!
analysis diagram
we reach the first version of this peculiar pawn formation. Further analysis revealed
some interesting variations:
A1) 25...Ba6 26.Bc6! Rd8 27.d6 Rf7 28.Bd5+–;
A2) 25...g4 26.Nh4 Bxe5 27.Rae1 Bd6 28.Nf5+–;
A3) 25...Ng6 26.Rfe1 g4 27.Bc2!+;
A4) 25...Rd8! (the trickiest move) 26.Rac1!± (26.Rfd1? fails to 26...Ba6 27.Bb3
Ng6μ).
B) Another move that I had considered was 21...Rd8, with the idea 22.gxf4
(although White can also simply mirror Black with 22.Rad1±) 22...Qf6! 23.Bxe5
Rxe5 24.Qxe5 Qf7. This looks bad for White at first, but he can keep an advantage
with 25.Ng5 hxg5 26.Qxg5 Bf6 27.Qg3 Bxa1 28.Rxa1± when his massive pawn
center should be worth more than a piece;
C) Probably the most solid option for Black was 21...fxg3!? 22.fxg3 Nh7, but then
his position would be devoid of any counterplay.

22.gxf4 exf4
Other moves lead to pretty much strategically lost positions for Black:
A) 22...gxf4 23.Kh1 Ng6 (23...Bf6 24.Rg1+ Kh7 25.Rg2+–) 24.Rg1 Bc8 25.Bc6
Rb8 26.Qe2+–; and
B) 22...Ng6 23.f5 (23.fxe5?! Nxe5 24.Nxe5 Bxe5 25.Bxe5 Rxe5 26.f3 Rf8 27.Bd7!
±) 23...Nf4 24.Kh1+–.
23.Bxg7?
From this point on, I began losing the thread in this imbalanced position. Of course,
the critical move is 23.e5 Qg6, when we get the second version of this pawn
formation.
analysis diagram
(back to the PREVIEW)
Despite the powerful pawn center, I was instinctively afraid of Black’s play on the
kingside. The prospect of Black sacrificing on e6 to open the h1-a8 diagonal looked
particularly unpleasant. However, as the analysis below shows, White should prevail
with precise play.
A) 24.e6?! is premature in view of 24...Qf5!‚;

B) 24.Bc2?! is also not ideal because Black gets counterplay with 24...Qh5 25.Be4
Ng6„;
C) Another way to secure the king is 24.Rae1!? Qf5 25.Kh1 Qh3 26.Ng1±,
although this looks a bit unnatural;
D) 24.Nd2!. This is the most logical move. Black has a variety of attacking attempts
here, but none seems to quite work, as the white pawn center creates a barrier for
most of his pieces:
D1) 24...f3 25.Kh1 Qh5 26.e6 Nxe6 27.Rae1! (27.dxe6 Bxc3 28.Qxc3 Rxe6
29.Bd7!±) 27...Qh3 28.Rg1+;
D2) 24...Ne6 25.dxe6 Qxe6 26.f3 g4 27.Rae1 Rd8 28.Qc2+–;
D3) 24...g4 25.Rae1 Nh7 (25...Qh5 26.f3!+–) 26.Ne4 Qh5 27.Bd1!+–;
D4) 24...Qh5 25.f3 Ng6 26.Rae1 (26.e6!?) 26...Nh4 27.Rf2 Nf5 28.Ne4+– .
23...Rxg7 24.Qe5??
This is just a completely inept move. Once again, 24.e5 simply had to be played,
leading to the third version of the d5/e5-pawn center. After 24...Qg6, Black would
get an improved version of a similar position after 23.e5 since he has more space for
his pieces. Still, the position remains dynamically balanced:
A) 25.e6 fails to 25...Nxe6! 26.Ne5 Qh5! 27.dxe6 g4, with a dangerous attack for
Black;
B) 25.Rae1 Ne6!„;
C) 25.Qc3 Ne6 26.Bc2 (26.dxe6 Qxe6 27.Bd1 Qh3–+) 26...Qh5 27.Bf5 Re8!„;
D) 25.Nd2 Ne6!.

analysis diagram
This tactical motif is important in many similar lines. 26.Bc2 (26.dxe6 Qxe6 27.f3
g4 28.Kh1 Rd8 gives Black good play for the sacrificed piece) 26...Qh5 27.Ne4.
White needs to allow the perpetual check, otherwise he risks falling under a serious
attack. 27...Qg4+ 28.Kh1 Qf3+ 29.Kg1 Qg4+=.
24...Qd8?
Black could have forced a clearly better endgame with 24...Qxe5 25.Nxe5 Re7
26.Ng4 Kg7 27.f3 Ng6 28.Rac1 h5 29.Nf2 Ne5μ instead.

25.Bc6?
This blunder was the icing on the cake. After the precise 25.Rae1!, things would
remain unclear.
25...Qc8! 26.Qf5 Bxc6 27.dxc6 Qxc6μ 28.Qd5+?
White would at least keep a fighting chance with the active 28.Ne5 Qe6 29.Rad1
Re8 30.Rd5μ.
28...Qxd5 29.exd5 Re8 30.a4 a5!–+
The simplest. The rest is a matter of technique for Black.
31.Rfe1 Rge7 32.Rxe7 Rxe7 33.Kf1 Nd7 34.h3 Kf7 35.Ra3 Kf6 36.Nd2 Kf5
37.Rb3 h5 38.f3 Re3 39.Kf2 Rxb3 40.Nxb3 Ne5 41.Nd2 Nd3+ 42.Kf1 Nb2
43.Ke2 Ke5 44.Ke1 Nxa4 45.Nb1 b5 46.cxb5 Kxd5 47.Kd2 c4 0-1
Chapter 3 summary
• ‘Which areas should I focus on and how should I distribute my study time between
them?’ is a burning question of virtually every chess player. A significant portion of
this chapter is dedicated to providing an answer to this question, which is based on
general guidelines for players of various levels and specific needs of a chess player.

• If you determine which two or three specific study areas you want to focus on in
the upcoming period, you will be able to optimize your study time and resources.
• When people study chess, they sometimes make the mistake of
compartmentalizing study areas, i.e ., focusing too much on a particular area they are
studying and mentally disconnecting it from other areas, which could lead to
mistakes over the board.
• It is suggested to complement study methods that focus on specific areas, such as
solving positions on diagrams or studying thematic game fragments, with whole
game analysis whenever possible.
• The primary focus of intermediate players (1500-1800 Elo) should be on
increasing tactical and endgame skills.
• Endgames should comprise a large portion of a club player’s staple study diet.
• Players of all levels would do well to solve endgame studies on a regular basis.
• Improving young players and their coaches should pay attention to more ‘abstract’
aspects of chess improvement, such as positional play and strategy, endgame
technique, acquiring good role models in chess, etc.
• Generally speaking, Master-level players (2100-2400 Elo) have a good overall
chess knowledge, but should work on improving dynamic play and strategic depth in
all phases of the game.
• Generally speaking, International Masters should work mostly on openings,
technical, and psychological aspects of the game to get to the grandmaster level.
• ‘The difference in chess strength is determined by the frequency of mistakes in
one’s games’ – Efstratios Grivas.
• Analysis of your own games is a time-tested approach for rooting out weaknesses
and strengthening other areas of the game.
• It is very tempting to analyze the game with an engine right after it has finished,
but my suggestion is to analyze the game deeply on your own after the tournament
instead.
• Unless you are a seasoned chess analyst with plenty of experience working with
chess engines, I would advise strongly against running the engine while you analyze
your games for the first time.
• Once the game has been fully analyzed, make a list of mistakes that you have
made.

• When it comes to your well-fought and content-rich games, it is absolutely
necessary that you analyze them thoroughly.
• Once you compile a good number of analyzed games, you can create an aggregate
list of all your mistakes where you have an overview of mistakes by frequency and
type.
• Psychological and emotional factors can often go under the radar as we attribute
our mistakes to some technical deficiency in our play, while there is actually a
‘human’ factor at the root of a mistake.
• Just being aware of the problem and trying harder next time is hardly the solution
in itself. We are creatures of habit and unless we do something proactive to change
the faulty habit, it is likely that we will repeat the mistake.
• There are many more things to analyze in the game than just critical moments. As
Boris Gelfand said, ‘... to ponder about such things retrospectively makes sense, as it
helps us to improve our understanding of the game and sharpen our intuition.’

Chapter 4 – Preview
Black to move
Which plan would you suggest for Black?
(go to the ANSWER)
White to move
White should take action on the queenside – what do you suggest?
(go to the ANSWER)

Black to move
Please suggest the best move for Black.
(go to the ANSWER)
White to move
What is the best way to continue the attack?
(go to the ANSWER)
Chapter 4
Choose the right resources for your study plan
Picking a good study resource these days is easier, and, at the same time, more difficult than ever. On the
one hand, there are plenty of books, videos and online resources for every level and taste. On the other,

the abundance and variety of instructive chess material can be overwhelming and downright confusing at
times. In psychology, this phenomenon is called the ‘Paradox of choice’. It suggests that while we ‘...
have more choice than any group of people ever has before, and thus, presumably, more freedom and
autonomy, we don’t seem to be benefiting from it psychologically.’ Sometimes it can be a struggle for a
chess player to find the right study resource on, say, pawn structures in the jungle of friends’
recommendations, online user reviews, ‘50% off’ targeted ads, and other (mis)information. At the end of
the day, one might even spend more time choosing between several study resources than actually
studying them!
Some people solve this problem by skipping the research part. Instead, they stockpile promising-
sounding video courses, new books by well-known authors, and must-have best sellers. However, this is
also hardly the right strategy because you will likely not need many of these resources. Some of them
will not be appropriate for your playing level, others will not be relevant to your study needs, while for
the rest, you will simply not have enough time. Actually, I personally know a few people who buy loads
of chess books knowing that they will never read them. But that full bookshelf sure looks good when
they show it to their friends! While such indulgence in chess resources may not be an issue for chess
aficionados who collect books for sport or for ‘techies’ who want to get a taste of every new chess app
that comes out, an ambitious player with limited time or budget looking to find the right material to
study could use some guidance with this process.
Thus, the primary goal of this chapter is to help you with the selection of appropriate study resources. I
will try to present a systematic overview of what I think are the most valuable resources for players of
different strengths. We will look at the following categories:
1. Online resources
2. Chess books
3. Database software
4. Chess coach
5. Chess periodicals
The second goal of this chapter is to accompany these recommendations with effective study methods. I
have found that many people have access to great study resources, but they don’t really know how to
make the best use of them. Thus, as we discuss particular study resources in upcoming sections, I will
suggest how they can be studied. Many of the study methods and activities that I will recommend are
those that I have used in my own training sessions and with my students. Let us now take a look at the
specifics of each category of study resources in turn:
Online resources
Virtually everyone uses online resources to improve at chess. However, sometimes it is not easy to draw
the line between the educational and entertaining value of some of these resources, so in this section I
provide an overview of the most notable educational online resources on major chess websites. In the
table ‘Online study resources’, the websites are ordered by their approximate popularity. I would like to
point out that I did not compare them by parameters such as user-friendliness, affordability, playing
experience, chess community, etc., since these are beyond the scope of our topic. I focused only on the
relevance and quality of the study resources on these websites.
Here are a few quick notes that will help you read the table below accurately:

• The ‘Target level’ column in the table indicates player levels (out of the five mentioned in the previous
chapter) for which the resources on a particular website should be the most beneficial. The letters A to E
in the table correspond to the player levels as follows:
A – Intermediate player
B – Advanced player
C – Improving youngster
D – Master-level player
E – Strong titled player
• The ‘Multiple study areas’ column indicates those resources that can be used across all study areas, for
instance, chessbase.com offers DVDs for openings, tactics, strategy, endgames, as well as for general
improvement.
I recommended only the resources that I think are:
1. The most useful that a particular website has to offer; and
2. The best among the competition (for example, most websites have a tactics trainer, but I prefer
chesstempo.com and chess.com tactics trainers over the others, so I highlighted only them).
Table 4.1: Online study resources
Website
Target
level
Multiple
study
areas
Openings Tactics Endgames Middlegames
General
improvement
chess.com
A, B,
C, D,
E
Chess
videos
Opening
Book
Puzzles
Endgame
Drills
Strategy
Lessons
Live Chess,
Titled
Tuesday
Lessons
Articles
Drills
Tournament
broadcast
Analysis
Master
Games
lichess.org
A, B,
C
Study
Opening
explorer
Playing arena
Analysis
chess24.com
B, C,
D,E
Video
Series
Tournament
broadcast
eBooks
Opening
videos
Banter blitz
chessbase.com
B, C,
D,E
Videos
Opening
DVDs
Endgame
videos
Power Play
Show
DVDs

Website
Target
level
Multiple
study
areas
Openings Tactics Endgames Middlegames
General
improvement
chessable.com
A, B,
C,D
Move
Trainer
Opening
courses
Endgame
courses
Interactive
e-courses
Opening
book
chesstempo.com
A, B,
C,D
Tactics
Training
Endgame
Training
Guess the
Move
chessgames.com
A, B,
C
Game
collections
thechessworld.com
A, B,
C
Middlegame
video courses
Articles
chessclub.com (ICC)
B, C,
D,E
Learning
Center
Weekly
videos
Chess
Courses
365chessacademy.com
A, B,
C,D
Weekly
chess
classes by
top
coaches
modern-chess.com
B, C,
D,E
Online
workshops
Opening
Databases
Learn from
the Classics
forwardchess.com
A, B,
C, D,
E
eBooks
arves.org
A, B,
C, D,
E
Endgame
studies
While there are surely many other good chess resources in the vast cyberspace, I believe that there is a
lot of useful information in this table. If you discover a certain website from the bottom of the table that
you have not heard of before or learn about a useful resource from one of the more popular websites, I
will be satisfied.
Some people limit their exposure to major chess websites to trial versions or free/limited memberships.
Of course, I do not want to tell anyone what to do with their money, but let me say that getting a full
membership on a major chess website of choice can be a great investment. This allows you to get access
to loads of instructive videos and courses, follow live top-GM commentary and use many unique study
features. The exact opposite would be trying to make use of free online resources out there, and,

fortunately for those on a limited budget, they do exist. The popular lichess.org website itself is
completely free, and they are constantly improving the quantity and quality of their educational
resources. One can also get free access to playing arenas, opening books, tactics trainers, computer
analysis, mini-video courses, instructive articles, and a few other basic features on many websites, which
should provide plenty of study material for an eager student.
And, of course, we should not forget good old YouTube. There are many YouTube channels that
provide excellent educational content for players of all levels, while also being fun to watch. Some of
my favorites are:
chess24
• Live and recorded broadcasts of top chess tournaments with GM commentary;
• Banter blitz sessions, such as by Magnus Carlsen, Peter Svidler and other strong players.
PowerPlayChess
• GM Daniel King, one of the best chess presenters, analyzes current and classical games alike.
Saint Louis Chess Club
• Recorded lessons on various chess topics by GMs Yasser Seirawan, Ben Finegold, Varuzhan Akobian
and many other teachers.
ChessBase India
• A lot of useful information, but I particularly like the enthusiasm with which IM Sagar Shah
investigates and reports on various chess topics.
IM Kostya Kavutsky
• An informative channel with a lot of sound advice on many aspects of chess by American IM Kostya
Kavutsky.
Rapid chess
• Game footage of blitz and rapid tournaments.
Of course, there are many more channels not in this selection that will appeal to people with different
tastes and preferences.
The online resources that I mentioned above can be studied using virtually any method that we have
discussed in Chapter 2. In the table below, I provide some examples.
Table 4.2: Study methods for online study resources
Study
method
Online resource
Study practice
Playing over
Game collections
(chessgames.com)
Play over the games from a game collection with ‘Positional
exchange sacrifice’ theme
Watching
Instructive videos on
favorite YouTube
channel
Watch video ‘Endgames of Anatoly Karpov’ by GM Ben
Finegold
Reading
Articles (chess.com)
Read a couple of articles in ‘Middlegame’ category

Study
method
Online resource
Study practice
Light
analysis
Tournament broadcast
(chess24.com)
Lightly analyze interesting games from a live tournament
broadcast, check them with the built-in engine afterwards
Deep
analysis
Learn from the Classics
(modern-chess.com)
Deeply analyze games of Leonid Stein with the help of
grandmaster annotations
Computer-
assisted
analysis
Analysis (chess24.com) Analyze an interesting recent game with computer’s assistance
Mutual
analysis
Study (lichess.org)
Set up a mutual analysis session of an interesting opening
variation with a friend
Find the best
move
Guess the Move
(chesstempo.com)
Do FBM practice of Capablanca’s games
Simulation
eBook
(forwardchess.com)
Do a simulation of chosen games from The New In Chess Book
of Chess Improvement
Reviewing
Move Trainer
(chessable.com)
Review your repertoire with black against 1.b3 using Move
Trainer
Solving
Puzzles (chess.com)
Set up a 45-minutes solving session of tactical puzzles
Playing –
sparring
Playing arena
(lichess.org)
Set up a sparring match with 2 games on a 30-min time control
with a sparring partner
Playing –
speed chess
Titled Tuesday
(chess.com)
Play Titled Tuesday tournament every week (if you are a FIDE
titled player) and analyze all your games thoroughly afterwards
Blindfold
Endgame Studies
(arves.org)
Solve 5 miniatures in blindfold mode
Playing
against a
computer
Endgame Drills
(chess.com)
Do ‘Endgame practice’ drills against the computer
In conclusion, new online technologies can facilitate and streamline many aspects of our chess training,
from reading interactive eBooks without the need for a physical book and a chess set to watching the
world’s top players share their thoughts while playing or analyzing their game in live transmission,
instead of having to dig up bits and pieces of their wisdom from articles and books. However, at the end
of the day, we should keep in mind that many people have become strong at chess with as simple tools as
a chess set, a couple of classic chess books, and a good analysis partner. We should definitely try to take
advantage of great online resources out there, but let us keep in mind that these are only tools and not
solutions in themselves – how effectively you use them is far more important.
Chess books

Books remain an extremely important study resource for players of all levels, even in this digital age. I
had already explained the many benefits and methods of studying chess books in the second chapter, so
there is no need to elaborate further on these matters here. My goal in this section is to provide an
overview of chess books that I believe can be the most beneficial to an ambitious chess player. Below
this text you will find several tables with overviews of recommended books for each of the five general
study areas. In each of these tables, you can also see for which specific study area the book can be most
helpful, as well as which player levels I believe would benefit the most from reading a particular book.
Being aware of these details allows you to confidently take a pass on a popular title if it does not match
your playing strength or study priorities. As you peruse the tables with this information, let me provide a
few related explanations.
• I have recommended only the resources that I believe are:
1. essential or particularly useful for the study area that they cover;
2. of high quality; and
3. that I have used myself or that came strongly recommended from a trusted source.
Of course, there are many other great chess books that are not in these lists, but including every single
one of them would probably take up a whole chapter in this book! As I completed the lists, I also
realized that some chess authors that are household names are not in them. This does not mean that I do
not think that they are worthy authors – on the contrary – it’s simply that I preferred other books for
these particular lists. I hope that you will appreciate that I tried to be as objective as possible in a task
that is, by its nature, quite subjective.
• On the other hand, I find it somewhat unfortunate that many excellent study sources that I have grown
up with and would warmly recommend are not available, either due to the passage of time (book out of
print because the original publisher went out of business or the material became outdated) or because
they were never translated to English. Some examples are excellent the Russian series of books on
various specific areas that could be translated as ‘Chess Player’s Library’, intermediate-level books on
Tactics and Strategy by Georgi Lisitsyn, and three thorough theoretical endgame volumes by GM Vlatko
Kovacevic.
• Besides chess books, in these tables, you may find other types of study resources in several places.
• As opening repertoire/theory books and video courses inevitably get outdated over time, my
suggestions for opening study were limited to those resources that have a long-lasting value (in opening
book years at least). Even if the bits of opening theory recommendations become obsolete as new and
better ways are found, these books form a serious foundation for understanding the finer points of the
opening in question, as well as how an opening should be studied in general.
Table 4.3: Recommended chess books for opening study
Opening study
Level
A
Level
B
Level
C
Level
D
Level
E
Opening Strategy
Starting Out series (Everyman Chess)
x
x
Mastering the Chess Openings, Watson (Gambit Publications)
x
x
x
Sicilian Attacks, Yakovich (New in Chess)
x
x
x
x

Opening study
Level
A
Level
B
Level
C
Level
D
Level
E
The King’s Indian according to Tigran Petrosian, Yanvarjov
(Russell Enterprises)
x
x
x
x
Move by Move series (Everyman Chess)
x
x
x
King’s Indian Defense video course, Van Kampen (chess24.com)
x
x
x
x
Ruy Lopez DVD, Caruana (Chessbase)
x
x
x
x
King’s Indian Warfare, Smirin (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
x
The Berlin Wall, Cox (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
x
The Ragozin Complex, Barsky (New in Chess)
x
x
x
x
Opening repertoire/theory – general
Mega Database – Reference (Chessbase)
x
x
x
x
x
Modern Chess opening databases (Modern Chess)
x
x
x
x
Yearbooks (New in Chess)
x
x
x
Correspondence database (Chessbase)
x
x
Opening repertoire/theory – White
Keep it Simple 1.e4, Sielecki (New in Chess)
x
x
Keep it Simple 1.d4, Sielecki (New in Chess)
x
x
e3 Poison, Smith (Quality Chess)
x
x
1.e4, a Complete White Repertoire video course, Hammer
(chess24.com)
x
x
x
x
The English Opening, Marin (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
Grandmaster Repertoire 1.e4, Negi (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
x
Grandmaster Repertoire 1.d4, Avrukh (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
x
Opening repertoire/theory – Black
Playing 1.d4 d5, Ntirlis (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
x
x
Beating Minor Openings, Mikhalevski (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
x
x
Complete Najdorf Repertoire for Black, Quintiliano (Modern
Chess)
x
x
x
x
Bologan’s Black Weapons in Open Games (New in Chess)
x
x
x
x
The Nimzo-Indian Defense, Roiz (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
The Grünfeld according to Svidler (chess24.com)
x
x
x
The Zaitsev System, Kuzmin (New in Chess)
x
x
x

Table 4.4: Recommended chess books for Tactics study
Tactics study
Level
A
Level
B
Level
C
Level
D
Level
E
Tactical motifs/patterns
Learn Chess Tactics, Nunn (Gambit Publications)
x
x
x
Improve your Chess Tactics, Neishtadt (New in Chess)
x
x
x
x
The Woodpecker Method, Smith & Tikkanen (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
Tactical combinations and problems
Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations and Games, L.Polgar (Black
Dog & Leventhal)
x
x
x
Encyclopedia of Chess Combinations (Chess Informant)
x
x
x
x
x
chesstempo.com – Tactics Training (chesstempo.com)
x
x
x
x
x
chess.com – Puzzles (chess.com)
x
x
x
x
x
Attack and Defense
The Art of Attack, Vukovic (Everyman Chess)
x
x
x
Attack with Mikhail Tal, Tal & Damsky (Everyman Chess)
x
x
x
x
x
Attack and Defense, Aagaard (Quality chess)
x
x
x
Advanced Chess Tactics, Psakhis (Quality chess)
x
x
x
Calculation
Imagination in Chess, Gaprindashvili (Batsford Chess)
x
x
x
x
Perfect Your Chess, Volokitin & Grabinsky (Gambit Publications)
x
x
x
Calculation – video course, Dvoretsky (chess24.com)
x
x
x
Recognizing Your Opponent’s Resources, Dvoretsky (Russell
Enterprises)
x
x
x
Calculation, Aagaard (Quality chess)
x
x
Chess Manual of Avoidable Mistakes (2 vol), Edouard (Thinkers
Publishing)
x
x
Analytical Manual, Dvoretsky (Russell Enterprises)
x
x
Sacrifice
The Art of Sacrifice in Chess, Spielmann (Russell Enterprises)
x
x
x
Dynamics

Tactics study
Level
A
Level
B
Level
C
Level
D
Level
E
Dynamic Decision Making in Chess, Gelfand (Quality Chess)
x
x
Fire on Board, Shirov (Everyman Chess)
x
x
Table 4.5: Recommended chess books for Endgame study
Endgame study
Level
A
Level
B
Level
C
Level
D
Level
E
Theoretical endgames
Theory and Practice of Chess Endings, Panchenko (Convekta)
x
x
x
100 Endgames You Must Know, De la Villa (New in Chess)
x
x
x
x
100 Endgames You Must Know, Bartholomew, video course
(chessable.com)
x
x
x
x
Fundamental Chess Endings, Müller & Lamprecht (Gambit
Publications)
x
x
x
x
x
Endgame Challenge, Hall (Hays Publishing)
x
x
x
x
Endgame Manual, Dvoretsky (Russell Enterprises)
x
x
Endgame technique
Capablanca’s Best Chess Endings, Chernev (Dover Publications)
x
x
x
Endgame Virtuoso, Smyslov (Everyman Chess)
x
x
x
Rook endgames
Practical Rook Endings, Mednis (Chess Enterprises)
x
x
x
Practical Rook Endings, Kortchnoi (Olms)
x
x
Advanced endgame principles
Endgame Strategy, Shereshevsky (Everyman Chess)
x
x
x
x
Mastering Complex Endgames, Mikhalchishin, Stetsko (Thinkers
Publishing)
x
x
Endgame exercises
Van Perlo’s Endgame Tactics, Van Perlo (New in Chess)
x
x
x
Endgame Play, Aagaard (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
Endgame studies
Domination in 2545 endgame studies, Kasparyan (Ishi Press)
x
x
x
x

Endgame study
Level
A
Level
B
Level
C
Level
D
Level
E
One Pawn Saves the Day, Tkachenko (Elk and Ruby)
x
x
x
x
One Knight Saves the Day, Tkachenko (Elk and Ruby)
x
x
x
x
Studies for Practical Players, Dvoretsky & Pervakov (Russell
Enterprises))
x
x
x
x
Practical Chess Beauty, Afek (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
Endgame Challenge, Nunn (Gambit Publications)
x
x
Endgame course
Chess Endgames 1 to 14, Müller, DVD (ChessBase)
x
x
x
x
Table 4.6: Recommended chess books for Middlegame study
Middlegame study
Level
A
Level
B
Level
C
Level
D
Level
E
Basic positional principles
Simple chess, Stean (Dover Publications)
x
x
Secrets of Positional Chess, Marovic (Gambit Publications)
x
x
The Complete Manual of Positional Chess (2 vol), Sakaev &
Landa (New in Chess)
x
x
x
Positional Patterns
Improve Your Chess Pattern Recognition, Van de Oudeweetering
(New in Chess)
x
x
x
x
x
Train Your Chess Pattern Recognition, Van der Oudeweetering
(New in Chess)
x
x
x
x
x
Piece coordination
The Chess Toolbox, Willemze (New in Chess)
x
x
x
Maneuvering
Maneuvering: The Art of Piece Play, Dvoretsky (Russell
Enterprises)
x
x
x
Pawn play
Small Steps to Giant Improvement (2 vol), Shankland (Quality
Chess)
x
x
x
x
Positional evaluation and decision making

Middlegame study
Level
A
Level
B
Level
C
Level
D
Level
E
Test Your Positional Play, Bellin & Ponzetto (Batsford)
x
x
x
Positional Play, Aagaard (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
x
Positional Decision Making in Chess, Gelfand (Quality Chess)
x
x
Planning
Chess Middlegame Planning, Romanovsky (American Chess
Promotions)
x
x
x
Typical pawn structures
Chess Structures, Flores Rios (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
x
Winning Chess Middlegames, Sokolov (New in Chess)
x
x
x
x
Typical middlegame structures
Chess Middlegame Strategies (3 vol), Sokolov (Thinkers
Publishing)
x
x
x
x
General strategic principles
Modern Chess Strategy, Pachman (Dover Chess)
x
x
x
Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy, Watson (Gambit Publications)
x
x
x
Dynamic Chess Strategy, Suba (New in Chess)
x
x
x
Increasing advantage
Grandmaster Chess Strategy, Kaufeld & Kern (New in Chess)
x
x
x
x
Exploiting Small Advantages, Gufeld (Batsford)
x
x
x
x
Strategic decision making
Mastering Chess Strategy, Hellsten (Everyman Chess)
x
x
x
x
Strategy Tests, Silman (chess.com)
x
x
x
Strategic Chess Exercises, Bricard (New in Chess)
x
x
x
Table 4.7: Recommended chess books for General improvement
General study
Level
A
Level
B
Level
C
Level
D
Level
E
Best games/Tournament collections
Zurich International Chess Tournament, Bronstein (BN
Publishing)
x
x
x

General study
Level
A
Level
B
Level
C
Level
D
Level
E
My Best Games of Chess, Alekhine (Russell Enterprises)
x
x
x
x
x
Botvinnik’s Best Games (3 vol), Botvinnik (Moravian Chess)
x
x
x
x
x
My 60 Memorable Games, Fischer (Batsford)
x
x
x
x
x
Bent Larsen’s Best Games, Larsen (New in Chess)
x
x
x
x
x
My Best Games (2 vol), Kortchnoi (Olms)
x
x
x
x
x
From London to Elista, Bareev & Levitov (New in Chess)
x
x
x
x
x
Karpov’s Strategic Wins (2 vol), Karolyi (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
x
x
San Luis 2005, Gershon & Nor (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
x
x
New in Chess Book of Chess Improvement, Giddins (New in
Chess)
x
x
x
x
x
Python Strategy, Petrosian (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
x
My Great Predecessors (5 vol), Kasparov (Everyman Chess)
x
x
x
x
Carlsen vs Karjakin, Alburt & Crumiller (Chess Information &
Research Institute)
x
x
x
x
Instructive game collections
Logical Chess, Chernev (Graymalkin Media)
x
x
x
Lessons with a Grandmaster (3 vol), Gulko & Sneed (Everyman
Chess)
x
x
x
x
How Good is Your Chess, King (Dover Publications)
x
x
x
x
Understanding Chess Move by Move, Nunn (Gambit Publications)
x
x
x
Move by Move series – great players (Everyman chess)
x
x
x
Biography/Inspirational
The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal, Tal (Everyman chess)
x
x
x
x
x
Timman’s Titans, Timman (New in Chess)
x
x
x
x
x
For Friends & Colleagues (2 vol), Dvoretsky (Russell
Enterprises)
x
x
Devoted to Chess, Postovsky (New in Chess)
x
x
General advice/Chess psychology
Think, Train, Play like a Grandmaster (3 vol), Kotov (Batsford
Chess)
x
x
x
Amateur to IM, Hawkins (Mongoose Press)
x
x
x
x

General study
Level
A
Level
B
Level
C
Level
D
Level
E
The Road to Chess improvement, Yermolinsky (Gambit
Publications)
x
x
x
Pump up Your Rating, Smith (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
The Seven Deadly Chess Sins, Rowson (Gambit Publications)
x
x
x
x
Chess for Zebras, Rowson (Gambit Publications)
x
x
x
x
Move First, Think Later, Hendriks (New in Chess)
x
x
x
x
Thinking Inside the Box, Aagaard (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
x
Under the Surface, Markos (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
x
Study program
The Soviet Chess Primer, Maizelis (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
Build, Boost, Evolution series (9 vol), Jussupow (Quality Chess)
x
x
x
x
Mastering Chess Middlegames, Panchenko (New in Chess)
x
x
x
x
School of Chess Excellence (5 vol), Dvoretsky (Olms)
x
x
Like I stated above, these lists are hardly complete and ideal. That said, I strongly believe in the quality
and relevance of the recommended readings. In addition, this table format provides a nicely structured
overview that you may even use when making your own book choices. People sometimes get
spontaneous with book purchases as if they were in an IKEA store; for example, stocking up on several
different books and DVDs on calculation when they only need one, or buying that great new best seller
that turns out to be too difficult for them to study. Creating such an organized table of resources can give
you more clarity about the study resources that you have, as well as your potential future purchases.
If I had to choose the most important category of chess books, it would be the ‘Best
games/Tournament collections’. I feel that these books contain everything a chess player of any level
needs. I can say that studying such collections has definitely helped me improve my overall chess
understanding. I really like how GM Grivas explained one of the main points behind such study: ‘...
reading the autobiographical games collections of great past players ... is like taking lessons with some
of the greatest players in history.’ While they can and should be read by everyone, game collections are
particularly useful for chess players up to the master level (especially the young ones) as a way to enrich
their chess knowledge and culture. In his book, Modern Chess Preparation, the well-known grandmaster
and coach Vladimir Tukmakov encourages improving players to study the ‘classics’ with a well-taken
point: ‘No one starts to learn the rules of grammar from exceptions, no matter how beautiful and
paradoxical they are, and today’s chess at the highest level is simply woven from paradoxes and
exceptions. The basic rules were largely formulated back in the first half of the twentieth century. That’s
where you should start your education.’ ... ‘The rules should be learned from simple and logical
examples. Therefore, I’d recommend the games of Capablanca not Alekhine, Botvinnik not Bronstein,
and Karpov not Kasparov.’

Database software
When it comes to database software, not everyone needs to own one, although it is highly recommended
for serious tournament players and coaches. For chess professionals it is simply a must. It will typically
include some or all of the following features:
• big games database and search function;
• opponent preparation tools;
• opening explorer/book;
• database storage and management;
• analysis features; and
• training features.
Having all of these useful functions as a part of a standalone software on your computer is obviously
more practical than using several online resources that offer them in a more scattered and (usually) less
sophisticated way. Below is a list of some of the most popular chess software:
• ChessBase – the most common choice;
• Chess Assistant – supposed to be a good choice, although it used to be much more popular in the past;
• SCID – free open-source software, which could be combined well with other free resources;
• Chess Position Trainer – used primarily for opening repertoire management; and
• Decode Chess – an interesting teaching concept: engines explain the ideas behind moves.
ChessBase is indisputably No. 1 on this list. It is also the software that I have been using extensively for
a very long time (I think that the first version I had was ChessBase 7.0), so I am going to provide some
details about it in this section. Since most ChessBase users reading this should be familiar with its basic
functions such as ‘Players’ index to prepare against a specific opponent, ‘Online database’ to study the
most recent games, and ‘Search’ filter to find games according to specific parameters, I will share some
study resources and ideas available in ChessBase that may not be that well known to a ChessBase
newbie or an occasional user. These are some of the best research and analysis tools for independent
chess study that I am aware of.
Opening resources
• Openings tab or the Superkey in the Mega Database allows one to browse and study openings and
variations according to their ECO (Encyclopedia of Chess Openings) codes (A00-E99). I have always
found the fold-down opening key convenient for getting both the big picture and details of a certain
opening. And, for what it’s worth, you can learn ECO codes and opening/variation names easily this
way. When I was younger, one of my favorite pastimes at big airports was to associate gate numbers
with ECO codes (for example gate C18 is the Winawer). I am afraid that I still haven’t gotten rid of this
nerdy habit.
• Plan Explorer (introduced in ChessBase 15) is an excellent and fairly new tool that allows you to
study a theoretical position by exploring typical plans that were employed in games. It is perfectly suited
for opening tabiyas that most people have in their opening repertoires (to be discussed in more detail in
Chapter 5), such as the following one:

Example 4.1
Nimzo-Indian – Karpov Variation
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5 .Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 c5 8.0-0 cxd4 9.exd4 b6
When we turn on the Plan Explorer in this position, it shows the following plans for White, with the
number of games in brackets:
1. Bc1-g5 (934)
Bg5-h4 (222)
Bh4-g3 (58)
Bg5xf6 (169)
2. b2xc3 (632)
c3-c4 (138)
3. Ra1-c1 (614)
Rc1xc3 (106)
4. Nf3-e5 (476)
Ne5xd7 (151)
5. Qd1-e2 (470)
6. Rf1-e1 (461)
7. Bc4-d3 (421)
8. a2-a3 (217)
9. Rf1-d1 (160)
A similar analysis can be done for Black on the next move, etc. This overview of plans and their
respective popularity figures give you a better idea of what to focus on when you study a complex
tabiya. Otherwise, it is easy to get lost in the sheer number of possibilities. Some people avoid studying

such positions altogether because they seem too complicated to learn. I believe that the Plan Explorer
can facilitate this task quite a bit.
• Let’s Check – This is an advanced function that is particularly useful for those players who would like
to have cutting edge opening analysis. Let’s Check works in the following way: while you analyze a
certain position with your engine, an opening book runs in parallel. This is no ordinary opening book,
though. It contains the deepest engine analysis of previous users! Thus, you often do not have to reinvent
the wheel in theoretical positions; instead, you can follow one of the three most relevant engine
suggestions of someone who has already analyzed this position with an engine before. This analysis
usually runs very deep (typically 30-40 to over 50 plies in some cases), so you can be sure that it is
pretty reliable. I feel like the quality of my own opening preparation has taken a quantum leap once I
began using this function – it simply becomes more accurate and deeper. I think that any active
tournament player would benefit greatly from Let’s Check.
Middlegame resources
• Similar Structures is perhaps my favorite research function (in addition to Similar Endgames) in
ChessBase. It allows you to explore any pawn structure you can think of in great detail thanks to a quick
search of the Mega Database. All you need to do is set up a structure that you are interested in, for
example, the following one.
Example 4.2
‘Hanging pawns’ structure
When you have set up the structure that you want, you click on the Similar Structures button, wait for a
minute or two, and boom! You get all the games with this particular variation of ‘hanging pawns’
structure that were ever played (and recorded in the database). You can sort them by rating, player, or
annotator and make your own selection of games that you would like to study further. For example, after
some research, I selected the following 10 model games (in no particular order of importance) for the
‘hanging pawns’ structure above:
1. So-Naiditsch, Dortmund 2015, 0-1
2. Spassky-Tal, Montreal 1979, 0-1
3. Karjakin-Kramnik, Moscow (rapid) 2018, 1-0

4. Kramnik-Kasparov, Moscow (blitz) 1998, 1-0
5. I.Sokolov-Khalifman, Pardubice 1994, 1-0
6. Kortchnoi-Karpov, Merano, 1981, 0-1
7. Kortchnoi-Geller, Moscow 1971, 1-0
8. Nakamura-Caruana, London 2018, 0-1
9. Mikhalchishin-Beliavsky, Moscow 1981, 1-0
10. Khademalsharieh-Ju Wenjun, Abu Dhabi 2016, 0-1
If you recall our discussion about complex pattern recognition from the first chapter, you will appreciate
the benefits of studying such model games. When you analyze quality games with thematic variations,
you get a broad understanding of the typical methods, subtleties, and exceptions in a particular structure
or type of position. This kind of study also allows you to recognize how the middlegame relates to the
opening and endgame through pawn structure transformations. We will touch upon this subject once
more in Chapter 8.
• Similar Moves is another function that uses the power of Chessbase’s search algorithm to find certain
positional patterns (usually maneuvers) in similar positions. In theory, this is a great idea, though I don’t
find it to be as robust as the Similar Structures function in practice, as it can produce irrelevant results in
some cases, or it may be difficult to set the parameters of the search that you actually want to perform.
The main reason for this is that the program usually chooses which two consecutive moves or maneuvers
to look for, not the user. Therefore, one may need to play a bit with this function to make the best use of
it. For example, I decided to investigate the ambitious ...Kh8, ...Rg8, ...g7-g5 plan in the ‘Hedgehog’
structure. For the source game, I used Charbonneau-Anand from the 2006 Chess Olympiad, in which the
Canadian grandmaster fended off Anand’s kingside attack and won the game.
Game 34
Pascal Charbonneau 2510
Viswanathan Anand 2803
Turin ol 2006 (12)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4 Nf6 7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 Be7 9.Be2 0-0 10 .0-0
b6 11.Bf4 Bb7 12.Qd2 Ne5 13.f3 Qc7 14.Rac1 Rac8 15.Rfd1 Qb8 16.Kh1 Rfe8 17.Bf1 Ba8
In fact, the actual move order from the game was 17...Kh8 18.Be3 Ba8 19.Bg1 Rg8, reaching the same
position as after 19...Rg8 in the main line. However, I could not perform the Similar Moves search for
the ...Kh8/...Rg8 maneuver in the original game since it would look for the ...Kh8/...Ba8 sequence
instead, which would definitely not yield helpful results. Thus, I had to rearrange the moves of the game
manually so that ...Kh8 and ...Rg8 come on the consecutive moves. As I explained above, this is a
practical drawback of the otherwise useful Similar Moves function.
18.Be3

(back to the PREVIEW)
The next two moves for Black are 18...Kh8 and 19...Rg8, so this is the moment to click on the ‘Similar
Moves’ icon. When the pop-up window asks whether you want to perform the search for ...Kg8-h8 and
... Re8-g8 maneuvers, you press OK and wait a bit. From the results of this search, I selected the
following model games:
1. Matlakov-Avrukh, Eilat 2012, 1-0
2. Gelfand-Ivanchuk, Monaco (blindfold) 2003, 1-0
3. Yudasin-Illescas Cordoba, Pamplona 1990, 1-0
4. Ionov-Yudasin, Vilnius 1997, 1-0
5. Taimanov-Jussupow, Soviet Union 1982, 0-1
6. Ji -Kryvoruchko, Al Ain 2012, 1-0
7. Ng-Meier, Lubbock 2013, 0-1
My overall impression when playing over these and other games with ...Kh8/...Rg8 was that this is an
objectively suspicious plan that could sometimes work in practice, especially against weaker players.
The weakening on the a1-h8 diagonal is quite substantial, and if White manages to open the center at the
right moment, it is usually Black’s, not White’s king, that falls under the attack, as evidenced by many of
these model games. In the remainder of the game, we can see how Charbonneau managed to defend
White’s case, but also that Anand missed a big chance to justify his strategy.
18...Kh8 19.Bg1 Rg8 20.Qe3 Ned7 21.Nab1 g5 22.Nd2 Bd8 23.b4 Bc7 24.Qe1 Rg6 25.Bd3 Ne5
26.Be2 Rcg8 27.Be3 Rh6!?
27...h5 was another, perhaps more methodical, way to attack.
28.Nf1!
The knight does a very good defensive job on this square.
28...Rgg6 29.Qd2 Qg8 30.a4 Bb7

(back to the PREVIEW)
After a long maneuvering battle, both sides are ready for the positional transformation. Charbonneau
plays a move that seems completely logical:
31.c5?!,
although he had two better alternatives in:
A) 31.a5!. The point is 31...bxa5 is met by 32.b5!, followed by the strong Nc3x/-b5. Importantly, 31...g4
32.f4 Nf3 does not work so well now due to 33.gxf3 Rh3 34.f5 Rg7 35.Ng3! gxf3 36.Bxf3 Rgxg3
37.Rg1+–. This is a difficult idea to find, though;
B) 31.Qb2!?, making an x-ray attack on Black’s king, would have been simple and strong.
31...dxc5 32.bxc5 bxc5 33.Rb1 Bc6 34.Bxc5 g4 35.f4
(back to the PREVIEW)
At this critical moment, Anand faltered with

35...g3??.
Instead, he would have obtained excellent play by sacrificing the knight in a different way: 35...Nf3!
36.gxf3 g3! (36...Rh3!? leads to a perpetual by force after 37.fxg4 Nxe4 38.Nxe4 Bxe4+ 39.Kg1 Rxg4+
40.Bxg4 Qxg4+ 41.Ng3 Rxg3+ 42.hxg3 Qxg3+ 43.Kf1 Qh3+=) 37.Nxg3 Rxg3 38.Rg1 Nh5! 39.Qd4+
e5 40.Qf2 exf4 41.Qd4+, with unclear consequences.
36.fxe5 Nxe4 37.Nxe4 Bxe4 38.Bd3!+–
Maybe Anand missed this strong defensive move. After this, he has no compensation for the sacrificed
piece.
38...Bxg2+ 39.Qxg2 gxh2 40.Bxg6 Rxg6 41.Ng3 Rxg3 42.Qe4 Rg4 43.Be7 1-0
• Search mask: Maneuvers is a function that allows the user to manually insert the maneuver that he
would like to explore. This is its main upside compared to Similar Moves. Another potential benefit is
that you can use this search option on any database that you have, not only the Mega Database. Thus, if
you keep a database with tactical motives, for instance, you can do a quick search of that database based
on a particular tactical motif (for example, the Greek gift sacrifice: Bd3xh7). On the other hand, a
possible downside of this function is that you get search results from all sorts of positions (openings,
middlegames, endgames) and not necessarily the type that you are interested in. Nevertheless, there are
additional options to narrow down the search by a plethora of parameters, which is a tremendous feature
of ChessBase’s search mask in general. So, let us say that we are interested in exploring the typical
attacking knight sacrifice on h6, such as in the following game:
Game 35
Viswanathan Anand 2779
Vladimir Kramnik 2766
Monaco rapid 2007
White to move
(back to the PREVIEW)

Kramnik has already sacrificed a rook to build up this wonderful attacking position, and now he opens
up the kingside with a thematic knight sacrifice:
27.Nxh6+! gxh6 28.f5 Qg7?!
Not that this is obvious, but a better defense was 28...Bc8! 29.Rg2 Kh8 30.gxh6 Bxf5! (creating
counterplay on the e-file) 31.exf5 Qf6 32.Bg5 Re1+ 33.Kf2 Qe5 34.Qg4 Be7, but White keeps an
advantage with 35.d4! Qe4 36.Qxe4 Rxe4 37.f6 Bf8 38.Bxf7, even in the endgame where he is down a
rook!
29.Rg2 Rxe4!
The best practical chance.
30.dxe4 Bxe4 31.Rg3?
A natural reply, but one that gives Black a breather. The winning continuation was 31.g6!! Bxg2
32.Bxf7+ Kh8 33.Kxg2
analysis diagram
and Black’s material advantage is irrelevant. He is getting smashed on the kingside. For instance:
33...Rd7 34.f6! Qxf6 35.Bxh6.
31...Qe5!
Anand usually does not miss such strong defensive moves.
32.gxh6+ Kh7 33.Qg4 Be7 34.Bxf7 Bxf5!
He is definitely out of the woods now.
35.Qg7+

Simpler was 35.Bg6+ Bxg6 36.Qxg6+ Kh8 37.h7 Qe1+ 38.Kh2 Qf2+=, but Kramnik held a slightly
worse endgame without many problems anyway.
35...Qxg7 36.hxg7 Rg83 37.Bxg8+ Kxg8 38.Bh6 d5 39.Rf3 Be6 40.Rf8+ Kh7 41.Rh8+ Kg6
42.g8=Q+ Bxg8 43.Rxg8+ Kxh6 44.Ra8 Nb3 45.Rxa6+ Bd6 46.Kf1 Kg5 47.Ke2 Kf5 48.Ra8 Ke6
49.a4 bxa4 50.Rxa4 c5 51.Kd3 c4+ 52.Kc2 Bf4 53.Ra8 Nc5 54.Rc8 Kd6 55.Rf8 Be5 56.Rg8 1⁄2-1⁄2
To find similar attacking examples, we should set the following parameters for the search: ‘Nf5xh6’ +
‘sacrifice’ + ‘check’ + ‘2400 average rating’ (optional). From the many results, relevant and non-
relevant alike, I have distilled the following model games:
1. Adams-Leko, Linares 1999, 1-0
2. Smirin-Avrukh, Tel Aviv 2002, 1-0
3. Onischuk-Kekki, Kallithea 2008, 1-0
4. Tomashevsky-Aleksandrov, Moscow 2006, 1-0
5. Nybäck-Adly, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010, 1-0
Endgame resources
• Similar Endgames is to endgame what Similar Structures is to the middlegame. This tool allows you
to explore typical endgames by searching the Mega Database for games that were played in similar
positions without having to manually put in the parameters such as material balance, pawn structure, etc.
All you need to do is to click on the Similar Endgames icon once you reach (or set up) an endgame
position that you would like to explore. In Chapter 2 (in the section ‘Deep analysis’), we looked at the
following endgame.
There, I provided the final step, a deep analysis of the endgame, but skipped the middle part – how I got
to that position. To explore it, I used the Similar Endgames function in a position from the game
Petrosyan-Artemiev. Let me show you now the results it produced and how I sorted them out to reach
the critical position for deep analysis.
Notable games for rook + knight + 2 pawns vs rook + 3 pawns endgame:

1. Anand-Aronian, Zurich 2014, 1-0
–
standard pawn structure (g3/h4 vs f7/g6/h5), Black
unsuccessfully defends with his king on e7;
2. Giri-Krämer, Germany Bundesliga 2013/14, 1-0
–
standard structure, Black defends with his king
on g7, but does not offer the best defense;
3. Vachier-Lagrave-Karjakin, Paris (blitz) 2018, 1-0
–
standard structure, Black defends with his king
on g7, but does not offer the best defense and also blunders a tactic;
4. Vachier-Lagrave-Smeets, Germany Bundesliga 2010/11, 0-1
–
White defends ‘actively’ with
f3/g4/h5 vs g7/h6, Black refutes this set-up instructively;
5. Navara-Hess, Reykjavik 2012, 1-0
–
Black defends even more actively with f5/g5/h5, trying to
exchange the pawns with ...h5-h4. Navara misses the winning sequence, but nicely wins a similar and
apparently drawn 2 vs 1 pawn endgame; and
6. Anand-Fridman, Douglas 2018, 1-0
–
Black has an inferior pawn structure: h7/g6/f5, Anand shows
the right winning plan.
• Search mask: Material is a very flexible function that can be used for any stage of the game, though I
have personally used it mostly for endgames. You can enter any material balance into the search mask
and the program will output all the games that have reached a position with the same material balance.
Similar to the Maneuvers function explained above, you can play around with additional search
parameters, such as Elo ratings and pawn structures, to narrow down your search as much as possible.
Let us see an example of a search that I did for rook endgames with the following parameters:
1. Material: White: 1 Rook + 2 pawns; Black: 1 Rook + 1 pawn; Ignore colours;
2. Pawn structure: Not blocked;
3. Pawn structure: Both wings; and
4. Game data: Elo 2400-3500, Avg.
From the search results, I selected the following interesting rook + 2 pawns vs rook + 1 pawn endgames
for further study:
1. Carlsen-Kramnik, Moscow 2013, draw – transformation into a theoretically drawn endgame with g-
and h-pawns;
2. M.Karthikeyan-Aravindh, Durban 2014, draw – a cool drawing idea by Black;
3. Hammer-Giri, Moscow 2017, draw – transformation into a theoretically drawn endgame with the b-
pawn;
4. Korobov-Karjakin, Kiev (rapid) 2013, 0-1
–
an unusual endgame with subtle king maneuvering;
also, an instructive transformation into a winning endgame with the h-pawn;
5. Kramnik-Anand, Leuven (rapid) 2016, 1-0
–
an instructive rook maneuver by Kramnik; and
6. Giri-Hou Yifan, Wijk aan Zee 2016, draw – instructive mistakes in conversion technique by Black.
General Improvement resources
• Replay training (introduced in ChessBase 15) is a function designed specifically for simulation
method of studying games. Earlier versions of ChessBase used to have a simple Training tab where you
would not see the next moves of the game. This generic version of simulation has been upgraded to a
training interface that provides different hints to facilitate your search for the best move. You also get a

score based on the strength of each move that you make, as assessed by an engine. I think that many
people will find these additional features helpful for doing simulations, because it may sometimes be
difficult to predict a move that a strong player has played without any hints. On the other hand, if you
prefer doing ‘raw’ simulations without hints, you can do two things:
1. uncheck Hints in Replay training mode; or
2. hide the notation altogether in ‘Notation’ mode.
• Annotator index allows you to find annotated games in a database. It is an excellent source of high-
quality annotations. For example, I have studied all games annotated by Magnus Carlsen in the Mega
Database, though he sadly rarely writes comments to his games anymore (the last one was his fine win
against Wesley So in the Bilbao Masters in 2016). You can check for new annotated games by using
Search mask and filtering all the games from recent years. This used to be the first thing that I would do
when I got every new yearly edition of Mega Database, because all the games annotated by top-level
players for ChessBase from the previous year would be included in it.
As you could see, all of the resources that were discussed can help you research and study various areas
of the game very efficiently. I know that this might sound like an advertisement (though I don’t think
that ChessBase needs my free endorsement to sell their most popular product better), but I think that
these study resources alone would be worth getting this relatively expensive software.
All that being said, I do not think that such a sophisticated study tool as ChessBase is absolutely
necessary for intermediate players or even for most players below master level. If you are, say, a 1800-
player, it cannot hurt if you get it, but I am not sure if it will be a game changer in terms of your
improvement; you can probably get just as much benefit from other, less expensive, study resources. On
the other hand, if you are a fairly serious tournament player, there is nothing to think about – this
software will be a great support in your studies and practical play.
Chess coach
Having a chess coach on a permanent basis is not something that everyone can afford. Yet, taking
lessons from a good coach is perhaps the most effective way to advance to the next level. Thus, hiring
one even for a limited period of time can be helpful. What are the main benefits of working with a
coach?
Firstly, a coach guides you with advice that is based on his experience. He can point out what you
should and, especially, what you should not be doing if you want to improve. He can point out typical
mistakes that either he or other players have already made, so that you do not repeat them. By the same
token, he can teach you things that have worked for him or someone else in the past. All of this is
valuable information to improving players, because they might have been doing something wrong in
their chess training or play that they have not even been aware of. Coaches are especially valuable for
young improving players who are often too inexperienced to understand the finer points of chess
improvement, as well as for ambitious adults who find themselves stuck at a certain level for a long
time. A good coach will provide deeper insights into their play and offer improvement advice that may
open new perspectives to the student.
Secondly, a coach can carefully analyze your games to identify your strengths and weaknesses,
technical and psychological alike, more objectively than yourself. This is why sometimes even top
players hire experienced coaches who do not have to be as strong as them (the collaboration of GMs

Sam Shankland and Jacob Aagaard comes to mind). No matter how strong you are, you may not always
be able to objectively evaluate yourself and pinpoint your weaknesses due to subjective biases.
Thirdly, a coach can provide study material that is aimed at the specific needs of the student, especially
once the key study areas have been identified. I believe that a coach’s duty is to find and prepare fresh
exercises (preferably not just rehashing old material from chess books), sorted by themes and difficulty,
for students to solve and analyze at home. He may also provide the student with opening files, important
model games to study, as well as recommend appropriate study resources and self-study methods. A
dedicated coach can create a study plan for his student, monitor its progress and provide feedback.
Finally, I believe that perhaps the greatest value that the coach can add, especially when working
together for a longer period of time, is through mutual analysis. Analysis with a stronger and/or more
experienced player helps you not only with the development of analytical skills. This kind of training
also allows you to subconsciously absorb the way strong players thinks: how they approach various
types of positions, how they evaluate them, how they come up with candidate moves and plans, how
they make decisions, etc. From my youth, I remember training sessions with Croatian GMs Zdenko
Kozul and Goran Dizdar fondly because I felt like my chess understanding increased as a result. Before
that, I wasn’t quite aware of the depth of a grandmaster’s strategic understanding. I recently watched a
YouTube video in which Brazilian GM Rafael Leitao said something similar about his work with his
more experienced countryman GM Gilberto Milos when he was younger. If I am not mistaken, in one
interview GM Nikita Vitiugov also claimed that analysis sessions with the great Viktor Kortchnoi had
left a strong impact on his development as a chess player.
Mutual analysis is not only beneficial as a way to improve your general skills as described above, but
also provides an opportunity for the coach to assess your strengths and weaknesses in ‘real time’.
Remember Kasparov’s quote from Chapter 2 – the way you analyze is essentially the way you think
during the game. Thus, your analytical skill will be highly correlated to your future performances and
through mutual analysis your coach is in a position to make a note of your strong sides, as well
deficiencies in your thinking process.
I believe that every student should be actively asking their coach to help them with improvement aspects
mentioned above and then some. Unfortunately, I see many students being passive in this sense, just
waiting for the coach to provide some material for the session without coming to him with questions.
This reminds me of an anecdote back when I used to work as a coach in the UAE. One grandmaster who
also worked there as a coach at the time told me the following story. One day, he arrived for training at
the club. He met with the student with whom he was supposed to have the training, got his laptop out
getting ready to work, when the student asked him: ‘So, coach, what did you prepare for me today?’ The
coach took objection and explained to the student that he is not a chef who prepares stuff for him, called
off the training, and drove back home. The moral of the story: A student should be just as motivated as
the coach for the training session, otherwise there is little point in this work.
For me as a coach, there is nothing worse than asking a student if they have any questions and hearing
an answer: ‘Umm... hmmm... No, I think that I am good for now.’ This tells me that the student does not
think much about chess outside the lesson, which is not a good sign when it comes to their improvement.
When your coach asks you this question, it is not out of politeness; he actually expects you to raise your
concerns about a problematic opening line or ask him to clarify an unusual idea that you saw in a recent
top-level game. If you want to make the most of your study time with a coach, pick his brains about any

chess topic that interests you. Besides the mentioned benefits of coaching, there are many more. A coach
can become your mentor and a friend, not only in chess, but also in life. These are valuable things.
Chess periodicals
When compared to the first four types of study resources that we have just discussed, chess periodicals
(magazines and similar publications) may be considered to be optional. Nevertheless, I would strongly
recommend to a player of any level to subscribe to at least one chess magazine of choice because it can
be a valuable source of information and study material. At the very least, it can make for light reading
that allows you to stay connected to chess in your downtime.
A typical chess magazine will, by default, contain a mix of topics: an in-depth look at the most
important recently finished events, a selection of games annotated by strong players, instructive articles
about different stages of the game, a puzzle section, and preferably an interview, historical, or another
popular section. While most chess magazines are aimed at a wide audience, often with the goal to
entertain almost as much as to educate, there are also more specialized periodicals available, such as
those for endgame studies, chess problems, and correspondence chess, as well as those best suited for
ambitious tournament players and chess professionals.
In this section, I would like to focus on the latter type of chess periodicals and give an overview of the
five (ChessBase Magazine, New In Chess Magazine, New In Chess Yearbook, Chess Informant, and
Modern Chess Magazine) that I believe would be the most beneficial for an aspiring chess player. In the
table below, I provide a breakdown of the most notable sections of these periodicals and suggest
appropriate study methods for them. This could be valuable information for someone who is not well
acquainted with a particular periodical or wonders what kind of study benefits to expect from it. Similar
to online study resources recommendations, I did not go into criteria like subscription price, magazine
layout, etc., because my primary goal was to provide an overview of educational resources that the
magazine provides, rather than a critic review.
Table 4.8: Chess periodicals for an aspiring chess player
Periodical Name
Periodical section
Study method
ChessBase
Magazine
Annotated games
Simulation, Light analysis, Deep analysis, Computer-
assisted analysis
Opening videos
Watching
Opening articles
Reading, Playing over
Move by Move
Find the best move
Tune Your Tactics
Solving, Blindfold solving
Excelling in Endgames
Watching, Solving
Training questions
Solving
New in Chess
Annotated games
Blindfold reading, Light analysis, Deep analysis
MAXIMize your tactics
Solving, Blindfold solving
Interview/Biography
Reading
New In Chess
Yearbook
Opening Surveys
Reading, Reviewing

Periodical Name
Periodical section
Study method
Exercises
Solving, Blindfold solving
Forum
Playing over, Reading
Correspondence Chess
Reading
Chess Informant
Opening articles
Reading, Playing over, Mutual analysis
Positional play/Strategy
articles
Reading, Light analysis
Game section
Simulation, Light analysis, Deep analysis, Reviewing
Combinations
Solving, Blindfold solving
Endings
Solving, Blindfold solving
Studies
Solving, Blindfold solving
Modern Chess
Positional play/Strategy
articles
Reading, Light analysis, Solving
Opening articles
Reading, Light analysis
Endgame Series, Endgame
Challenges
Reading, Light analysis, Solving
Tactics
Reading, Solving, Blindfold solving
People who are not fluent in English, or those who are but do not read international magazines for any
other reason, can find high-quality study material in chess magazines in their native language. Some of
the most well-known are: 64 (Russia), Chess Life (USA), CHESS Magazine (UK), Rochade Europa
(Germany) and Europe Echecs (France). I would encourage particularly young players who have an
opportunity to read such magazines to do it regularly. When I was a young player, the Croatian chess
magazine Šahovski Glasnik was an important source of study material. I can recall how eagerly I had
anticipated every new monthly issue and read it cover to cover, carefully analyzing all the games
annotated by the strongest Croatian players. A particular feature of this magazine used to be a selection
of best tournament games with no comments or just one diagram at the critical moment of the game. At
some point, just out of curiosity, I began going through some of these games blindfold without a chess
set. Not that I was any good at it at first, but I think that this practice has gradually helped me develop
my blindfold skills. Of course, I also solved tactical puzzles on the back cover, read instructive articles,
set up simulation and analysis sessions of interesting games (the analysis of the Tukmakov-Kozul game
from the first chapter is one such example), etc. I am sure that you can appreciate now how much study
material one can find even in ‘plain’ chess magazines. The possibilities are plentiful and where there is a
will, there is a way. This brings me to the point with which I would like to close the chapter on study
resources.
Naturally, when we are looking for an appropriate study resource, we want to make a good and
informed decision. No one wants to waste time or money on something that will not work. However, as I
mentioned in the introduction, it is not unusual these days for people to go overboard with this process

by stressing over picking the absolutely very best title or author, getting the newest version of the
strongest chess engine, working with the best possible coach, etc. Firstly, it is unlikely that any one
resource, no matter how great it is, will automatically help you solve a certain problem in your play – as
we discussed in Chapter 1, learning is not a straightforward process. Secondly, there are so many good
study resources out there that if you had to randomly pick one, there is a greater chance that it would be
a success than a flop.
The bottom line is this: it is really not that important whether you have the best possible resource on a
certain subject; even a good one will serve you well if you study it carefully. I mean, when I was
younger and had nothing better to study, I would look at games from such obscure books as the one
about Latvian chess and the Hungarian 1978 Chess Olympiad gold-winning team (fortunately, it is not
difficult to figure out which letters represent chess pieces in foreign languages with a little practice), and
managed to find some useful study material even there. You see, with the right approach, you can make
pretty much any study resource work for you, while with the wrong one you will let the best one go to
waste. For many people, the best study resources are those that offer clear and relevant explanations of
important concepts and achievable tasks relevant to their chess improvement.
Chapter 4 summary
• The abundance and variety of instructive chess material can be overwhelming and downright confusing
at times, leading to the ‘paradox of choice’.
• An ambitious player with limited time and budget should carefully select appropriate study resources
from five categories: online resources, chess books, database software, chess coach, and chess
periodicals.
• Having the appropriate study resources is only one part of the study equation; the other one is using the
right study methods.
• Sometimes it is not easy to draw the line between the educational and entertainment value of certain
online resources, so one should pick the right ones for study purposes.
• There are many YouTube channels with good educational content available to an eager chess student.
• While new online technologies can facilitate and streamline many aspects of our chess training, we
should keep in mind that these are only tools and not solutions in themselves – how effectively you use
them is far more important.
• ‘Reading the autobiographical games collections of great past players is like taking lessons with some
of the greatest players in history’ – Efstratios Grivas.
• ChessBase software contains many useful tools for independent study, research, and analysis, such as
‘Similar Structures/Endgames’, ‘Replay training’ etc.
• When you analyze quality games with thematic variations, you get a broad understanding of the typical
methods, subtleties, and exceptions in a particular structure or type of position. This kind of study also
allows you to recognize how the middlegame relates to opening and endgame through pawn structure
transformations.
• A chess coach can provide valuable help in your chess improvement by:
–
guiding you with experience-based advice about what to do and what not to do in chess study;
–
analyzing your games to identify your strengths and weaknesses more objectively than yourself;

–
preparing study material for your specific chess needs; and
–
mutual analysis, which allows you to subconsciously absorb the way a strong player thinks;
• If you want to make the most of your study time with a coach, be proactive and pick their brains about
any topic that interests you.
• While completely optional, chess periodicals are highly recommended, since they can be a valuable
source of information and study material for a chess player of any level.
• It is really not that important whether you have the best possible resource on a certain subject; even a
good one will serve you well if you study it carefully.

Chapter 5 – Preview
Black to move
How can Black keep the balance in this position?
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
How should Black respond to the mating threat after 23.Rff3 ?
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
White to move and win.
(go to the ANSWER)
White to move
Please suggest a plan to improve the position.
(go to the ANSWER)

Black to move
Please suggest the strongest move.
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
How does White keep the attack going?
(go to the ANSWER)
White to move
How would you evaluate this endgame and which plan would you suggest
for Black?
(go to the ANSWER)

Black to move
What would you play?
(go to the ANSWER)
Chapter 5
Study your openings deeply
Openings are probably the most popular study area on all playing levels. In
my view, there are several reasons why this is the case:
• Solid opening knowledge usually gives one a good starting position and
confidence for later stages of the game, and vice versa;
• Applying opening knowledge in a game is usually more straightforward
than most other types of knowledge or skill;
• Openings tend to be simpler and more fun to learn than other stages of the
game; and

• Openings are a perpetual source of new, concrete, and easily digestible
information.
Having all these things in mind, it is completely natural to put the opening
high on the list of study priorities. However, we should be aware that the
opening is just one, relatively short, part of the game. Yes, it is important to
get a good position out of the opening, but it is even more important to
know what to do once it is over. I would put it this way: opening study
should not be underestimated, but it could be overestimated. I have met
many people, and I am sure that you have, too, who have fallen into the trap
of spending too much time studying openings. If they were to study other
aspects of the game as zealously as openings, I am sure that they would be
more complete, creative, and most likely, stronger chess players. Young
players and their coaches should especially keep this in mind. As we
discussed previously, unless you are already a strong titled player who has
mastered most other aspects of the game to a high degree, opening study
should not be your top priority.
Opening study mindset
To my mind, Hungarian grandmaster Lajos Portisch, one of the strongest
opening theoreticians of his time (1960s through 1980s), described very
well a proper approach to opening study: ‘Your only task in the opening is
to reach a playable middle game. To all players I can recommend the
following: simplicity and economy. These are the characteristics of the
opening systems of many great masters. They do not strain unduly for
advantages in the opening; they would just as soon move on to the next
stage of the game, hoping their skill will overcome the opponent in the
middle game or endgame.’
Portisch’s advice, given many decades ago, has proved to be far-sighted.
Striving to reach a playable middlegame (or even endgame) that you know
well, without trying to necessarily force anything in the opening, is
probably the most reasonable approach to openings in today’s computer era.
Keeping up with ever-increasing amounts of opening theory can be too
time-consuming and ineffective for many chess players. Instead, a more

practical approach is to focus on middlegame and endgame competence and
learn only as much opening theory as you need to get a position that you
like, even if it is not the most critical by the highest opening theory
standards. This, however, does not mean that you should go out of your way
to avoid mainstream opening theory. In fact, I would recommend playing as
principled lines as possible, since I fully agree with the following statement
of Sam Shankland, one of the leading American grandmasters and chess
authors: ‘... playing the middlegames that arise from mainline openings is
an incredible learning experience for which there is no substitute.’
Still, which kinds of opening variations you will choose is of relatively
less importance in this discussion. The main point that I would like to make
is that you should rather give up on the idea that anything should be decided
in the opening, whether it is getting a minimal advantage as White or fully
equalizing (or getting a better position!) as Black. Sure, if your opponent
makes an inaccuracy in the opening, plays a suspicious line, or a risky
gambit, you should be ready to take advantage of it, but this should not be
the point of your opening study, because a well-prepared opponent (and
these days there are many of these) will often be able to neutralize your
opening preparation. Instead, when studying openings, I believe that one
should adopt the mindset that I have come to fully appreciate after many
years in chess: opening study should incorporate middlegame study to a
large degree.
When I was a less experienced improving player, my opening knowledge
would often end right at the start of the middlegame. I was happy enough to
know the textbook opening theory, but I would rarely go to the trouble of
studying the middlegames that could arise beyond that point. This was a
mistake, which many chess players make as well, because opening
knowledge is strongly interconnected with an understanding of the
middlegame and, in some cases, even the endgame. You cannot say that you
know a particular opening well if you have only memorized opening
variations and a couple of model games but do not understand the typical
arising middlegames. Thus, one of the first goals of a player who wishes to

get the most out of their opening study is to carefully study the transition
from opening to middlegame. Here is what the strong Soviet player Ilya
Kan said about this: ‘... the ability to play the transitional phase is highly
rated by the specialists. Botvinnik commented that in transition from
opening to middlegame, Bronstein had no equal.’ This transitional phase of
the game usually provides a wealth of analytical content that enriches one’s
arsenal of strategic and tactical devices for the upcoming middlegame
immensely. I would like to show you a practical example:
Game 36
A game of an improving youngster
(analysis)
This game was sent to me for a review by one young improving player,
together with some of his notes.
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 h6 4.a3 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Nd7 6.Bd3 Ngf6 7.Nxf6+
Nxf6 8.Nf3 c5 9.0-0 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Bc5 11.Nf3
This is the move that the player had analyzed after the game and on which
we will focus in this analysis. The game continuation was 11.Ne2.
11...0-0 12.b4 Be7 13.Bb2 b6 14.Qe2

In this position, the young player stopped his analysis, evaluating it as equal
(‘=’). But why would you stop exactly here? Sure, the engine agrees with
this evaluation on a greater depth and Black’s position generally is quite
solid, but it is not like White is completely out of ideas to obtain an edge. I
think that this is actually the kind of position from which you should start
your analysis to understand it (and the engine’s evaluation) better, not stop
it!
With this in mind, let us continue the analysis.
14...Bb7
White has two sensible plans at his disposal here. The more aggressive one
is
15.Ne5,
preparing a kingside attack with f2-f4-f5 or Ng4.
The second one is more positional: 15.Rfd1 Qc7 16.c4, setting the
queenside pawn majority in motion. However, Black shouldn’t have

problems with this plan, as we can see from the notes below: 16...Rac8
(more principled is 16...a5 17.b5 Rfd8 18.Ne5 Bc5=, blocking the pawns)
17.Rac1 Qc6 (17...Rfd8 18.Ne5 Bd6=) 18.Qe3 Ng4?! (18...Rfd8 19.Bf1
Qe4=) 19.Qf4 Bf6 20.Bxf6 Nxf6 21.Bf1 Rfd8 (Kuczynski-Burgess,
Oakham 1986) 22.Ne5 Qc7 23.Be22.
15...a5!
An important intermezzo. Black fights for the important c5-square.
Surprisingly, the ‘automatic’ move 15...Qc7 already allows White to take
the initiative with 16.Ng4!.
analysis diagram
(back to the PREVIEW)
This is an unpleasant position for Black, as we can see from the following
variations:
A) 16...Rad8 17.f4!‚;

B) 16...Qf4 17.Ne5! (trapping the queen on the kingside) 17...Be4
18.Rad1±;
C) 16...Qc6 17.f4 a5 18.Rae1 axb4 19.axb4. White’s attack has become
menacing, so Black should try to bail with the queen trade: 19...Qxg2+
20.Qxg2 Bxg2 21.Nxh6+ gxh6 22.Kxg2ƒ. However, White’s initiative
persists even into the endgame, since the black king is now exposed both on
the g-file and the long diagonal;
D) In fact, the only way to keep the balance is 16...a5!, but then Black
needs to find a string of only moves to protect his king after 17.Nxf6+ Bxf6
18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Qg4+ Kh8 20.Qh4 Kg7 21.Rae1 f5! 22.Re3 Qd8!
23.Rg3+ Kh7 24.Qf4 Qf6=, which may be a tall order in an actual game.
16.b5
White gets a worse version of the same attacking idea from the 15... Qc7
variation with 16.Rad1 Qc7 17.Ng4 axb4 18.axb4 Qf4!=, and Black
neutralizes White’s initiative because the b4-pawn is hanging in this case.
16...Qc7 17.Rad1!
Taking the patient approach. White achieves nothing with the direct 17.Ng4
Rad8 18.Nxf6+ (18.f4? Bc5+ 19.Kh1 Nxg4 20.Qxg4 Bd4μ Jelecevic-
Kovacevic, Velika Gorica 2010) 18...Bxf6 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.Qg4+ Kh8
21.Qh4 Kg7=.
17...Rad8 18.Rfe1
White has more useful moves than Black due to the space advantage.
18...Bc5!
This is the only move to keep the balance. The alternatives:
A) 18...Rfe8 19.Nc6! Bxc6 20.bxc6±;
B) 18...Rd6 19.Ng4±; and

C) 18...Rd5 19.c4 all fail to impress.
Now that the bishop has left the e7-square, it is a better moment to play
19.Ng4
White’s threats on the kingside have taken real form. But Black can defend
with
19...Qf4!.
The alternative 19...Nxg4 20.Qxg4 f5 leads to a pawn-down endgame by
force: 21.Qg6 Bd5 22.c4 Be4 23.Qxe6+ Qf7 24.Qxf7+ Kxf7 25.Be22.
20.Nxf6+
20.Ne5?! allows unpleasant counterplay: 20...Ne4.
20...gxf6 21.g3

Black is also fine in case of 21.Bc1 Qh4 22.g3 Qh3 23.Be4 Bxe4 24.Qxe4
Qh5=.
21...Qf3 22.Qxf3 Bxf3 23.Bxf6 Bxd1 24.Bxd8 Rxd8 25.Rxd1 Kf8 26.a4=
As we could see, deeper analysis reveals that such ‘equal’ positions actually
contain many opportunities and pitfalls for both sides and that keeping the
balance is more delicate than it appears to be. Without the analysis of the
transitional phase, the chances of making a mistake after the opening
increase, because of a superficial understanding of the typical middlegame.
A related practical issue was identified well by, once again, GM Sam
Shankland: ‘There is very little more frustrating than spoiling great
pregame work with over the board ineptitude. There were countless cases in
the past couple years where I played very poorly on the first few moves out
of preparation.’
The point of this short discussion was to introduce a general approach to
opening study that incorporates the study of the arising middlegames. Let
us now look at more specific opening advice.
Basic opening study
The first thing that you need to do when you study an opening, especially a
new one, is to gather a decent knowledge base on which you will build
upon later. This can be done in many ways: from opening databases, books,
video lectures, lessons, etc. Wherever you get your opening material from,
you should take away two basic things from it:
1) several key variations; and
2) several model games.
After that, it is strongly suggested that you create simple opening files
that contain key variations and model games from openings that you want
to play. It is a good idea to add brief comments to these files and highlight
important ideas and strategic pointers with arrows, circles, etc. They will
help you review the material more easily later. Let us see how a simple

opening file for the main line of the Richter-Rauzer Attack in the Sicilian
Defense could look like.
Game 37
Sicilian Rauzer Attack – basic opening file
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 a6
8.0-0-0 Bd7 9.f4 b5
Variation 2: 9...Be7 (to recapture on f6 with the bishop) 10.Nf3! (to attack
d6 and prepare e4-e5) 10...b5 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.f5 Qb6 13.Qh6!? (to bring
the queen to h5 and attack f7 and h7) 13...0-0-0 14.Qh5 Rhf8 15.Kb1 Kb8
16.Bd3
analysis diagram
16...Bc8 17.Rhe1 Qc7 18.Bf1 Na5 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.Nd4± Nc6 21.Ncxb5!
axb5 22.Qxb5+ Bb7 23.Nxe6+– Karjakin-Demchenko, Douglas 2019.
Variation 3: 9...h6 10.Bh4 b5 (10...Nxe4 11.Qe1! Nf6 12.Nf5 Qa5
13.Nxd6+ Bxd6 14.Rxd6 0-0-0 15.Qe3!2; the bishop pair or better pawn

structure after Bxf6 promise a slight advantage) 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.f5 (we can
play it now because there is no ...Bf8-h6-f4-e5 maneuver after ...Nxd4)
12...Qb6 13.fxe6 (to get a better pawn structure) 13...fxe6 14.Nxc6 Qxc6
15.Bd3 h5 16.Kb1
analysis diagram
16...b4 17.Ne2 Qc5 18.Rhf1?! (18.e5!! (a typical breakthrough!) 18...fxe5
19.Qg5 Be7 20.Qg7 Rf8 21.Rhf1ƒ) 18...Bh6 19.Qe1 a5 20.b3 Rg8 21.g3
Ke7 22.Bc4 Be3 23.Rf3 Rg4„ Karjakin-Caruana, Moscow 2016.
10.Bxf6 gxf6
10...Qxf6?! 11.e5 Qe7 12.Bxb5! axb5 13.Ndxb5 Qd8 14.exd6‚.
11.Kb1
To avoid ...Bh6+ after 11.f5?! Nxd4 12.Qxd4 Bh6+ 13.Kb1 Bf4 and
14...Be5=.

11...Qb6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.f5 b4
13...h5 14.fxe6 fxe6 15.Bd3 (this is similar to Karjakin-Caruana) 15...0-0 -0
16.Ne2 Qc5 17.Rhf1 (White is better due to a better pawn structure and
exposed black king) 17...Qe5 18.Qe3 Kb7 19.Nd4 Bd7 20.c3! (the bishop
can eventually be maneuvered to b3 to attack e6) 20...Be7 21.Bc2 a5 22.g3
Rc8 23.Qf2 Rc7 24.Rfe1 Rhc8 25.Bb3 Bf8 26.a3 a4 27.Ba2 Re8 28.Ka1
Bh6 29.Nc2 Bg7 30.Nb4+– Anand-Caruana, Paris blitz 2019.
14.Ne2 e5!
Taking the central pawn is risky for Black with the king on e8.
15.Ng3
15...h5
The main alternative is 15...Qc5 16.Nh5, and now:

A) 16...Be7 17.Bd3 0-0-0 18.Qe2 d5! 19.exd5 Bxd5 20.Ng3! (playing for
control over the light squares; the a-pawn is irrelevant) 20...Kc7 21.b3 a5
22.Be42 Tari-Kolas, Norway tt 2015/16; and
B) 16...Ke7 17.g4! (sacrifice the central pawn for the initiative) 17...Rg8
18.Rg1 Bxe4 19.g5 fxg5 20.Rg4 Bf3 21.Rc4 Qb6 22.Rxb4 Qc6 23.Rb7+
Kd8 24.Qa5+ Kc8 25.Rb6 Qc7 26.Bxa6+ Bb7 27.Bxb7+ Qxb7 28.Qc3+
1-0 Perunovic-Jankovic, Bosnia and Herzegovina tt 2014.
16.h4 Qc5 17.Bd3 Bh6 18.Qe2 Ke7 19.Nxh5 Qe3 20.Qf1 Bxe4 21.Rg1!
To prepare g2-g4.
21...Bxd3 22.Rxd3 Qc5 23.Qd1 Be3 24.Re1 Bf2 25.Re4 Rac8 26.Nxf6!
Kxf6 27.Rxd6+ Kg7 28.Rg4+ Kh7 29.Rg5 Qxc2+ 30.Qxc2 Rxc2 31.Kxc2
Rc8+ 32.Kd3 1-0
Khanin-Timofeev, Moscow 2019.
In this kind of opening file, there should be enough opening theory to
prepare you for the most common possibilities for Black in the main line,
while also not overburdening you by too many concrete lines to remember.
Five to six model games will give you a general direction for the typical
middlegames and also be relatively easy on your memory. This is the
foundation that should give most club players confidence to essay this
opening in a classical game, while for most titled players it should be
enough to at least give it a try in a blitz/rapid game or against a much lower-
rated opponent.
By saving your opening work into a database such as the one above, no
matter how elementary or messy it may be initially, you are creating a good
base for the future study of that opening variation. Once it has been saved,
you can always access it for a review or upgrade. For instance, when you
play or stumble upon a theoretically important game, or see a novelty on a
high level, you can easily insert them into your opening database. It may
take some time and discipline to create this habit, but, speaking from the

experience of someone who played chess for a long time without such
databases, keeping them makes a big difference.
Beyond the basics
Of course, to learn an opening at a higher level, you should upgrade this
basic knowledge by exploring the opening in more detail. Thankfully, these
days many high-quality publications containing detailed opening analysis
are available for this purpose: online opening courses, opening DVDs,
books, pgn databases, games annotated by top players, etc. They usually
come with verbal explanations that help you understand particular moves
and strategic ideas in the opening better. If you use these resources, you can
learn an opening pretty well, and for many people this amount of opening
study is just about enough.
On the other hand, when I study an opening this way, I feel a bit like a
passive learner. As well as the author of the opening course or book does
their job, I still feel like I need to do additional work on my own to
understand the opening subtleties fully. I am sure that you can relate to
moments when you study a certain opening variation and have a question
which remains unanswered, such as:
• What if he plays this move (not mentioned by the author)?
• Why did White trade his strong bishop for the knight?
• Why didn’t he castle now and not on the next move?
• What is my plan in the middlegame after this sequence?
• Which move order is better to reach a desired position?
Let us see a couple of practical examples:
Example 5.1
Nikita Vitiugov 2731
Santosh Gujrathi Vidit 2721
Prague 2020 (6)

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 e6 3.e3 c5 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.exd4 b6 6.h3 Be7 7.a4 0-0
8.Nbd2 d6
In this position, Vitiugov developed the bishop to an unusual square with
9.Bb5!?
Your task is to try to figure out why he played this move instead of the more
natural-looking 9.Bd3.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 5.1
9.Bb5!?
The point of this deep move is to hinder the trade of the light-squared
bishops.

A) In case of standard development with 9.Bd3, Black equalizes fairly
easily with 9...Ba6 10.Bxa6 Nxa6 11.c3 Nb8 12.0 -0 Nc6=;
B) White could also consider making a useful move such as 9.c3!? before
developing his bishop. However, after 9...Ba6,
B1) 10.Bb5 is not as strong as in the game, since after 10...Bxb5 11.axb5
Nd5 12.Bg3 Nc7, he is down a full tempo compared to the game as his c-
pawn would have to move twice;
B2) White could also win a tempo compared to variation A) with 10.Bxa6
Nxa6 11.Qe2 Nb8 12.0-0 Nc6, but, strategically speaking, he does not
achieve much this way.
9...Ba6
Vidit insists on the bishop trade.
A) Vitiugov’s idea can be seen in the variation 9...a6 10.Bd3, and White
preserves his bishop from the exchange. Obviously, Vitiugov was ready to
play this Hedgehog-like position down a tempo, while Vidit was not, being
up a tempo. It is a rich middlegame, but perhaps it is indeed a bit easier to
play with White. For example: 10...Bb7 11.0-0 Nbd7 12.Bh2 Qc7 13.c3,
etc.;
B) However, 9...Na6!? deserved attention. Black can force the trade of
bishops after 10.0-0 Nc7 11.Bc6 (or 11.Bd3 Ba6) 11...Rb8, followed by
. . .Bc8-b7/d7. Perhaps White can claim a small victory as the knight is not
placed so well on c7, but Black may also just be fine after some precise
moves. It is all very subtle.
10.0-0 Bxb5 11.axb5 Nd5 12.Bg3 Nc7

13.c4
Playing this move in one go is what Vitiugov probably had in mind in the
first place when postponing c2-c3.
13...a6

This is how Vidit planned to justify the plan started on move 9. However, it
turns out that he cannot equalize with such direct play in this position.
Objectively, something subtler like 9...Na6 was probably better.
14.bxa6
Another promising option for White was 14.Qb3!? Qd7 15.Ne4!, targeting
the d6-pawn. If 15...axb5 16.Rxa8 Nxa8 17.Qxb5! Qxb5 18.cxb5 f5!
19.Neg5 Nc7 20.Rc1! Nxb5 21.Nxe6 Re8 22.d5 leads to a pleasant
endgame for White.
14...Rxa6 15.Qb32
We can stop at this point and conclude that Vitiugov’s opening strategy was
a success. He retained a slight plus thanks to the positional pressure on the
black queenside pawns.
The game ended in a draw after good defensive play by Vidit.

Example 5.2
Dommaraju Gukesh 2520
Wong Jianwen 2301
Biel 2019 (6)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d3 Bg7 6.h3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Nd7
8.Be3 e5
In this position, the standard move is 9.Qd2, preparing to exchange the
bishops on h6. However, the young Indian grandmaster tried to accomplish
the same with an odd-looking queen development.
9.Qc1!?
Your task is to figure out what is the point behind this (prepared) move by
comparing it to the game Wang Hao-Carlsen below, in which the usual
9.Qd2 was played.
Show/Hide Solution

Exercise 5.2
The point behind
9.Qc1!?
is that after the logical sequence, also played in a similar position in Wang
Hao-Carlsen...
9...h6 10.0-0 b6 11.a3 Nf8 12.b4 Ne6 13.bxc5
. . . Black does not have the 13...f5 counterplay, since there is no threat to
trap the bishop with ...f5-f4 as in Carlsen’s game. This is why the queen
went to c1 in the first place – so that the d2-square would be available for
the bishop in this important line! White obtained an edge in the game after
13...bxc5
13...f5?! is now not nearly as effective as in Carlsen’s game. Among several
good options, we can point out 14.exf5 gxf5 15.Bd2!±, preparing 16.Re1.
14.Na4 Qa5 15.Nb2!
And White had a pleasant edge thanks to a superior pawn structure.
Game 38
Wang Hao 2730
Magnus Carlsen 2835
St Petersburg Wch Blitz 2018 (14)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d3 Bg7 6.h3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Nd7
8.Be3 e5 9.Qd2
The standard move.

9...h6
Avoiding the trade of bishops on h6.
10.0-0 b6 11.a3
White prepares the standard b2-b4 break on the queenside.
11...Nf8 12.b4
Carlsen responds with a strong counter-sequence in the center:
12...Ne6! 13.bxc5 f5! 14.exf5 gxf5 15.Qe1 0-0„
With good play for the sacrificed pawn. He went on to win the game.
16.Rb1 e4 17.dxe4 f4 18.Rd1 Qe7 19.Bd4 Nxd4 20.Nxd4 Ba6 21.Nxc6
Qxc5 22.Nd5 Rae8 23.Ncb4 Bxf1 24.Kxf1 Qc4+ 25.Qe2 Rxe4 26.Qxc4
Rxc4 27.Ke2 a5 28.Nd3 Rxc2+ 29.Kf3 Ra2 30.Nxb6 Rxa3 31.Nc4 Rc3
32.Nxa5 Rd8 33.Ke2 Rd5 34.Nb7 Bf8 35.Rd2 Rb3 36.Nbc5 Bxc5 0-1

The next example should help you appreciate the importance of doing your
own analytical work on top of playing over and reviewing the published
opening material.
Game 39
King’s Indian Defense
(analysis)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4
8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 Nc6 10.Be3 Nh5
In one of the recent issues of the New in Chess Yearbook, currently one of
the most influential chess opening publications, the well-known author and
opening theoretician Nikolaos Ntirlis suggested that Black has very good
chances of keeping the balance against the Classical Variation of the King’s
Indian Defense by playing like this. This may well be true, and anyone who
studies this opening survey would surely have a good base for a long-term
repertoire against the Classical Variation. However, if you want to be fully
prepared in this variation, it is not enough just to copy Ntirlis’ analysis into
your opening file and learn it by heart; you should also process it yourself.

Let me illustrate this with a concrete example. In this position, White has
two main options:
11.Nc2!?
which leads to more concrete play, and a positional alternative 11.Qd2. In
this instance, we are interested in the former. After Black’s best move
11...Be5
one of the critical lines goes:
12.Nd5 Ne7! 13.Bg5 f6 14.Be3 Nxd5 15.Qxd5+ Be6 16.Qd2 f5 17.f4!
Bxb2 18.Rab1 Bg7 19.Bxh5 gxh5 20.Bd4 b6 21.Rb3! Bxd4+! 22.Qxd4
h4
(back to the PREVIEW)
This position has been reached practically by force after 13.Bg5, and pretty
much every move by Black was the only move to keep the balance, that is,
the second-best alternatives would leave him in a worse position. With his

last move, Black prevented White’s mating threat Rg3+, and Ntirlis
concludes that Black is fine after 23.exf5 c5! 24.Qd3 Bf7!, etc., with
equality after a couple of more moves.
Now, let us imagine that you play a game as Black against a well-prepared
opponent and he chooses this exact line. You readily blitz out your moves
up to here, expecting that you will crown your deep opening preparation
with an easy draw after 23.exf5, or, hopefully, even something more if he
goes wrong. However, as your opponent is thinking about his next move,
cold sweat passes over you – ‘What if he threatens checkmate on g3 again?’
And, sure enough, after a couple of minutes, your opponent confidently
pushes the rook up the board:
23.Rff3!
If you have attempted to solve the exercises from the diagrams at the start
of this chapter, you will recognize this position. If you haven’t, please take
as much time as you need to find a satisfactory defense for Black. I am sure
that this is not an easy task for anyone. In a tournament game, if you
haven’t checked this position in your home preparation, there is absolutely
no guarantee that you would find the right move because it is neither
forced, nor obvious. Black has several reasonable defenses that might seem
right, but you need to calculate precisely to figure out that the only move
that keeps you completely safe is
23...Rf8!,
clearing the f7-e8 escape route for the king, while also strengthening
control over the squares on the f-file. White is clearly better or winning if
Black plays anything else. Let us see the alternatives:
A) 23...Kf7 24.exf5 Bxf5 25.Qd5+, and here White is better after all three
Black responses:
A1) 25...Kg6 26.Nd4! Be4 27.Rg3+ Kh6! 28.Qf7! Qe7 29.Qxe7 Rxe7
30.Rg4±;

A2) 25...Kf6 26.Ne3 Qd7 27.h3!?±;
A3) 25...Be6 26.Qh5+ Kg7 27.f5 Bf7 28.Qg4+ Kh8 29.f6 Rg8 30.Qxh4±.
B) 23...Re7 24.exf5 Bxf5 25.Ne3 Qf8 26.Qd5+ Be6 27.Qg5+ Rg7
28.Qxh4±;
C) 23...Bf7 24.Rg3+! hxg3 25.Rxg3+ Bg6 (25...Kf8 26.Qg7+ Ke7 27.Nd4
Qd7 28.Qg5+ Kf8
analysis diagram
(back to the PREVIEW)
and here White wins with a beautiful quiet move: 29.Qf6!!. Interestingly,
the same position arises by a completely different move order in the
variation 23...Qd7!) 26.exf5 Qe7 27.fxg6 h6 28.Re3±;
D) 23...Qd7 24.Rg3+! hxg3 25.Rxg3+ Kf8 26.Qf6+ Bf7 27.Nd4! Rxe4
28.Nxf5+–.
Now, White can either force a perpetual check with
24.Rg3+

or play an approximately equal position after 24.exf5 Bxf5 25.Ne3 Qe7=.
24...hxg3 25.Rxg3+ Kf7 26.exf5
Instead, 26.Rg7+ Ke8 27.exf5 Qf6! 28.fxe6 Qxe6 leads to an imbalanced
position with three possible results.
26...Qf6 27.fxe6+ Kxe6 28.Qd5+ Kd7 29.Nd4! Rae8! 30.Qc6+ Kc8
31.Qa8+ Kd7 32.Qc6+=
Have you found 23...Rf8 ? If you haven’t, imagine how much more difficult
it would be to do in a psychologically difficult moment in a tournament
game. You have prepared so ‘well’, and suddenly your opponent plays a
very unpleasant move that immediately takes you out of book and puts you
on the spot. Let us say that you do not find 23...Rf8 in the game, play
something else, and eventually lose. Is it Ntirlis’ fault that he hadn’t
included the critical move 23.Rff3 in his analysis? Of course, not! One
cannot put every single relevant move into the space-limited opening
survey that contains a bunch of other critical lines. No, investigating and
understanding your opening repertoire in detail is entirely your
responsibility. I hope that this example clarifies this point, and I would
strongly encourage players who are ambitious about their chess to approach
their opening study this way. This brings us to our next topic.
Deep opening study
Since openings come in many shapes and forms, I would like to share
practical study advice for various types of positions and issues that we
typically encounter when studying them deeply. I will be frank; the analyses
below may be a bit advanced for a non-professional, but I hope that the
general study pointers will be useful for chess players of all levels.
Studying tabiyas
While many types of opening variations that we study are fairly concrete
and straightforward to learn, there are also more complex ones that cannot
be grasped without delving deeper into the secrets of the position. The

Scheveningen Sicilian, most variations in the Ruy Lopez, many variations
of the King’s Indian Defense and Queen’s Indian Defense, etc. – these are
just a few of many openings that reach tabiyas, usually somewhere in the
transition between the opening and the middlegame. To clarify, a tabiya is
‘a position in the opening of a game that occurs after a sequence of moves
that is heavily standardized, and from which the players have many possible
moves again.’ Studying tabiyas is the best way to understand complex
openings, because they contain many strategic and tactical ideas that are
typical for the whole opening. I like to divide tabiyas into two types: static
and dynamic. Below, we will examine how to study both types.
Static tabiyas
Whether you like it or not, in some of your games you will get a type of
position that is characterized by fairly static pawn structures and a lot of
maneuvering. Very often, one player tries to reach this kind of a position
with their opening choice, relying on their experience in that particular
structure to outplay the opponent. These types of positions often lead to a
strategic fight and thus cannot be properly understood with only a basic
opening study explained above. Here is what a 2700+ grandmaster Evgeny
Tomashevsky said about one such type of position, the Stonewall system,
that he successfully employed with the black pieces against Levon Aronian
in the 2015 World Cup: ‘We analyzed this system for many hours, days
with my second GM Alexei Iljushin. You cannot just consider your
openings according to the computer evaluation. This position is strategical,
and I think when you spend a lot of time you get a good feeling of the
nuances...’ Tomashevsky’s point about computer evaluations is well-taken.
Engines sometimes misevaluate static positions or struggle to suggest a
meaningful plan. As he argues, analyzing different strategic possibilities
with a human touch will help you obtain a better understanding of such
positions. The assistance of an experienced coach or wisdom gathered from
annotated games of strong players can be of great benefit in this learning
process. I also like to use the Plan Explorer and Similar Structure tools in
ChessBase to uncover important model games and systemize typical plans

in static tabiyas. Let me share some additional ideas about studying such
positions by looking at a well-known static tabiya in the Breyer Variation of
the Ruy Lopez.
Game 40
Static tabiya
Ruy Lopez – Breyer Variation
(analysis)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0
8.c3 d6 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8 13.Nf1 Bf8
14.Ng3 g6 15.a4 c5 16.d5 c4
This is one of the most well-known opening tabiyas, not only in the Ruy
Lopez, but in chess in general. Over 1000 tournament games have been
played from this position, from the club to the super-GM level. There is
something appealing about this static type of structure for both sides as it
contains a lot of potential for creative strategic play. I would like to present
my brief analysis of a fairly rare idea:

17.Be3!?
Typically, white players automatically continue 17.Bg5 here, trying to
provoke a weakening in Black’s pawn structure after 17...h6 18.Be3 Nc5
19.Qd2 h5. This move is apparently more modest, but contains some
interesting positional ideas, such as those that Vachier-Lagrave used against
Amin in the key model game below. Since there was just a handful of other
relevant games with 17.Be3, I had to systemize typical ideas for both sides
to perform meaningful analysis on my own. As mentioned before, an engine
provides only limited help in such static tabiyas; I needed to play over and
lightly analyze a large number of games in similar positions to extract the
most important plans for both sides.
As a result, I identified three typical plans for Black (after the inevitable
. . .Nd7-c5):
1) ...Nfd7-b6, to put pressure on the a4-pawn (this is the most common
plan) – see model game 1 Azarov-Baron below;
2) ...Rb8, ...Bb7-c8-d7, to improve the light-squared bishop and also to put
pressure on the a4-pawn (this is usually played in connection with the
previous ...h6-h5, ...Nh7) – see model game 2 Robson-Kamsky below;
3) ...Nfd7, ...bxa4, to open the b-file and weaken White’s light squares by
trading off the Spanish bishop – see model game 3 Sadzikowski-Piorun
below.
As we can see, the common denominator of all of these plans is to
determine the situation on the queenside as soon as possible, so that White
has a more difficult time developing his initiative on the kingside.
Now we come to White’s side of the story. Essentially, 17.Be3 is a
prophylactic idea against Black’s strongest plan ...Nfd7, ...Nb6. Instead of
setting up the typical attacking battery Bg5/Qd2, White’s main idea is a
prophylactic one: to be ready to meet Black’s ...Nfd7 with Nf3-h2-g4,
when Nh6+ is a problem for Black in many lines.

The queen’s position on the d1-h5 diagonal instead of the typical d2-square
is also essential for tactical and positional reasons alike. Firstly, by keeping
the queen on d1, we reserve the option of going Qf3 in certain cases.
Secondly, this also allows us to sacrifice a piece on h5 if Black is careless
enough. Another important benefit of keeping the queen on its initial square
is that it leaves the d2-square for knight maneuvers, whether it is Ng3-f1-d2
or Nh2-f1-d2. From there, the knight supports the typical b2-b3/b4 break.
Finally, in the lines where Black plays ...h7-h5 to stop Nh2-g4, White often
reroutes the knight back to f3 to exploit the newly created weakness on g5.
Then, the important tactical detail is that Nf3-g5 cannot be met well by
. . .Bg7-h6 because of the Nxf7/Ne6! tactic, which does not work in a similar
position in the main line 17.Bg5 with the queen on d2. And, of course,
White is always on the lookout for the right moment to execute the f2-f4
break, which typically gives him some initiative on the f-file and access to
the d4-square in return for a potentially strong e5-outpost for Black.
Hopefully, this exposition of the main ideas for both sides, along with the
model games in the analysis below, will help you navigate the Breyer maze
that follows!
17.Bg5. Although this is not the move that we are interested in here, it was
played in several model games that illustrate the ideas for both sides well.
17...h6 (model game 3 continued 17...Be7 18.Qd2 Nc5 19.Bh6 Nfd7
20.Nh2 and now Black plays the typical plan #3: 20...bxa4!? 21.Bxa4 Nxa4
22.Rxa4 a5 23.Ng4 Ba6 24.Be3 Bf8 25.Ra2 Bb5∞ Sadzikowski-Piorun,
Warsaw 2016) 18.Be3 Nc5 19.Qd2 (the key model game continued
19.Nh2!? h5 20.Qf3 (≥ 20.Nf3) 20...Nh7 (≥ 20...Nfd7 21.Ngf1 Be7)
21.Qe2 Qc7 22.Ngf1! Rab8 23.Nd2 Bc8 24.axb5 axb5

analysis diagram
25.f4! exf4 26.Bxf4 Nf6 27.Qf1 Nfd7 28.Nhf32 Bg7 29.Qf2 Rb6 30.Be3!
Ra6 31.Rxa6 Bxa6 32.Bd4± Vachier-Lagrave-Amin, France tt 2019) 19...h5
20.Bg5 Be7 21.Ra3 Nfd7 (model game 2 continued 21...Nh7 22.Be3 Bf6
23.Rea1, and now Black plays the typical plan #2: 23...Rb8 24.Ne2! (White
prepares a queenside break) 24...Bc8 25.axb5 axb5 26.Nc1 Bd7 27.b3!
cxb3 28.Nxb3 Na4 29.Nc1 Qc8 30.Nd3± Robson-Kamsky, St Louis 2011).
Model game 1 continued 22.Be3 Bf6 23.Rea1, and now Black plays the
typical plan #1: 23...Nb6 24.axb5 axb5 25.Rxa8 Nxa8 26.Ng5 Nb6
27.Bxc5 dxc5 28.h4! Nc8 29.Qe3 Qc7 30.Bd1! (White prepares a sacrifice
to speed up the kingside attack) 30...Bg7 31.Bxh5 gxh5 32.Qf3! Nd6
33.Qxh5‚ Azarov-Baron, Cappelle-la-Grande 2013.
17...Nc5!?
Spassky’s choice. The main alternative is 17...Qc7 18.Nh2, and now:
A) 18...Nc5 19.Qf3! Bg7 (19...Nfd7 20.Ng4‚)

analysis diagram
20.Bg5!. White keeps pushing the knight to d7. If he wants to avoid a
kingside attack, Black needs to retreat the other knight: 20...Ncd7 21.Ra2
h6 22.Be3 h5 23.Ngf1!. A multi-purpose move. The knight moves to d2 to
support b2-b3 and eliminate Black’s plan #3, while also enabling the g2-g4
break. 23...Nc5 24.Nd2 Rab8 (plan #2 seems to be a more solid option here
since plan #1: 24...Nfd7 25.Rea1 Nb6 leaves him vulnerable on the
kingside to 26.axb5 axb5 27.g4!ƒ) 25.Rea1 Bc8 26.axb5 axb5 27.Qd1! Bd7
28.Nhf32. White controls the a-file, the g5-square, and has more
maneuvering options. Black is as solid as usual, but quite passive;
B) I should also note that another model game continued 18...h5 19.Nf3!
Nc5 20.Ng5 Re7 (the plan #1 20...Nfd7 is strongly met by 21.Qf3 Re7
22.Nf1! Nb6 23.axb5 axb5 24.Rxa8 Bxa8 25.h4 Bb7 26.g4‚) 21.Qd2
(even more to the point was 21.Qf3 Bg7 22.Nf1 Ree8 23.Nd2±) 21...Bg7
22.Ra3 Ree8 23.Rea1 Reb8 24.Qe2 Rc8 25.Kh2 Rcb8

analysis diagram
(back to the PREVIEW)
26.Nf1! Ncd7 27.Nd2 Nh7 28.Nxh7 Kxh7 29.b3!± Collins-Cafolla,
Dublin 2018.
18.Nh2 h5

With his last move, Black prevented the knight from getting to g4, but he
also weakened the g5-square. Here we see the main advantage of
developing the bishop to e3 rather than g5:
19.Nf3! Nh7
In case of 19...Nfd7, the knight gets a nice outpost after 20.Ng52, since
20...Bh6?? is now met by 21.Nxf7+–. However, if the white queen was on
d2 as in the main line 17.Be3, the ...Bxe3 intermezzo would win for Black!
20.Nd2! Rb8
The typical plan #1 did not work, so Spassky switches to plan #2.
21.Qe2 Bc8 22.axb5 axb5 23.Ra7 Re7 24.Ra3 Reb7 25.f4?!
An untimely break as Black controls the e5-square well. It was better to
keep maneuvering with 25.Rea12. Black is solid, but White has an easier
game – similar positions were analyzed in the 17...Qc7 variation.
25...exf4 26.Bxf4 Bg7 27.Ra2 Nd7! 28.Kh1 Ne5=

Black was fine and the game Sonntag-Spassky, Germany Bundesliga
1986/87, eventually ended in a draw.
Flexible tabiyas
Similar to static tabiyas, flexible tabiyas contain many strategic ideas for
both sides. However, unlike static tabiyas, flexible tabiyas are characterized
by the great flexibility of pawn structures. Such positions are usually
difficult to analyze because of the multitude of possible transformations of
the pawn structures and little nuances that often determine whether a certain
maneuver or a pawn break is good or not. And, you have guessed it, the
only way to understand these nuances is to analyze such positions
thoroughly. This is hard work, but, as a reward, you not only get to the
bottom of the complex position at hand, but also improve skills that are
transferable to other openings and study areas, such as understanding of
typical middlegames, systematic thinking, analytical skills, etc. A case in
point is the following flexible tabiya in the Zaitsev Variation of the Ruy
Lopez.
Game 41
Flexible tabiya
Ruy Lopez – Zaitsev Variation
(analysis)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3
0-0 9.h3 Re8 10.d4 Bb7 11.Nbd2 Bf8

This is the so-called Zaitsev Variation of the Ruy Lopez, a variation that has
served the ex-World Champion Anatoly Karpov well throughout his career.
The most popular way to meet it these days is with a little prophylactic
move.
12.a3!?
White takes the b4-square under control. The main line continues:
12...h6 13.Bc2 Nb8 14.b4 Nbd7 15.Bb2
Already this position can be considered to be a tabiya since Black has 5-6
reasonable continuations, and so does White as a response to each of these
moves. Generally, Black tries to open the position with a well-timed ...c7-c5
or ...d6-d5 break. White’s main goal is to hinder these central breaks, while
also preparing a break of his own, c3-c4. The position is definitely rich with
possibilities, but I am the fondest of the move
15...a5!?,

which will soon lead to the flexible tabiya of our interest. Coming back to
the discussion above, the key strategic idea for White was featured in the
following model game: 15...Nb6 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.c4!2 bxc4 18.Nxe5 c5
19.Ndxc4 Nxc4 20.Nxc4 cxb4 21.e5 Qxd1 22.Rexd1± Shankland-Ding
Liren, chess.com blitz 2019.
16.Bd3
On the other hand, the key strategic idea for Black could have been applied
in the game S.Zhigalko-Saric, Tromsø 2014: 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.Qe2 c6
18.Nb3 axb4 19.cxb4 Qb6 20.Bd3, and now Black could have fully
equalized with 20...c5!=.
16...c6
This is our tabiya. Both sides are very flexible with their choice of
maneuvers and plans; White, perhaps, slightly more so. I analyzed this
tabiya on several occasions, and, generally, I was happy with Black’s
chances. Recently, though, I dug a bit deeper to find the continuation that

would put Black’s solid set-up under the most serious test. I concluded that
the rare
17.Rc1!?
might be ‘the’ move. It was played in only one OTB game, although by the
strong GM Samuel Sevian. On the surface, it looks like one of those
‘mysterious’ rook moves with no real purpose, so let me try to explain the
analytical process of arriving at this conclusion.
A) First of all, the most natural and direct move is 17.Nb3, attacking the
only weakness in Black’s position – the a5-square. This is also the most
popular move in the position. However, Black can virtually force his way to
equality with 17...axb4 18.cxb4 (in case of 18.axb4 Rxa1 19.Bxa1, Black
equalizes with the other central break: 19...d5!=) 18...exd4 19.Nfxd4 c5!.
Anatoly Karpov was the first one to execute this strong break in his game
against Hjartarsson in 1989. 20.Nxb5 (Hjartarsson chose the inferior
20.bxc5?! dxc5 21.Nxb5 Nxe43, and Black’s position was already more
pleasant. Karpov won the game).

analysis diagram
Black can return the pawn by capturing on e4 with the knight or the bishop,
but the strongest move seems to be, surprisingly, 20...Ne5! (20...Bxe4 is
also reasonable, although White could still try to exert some pressure after
21.Bf1!?; 20...Nxe4?! 21.Bxe4 Rxe4 22.Rxe4 Bxe4 23.Nxd6±): 21.Bf1
(Black obtains good compensation in case of 21.Bxe5 Rxe5 and 21.Bc2
cxb4 22.axb4 Qb6) 21...cxb4 22.axb4 Rxa1 23.Bxa1 Nxe4 24.Nd2 Nxd2
25.Qxd2, and White would be better if it wasn’t for 25...Nf3+! 26.gxf3
Rxe1 27.Qxe1 Qg5+ 28.Kh1 Bxf3+ 29.Kh2 Qf4+ 30.Kg1 Qg5+ 31.Kh2
Qf4+ 32.Kg1 Qg5+ 33.Kh2 1⁄2-1⁄2 Sarana-Alekseenko, Russia tt 2019;
B) In the previous line, Black managed to force favorable simplifications by
winning the e4-pawn. Thus, it is only logical to think about preparing the
Nd2-b3-a5 maneuver by overprotecting the e-pawn first. 17.Qc2 seems to
be the most natural move to that end.
analysis diagram

However, Black has a good response to it: 17...Rc8!. This move highlights
the exposed position of the white queen on the c-file. Black’s plan is to
exchange on b4 and d4, and break the position open with ...c6-c5. In fact, I
played like this against Israeli GM Tal Baron, who continued with the
original plan 18.Nb3?!, probably underestimating the consequences of
opening of the c-file. After 18...axb4 19.axb4 exd4 20.cxd4 c5ƒ, Black
solves all his problems and it is actually White who has to play more
accurately here. Baron’s solution was far from optimal: 21.dxc5?! (the only
move to keep the balance was 21.Na5!, when 21...c4! leads to a nice line:
22.Nxb7 cxd3 23.Qxd3 Qb6 24.Na5 d5! 25.e5 Ne4„, and the b-pawn falls
in view of the beautiful tactic 26.Qb3?
analysis diagram
(back to the PREVIEW)
26...Nxe5! 27.Nxe5 Rxe5 28.dxe5 Qxf2+ 29.Kh1 Rc2!–+) 21...dxc5
22.bxc5? Nxc5 23.Nxc5 Bxc5μ Baron-Kuljasevic, Skopje 2013.

Instead of 18.Nb3?!, though, White should have played a prophylactic
move, such as 18.Bf1. The bishop is usually exposed to various attacks on
the d3-square, so this is often a useful retreat. Now, after 18...axb4 19.axb4
(19.cxb4 allows Black to carry out his plan easily with 19...exd4 20.Nxd4
c5=) 19...exd4 20.cxd4, 20...c5?! does not work nearly as well as in the
game due to, among other things, 21.d5! cxb4 22.Qb3 Nc5 23.Qxb4±.
However, Black should keep the tension, as well, with 19...Qc7∞. The
exchange of a-pawns has worked in his favor, since the b4-pawn can
become weak when White’s c-pawn moves forward. White’s control of the
a-file is usually insignificant in such positions;
C) I cannot recall exactly, but I may have discussed alternatives to 17.Qc2
in the post-mortem with Baron and one of them was 17.Qb1!?, a logical
attempt to improve on 17.Qc2, since the queen still protects the e4-pawn,
but is less exposed on b1 than on c2. Here, it makes much less sense to play
17...Rc8 and other waiting moves do not seem particularly useful, so I
believe that Black should initiate changes in the pawn structure
immediately with 17...axb4 (17...Rc8 is now met by 18.Nb3 axb4 19.axb4!.
Since the queen is not on c2, the simplification sequence from Baron-
Kuljasevic 19...exd4 20.cxd4 c5 is not nearly as strong. White gets the
upper hand after 21.Na5 Ba8 22.d5 c4 23.Bc22) 18.cxb4 exd4 (the only
game in this position that I managed to find in the Mega Database, Leitao-
Vescovi, Sao Paulo 2002, continued: 18...Qb6 19.Bc3 Rad8 (≥ 19...Nh5!?)
20.Qb2 Nh5 21.Bf1. White had a pleasant positional edge, which soon
became decisive after the opponent’s mistakes: 21...g6?! 22.a4 bxa4?
23.Nc4+–) 19.Nxd4. This is a typical pawn structure for this variation.
Black would like to activate his pieces, especially the bishops, with a timely
central break. This is not such a great idea at the moment, though, since
White is positioned well against it, but Black can make the useful
preparatory move 19...Rc8!?.

analysis diagram
The point is that the queen is a bit awkward on b1, disrupting the
communication between the rooks. Ideally, White would want to put the
queen on b3 and the rook on c1/d1. The most natural way to do it is to play
20.Qc2 first, which is why we have played 19...Rc8, with a similar idea as
in the 17.Qc2 line. Instead, White could try to achieve the same with
20.Qa2. In my view, Black should use this temporary lack of piece
coordination to strike in the center at once with 20...d5! 21.exd5 Nxd5
22.Rxe8 Qxe8 and now if 23.N2f3, he has a promising pawn sacrifice:
23...c5! 24.bxc5 Nxc5 25.Bxb5 Qd8°,

analysis diagram
threatening to go ...Nf4 next, with good piece play for the sacrificed pawn.
Such sacrifices usually work if the opponent’s major pieces are
decentralized, as is the case here.
This cumulative analysis gave rise to the idea that White should play a
waiting move similar to Black’s ...Ra8-c8, not committing his queen or the
knight yet and waiting to see how Black will continue. Thus, D) 17.Rc1 was
the logical choice. I was helped by the fact that there was already a GM
game played with this move, so there was something on which I could base
my analysis.
17...axb4
This is the main line of my analysis. Let us see Black’s alternatives:
In the game Sevian-Gonzalez Vidal, Havana 2019, Black played the waiting
move 17...Rc8, when I believe that White should have responded in kind
with 18.Bf1!?N (the game saw the more direct 18.dxe5 dxe5 19.Nb3 axb4

20.cxb4 Qb6 21.Qe2 c5 22.bxc5 Nxc5 23.Nxc5 Rxc5 24.Rxc5 Bxc5, when
Black had pretty much equalized) and after something like 18...axb4
19.cxb4 Qb6, White can finally develop the queen to the most active
square: 20.Qb32, with a pleasant position, similar to the main line.
It should also be noted that Black can hardly develop his queen to
17...Qc7?! because of 18.Nb3 axb4 19.cxb4, with pressure on the c-file,
while 17...Qb6? is strongly met by 18.c4! axb4 19.axb4 bxc4 20.Nxc4
Qxb4 21.dxe5 dxe5 22.Nfxe5±.
18.cxb4 exd4 19.Nxd4
White has the e4-pawn under control, so Black cannot break free yet with
19...c5. Here, I analyzed two directions for Black: a positional and a direct
one. The more solid, positional approach is:
19...Ne5
On the other hand, a direct attempt at opening up the center is 19...Qb6
20.Bf1 d5!? 21.exd5 Rxe1 22.Qxe1, when 22...c5! is the key move for
Black. He sacrifices a pawn to bring his pieces into life. 23.Nxb5 Nxd5
24.bxc5 Nxc5.

analysis diagram
Please compare this position to a similar one from the main line of 17.Qb1
after 25...Qd8. You can see how virtually the only difference is that the
white major pieces are much better centralized here than in that position.
This is what allows White to keep an edge with precise play. Such details
are quite common in flexible tabiyas and we should try to always pay
attention to them. 25.Bd4! Nf4 26.Qe3 Nfe6 27.Bc32. Black has some
compensation, but a pawn is a pawn, after all.
20.Bf1 Qb6 21.Qb32

This is the piece set-up that White wanted to achieve! His piece
coordination is much better than in the 17.Qb1 line and he has avoided
Black’s tactical counterplay from the 17.Nb3 and 17.Qc2 lines. With a
student, I continued the analysis for a couple of more moves here to get a
better feel for the arising position. Here is how the main line of the analysis
went:
21...g6
A sensible plan. We realized that Black gets excellent counterplay if White
tried to play for f2-f4. However, there is a better option:
22.N4f3!
White is happy to trade a pair of knights as he gets more maneuvering space
for other pieces.
22...Nfd7

The key tactical detail is that Black cannot win a pawn with 22...Nxf3+
23.Nxf3 Nxe4, because White can exploit the weakened a1-h8 diagonal
with 24.Rxe4! Rxe4 25.Bd3 Re6 26.Qc3+–.
23.Nxe5 Nxe5 24.Red1 Bg7 25.Qc2!
Reintroducing the positional threat Nd2-b3-a5 !
25...Rac8 26.a4 bxa4 27.Qxa4 Ra8 28.Qb32
White has managed to build up enough positional capital by keeping the
. . .c6-c5 and ...d6-d5 breaks in check all this time. His position is definitely
more pleasant to play.
Preparing new ideas
One of the best ways to get an edge in the opening is to prepare a new idea.
Even if this idea is not refuting a variation or even promising an objective
advantage, the surprise effect usually induces the opponent into making an
inaccuracy or (hopefully) a serious mistake in the opening or middlegame.
The key with such ideas is to analyze them thoroughly, considering all the

moves that you think that your imaginary opponent might play in the game,
even those that are not among the first two or three lines of the engine.
Armed with such knowledge and psychological advantage, you can put
serious pressure on the opponent right from the start of the game.
However, finding new ideas is not so straightforward these days because
many popular opening variations have been analyzed ‘to death’. Also,
virtually everyone has access to the same opening resources as you do, so
your first-line-of-engine novelty or a hot take from the most recent opening
book might not come as a surprise to a well-prepared opponent at all. One
often needs to dig even deeper than that, looking for unexpected novelties
in unusual places, recycling old ideas in new settings, etc. Fortunately,
chess is a game of infinite possibilities and new opening territories are
constantly being explored. Recently, I found a fascinating new idea for
White in the Neo-Arkhangelsk Variation of the Ruy Lopez that I would like
to share here.
Game 42
Ruy Lopez – Neo-Arkhangelsk
(analysis)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.a4 Rb8 8.c3
d6 9.d4 Bb6 10.a5 Ba7 11.h3 0-0

This is a well-known position in the Neo-Arkhangelsk Variation of the Ruy
Lopez. The most logical continuation for White is
12.Be3
followed by Nbd2, Re1, and typical Ruy Lopez maneuvering in the early
middlegame. However, led by blissful ignorance, on one occasion I asked
myself what would happen if White played more ambitiously, pinning the
knight with 12.Bg5. This idea is not uncommon in similar positions; for
example, it is a legitimate approach for White in the Italian Game.
Surprisingly, when I checked the database, virtually no one played like this,
which made me wonder if there was some simple refutation. When I turned
on my engine, it immediately spit out 12...h6 13.Bh4 exd4 14.cxd4 g5. The
follow-up that I was primarily interested in was the aggressive 15.Nxg5
hxg5 16.Bxg5.

analysis diagram
I thought that this typical piece sacrifice might have some potential for
success in this position, despite the engine screaming at me for daring to
enter 15.Nxg5. Engines are not always so accurate when assessing long-
term pins and king safety, I thought, so it might change its mind after I enter
a couple of more moves. Well, this is what I did, but it just kept on claiming
that Black is clearly better, and, eventually, winning after my best attacking
attempts in the following, more or less, forced line: 16...Nxd4 17.Nc3 Be6
18.Bc2 Nxc2 19.Qxc2 Kg7 20.Nd5 Bxd5 21.exd5 Qd7! 22.Bxf6+ Kxf6
23.Qc3+ Ke7 24.Rfe1+ Kd8 25.Qf6+ Kc8 26.Re7 Bd4! 27.Qh4 Qd8
28.Rc1.

analysis diagram
White has achieved the maximum activity, but the engine calmly defends
with 28...Rb7, and it is basically game over. Please keep this position in
mind, though, because it will be important to compare it to a very similar
position in the main line of the 12.Be3 Ra8 13.Bg5!? variation.
12...Ra8
This defensive move, protecting against the 13.dxe5 threat, has traditionally
been the most popular choice for Black here, leading into an important
tabiya. However, recent attempts by Fabiano Caruana to refresh this
variation with new ideas in the 12...exd4!? 13.cxd4 Nb4 and particularly
12...Re8!? lines might change this state of affairs.
13.Bg5!?

Recycling the idea from move 12. At first, it seems like White has just
wasted a tempo in the opening – or did he? The only difference compared to
12.Bg5 is that the black rook is on a8, a slightly more passive square than
b8, as a matter of fact. I figured that this is a detail worth investigating in
the context of the piece sacrifice on g5, as such nuances might matter some
5 or 10 moves down the line. Of course, the first thing that I wanted to find
out is whether there is any significant difference compared to a similar line
from the 12.Bg5 variation (analyzed above) where Black eventually
defends with 28...Rb7. It turned out that there is, as you will find out at the
end of the main variation of the analysis!
Once I had established that White is not losing in the critical variation, I
came back to move 13 and began analyzing this new idea in more detail.
Now, technically speaking, 13.Bg5!? itself is not a novelty as it had already
been played in 3 OTB games. However, none of the black players in these
games had entered the critical line with ...g7-g5, so I had to analyze a
completely new and unclear position to understand whether this ambitious
idea is playable or not.
13...h6 14.Bh4 exd4

This is the critical reply, of course. I was a bit surprised to find out that in
the three games in the database that reached this position, all three black
players (2 of which are GMs) opted for the non-critical alternatives
14...Qe7 and 14...Re8. I figured that White would have achieved something
in that case, since he could continue developing naturally with Nbd2, Re1,
etc., while having developed his bishop to a more active (and annoying for
Black) position than the usual e3-square. The brief analysis below confirms
this assessment – White is simply better in both cases:
A) 14...Qe7 15.Re1, and now:
A1) 15...Bb7 16.Bd5 Rab8 17.Na3 g5 18.Bg3 Nd7 19.Nc2± Rohit-
K.Larsen, Copenhagen 2007;
A2) 15...Kh7 16.Nbd2! (16.Qd3 g5 17.Bg3 Nh5 18.Nbd2 Nf4 19.Bxf4
gxf4„ Roberson-Lagarde, Escaldes 2019) 16...g5 17.Bg3 Bd7 (17...Nh5??
18.Nxe5+–) 18.Nf1 Rae8 19.Bc2±.
B) 14...Re8 (Shailesh-Stefansson, Lisbon 2019) 15.Qd3!?N 15...Bb7
16.Nbd2 exd4 17.cxd4 Nb4 18.Qc3 c5 19.Rfe1 Rc8 20.d5 Qe7 21.Rad12.
15.cxd4 g5 16.Nxg5 hxg5 17.Bxg5 Nxd4 18.Nc3 Be6
The only move. 18...c6 runs into 19.e5! dxe5 20.Ne4 Nxe4 21.Bxd8 Nxb3
22.Bb6 Nxa1 23.Qxa1±, as well as 18...Ne6 19.Bxe6 fxe6 20.e5 dxe5
21.Qxd8 Rxd8 22.Bxf6+–.
19.Bc2

The bishop retreat might seem like a big waste of time in such a sharp
position, but this way White keeps the initiative by renewing the e4-e5
threat. This is the first critical position in the analysis of a new idea. When
you analyze a fresh position like this one, you need to make sure to consider
all logical possibilities for your opponent, not just the first line of the engine
or feel-good lines that prove your case. A useful mindset is: ‘Which
challenging move could my opponent play?’ Often times, your opponent
might go for the second or third line of the engine, which is nominally
inferior, but more human-like. If you fail to analyze such moves in your
home preparation, you could run into serious problems over the board. This
has happened to me more than once, so I learned this lesson the hard way.
Therefore, I made sure to check the most probable/challenging replies for
Black at every important junction in this analysis.
19...Nxc2
Black would have probably liked to keep his strong knight on the board, but
the greatest value of this move is that it buys him time to organize his
defenses, as it prevents the e4-e5 threat. 19...Kg7?? does nothing to prevent

White’s threat, so he wins after 20.e5! dxe5 21.Ne4, but a reasonable
alternative is 19...Bc4. It may not be the most intuitive move in the position,
but if there is a 10% chance that your opponent could play it, it is worth
spending 10-15 minutes to analyze it. Otherwise, you might find yourself
scratching your head if this position appears on the board. The most direct
attacking attempt is 20.Nd5 Bxd5 21.exd5 Re8!. This is the only move that
keeps the balance, although this is not entirely obvious. When you prepare a
new idea, it is desirable that your opponent has as many such difficult
practical decisions to make as possible (21...b4?! prevents the rook-lift from
the main line, but White can include the other rook in the attack: 22.Re1
Kg7 23.Ba4!‚, preparing the rook lift via e3 or e4). 22 .Ra3 Re5 23.Bh4
Kf8.
analysis diagram
(back to the PREVIEW)
Here, White can keep the attack going with another attractive sacrifice:
24.Rf3! Nxf3+ 25.Qxf3 Kg7 26.Qg3+ Kh8 27.Qf4 Kg7 28.Rd1!. White is
down a rook, yet rejects the move repetition because the black king is under

a serious attack. As in many other lines, we want to bring the rook into the
attack via the third rank. The Rd1-d3-g3/f3 maneuver would be decisive, so
once again, Black needs to find the only move: 28...Rh5! 29.Rd3 Rxh4
30.Qxh4 Kf8 31.Qh6+ Ke7 32.Rd1 Nd7 33.Re1+ Ne5 34.Qh4+, and with
the best play from both sides, this leads to a draw by perpetual.
Clearly, if White had analyzed this line at home and Black is seeing it for
the first time over the board, the chances that he would survive this attack
are rather slim.
20.Qxc2
This is the second critical position, where I analyzed four possibilities for
Black. The most interesting one is, of course,
20...Kg7
by analogy to the main variation of 12.Bg5. However, Black has a couple of
important alternatives that also had to be scrutinized:
A) Black’s main problem, besides the pin on the knight and the exposed
king, is the relative inactivity of the a7-bishop. He would love to bring it
back into defense via the d4-square, but this is much easier said than done.
In this case, 20...Bd4? does not work because of 21.Ne2+–;
B) Another critical defense is 20...Kh8!?, preparing 21... Rg8. White needs
to act quickly: 21.Nd5 (21.Rad1? is too slow in view of 21...Rg8–+. It is
also important to note that 21.e5? dxe5 22.Ne4 never works in these lines
because of 22...Bf5!–+, a courtesy of 19...Nxc2) 21...Bxd5 22.Qc3!. This
key intermezzo forces Black to play 22...Kg7, thereby taking away Black’s
counterplay along the g-file. After 23.exd5, we have reached another
critical position.

analysis diagram
Black has three reasonable defenses:
B1) 23...Kg6!?. This is a lovely defensive move. 24.Qc1! (the most
unpleasant reply. Black’s main idea can be seen in case of 24.h4 Ne4!. Now
we enter a fun variation that ends in a perpetual check by – Black! 25.Qc2
Qe8 26.Rae1 f5 27.g4 Qe5 28.gxf5+ Rxf5 29.Rxe4 Qg3+ 30.Kh1 Qh3+=).
24...Rg8 25.Ra3. Please allow me to take an analytical break at this point
and show a feel-good variation for White: 25...Qd7?! (25...Qf8! is the only
good defense, but how obvious is that, though?) 26.Bh4! Ne4, defending
against Qg5+ and Rg3+, but it will prove insufficient after 27.Re1 f5

analysis diagram
28.Rxe4! fxe4 29.Qg5+ Kf7 30.Qf4+ Kg7 31.Rg3+ Kh7 32.Qxe4+ Kh6
33.Bg5+! Rxg5 34.Qh4+ Rh5 35.Qf6+ Kh7 36.Qg6+ Kh8 37.Qxh5+ Qh7
38.Qf3!! (otherwise, Black wins – now, it is White!) 38...Bd4 (38...Rg8
39.Qf6+ Rg7 40.Rg4!+–) 39.Rg5+–. A fascinating attacking sequence. I
think that it was somewhere around here in the analysis that I understood
that the sacrifice on g5 has a very decent potential for success in a practical
game if Black deviates from the critical lines of defense;
B2) 23...Re8, a similar defensive idea to the one that we have seen in the
19...Bc4 line. 24.Rae1 Re5! 25.Rxe5 dxe5 26.Qg3 Ne4 27.Qxe5+ f6
28.Qxe4 fxg5 29.Rc1!. White keeps attacking being down a piece in a
double-edged position: 29...Qf6 30.Kh1! (30.Rxc7+?! Kf83) 30...Bd4
31.d6! c6 32.Rxc6 Qxf2 33.Rc7+ Kf6 34.Qe7+ Kf5 35.Qh7+ Ke5
36.Qe7+ Kd5 37.Rc1=, and don’t ask me how or why, but this somehow
ends with 0.00!;
B3) 23...Rh8, preparing to deal with the bishop with 24... Rh5. 24 .Rfe1 Rh5
25.h4 b4!. This distraction allows Black to deflect the queen from the a1-h8

diagonal. After that, his defense is relatively straightforward. 26.Qg3 Qd7
27.Bxf6+ Kxf6 28.Re4 Rf5 29.Rf4 Ke7 30.Re1+ Kf8 31.Qg4 Rxf4
32.Qxf4 Re8 33.Qh6+ Kg8 34.Qg5+ Kf8, with another perpetual.
C) I also looked at the somewhat abstract 20...Re8 mostly because it was
among the top 3 choices of my engine. The main line of the analysis goes
21.Qd3 Bc4 22.Qg3 Kg7 (Black shows no fear – typical computer play. It
is difficult to imagine a human playing this in a game, though) 23.Bh4+
Kh7 24.Qf4 Re6! (worse is 24...Kg7 25.Qg5+ Kh7 26.Rfd1 Re6 27.Nd5
Bxd5 28.exd5 Re5 29.Qxf6 Qxf6 30.Bxf6±) 25.e5 (25.Nd5 Bd4 26.Rad1
Bxb2 27.Rd2 is extremely messy. Black seems to be doing well after the
study-like 27...Qh8!) 25...dxe5 26.Qf5+ Kg7 27.Ne4 Bd3!. This is the
simplest, leading to either a perpetual check or a drawish endgame after
28.Qg5+ Kh7 29.Nxf6+ (or 29.Qf5+=) 29...Qxf6 30.Qxf6 Rxf6 31.Bxf6
Bxf1 32.Kxf1 Bd4.
21.Nd5 Bxd5 22.exd5
We have reached the last critical position. Besides

22...Qd7
which was the main move in a comparable position in the 12.Bg5 variation,
Black has a couple more reasonable defensive ideas that are analyzed
below.
A) 22...Re8 doesn’t work this time, due to 23.Ra3! Re5 24.Rg3 Kf8
25.Qc1! Bd4 26.Rd3! Rxd5 27.Bxf6 Qxf6 28.Qc6+–, and White picks up a
rook;
B) 22...b4!? is an interesting move, preventing one of White’s main
attacking ideas. Instead of the Ra1-a3 lift, White should revert to the e-file
for an attack, but this is more time-consuming, and after 23.Qf5 Re8
24.Rae1 Rxe1 25.Rxe1 Bd4, Black brings his idle bishop into defense just in
time. However, after 26.Re4,
analysis diagram
he still needs to find a difficult defensive sequence: 26...Bxf2+! (26...Bxb2?
27.Rh4 Kg8 28.Bd2!+–) 27.Kh2 Bg3+! 28.Kh1 Be5 29.Rg4 Kf8 30.Rh4

Kg8! 31.Bh6 Ne8! 32.Bg5 Nf6, and we are headed for yet another move
repetition, of course...;
C) 22...Rh8 also does not work for Black as well as in one of the previous
positions. White obtains a nearly decisive attack with 23.Qf5 Bd4 24.Rad1
Bxb2 25.Qc2! (such backward moves are not easy to spot – the idea is to
chase away Black’s bishop from the a1-h8 diagonal) 25...Rh5 26.h4 Ba3
27.Qc3 b4 28.Qd4 Rh6 29.Rd3! Rg6 30.Rg3‚.
23.Bxf6+
From this point onward, there are no deviations – everything develops by
force:
23...Kxf6 24.Qc3+ Ke7 25.Rfe1+ Kd8 26.Qf6+ Kc8 27.Re7 Bd4! 28.Qh4
Qd8 29.Rc1
It is time to compare this position to a similar one after 28.Rc1 in the
12.Bg5 variation. It turns out that the position of the black rook does
matter! Whereas 28...Rb7 lead to a winning position for Black there, here
29...Ra7 would lose to 30.Qxd4 Qxe7 31.Qxa7. The devil is in the details!

Unfortunately, just as I got excited about this discovery, the engine had the
last laugh:
29...Kb8! 30.Rcxc7 Ra7!
It turns out that the rook’s position on a8 instead of b8 is not so bad for
Black, after all...
31.Qxd4 Rxc7 32.Qb6+ Kc8 33.Qxa6+ Kb8 34.Qxb5+ Kc8 35.Qa6+
Kb8 36.Qb6+ Kc8=
And the perpetual check is inevitable.
The fate of many new promising ideas in chess is such that the engine finds
a way to neutralize them with precise play. However, the practical value of
such new ideas increases if:
1. You have analyzed the idea thoroughly and the opponent has not;
2. The opponent’s best moves are not obvious nor forced;
3. The opponent has a couple of critical decisions to make or an obvious-
looking move that runs into a hidden refutation;
4. The opponent has to make difficult and time-consuming decisions for
many moves in a row; and
5. There is a small downside and a reasonable upside, i.e ., very few
chances that you can get a worse position if the opponent plays the best
moves, but a decent chance that your opponent will get a bad position if
he makes an inaccuracy.
The 13.Bg5!? idea that we have just analyzed contains most of these
elements. There are more than a few ways for Black to neutralize the attack,
but there are probably just as many ways for him to go wrong and succumb
to it. Therefore, I consider this idea to be a good practical weapon against
this important line of the Neo-Arkhangelsk. The more such ‘proprietary’
ideas you have in your opening repertoire, the more a dangerous opponent
you are.

Studying openings into the endgame
It is possible to study some openings all the way into the endgame. In such
cases, it is recommended that you study the arising endgame carefully, even
if the variations that you analyze are not forced. Such analysis not only
helps you understand typical endgames that you might get over the board
but also improves your overall endgame skill. I would like to show you one
recent game in which I prepared an interesting (opening?!) novelty in the
endgame.
Game 43
Mario Zovko 2324
Davorin Kuljasevic 2550
Croatia tt 2019 (9)
1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Na3
This was my opponent’s pet line. It usually leads to pretty risk-free
positions for White, so I tried to find something not completely drawish in
my preparation.

6...Nc6 7.Nb5 Qd8 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.Bf4 Ne4
All of this is fairly well-known opening theory in the Alapin Sicilian. The
arising endgame is roughly equal, but the asymmetry of the pawn majorities
on opposite flanks makes it possible to play for a win. White has many
options here and the one played by my opponent is considered to be the
best.
11.Rd1+
Perhaps the most well-known game in this line, and a sort of an inspiration
to play it in the first place, is Predojevic-Carlsen, Lillehammer rapid 2013.
It continued 11.Ng5 Nxg5 12.Bxg5+ f6 13.Be3 Bxe3 14.fxe3 Ke7 15.0-0-0
Ne5 16.Be2 Bd7 17.Nd4 Rac8 18.Rd2 Rc5 19.Rhd1 Rhc8 20.Nf3 Ba4
21.Re1 Nf7 22.c4 Bc6 23.b3 Nd6 24.Kb2 a5 25.Nd4 Be8 26.Red1 Re5
27.Bf3 Ne4 28.Bxe4 Rxe4 29.Re1 Rc5 30.Nc2 e5 31.Na3 Rg4 32.Nb1 b5
33.cxb5 Bxb5 34.Nc3 Bc6 35.e4 h5 36.a3 h4 37.Re3 Ke6 38.Re1 g6
39.Re3 f5 40.exf5+ gxf5.

analysis diagram
Interestingly enough, a very similar endgame was eventually reached in our
game! 41.g3 Bh1 42.Ne2 Rd5 43.Rc2 Be4 44.Rc4 Rd2+ 45.Kc1 Ra2 46.h3
Rxe2 47.Rxe2 Rxg3 48.Rc5 Rxh3 49.Rxa5 Rxb3 50.Ra6+ Kd5 51.Ra5+
Kd4 52.Ra4+ Kd3 53.Rh2 f4 54.Rxh4 Ke3 55.Rb4 Rxb4 56.axb4 f3 57.Rh1
0-1 .
11...Bd7!
This is more accurate than 11...Ke7 for tactical reasons.
11...Ke7 12.Nbd4 Nxd4 13.Nxd4=.
12.Ng5
Now 12.Nbd4?! Nxd4 13.Nxd4 is strongly met by 13...e5! 14.Bxe5 Re8
15.f4 f6μ.
12...Bxf2+!?N

This is an improvement that I had prepared before the game. It leads to a
more imbalanced type of endgame than 12...Nxg5 13.Bxg5+ f6, which my
opponent had previously faced in this position. 14.Bh4?! Ke7 15.Bg33 1⁄2-1⁄2
Zovko-Marjanovic, Zadar 2016. I reckon that his improvement would have
been 14.Bc1=.
13.Ke2 Nxg5 14.Bxg5+ f6 15.Bxf6+ gxf6 16.Kxf2 Ne5
(back to the PREVIEW)
All of this has been forced from move 12. I assessed this endgame as
approximately equal, but not completely drawish. A strong centralized
knight, semi-open files for the rooks and the flexibility of the pawn
structure give Black chances to gradually outplay his opponent. I analyzed
the endgame for another 10-15 minutes (as much as my preparation time
allowed since there were other lines and positions to look at), which helped
me to realize that there is also a ‘hidden’ trump for Black in this position –
the e-pawn. At the end, this little pawn won the game.
17.Be2 Ke7 18.Nd4

The overall strategy for Black is to patiently improve the position and
provoke White into making small concessions. However, I did have a
concrete idea of what to do as soon as I connect my rooks:
18...h5!
This idea was still a part of my opening/endgame preparation. The point
behind advancing the pawn is to create a potential target on the kingside.
19.h4?!
White immediately overreacts. He ‘fixes’ the h5-pawn, but also creates
weaknesses along the way and makes his kingside structure less flexible. A
calmer reaction would have been 19.Rhe1 Rag8 20.h3 h4 21.Bf1, when
White’s centralization should be enough to keep the balance, although the
position remains easier for Black to play.
19...Rag8 20.Rhe1 Rg6 21.g3 Rhg8 22.Rg1 Ng4+ 23.Bxg4 Rxg4

By exchanging the knight for the bishop, Black transformed his advantage
into a more long-term one. His e-pawn can now move forward, taking away
the d4- and f4-outposts from the white knight. In such endgames, the bishop
can usually assert its domination over the knight, as in Carlsen’s game
above, for example. At this point, it was clear that my opening preparation
was a success and that I can play a pleasant endgame with only two
possible results. I provide the remainder of the game with a couple of
comments at the critical moments.
24.Rge1 e5 25.Re3 Rc8 26.Rd2 Rgg8 27.Nc2 Bf5 28.Nd4 Bd7 29.Nc2 Bf5
30.Nd4 Bg6 31.a4?
While White has made a couple of inaccuracies earlier, I think that this
move is already a clear mistake. Why put the pawn on the color of the
bishop? 31.a3 would have been better.
31...Rgd8 32.Ke1 a5!
Fixing the pawn on the light square. It is also important to note that by
violating the ‘do not hurry’ principle with h2-h4 and a2-a4, White has lost

all flexibility of his pawn structure on the flanks, so Black has a clear
advantage with his mobile connected pawns in the center.
33.Nb3 b6 34.Nd4 Kf7 35.Nf3 Rxd2 36.Nxd2 Bc2
I believe that after forcing 37.b3, Black should be technically winning, or at
least very close to it.
37.b3 Ke6 38.Nf3 Kf5 39.c4 Rd8 40.Ke2 Bd1+ 41.Ke1 Bc2 42.Ke2
Kg4!?
Black probably had other ways to win, but the methodical king invasion to
h3 and later g2 was inspired by classical games such as Petrosian-Botvinnik
and Sveshnikov-Browne (see Chapter 7).
43.Nd2 Bf5 44.Rc3 Kh3 45.Nf1 Bg4+ 46.Kf2 Rd1 47.Ne3 Rd2+ 48.Ke1
Ra2 49.Nd5 Kg2 50.Re3 Ra1+ 51.Kd2 Kf2! 52.Rc3 e4!

It is finally time for Black’s main trump to come to the fore.
53.Ne3 Bf3 54.Nf5 Ra2+ 55.Kc1 Re2! 56.c5 bxc5 57.Rxc5 e3 58.Nd4
Re1+ 59.Kb2 Be4 60.Rxh5 Rd1 0-1
Correspondence games
For those who want (or need) to be at the cutting edge of opening theory,
correspondence games are what insider information is to a stock trader.
Well not exactly, of course; using insider information is illegal, while
correspondence games are (still) not. Also, correspondence games are
publicly available for anyone who wants to make use of them. However,
there is some similarity with this analogy in a sense that chess players who
study correspondence games carefully can sometimes get an ‘unfair’
advantage in the opening, even over otherwise theoretically well-prepared
opponents. You may be fully booked up in a certain variation, having
analyzed every single relevant OTB game and checked it with a strong
engine, but if you haven’t consulted the correspondence games database,
you might run into a profound idea, such as the following one.

Game 44
Levon Aronian 2794
Vladimir Kramnik 2800
Berlin ct 2018 (3)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.0-0 Qe7 7.h3 Rg8!
This was one of the most stunning OTB opening novelties of 2018.
However, in the world of correspondence chess, this move was nothing new
–
it had been known since 2012, when it was first played in the game Selen-
Kopeikin. In fact, before Kramnik launched it against Aronian in the
Candidates Tournament, it had been already played in (at least) six
correspondence games!
In his notes to this game, Vladimir Kramnik explains how he found 7...Rg8
on his own (it was the fifth move of his engine) as an improvement over a
similar idea 7...h6, 8...g5 that he had analyzed previously. Of course, top-
level players and their seconds regularly find such deep ideas on their own
by ‘digging’ up positions of interest (more on this study method later in the
chapter). However, I would not exclude the possibility that Black’s success

with 7...Rg8 in correspondence games had caught the ex-World Champion’s
attention and that these games have also influenced his analytical process.
One thing is for sure – Levon Aronian was not aware of this important idea
and he was punished for it in one of the most important tournaments of his
career. Below, in addition to the remainder of this nice attacking game, I
present the collection of correspondence games that were played prior to it.
8.Kh1
A) 8.Nbd2!? seems to be the best continuation for White, as we can see in
the correspondence games below: 8...g5 9.d4! Bxd4 10.Nxd4 exd4 11.e5
Nd5 12.Ne4 Bf5 (12...Qxe5 13.Re1 Be6 14.Nc5 Qf5 15.Qxd4 0-0-0
16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Qxa7 Nb6 18.Rf1 g4 19.h4∞ Felytin-Susedenko, ICCF
email 2014) 13.Ng3 Bg6 14.Qxd4 Bxc2 15.Bd2 Bg6 16.Rfe1 h6 17.Rad1
Kd7 18.b4 a6 19.a4 Qe6 20.f3 1⁄2-1⁄2 Selen-Kopeikin, ICCF email 2012;
B) 8.a3 g5 9.b4 Bb6 10.c4 c5 (10...g4! 11.hxg4 Bxg4 12.c5 Bxc5 13.bxc5
0-0 -0‚) 11.d4 exd4 12.e5 Ne4 13.Re1 Bf5 14.Qd3 g4 15.hxg4 Rxg4
16.Nbd2 Ng33 Zakharov-Willow, ICCF email 2017.
8...Nh5!?
This move was Kramnik’s OTB brainchild. He says: ‘At the board I could
still remember that I had previously analyzed 8...h6 here. After the game I
established that I had then even somewhat preferred it over 8...Nh5. A
modern computer shows the following variation: 9.Nbd2 (9.a3 g5 10.b4
Bd6 11.c4 g4 12.c5 gxf3 13.Qxf3 Bxc5 14.bxc5 Be6 15.Nd2 0-0-0μ
Mezera-Susedenko, ICCF email 2013) 9...g5 10.Nc4 g4 11.Nfxe5 h5 12.d4
Bd6 13.Re1 gxh3.’ Kramnik finally evaluates this position as slightly better
for Black.
I should add that two other correspondence games saw 10...Bd6!?, which
seem to be even stronger than Kramnik’s suggestion. 11 .d4 (11.Na5 g4
12.hxg4 Nxg4 13.Qe1 Bc5μ Packroff-Martins, ICCF email 2015)

11...Nxe4 12.dxe5 Bc5 13.Qe2 f5 14.Nfd2 Nxd2 15.Nxd2 Be6μ Kazoks-
Calio, ICCF email 2015.
9.c3?!
The ex-World Champion considers 9.Nc3 to be the best move and gives the
following line: 9...g5 10.Nxe5 g4 11.d4 Bd6 12.g3 Bxe5 13.dxe5 Qxe5
14.h4 Bd7, concluding that ‘the position is still more or less level, but
playing it with Black is considerably more pleasant: he will castle
queenside and have the initiative – White’s king and light squares are
weak.’
9...g5 10.Nxe5 g4
Kramnik obtained a strong attack after this move and there was no coming
back for Aronian.
11.d4 Bd6 12.g3 Bxe5 13.dxe5 Qxe5 14.Qd4 Qe7 15.h4 c5 16.Qc4 Be6
17.Qb5+ c6 18.Qa4 f5 19.Bg5 Rxg5 20.hxg5 f4 21.Qd1 Rd8 22.Qc1 fxg3
23.Na3 Rd3 24.Rd1

24...Bd5! 25.f3 gxf3 26.exd5 Qe2 27.Re1 g2+
White resigned.
Since they combine deep human and engine input, correspondence games
are of the highest quality and often contain strong ideas that are not seen in
OTB chess. Most chess professionals pay close attention to what happens in
the world of correspondence chess and make their opening choices on that
basis.
If you search correspondence databases for notable games and ideas
regularly, you may not always strike gold like 7...Rg8! in Kramnik’s game,
but you will at least gain more clarity about a certain position or opening
variation. For example, the evaluation of the critical position in the
following variation of the Sicilian Najdorf was not fully clear to me until I
studied several important correspondence games.
Game 45
Peter Michalik 2565

David Paravyan 2627
Prague 2019 (7)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7
8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.g4 b5 11.Bxf6 Nxf6 12.g5 Nd7 13.f5!
This pawn sacrifice is the critical way to fight Black’s natural set-up.
However, Black does not have to accept it.
13...0-0!?
I saw this bold move for the first time in this game. Later, I learned that it
was recommended by IM David Vigorito in his 2019 book Playing the
Najdorf – a Practical Repertoire as an important improvement over
13...Bxg5+ 14.Kb1, which yields White a strong initiative. White has many
interesting continuations now, but if he tries to refute 13...0-0 by force,
Black has enough counter-resources. Instead, the preparatory move
14.Rg1

seems to be his most promising option. To keep the balance, Black needs to
enter a forced sequence:
14...b4 15.Nce2 e5 16.f6 exd4 17.fxe7 Re8 18.Nxd4 Ne5
when we reach the following position.
It is easy to understand why black players would be satisfied with this
position – Black will eventually recoup the e7-pawn, re-establishing the
material balance, when the knight on e5 will be a powerful long-term asset.
My first impression based on this game was similar. Black equalized
comfortably and won thanks to his thematic positional domination on the
dark squares. Was it possible that Black can solve his problems in one of
the key Najdorf lines so easily? To find out, I set to investigate this position.
Of course, as a first step, I checked the ChessBase Mega Database for the
games of strong players. However, I was left a bit disappointed. The few
games that were played were not instructive, as they contained mutual
inaccuracies in the transitional phase. It was difficult to understand how to
play this position properly just based on OTB games. This was when I
decided to search the correspondence database. I was happy to find that this

position was reached in over 100 correspondence games to date, the first
game being played way back in 2008. I was interested to see if White could
do anything better than already seen in OTB practice and found some
interesting ideas in these games that shed light on this type of position and
the whole line.
19.Qf2?!
While the queen is generally placed well on the g1-a7 diagonal, this move
is clearly inaccurate, but not because of how Paravyan responded in the
game. As we will see, the e4-pawn needs protection in some lines, so f4 is a
better square for the queen.
A) However, after studying correspondence games, I concluded that
19.Qb3!?, which is given only as a sideline in Vigorito’s Najdorf repertoire,
might as well be the most testing option for Black. It is definitely the most
ambitious move, since White keeps the initiative by attacking a hanging
pawn. Black has two main options:
A1) 19...a5 is the most natural move. However, now White has time to play
20.Nf5, which is usually not an option in the 19. Qf4 line. The following
correspondence game should probably be a cause for concern for the black
side. 20...Be6 21.Qe3 a4 (21...Bxf5 22.exf5 Rxe7 23.f62) 22.Rg2! (after
this strong prophylactic move, Black’s pawn storm is stopped in its tracks)
22...Bxf5 (22...b3 23.a3± is the point; 22...a3 23.b3 Bxf5 24.exf5 Rxe7
25.Qd42) 23.exf5 Qxe7 24.f6 Qb7 25.Qd4 Rac8 26.Kb1 b3 27.Qxa4 Qf3
28.Rc1 bxa2+ 29.Ka1± Siigur-Olsen, ICCF email 2008;
A2) The active 19...Bg4!? is given by Vigorito as the preferred choice for
Black. 20.Rd2 Rxe7. This is the most popular move, and also recommended
by Vigorito (though black players should perhaps turn their attention to
20...Qxe7!?). 21 .Qxb4 d5!.

analysis diagram
Black’s earlier pawn sacrifice is based on this resource. The second pawn
should not be taken due to a sneaky tactic, so it seems like Black obtains
good counterplay. Vigorito says: ‘White should prefer 22.Rg3 or 22.h3,
although he has not achieved anything special with either move.’ However,
a couple of correspondence players would beg to differ! 22.Rg3!. This rook
lift allows White to keep the initiative in a double-edged position (oh yes, I
almost forgot to mention that 22.exd5?? loses material to 22...Nc6!μ).
22...dxe4 23.Rc3 Qd7 24.h3. Now we enter a virtually forced sequence:
24...Bh5 25.Bg2 Ree8! 26.Bxe4 Rab8 27.Qa3 Ng6 28.Ne2! (this is perhaps
the key move) 28...Qa7 29.Re3. White is strongly centralized and holds on
to his extra pawn. In the two correspondence games that reached this
position, white players scored 2/2 quite convincingly, but I will spare you
further details as they are out of the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to
say that Black seems to be struggling in this critical line and should look for
improvements earlier;

B) The most popular continuation is 19.Qf4, when Black also needs to
show accurate play to keep the balance. Without going into much detail
about other options for Black here, the main line goes 19...Be6 20.Nxe6
fxe6 21.Rg3 Rab8. Now, 22.Bxa6?! is a poisoned pawn, because of 22...Ra8
23.Bb5 Rxe7 24.Kb1 Qc5! 25.Be2 Rea7, but White has two other attempts
to get an edge:
B1) 22.a4!? is a very interesting prophylactic idea, not mentioned by
Vigorito in his book, but played in half a dozen correspondence games to
date. One of them went 22...bxa3 23.Rxa3 Qxe7 24.Qe3 Rf8 25.Be2 Qc7
26.Qh3, and now in Dunlop-Mulligan (cr 2019), White decided to repeat
the moves with 26...Qe7 27.Qe3 Qc7, although the natural 26.Qd4!? needs
to be looked into more carefully. For example: 26...Rb6 27.Rc3! Qb7
28.b32;
B2) 22.Qd2 Rb6 23.Kb1.
analysis diagram
My intuition suggests that White should have somewhat better chances in
such a position because Black’s king is more exposed, but the right

defensive plan for Black was demonstrated in one correspondence game:
23...Rxe7 (in the other game that continued 23...Qxe7, White launched a
successful kingside attack with 24.h4 a5 25.Bh3 Rc6 26.Rg2 Rb8 27.Qd4
a4 28.h5 a3 29.h6 axb2 30.Rf2 Rc3 31.Rh1 Rbc8 32.hxg7 Kxg7 33.Rfh2‚
Miettinen-Otspere, ICCF email 2016) 24.h4 Qc5 25.h5 Kf8! (king
centralization in the middlegame is usually strong when it works. Here, it
works) 26.g6 hxg6 27.hxg6 Ke8 28.Rh3 Kd7 29.Rh8 Rc6 30.Ra8 Re8
31.Rxe8 Kxe8 32.Rc1 Kd7 33.Qh2 1⁄2-1⁄2 Tomczak-Trzcinski, ICCF email
2018.
19...Be6?!
Black should have developed the bishop to the other diagonal: 19...g6 (to
take away Nd4-f5) 20.h4 Bb7!„, and the e-pawn is hanging.
20.Kb1?!
20.Nxe6 fxe6 21.Rg3 was more accurate, by analogy to a similar line after
19.Qf4. In this position, the queen is placed better on f2 than on f4, in view
of 21...Rab8 22.Bxa6 Ra8 23.Bb5 Rxe7 24.Kb1, and if you compare this to
22.Bxa6?! in the 19.Qf4 line, you will see that the difference is that there is
no 24...Qc5 here! 24...Qb7 25.Qe2±.
20...Qc5 21.Rg2 Rxe7
Black should be fine now. The queen exchange in such a structure usually
leads to a better endgame for him.
22.h4 a5 23.Nxe6 fxe6 24.Qd2?!
24.Qxc5 dxc5 25.Rgd2 Rf8 26.Rd8= was a way to force simplifications.
24...Rf8 25.Be2 Rd7 26.h5 a4 27.h6 g6 28.Qd4 Rf4 29.Rgg1 Kf8!

A well-known plan from Tomczak-Trzcinski above. Maybe Paravyan was
familiar with some correspondence games in this line?
30.Rg3 Ke7μ
Black dominates completely on the dark squares. Paravyan displayed a
strong conversion technique:
31.a3 Rb7 32.axb4 Rxb4 33.Qxc5 dxc5 34.Rc3 c4 35.Re3 Rf2 36.Ka2
Rb6! 37.Rd4 Rd6 38.Rxd6 Kxd6–+ 39.Kb1 Kc5 40.Kc1 a3! 41.bxa3 Kd4
42.Kd2 c3+ 43.Rxc3 Rxe2+ 44.Kxe2 Kxc3 45.a4 Nc4 46.e5 Kxc2
White resigned.
You might argue that studying opening theory from correspondence games
up to move 30 is a bit too much, but such deep analysis is kind of the norm
for the 6.Bg5 Najdorf, isn’t it? Anyone who wants to have success in this
opening with either color should be aware of such games. As you can see
from this example, even the conclusions of well-reputed opening
theoreticians can be put under question if they missed important
correspondence games.

How much to trust the engine?
There is no denying that chess engines have helped us improve our
understanding of chess immensely and at unprecedented speed. This is true
especially for openings, because the accuracy of engines’ opening analysis
simply cannot be matched by any amount of human effort. However, should
we trust the engine absolutely when it claims that the unintuitive, anti-
positional move on the screen is the best move in the position?
Game 46
Réti Opening
(analysis)
1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Bg4 3.Bg2 e6 4.0-0 Nf6 5.h3!?
This little ‘informative’ move, in connection with the following plan, has
recently become one of the critical ways to meet the classical ...Bg4 system
in the Réti Opening. The idea is to play against Black’s light-squared
bishop, which is sometimes vulnerable on h5 or g6. As far as I know,
Maxime Vachier Lagrave was one of the first top players to employ it with
success.

5...Bh5
Black can also take on f3, but perhaps this is a premature concession, as
White is still very flexible with his development and could claim a slight
advantage thanks to the bishop pair in the long haul.
6.c4 c6 7.d4 Nbd7 8.cxd5
A timely exchange to clarify the situation in the center.
8...exd5
In case of 8...cxd5, White can chase the light-squared bishop around with
9.Nc3 Be7 10.Ne5! 0-0 11.g4 Bg6 12.f4, etc.
9.Nh4!?
This is one of the ways to play against the light-squared bishop. The most
popular variation used to be 9.Qb3 Qb6 10.Qe3+ Be7 11.Nh4 Bg6 12.Nc3,
when White tries to claim a slight positional edge once he captures the
bishop on g6. Also possible is 9.Ne5, which is well met by 9...Ne4!.
9...Bg6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.f3!?

When I was preparing this line for Black, this fairly rare move had struck
me as quite unpleasant. White wants to simply take on g6 and build up the
classical pawn center with e2-e4 next. It may not be anything special, but,
at the very least, Black needs to know exactly how to proceed from here,
because he may easily end up in an inferior position after ‘normal’ moves.
A more positional alternative is 11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.h4, when the game
usually continues along the lines of 9.Qb3 above.
I spent quite a bit of time trying to understand what the best way forward
for Black here is and after consulting the engine, I came to the conclusion
that its paradoxical solution is probably the best:
11...Qc7!
In itself, this move is nothing extraordinary, but its follow-up is. Let us take
a look at the alternatives:
A) 11...0-0? is just ignorant, allowing White to achieve what he wants for
free: 12.Nxg6 hxg6 13.e4±;
B) The principled reply to f2-f3 in such structures is a counterattack in the
center with 11...c5. However, in this particular case, White has 12.Be3!2 at

his disposal, since e2-e3 has not been played yet;
C) The direct 11...Nh5?! fails to 12.Nxg6 hxg6 13.g4±, and it is difficult to
believe in 13...Ng3...;
D) The most serious alternative, also suggested by one of my students, is
11...Bd6!? 12.g4 0-0 13.Nxg6 hxg6 14.e4 c5!„. As it turned out, this has
been played in the meantime in the game Svane-Arjun, Karlsruhe 2019. But
there, White continued inaccurately: 15.e5?! (whereas it is necessary to
include 15.Nb5 Bb8 before playing 16.e5, and White keeps some initiative)
15...cxd4 16.exf6 dxc3 17.fxg7 Re8„, and Black had a good game.
12.Bf4 Qb6!
This already looks a bit strange, but to quote one anti-hero from an old TV
show, the engine has a ‘cunning plan’. A much more human continuation is
12...Bd6, though this does not suffice for equality after 13.Bxd6 Qxd6
14.Kh2 Nh5 15.Qe1!, and White pushes e2-e4 on the next move, with an
advantage.
13.Na4 Qd8!

A stunning concept – I could not believe it at first. If you compare this
position to the one on the previous diagram (after 11.f3), you will realize
that the black pieces are in the same positions where they were, while
White has developed his bishop to f4, moved his knight to a4, and has an
extra move to boot. In essence, with this weird queen maneuvering, Black
has granted his opponent three full tempi! How in the world can this solve
Black’s initial problem with the e2-e4 break? Moreover, isn’t such play just
plain stupid and why would the engine claim that it is good for Black? As I
said, I had a difficult time believing in this concept not only the first, but
also the next few times when I analyzed this position. However, the more I
looked at it, the more it transpired that this counterintuitive sequence
actually makes sense. While White’s pieces are more actively placed than
they were three moves earlier, the bishop on f4 is somewhat exposed to
attacks and the knight on a4 is actually placed worse on the rim than on c3
when it comes to executing the e2-e4 break. As for the extra tempo – well,
what is the use of it if you need to spend it for something that is not 14.e4 ?
14.g4

Logically, White defends against 14...Nh5 and prepares 15.e4. Now, Black
has a strong counter-idea:
14...Nf8!
15.e4!
This is the critical continuation – if this works, White would just be better.
Alternatively,
A) 15.Bg3? fails to 15...Nxg4! 16.Nxg6 Ne3. This intermezzo is the point.
17.Qc1 Nxf1 18.Nxh8 Nxg3–+;
B) On the other hand, White could play more patiently and try to put his
sidelined knight to use with 15.Nc5, though after 15...b6 16.Nb3 Ne6
17.Be5 Nd7 18.Nxg6 hxg6 19.Bg3 0-0∞, Black should be fine due to
White’s dark-square weaknesses.
15...Ne6
15...dxe4 loses material after 16.fxe4 Bxe4 17.g5 Bxg2 18.gxf6.

16.Be3 dxe4
It is tempting to win the pawn with 16...Nxg4 17.hxg4 Bxh4, but after
18.exd5! cxd5 19.f4 f5 20.Qb3ƒ, White has a strong initiative.
17.Nxg6
(back to the PREVIEW)
In this position, almost everyone would automatically take on g6, but the
engine points out another outrageous resource; this time, a tactical one:
17...Nd5!!
What a move! Now we enter a wild tactical sequence. To be fair, there is
probably also nothing wrong with 17...hxg6!? 18.fxe4 Qa5 19.Nc3 Rd8
20.e5 Nd5 21.Nxd5 cxd5, when Black has a slightly passive but solid
enough position. Yet, the text is much more enterprising.
18.Nxh8 Nxe3 19.Nxf7!

A strong intermezzo. 19.Qd2? is worse than it looks in view of 19...Nxf1
20.Rxf1 Bf6μ. The extra knight on h8 isn’t going anywhere, and,
meanwhile, the white pawn center falls apart.
19...Kxf7 20.fxe4+ Nxf1 21.Qxf1+ Kg8
After the dust has settled, White can claim an extra pawn, but he has a
couple of positional problems, most notably his weak dark squares. Thus,
Black has full compensation for the pawn, as we can see in the following
lines:
A) 22.d5 cxd5 23.exd5 Ng5°
followed by ...Qd8-d6-e5, ...Be7-d6, etc.; and
B) 22.Rd1 Qd6 23.Qc4 Bf6!„
As tactically brilliant as they are, engines are not to be fully trusted in all
cases. We have already talked about types of positions that they tend to
assess too optimistically or pessimistically from a human perspective. If the

position that the engine evaluates positively feels like something that would
be uncomfortable playing over the board, you should follow your own
intuition. Additionally, if the engine gives preference to a line that requires
you to memorize a string of difficult forced moves in a volatile position
over a less ambitious but more ‘human’ line, going for the latter would be
much more practical.
‘Digging’
The most comprehensive opening study practice I am aware of, informally
called ‘digging’, looks like this: you and a training partner analyze an
opening over the chessboard. One of you also has a laptop and is
responsible for checking opening databases, finding relevant games, and
providing engine evaluations, as well as for saving the analysis. This person
is the ‘computer side’ of the operation, while his partner, who makes the
moves on the board and has no access to the computer, is the ‘human side’.
Such a division of labor allows you to cover the opening that you study
thoroughly: where it is appropriate, you will follow the suggestions of the
opening theory or the engine; in other cases, you will analyze the position
on your own. This kind of opening study is usually effective only if it lasts
at least as long as a chess game with a long time-control, 3 to 5 hours. You
should feel mentally fatigued after it, hence the name ‘digging’. For
instance, the opening work with IM Darko Doric that I mentioned in the
game (see page 90) followed a similar format. I do not know it for a fact,
but I would assume that in recent times of imposed social distancing, setting
up such study sessions online has become more common. I should say that
this kind of opening work is recommended primarily for chess professionals
or those aspiring to become one in the near future.
Other opening study methods
Of course, when it comes to opening study, one should mostly use a
computer simply because it provides the tools to study the material very
efficiently and with a great amount of detail. That said, it is useful to study
openings over the board in certain situations. From my experience, there are
two types of such practices:

1. Reviewing
I like to leave about 15-20 minutes on the game day to review variations
and lines that I am a bit uncertain about. When you play the opening moves
with your own hand, muscle memory kicks in, decreasing your chances to
mess up the move order or forget an important move. In addition, you also
review the moves slower than on the computer, so your brain has more time
to process them than when you keep hitting the ‘forward’ key.
2. Analyzing (with or without a training partner)
I find it more useful to analyze non-theoretical opening variations over the
board than on a computer screen, because moving the pieces around and
exploring various options with my own hand somehow helps me feel the
positions better. This is perhaps not so simple to explain, but I guess that it
also has something to do with muscle memory and extra processing time.
Finally, as you learn the opening, you want to make sure that you put it into
practice. Of course, games with a classical time control are the best practice
for any aspect of your chess study, but you want to have at least some
preliminary practice with an opening before you step onto the big stage.
There are several other ways to test your openings:
• playing blitz;
• playing sparring games;
• doing simulations; and
• playing against a computer.
I have already talked about these study methods in the second chapter, so
you can review them there. The point is that all of them put you on the spot
to remember your opening lines and/or find the right opening move in a
semi-competitive setting. In particular, I find sparring games with a rapid
time control and their subsequent analysis very useful in becoming more
competent with your openings. I think that people generally do not take
advantage of this study method as much as they should.

Studying an opening is a process that takes time. To understand and play a
certain opening well, you need to combine all the study methods that we
have discussed: learn relevant opening variations and model games, try to
understand and analyze them deeply, follow new developments, explore
your own ideas, review your opening files periodically, and practice your
openings. As you do this over a longer period of time, you get a kind of
positive feedback loop that we talked about in the first chapter, helping you
to gradually become an expert in this area.
Chapter 5 summary
• Opening study should not be underestimated, but it could be
overestimated.
• Unless you are already a strong titled player who has mastered most other
aspects of the game to a high degree, opening study should not be your top
priority.
• ‘Your only task in the opening is to reach a playable middle game’ – Lajos
Portisch.
• ‘Playing the middlegames that arise from mainline openings is an
incredible learning experience for which there is no substitute’ – Samuel
Shankland.
• Opening study should incorporate middlegame study to a large degree.
• ‘There is very little more frustrating than spoiling great pregame work
with over the board ineptitude’ – Samuel Shankland.
• The first step in opening study is to create simple opening files that
contain several important variations and several model games. This is a
good base that you can review, upgrade, and update with new material later.
• For most people, following detailed opening analysis from modern
opening resources is just about enough when it comes to opening study.
However, to fully understand opening subtleties, you need to do additional
research and analytical work on your own.

• A tabiya is a position in the opening of a game that occurs after a sequence
of moves that is heavily standardized, and from which the players have
many possible moves.
• Studying tabiyas is the best way to understand complex openings, because
they contain many strategic and tactical ideas that are typical for the whole
opening.
• ‘You cannot just consider your openings only according to the computer
evaluation’ – Evgeny Tomashevsky.
• When studying tabiyas, it is a good idea to play over a large number of
games to systemize typical plans and maneuvers for both sides. This will
facilitate the analysis as tabiyas are usually quite complex.
• In contrast with static tabiyas that feature static pawn structures, flexible
tabiyas are characterized by the great flexibility of pawn structures,
especially in the center.
• Analyzing tabiyas is hard and time-consuming work, but, as a reward, you
not only get to the bottom of the complex position at hand, but also improve
skills that are transferable to other openings and study areas.
• The key with new promising ideas is to analyze them thoroughly,
considering all the moves that you think that your imaginary opponent
might play in the game, even those that are not among the first two or three
lines of the engine.
• To find a new promising idea, one often needs to dig deeper than the first
suggestion of the engine, looking for unusual novelties in unusual places,
recycling old ideas in new settings, etc.
• Some opening variations can be studied well into the endgame. In such
cases, it is recommended that you study the arising endgame carefully, even
if the variations that you analyze are not forced. Such analysis not only
helps you understand typical endgames that you might get over the board
but also improves your overall endgame skill.
• Since they combine deep human and engine input, correspondence games
are of the highest quality and often contain strong ideas that are not seen in

over-the-board chess. They can sometimes give you a competitive edge
over an otherwise theoretically well-prepared opponent.
• As tactically brilliant as they are, engines are not to be fully trusted with
evaluations and recommendations in certain positions. If the position that
the engine evaluates positively feels like something that would be
uncomfortable playing over the board, you should follow your own
intuition.
• As you learn the opening, you want to make sure that you put it into
practice, such as playing blitz, sparring, doing simulations, etc.
• To understand and play a certain opening well, you need to combine
various study methods over a longer period of time: learn relevant opening
variations and model games, try to understand and analyze them deeply,
follow new developments, explore your own ideas, review your opening
files periodically, and practice.

Chapter 6 – Preview
Black to move
What is the best move for Black?
(go to the ANSWER)

Black to move
How would you respond to White’s impending kingside attack?
(go to the ANSWER)

Black to move
Please suggest the best continuation for Black.
(go to the ANSWER)
Black to move
How would you deal with White’s potential threats on the dark squares?
(go to the ANSWER)
Chapter 6
‘Dynamize’ your tactical training
‘In general, I think it’s very hard to make progress in chess without constant
work on tactics, calculation, and other dynamics. They are always present
even in the most subtle of games’ – Sam Shankland.

The statement above encapsulates the role of tactics in chess study and
practice. To my mind, tactics are as fundamental to chess as physical
stamina is to physical sports. Imagine professional football players skipping
on their sprints, gym workouts, and other types of physical conditioning.
They would run out of air on the pitch after 15 minutes if they are lucky not
to get injured before that. It goes the same way with tactical skill in chess.
Even the most tactically gifted chess players need to practice their tactical
skills and enrich their tactical intuition regularly in order to improve
(remember the quote about Mikhail Tal from the first chapter).
Now, when most people think about tactical training, what do they usually
do? They solve a large number of puzzles from a tactics book or online
tactics trainer, hoping that the increasing amounts of such work will help
them become stronger tacticians. This typical, let us call it basic, tactical
training is mostly geared towards the improvement of tactical pattern
recognition and calculation of forced variations. These are vital skills,
because you want to be able to spot a thematic double attack combination or
calculate a forced sequence when the opportunity arises. Yet, it is important
to keep in mind that this is not the only way one can study tactics (more on
that a bit later).
When it comes to tactical pattern recognition training, Richard Réti said,
‘Most combinations, indeed, practically all of them, are devised by recalling
known elements (...) as for the imagination it has been proved by
psychologists that it cannot offer anything new, but, contending itself with
combining familiar elements, can be developed by increasing knowledge of
such elements.’ In other words, we need to perform the kind of tactics
training that builds up and maintains our base of tactical elements and
patterns, as it prepares us not only to spot and execute well-known tactical
ideas, but also to create ever more complex and imaginative combinations
in our games.
The second part of the basic tactical training is calculation training. Here
is what Réti argues in the same essay: ‘The planning of strong combinations
can be learned much more easily than is generally believed. On the one

hand, this ability depends upon calculation, which can naturally be
developed through practice.’ Mark Dvoretsky fully agrees with this view on
calculation, often pointing out in his works that ‘calculation is absolutely a
practical skill, it does not rely on deep ideas. To improve this skill, one
should solve many exercises.’
While the two types of basic tactics training, tactical pattern recognition
and calculation, often go hand-in-hand, there is also a distinction to be
made between them. While calculation is an integral part of tactics (you
need to calculate a tactical variation), tactics are not always an integral part
of calculation. We can, and often do in our games, calculate non-tactical
variations, such as mutual developing sequences in the opening, piece
maneuvers and plans in the middlegame, and long variations in the
endgame. Thus, it is possible to practice your calculation skills with
exercises from other areas of the game, as well. In addition, there are
specific sub-skills of calculation that may not necessarily be related to your
tactical skill, such as:
• finding relevant candidate moves;
• recognizing the opponent’s resources;
• overcoming resistance in calculation;
• calculation speed;
• etc.
All of these aspects of calculation and more have been covered in many
chess works. If you have not done such specific calculation training before,
I would suggest that you start with the appropriate calculation resources
recommended in Chapter 4.
Dynamics
Remember the three related tactical aspects from the start of our discussion:
‘tactics, calculation, and other dynamics’? I think that most chess players
would be able to explain what exactly tactics and calculation are, but many
of them might not quite put the finger on what dynamics is. The dictionary

defines it as ‘a force that stimulates change or progress within a system or
process’. In chess, it is one of those things that is often easier to recognize
when it happens in a game than to define in words. You can definitely feel
distinct dynamics in games of Judit Polgar or Veselin Topalov, for example
–
there is always ‘something’ happening in their games. However, these
dynamic actions are rarely random – they are usually a part of a certain
tactical or strategic plot. They also typically involve a lot of interaction
between the pieces and are played with the maximum economy in terms of
time*, but do not necessarily lead to a forced conclusion, as in ‘White to
move and win/draw’ puzzles. To summarize, dynamics in chess is typically
characterized by:
* Time in terms of moves or tempi.
1. initiating a purposeful change in the position;
2. time economy; and
3. a lot of piece interaction.
If we think in more practical terms, these three dynamic factors are
prevalent in the following types of situations:
• playing for the initiative;
• playing for the attack;
• sacrificing material;
• double-edged positions; and
• tactical complications.
Now, if you have spent many hours solving tactical puzzles and sharpening
your calculation skills, but you still shy away from sacrificing a piece for
uncertain compensation, avoid messy tactical positions, or get scared of the
very thought of your opponent having tactical threats around your king, do
you think that solving more tactical and calculation puzzles is the solution?
I hope that your answer is no. Let me suggest several more effective study
methods to improve your play in dynamic positions:

• analysis of double-edged positions with tactical resources for both sides;
• simulations or FBM practice of games of a strong player with a dynamic
playing style;
• analysis of games with long-term material sacrifices in exchange for
dynamic factors;
• playing out tactically complicated positions in sparring games or against a
computer;
• solving ‘high-traffic’ and ‘tactical vision’ types of tactical puzzles (see the
Tactics Test section at the end of the chapter);
• immersing yourself in the world of endgame studies and chess problems,
especially paying attention to those with prominent knight geometry and
atypical tactical motives; and
• attempting blindfold practices in dynamic positions whenever possible.
Solving ‘impractical’ endgame studies and ‘weird’ chess problems, finding
unexpected counterattacks and intermediate moves in messy positions, and
analyzing brilliant tactical concepts in model games have a cumulative
effect on the development of another important ingredient of your tactical
skill – imagination. As suggested by Richard Réti in one of his quotes at the
start of the chapter, imagination is definitely something that can be
developed with a lot of practice. Thus, at the end of this chapter, I will
provide a Tactics Test that will also include exercises for the development
of imagination.
If you cannot find specific types of tactical puzzles or appropriate
endgame studies mentioned above in the study resources available to you,
you might want to ask a coach or a friend to prepare a set of such exercises
for you. This is what coaches and friends are for, after all! However,
studying dynamic games and positions that contain the above-mentioned
elements are your own responsibility. They can be found in many different
places, for example in game collections of great attacking players, thematic
books such as Gelfand’s Dynamic Decision Making or Psakhis’ Advanced
Chess Tactics, or on the game-analysis pages of chess magazines. Even if

you stumble upon a fragment of a random complicated game in a database,
you can analyze it or do an FBM. For instance, examples 2.1 and 2.5 from
Chapter 2 are exactly the type of material that you need for this kind of
study.
Unfortunately, I have noticed that the study of dynamics is often
neglected. My guess is that some chess players are not aware of the
importance of this kind of study or even how they should do it. The others
might be aware of it, but they prefer solving primarily tactical/calculation
puzzles because they are more fun or straightforward. However, you need to
keep two caveats in mind. Firstly, as we already discussed in Chapter 2,
when you rely too much on solving as a study method, you can develop a
sort of a tunnel vision, relying on calculation of forcing variations to find
the ‘right solution’ in tactical positions in which sometimes, there is none.
Secondly, you should bear in mind that a typical tactical puzzle is taken out
of the context of a real game. You usually do not know how the tactical
opportunity that you are trying to find and calculate arose – was it a result
of a patient long-term strategy or a silly mistake by the opponent. Yet, this
contextual information is usually essential in a real game, as Rudolf
Spielmann famously suggested with his complaint: ‘I can see combinations
as well as Alekhine, but I cannot get to the same positions.’
While the basic tactical training primarily gives you triggers to recognize
and react to tactical opportunities, the study of dynamic aspects of chess
through analysis, simulation, sparring games, and other methods explained
above provides a context for these tactical opportunities. This way, you
become better at anticipating and creating tactical opportunities, which is
what Spielmann hinted at. Moreover, such training helps you develop your
tactical intuition better. We can relate this to our discussion on basic and
complex learning processes from Chapter 1 to make a similar conclusion:
when you can feel your way in tactical positions instead of having to always
consciously reason about them, you will have the confidence to play such
positions against anyone.
A practical example

I encountered a problem in the dynamics department myself in early 2013.
Around that period, I was having pretty consistent results and felt like I
could make a run toward 2600 Elo, but there were at least one or two games
in each tournament in which I did not handle dynamics well, especially at
critical moments. Generally speaking, my play in that period was pretty
static. I would usually aim for stable advantages that I would try to
gradually convert with patient maneuvering, a transformation into a better
endgame or, preferably, by utilizing the opponent’s mistakes. The problem
with this approach, though, is that you get to rely on your technical skill and
routine too much. You start missing dynamic opportunities in the position
and unconsciously avoid ‘risky’ continuations. However, every once in a
while, you land in a position in which you need to play dynamically and
then things can get out of control. Let me show you two games from that
period to illustrate this problem.
Game 47
Robert Aghasaryan 2445
Davorin Kuljasevic 2578
Legnica Ech 2013 (6)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Nc6 7.e4 0-0 8.d5
Na5 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bh4 Re8 11.Bd3 b5!
The point of this Benko-type pawn sacrifice was to undermine White’s solid
pawn chain c4/d5/e4. Such a dynamic approach, as opposed to the more
static 11...d6 or 11...b6, is exactly what is needed in this type of position;
otherwise, White plays Ne2, castles, and usually obtains good attacking
prospects on the kingside.
12.dxe6 Rxe6 13.cxb5 d5 14.Ne2 g5 15.Bf2 dxe4 16.Bxe4 Qxd1+
17.Rxd1 Nxe4 18.fxe4 Rxe4 19.Rd8+ Kg7 20.h3

(back to the PREVIEW)
The opening went very well for me, as I managed to annihilate the solid
white center with a series of pawn breaks. I understood that this was an
important moment because, while White obviously stood worse, he could
get an acceptable position soon if he were allowed to castle or take on c5
and play Kf2. After a long think, I decided to cover my weaknesses with
20...Nb7?!
However, this is a step back from the dynamic play initiated by 11...b5. The
right move was to keep the initiative with 20...a6!, using the dynamic
potential of the black pieces. White has to be careful now since his rook on
d8 may be hanging in some lines, his king is still exposed, and his light
squares are terribly weak. He has several options, but is worse in any case:
A) If 21.bxa6, then 21...Rxe2+ is the most tempting continuation (although
even stronger might be 21...Nc6!? 22.Rd2 Bxa6 23.Kd1 Na5, with a
massive attack on the light squares): 22.Kxe2 Bxa6+ 23.Rd3 Re8+ 24.Kd2
Nb3+ 25.Kc2 Re2+ 26.Kxb3 c4+ 27.Kb4 cxd3 28.Bd4+ Kg6. At the end

of the day, Black should have a winning endgame, though White may have
some practical drawing chances considering the opposite-colored bishops;
B) 21.Bxc5 loses material to 21...Nb7 22.Bd4+ f6 23.Rxc8 (23.Rd5 Be6–+
is a nice way to trap the rook in the middle of the board) 23...Rxc8 24.bxa6
Na5μ;
C) Probably his best option was 21.b6, after which Black continues
21...Bb7 22.Rxa8 Bxa8 23.Bxc5 Nb3 24.Bd4+ Nxd4 25.cxd4 Re6, winning
back the b-pawn, with a pleasant advantage in the endgame.
I had considered 20...a6 during the game, but I am not sure why I rejected
it. It is likely that I saw some hazy variation in which White obtains a
decent position and convinced myself that winning a pawn with 20...Nb7
was safer and more promising. With a better tactical intuition, though, I
would have understood that 20...a6 just has to be the right move and would
have forced myself to overcome the resistance to calculate it properly.
21.Rd2 Ra4 22.0-0 Rxa3
Winning this pawn was part of the plan, but my pieces are rather poorly
coordinated now, while White has managed to fully coordinate his own.

23.Bg3
White was, naturally, trying to take the initiative on the dark squares.
However, a very interesting alternative was 23.Ng3!?, sacrificing the
second pawn. After 23...Rxc3 24.Re1 Black faces serious issues with his
development, since 24...Be6 is met by 25.Rxe6 fxe6 26.Rd7+ Kg6
27.Rxb7=.
This was the second critical moment. Again, I opted for a ‘safe’ move,
23...f6?
(which prevents Be5+), because I could not properly evaluate the extent of
White’s counterplay in a double-edged position after 23...Be6 24.Be5+ Kh7
25.Ng3.
analysis diagram
(back to the PREVIEW)

White’s attack on the dark squares looked scary in view of the impending
Ng3-e4(h5)-f6+ or Rdf2xf7. However, Black has cool-headed counterplay:
25...Na5!. I do not recall even considering this move; I just quickly rejected
the whole idea once I saw 25.Ng3. Truth be told, it requires precise and
deep calculation of the most dangerous-looking continuation 26.Rdf2
(objectively speaking, White should play 26.Rd3, but then Black
extinguishes much of his initiative on the dark squares with 26...Nc4!
27.Bf6 Ra2μ. On the other hand, the tempting 26...Bc4 does not do the trick
because of 27.Nh5! Bxd3 28.Rxf7+ Kg6 29.Rf6+, and Black needs to
repeat the position because 29....Kxh5?? leads to a checkmate after 30.g4+
Kh4 31.Rxh6#) 26...Nc4 27.Rxf7+ Bxf7 28.Rxf7+ Kg8 29.Rg7+ Kf8
30.Bf6.
analysis diagram
Yes, Black’s king looks quite helpless here, but Black is able to extinguish
all the threats and keep the material advantage with 30...Re8! (30...Ne3 is
also possible, although it looks messier after 31.Rb7 Re8 32.Bg7+ Kg8
33.Nh5 Ra1+ 34.Kf2 Rf1+ 35.Ke2) 31.Nf5 Ra1+ 32.Kf2 (32.Kh2 Rf1–+)

32...Nd2! 33.Be7+ Rxe7 34.Rxe7 Rf1+ 35.Ke2 Rxf5–+, and Black wins a
piece.
Entering such double-edged positions where one move can be decisive
requires one to have a dynamic mindset. It is not that I was not capable of
executing precise calculations in such positions at the time, but I was rather
uncomfortable with the idea that the outcome of an otherwise well-played
game could depend on one calculation mistake in a complicated position.
Perhaps you have also noticed a tendency in your own games to
instinctively avoid tactical complications, preferring to steer them toward
‘safer’ positions. However, as noted in Sam Shankland’s quote at the
beginning of this chapter, chess is a markedly tactical game, and one has to
be ready to play dynamically if the position calls for it.
24.Bc7 Be6 25.Ng3 Kg6 26.Ne4 f5 27.Nd6 Nxd6 28.Rxd6
White is already out of the woods and it seems like he should be able to
simplify matters into a drawn opposite-colored bishops’ endgame. Yet, I
managed to lose this position! It all started with

28...Kf7?!.
A pretty serious inaccuracy in time trouble. An unpleasant side-effect of a
static approach is that one usually spends a lot of time on critical decisions
in complicated positions (and eventually chooses static instead of dynamic
moves anyway) that lead to chronic time trouble by move 30. Of course, it
was much better to play 28...Re8, but I panicked when I saw 29.Re1 Kf7
30.Bd8 c4 31.Rc6, thinking that I was falling under some sort of a
dangerous attack. However, everything is resolved with a fairly simple
move: 31...Bd7 32.Rf6+ Kg7 33.Rxe8 Bxe8, when White can force a drawn
bishop’s endgame with 34.Ra6.
29.Bd8 Ra4?!
Since I was down to a minute or two at this point, I played mostly by
instinct: ‘White threatens Re1, Rxe6 – let’s stop it.’ Instead, Black could
pretty much ignore this threat with 29...Rxc3 30.Re1 f4 since 31.Rexe6 is
met by 31...Rxd8, and White needs to hold a perpetual check.
30.Re1 Re4 31.Ra1!
A very unpleasant move to meet when you are down to increments. White
threatens to win the a-pawn in many ways. I immediately collapsed with
31...Bc8??.
However, a solution was still there: 31...Re2! 32.b6 Ba2!, but finding this
would already require the kind of thinking that I was not capable of earlier
in the game, let alone with dwindling seconds on the clock... 33.b7
(33.Rd7+ Ke8 34.Rxa7 Rxd8 35.R1xa2 Rxa2 36.Rxa2 Rb8=) 33...Rb8
34.Rd7+ Ke8 35.Rh7 Bd5!=.
32.Rxh6 Re6 33.Rh7+

With equal material and a superior position, White is technically winning
here. The game lasted a bit longer than recorded in the database, but the
final result was never in doubt.
33...Kg6 34.Rc7 Rd6 35.Be7 Rb6 36.c4 Rb7 37.Rc6+ Kf7 38.Bxg5 Be6
39.Rxc5 Bc8 40.Be3 Be6 1-0
Game 48
Sergey Fedorchuk 2660
Davorin Kuljasevic 2578
Legnica Ech 2013 (10)
To provide some context, this game was played in the penultimate round of
the same tournament in which I lost to Aghasaryan. After that loss, I rallied
with 3 wins in a row to reach a +2 score. It is well-known that a +4 score in
European individual championships gives you a pretty good chance to
qualify for the World Cup, and thus this was an ‘all or nothing’ game for
both Fedorchuk and me as we would both need to score two wins in the last
two rounds to reach the desired final result.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.d3 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.a3
0-0 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Nd5 Nd4 11.Nxd4 exd4

12.Nf4!?N
This novelty seemed like Fedorchuk’s over-the-board improvisation to keep
things more complicated, as the tournament situation required. Objectively,
though, it is not a particularly strong move and Black gets a good position
with simple moves. The usual continuation here is 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6 13.Bxe6
fxe6, where White sports a healthier pawn structure, but Black should be,
more or less, fine in the long run.
12...Bxb3 13.cxb3 Nd7 14.Ne2 c5 15.Ng3 Re8 16.Nf5 Bf8 17.Qg4 Ne5
18.Qg3 Qd7 19.f4 Nc6 20.Bd2

(back to the PREVIEW)
White has built up a decent attacking position on the kingside, but Black is
very solid and has the potential to obtain good counterplay in the center and
on the queenside. In other words, the position is about to become double-
edged, with chances for both sides. Here, I made the first of many
inaccuracies:
20...Qe6?!
After spending most of the 15 minutes on 20...d5, I finally decided in favor
of this ‘greedy’ move. A part of the reason was also that the queen is
protected on e6 and closer to the kingside, if need be. In other words, I was
thinking about safety above all. However, this is a rather static and
materialistic mindset. My intuition was telling me to play the more dynamic
move 20...d5, but I could not make myself do it. In the post-mortem, my
opponent said that he would have replied with 21.Rae1, although after
21...dxe4 22.dxe4 c4μ, Black gets in first with his own active play.
Actually, during the game, I was more concerned about the variation
21.Qh3 Rad8 22.e5 g6 23.Nh6+ Bxh6 24.Qxh6, where it seemed like my

dark squares are a problem (so I rejected 20...d5 on general and not
concrete grounds – another sign of lack of dynamic thinking), but actually
24...Ne7!μ patches up all holes and Black is simply better with ...Nf5 and
. . .c5-c4 to follow.
21.Rf3?!
The most aggressive, but also risky, move. Fedorchuk was obviously ready
to burn his bridges for the sake of the kingside attack. I saw in advance that
21.Nxg7 Bxg7 22.f5 would not work, in view of 22...Qe5 23.Bf4 Qe7
24.Bxd6 Qf6–+ . However, objectively stronger was 21.b4! c4 22.Rae1∞,
when White keeps the balance in the center since it becomes more difficult
for Black to push ...d6-d5.
21...g6?!
Chickening out. I decided not to take the free pawn, even though I did not
see a clear way how White would justify the sacrifice. 21. ..Qxb3 was better.
analysis diagram

Years later, when I studied such double-edged positions more carefully, I
arrived at the conclusion that it is fine to be materialistic in such cases.
Black cannot fight with White on equal terms on the kingside anyway, so he
should look for counterplay on other fronts and accept all the free material
along the way. The point is that this material advantage might prove useful
once the opponent’s attack subsides or as a buffer material to be sacrificed
for defensive purposes. After 22.Raf1, Black has two possible defenses:
A) 22...Re6 23.Qh3 Kh8, and now:
A1) The thematic knight sacrifice 24.Nxg7 Bxg7 25.f5 can, fortunately, be
neutralized with 25...Ne5! 26.fxe6 (26.Rg3 Rf6 27.Qh4 h6 28.Bg5 Nd7–+)
26...Nxf3+ 27.Qxf3 fxe6 28.Qh3 Rf8=;
A2) 24.Bc1 c4μ;
A3) 24.Rg3 Rg6 25.Rxg6 fxg6 26.Nh4 Kg8 27.Nf3∞.
B) 22...f6! 23.Qh4 Qf7μ. Black is ready to meet most of White’s attacking
attempts with ...g7-g6, when his king would be safe. Meanwhile, he wants
to undermine the e4-pawn with ...c5-c4 at the first available opportunity, so
White would not have all the time in the world to prove his compensation
for the pawn.
22.Raf1
I did not mind trading the queens in case of 22.Nh6+ Bxh6 23.f5 Qe5
24.Bxh6 Qxg3 25.Rxg3 Ne53.
22...Ra7?!
Another static move when a stronger dynamic alternative existed. I was
kind of hoping that he might play 23.Nh6+, when I would reach a safe
endgame. However, once again, 22...d5! was the critical move. I was wrong
to be concerned about 23.Nh4 dxe4 24.f5. This looked scary, but Black can
neutralize all threats with 24...Qd6!, and, for example, 25.fxg6 hxg6 26.Bf4

Ne5! 27.Bxe5 Qxe5 28.Qxe5 Rxe5 29.Rxf7 Re6, and the white attack runs
into a dead end.
23.b4! c4 24.Nh4‚
I did not challenge White in the center with ...d6-d5 in time, nor did I take
the free pawn when I could. As a result of such a static approach, my
opponent was in time to concentrate all of his pieces on the kingside and
keep his center fairly solid. The position remains unclear, but White can
now attack without obvious positional or material drawbacks.
24...cxd3 25.f5 Qe5 26.Rf4?
This is the wrong way to continue the attack. The right continuation was
26.Qf2 Bg7 27.f6 Bf8 28.Nf5ƒ, when Black may have enough defensive
resources according to the engine, but I would rather have White in this
position.

26...Bh6!
This move turns the tables. White loses material for very little
compensation. During the game, I did not have the impression that Black
should be close to winning after it – the position still seemed quite
complicated.
27.f6?
This is already pure speculation. White closes the f-file, hoping to drum up
a mating attack on the dark squares. Objectively speaking, it was better to
open the f-file first 27.fxg6 fxg6 and then, either
A) 28.Nf5 Bxf4 29.Bxf4 Qe6 30.Nh6+ Kg7 31.Nf5+ Kh8 32.Nxd6 Rf8μ;
or
B) 28.Nxg6 Bxf4 29.Nxf4+ Rg7μ. Nevertheless, Black is clearly better in
both cases. While objectively losing, 27.f6 at least had some practical value
because Black still needed to be careful about his king’s safety.
27...Bxf4 28.Rxf4

(back to the PREVIEW)
The critical moment. I had about 10 minutes left for 13 moves and
understood that I should be better. However, I was still too afraid about my
king’s safety, so instead of seeking active counterplay, I instinctively looked
for a way to repel White’s potential threats on the kingside. And then, I got
this great idea to swap the queens...
28...Qh5??
The last opportunity to play such a thematic move as 28...d5! presented
itself here as well. And to make things worse, it is by far the most logical
move in the position as it simultaneously enables Black to open the e-file
and clear the d6-square for his queen, so that it can come back to the king’s
aid via f8 (which is a detail that I had missed in the game). The variations
below show that White’s attack expires quickly: 29.Nf3 Qd6!–+ 30.Qg5
(30.Ng5 h6; 30.exd5 Qxd5 31.Qh4 h5) 30...Rxe4 31.Qh6 Qf8, and Black
wins either way.
29.Nf3 Ne5 30.Rf5!

Here, I initially planned to offer the queen trade with 30...Qg4, but to my
horror, realized that White takes on e5 not with the knight, but the rook:
31.Rxe5!, and Black loses material as 31...Qxg3 32.Rxe8 is checkmate!
Well, 27.f6 worked out for White, after all.
30...Nxf3+ 31.gxf3
The queen is trapped, so I resigned.
One could easily conclude that this was a stupid one-move loss, but when I
analyzed this game carefully after the tournament, I uncovered some deeper
problems that led to it and similar failures. And while these two losses were
pretty bad, it was the disappointing play in the game against GM Daniel
Fridman a couple of months later, in which I spoiled a winning attack on
several occasions, that prompted me to finally take action to improve my
dynamics. Thus, I devised a summer study plan with the emphasis on
tactics, and, particularly, dynamic play. I had two months off before my
next tournament in August, which was just enough time to achieve my main
study objectives. I will present this study plan in more detail in Chapter 9,
but at this point, I would like to show what my typical study day had looked
like:
1. Solving tactical puzzles on chess.com for 30-45 minutes;
2. Solving a couple of endgame studies and/or chess problems in
blindfold mode for 45-60 minutes;
3. Analyzing examples from Advanced Chess Tactics by Lev Psakhis for
1.5-2 hours;
4. Doing a simulation of a double-edged game/dynamic player/classical
game from a database for 1 hour; and
5. Playing online blitz and checking openings afterwards for 1-1.5 hour.
I also made it a point to do tactics every single day, even if I was travelling,
not in a mood for it, etc. This way, I wanted to make sure that my brain was

in a dynamic mode all the time and that I would not revert back to my old
‘static’ habits in the next tournament.
The results of this 2-month training were better than I had hoped for. In
my next tournament, the Split Open, I made 8 points out of 9 rounds with
an Elo performance over 2700! However, I did not achieve this result with
the usual dry technical play; on the contrary, I played inspired dynamic
chess in many of my games and took advantage of all the tactical mistakes
that my opponents made. One of these games was already featured in this
book*, while in my previous book, Beyond Material, I analyzed probably
my best game from this tournament, against IM Djurovic.
* Skreno – Game 4.
I strongly believe that this kind of comprehensive tactical training is the
way to go. You can think of the tactical pattern recognition and calculation
training as your tactical stamina training. However, to be fully tactically
equipped for the battle, you need to also work on the more complex,
atypical, and messy aspects of tactics, which is what the dynamic part of
training is for. If you notice that your way of thinking is static and
straightforward rather than dynamic, I strongly suggest that you attempt
completing tactical training sessions similar to those that I have exposed
here and in the Tactics Test at the very end of the chapter.
Chapter 6 summary
• ‘Tactics, calculation, and other dynamics...are always present even in the
most subtle of games’ – Samuel Shankland.
• ‘Most combinations, indeed, practically all of them, are devised by
recalling known elements’ – Richard Réti.
• ‘Calculation is absolutely a practical skill; it does not rely on deep ideas.
To improve this skill, one should solve many exercises’ – Mark Dvoretsky.
• While calculation is an integral part of tactics (you need to calculate a
tactical variation), tactics are not always an integral part of calculation. We
often calculate non-forcing and non-tactical variations in our games.

• Dynamics is a force that stimulates change or progress within a system or
process. In chess, the position becomes dynamic when one side initiates a
purposeful change in the position with the maximum economy of time.
• Basic tactical training is mostly geared towards the improvement of
tactical pattern recognition and calculation of forced variations, which are
vital skills for a chess player.
• While basic tactical training primarily gives you triggers to recognize and
react to tactical opportunities, the study of the dynamic aspects of chess
provides a context for these tactical opportunities, so that you can anticipate
and create tactical opportunities instead of only reacting to them.
• You can think of the tactical pattern recognition and calculation training as
your tactical stamina training. However, to be fully tactically equipped for
the battle, you need to also work on the unusual, unexpected, and messy
aspects of tactics, which is what the dynamic part of training is for.
• There are many ways to improve your feeling for dynamics, such as
analysis of double-edged positions with tactical resources for both sides,
simulations or FBM practice on many games of a strong player with a
dynamic playing style, playing out tactically complicated positions in
sparring games or against a computer, etc.
• If you notice that your way of thinking is static and straightforward rather
than dynamic, I strongly suggest that you attempt completing an intensive
and comprehensive tactics training for at least one month.
Tactics Test
Show in Text Mode
To end the chapter on a practical note, I would like to give you a tactics test
with 20 exercises consisting of tactical puzzles, positions for analysis,

endgame studies, and problems for the development of dynamics and
imagination. Good luck!
Exercise 6.1
High traffic
White to move
White to move and win.
Challenge Yourself: try to solve this puzzle in blindfold mode.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.1 High traffic
Julen Luis Arizmendi Martinez 2511
Artem Smirnov 2401
Barcelona 2017 (6)
24.Qb5+

Much less impressive are:
A) 24.Rxe4? dxe4 25.Qb7 Qxb2+ 26.Qxb2 axb2 27.Nc7+ Kd7 28.Nxa8
Rxa8 29.Rxf5; and
B) 24.Qb7? Rb8 25.Nc7+ Kf7 26.Rxe4 Qxb2+ 27.Qxb2 Rxb2+ 28.Ka1
dxc4, both with a clear advantage for White.
24.Qb5+ Kf7 25.Rxe4!
This capture introduces some study-like geometric motifs. Also winning,
but much more prosaic, is 25.Bxd5 Bxd5 26.Rxd5 Qxb2+ 27.Qxb2 axb2
28.Nc7.
25...Qxe4 26.Ng5+!
The most convincing move. 26.Bxd5 Rhb8 27.Nd4+ Kg7 28.Bxe4 Rxb5
29.Bxa8 Rxb2+ 30.Kc1 Bg5+ 31.Kd1 is another way to win.
26...Bxg5 27.Bxd5+
Black resigned.
Exercise 6.2
High traffic

White to move
White to move and win.
Challenge Yourself: maximum time to solve = 15 minutes.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.2 High traffic
Pekka Koykka 2372
Liordis Quesada Vera 2391
Stockholm 2019/20 (8)
The situation in the center has reached the boiling point. White needs to
resolve the tension in a way that compromises his king the least. The best
move is
25.Rxd4!.

A) A tempting solution is 25.Rxe4?! but it is not as convincing in view of
25...dxe4 26.Nxe5 e3+ (26...Rxf2+? 27.Qxf2 Bxf2 28.Rd8+ Kg7 29.Rd7+
Kh6 30.Nb5! Qa8 31.Kxf2+–) 27.f3 Bxe5 28.Nd5±;
B) 25.Nxd5? Nxf3 26.Qxe4 Nxe1+ 27.Rxe1 Qxb2 28.Qe6+ Kg7=.
25.Rxd4! Nxf3
25...cxd4 26.Rxe4 leads to some fascinating variations (worth exploring in
the analysis but not necessary to be fully calculated) after the intermezzo
26...d3! (26...dxe4 27.Nxe5 e3+ 28.f3+–):
A) 27.Qc5! dxe4 28.Nxe5 e3+ 29.f3 e2 30.Kf2 Rc8 31.Qc4+ (White even
wins the endgame after 31.Qd5+ Qxd5 32.Nxd5 d2! 33.Kxe2 d1=Q+
34.Kxd1 Rd8 35.Kc2 Rxd5 36.Nc4+–, which is curiously similar to the one
from the game Miles-Lautier in Chapter 8!) 31...Kh8 32.Nf7+ Kg7
analysis diagram
and here White wins with the problem-like 33.Ne6+!! Kf6 (33...Kxf7
invites a beautiful knight geometry: 34.Nd8+ Ke8 35.Nxb7 Rxc4

36.Nd6++–) 34.Qd4+ Kxe6 (34...Kxf7 35.Qg7++–; 34...Ke7 35.Neg5+–)
35.Ng5+ Kf5 36.Qg4+ Kf6 37.Ne4+!. This move threads the mating net
around the black king. 37...Ke5 38.Qf4+ Ke6 39.Qf6+ Kd7 (39...Kd5
40.Qd6+ Kc4 41.Nd2#) 40.Qf7+ Kc6 41.Qe6+ Kc7 42.Qd6#;
B) White also wins after 27.Qc3!? dxe4 28.Nxe5 e3+ 29.f3 e2 30.Qc4+
Kh8 31.Nf7+ Kg7 32.Ne6+! Kf6 (32...Kxf7 33.Nc5+ Ke8 34.Nxb7 e1=Q
35.Qxd3+–) 33.Nfg5!!, creating a web of threats around Black’s king. A
possible line is 33...Rb8 34.Qc3+ Ke7 35.Nf4+–.
26.Rexe4! dxe4
26...Nxd4 27.Rg4+ Kh8 28.Qxc5+– .
27.Qc4+ Kh8 28.Qxc5!+–
The point that had to be seen in advance since the black rook was defended
in the starting position.
28...Rc8 29.Rd7 e3 30.Qc3+ Ne5+ 31.Kh2 Qe4 32.Re7 Rxc7 33.Re8+!
Kg7 34.Qxc7+
Black resigned. It is pretty fascinating that the FM playing White found all
of this with less than 5 minutes on his clock!
Exercise 6.3
High traffic

White to move
White to move and win.
Challenge Yourself: maximum time to solve = 15 minutes.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.3 High traffic
Tuan Minh Tran 2544
Krishna Rohit 2139
Mumbai 2017 (1)
In such positions, one cannot rely on general principles – cold calculation is
the king!
38.Bxe8!
A) The game saw the inferior 38.Nxe8?!, which lead to a drawn rook
endgame after 38...Qxe2 39.Rxe2 Bxg6 40.Nxf6 Bxd3 41.Rd2 gxf6

42.Rxd3 Kf7 43.Kf1 Ke6 44.Ke2 Re5+ 45.Kd2 Rf5 46.Rxd4 1⁄2-1⁄2;
B) 38.Qxe7+?? Rxe7 39.Rxe7 loses to 39...Bxg6!;
C) 38.Nxf5? Qxe2 39.Rxe2 Rxe2 40.Nxd4 Rb2μ.
38.Bxe8! Qxe2 39.Rxe2 Bxd3
40.Re6!!
This difficult move is really the key point that had to be foreseen from the
starting position.
A) 40.Re1? fails to 40...Bc2 41.Bxc6 d3! 42.Bxd5 d2 43.Rf1 Nxd5–+;
while
B) 40.Rd2? leads to a similar rook endgame as in the game, but one detail
makes all the difference. After 40...Nxe8 41.Nxe8 Kxe8 42.Rxd3 Ke7
43.Kf1 Ke6 44.Ke2 Re5+ 45.Kd2 Kd5 46.Rg3 g5 47.Kd3 Re1, Black gets
a winning position because his kingside pawn structure is healthier. In the
game, White could obtain enough counterplay by attacking weak f6- and
h6-pawns.

40...Bf5
40...Bc2 41.Bxc6 d3 42.Bxd5 d2 43.Bf3+– .
41.Rxf6+!
Another precise move that uses the favorable geometry of the white pieces.
A worse option is 41.Nxf5?! Nxe8 42.Ne7 Rd7 43.Nxc6 d3 44.Re1±.
41...gxf6 42.Bxc6 Re5 43.f4!
The final nail in Black’s coffin as he loses decisive amounts of material. If
you saw the combination from the starting position up to this point, you
have a promising future in chess!
43...Re6
43...Re1+ 44.Kf2+– .
44.Bd5
And White has a decisive advantage.
Exercise 6.4
Tactical vision

Black to move
Black to move and win.
Challenge Yourself: try to solve this puzzle in blindfold mode.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.4 Tactical vision
Xie Jun 2528
Alisa Galliamova 2556
Kazan/Shenyang Wch W 1999 (14)
30...Qc8!
A) In the game, Black missed the winning tactic, played 30...Qc7?! instead,
and even lost the game after several turnarounds. 31.Rc1 Rg2? 32.Qxa6
Nf6 33.Rh3±;

B) Black also gets a winning position after 30...Nd2+!? 31.Ka1 Nc4
32.Rc1 Rg2, but this is much less decisive than the text.
30...Qc8! 31.Rc1
31.Ka1 Qxc2 32.Rb1 Nc3–+ .
31...Qg4!–+
Using the geometry of the whole board. White loses either the rook or the
queen.
Exercise 6.5
Tactical vision
White to move
Challenge Yourself: try to solve this puzzle in blindfold mode.

Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.5 Tactical vision
Gata Kamsky 2729
Vasily Ivanchuk 2786
Dresden ol 2008 (11)
White can exploit the awkward position of the black rook on h6 with:
21.a5! bxa5
Relatively better is to sacrifice the exchange with 21...Nxa5 22.Qa4 Rc7
23.Bxh6 Nxh6±.
22.Qa4 Rg6 23.Rxa5
23.Rb7?! Qd8±.
23...Rc7 24.Rab5
With a strategically winning position.
Exercise 6.6
Tactical vision

Black to move
Black to move and win.
Challenge Yourself: maximum time to solve = 5 minutes.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.6 Tactical vision
Lazaro Bruzon Batista 2664
Sam Shankland 2671
Havana 2018 (2)
Black wins by force with a pretty combination.
38...h3!
The game saw 38...Rh6 39.Ke3?! (a more stubborn defense would have
been 39.Rd7!, when 39...h3 40.gxh3 Rh4 is met by 41.Qe5μ), and Black
obtained a decisive attack after 39...h3! 40.gxh3 Rh4 41.Qe5 Qg5+.

38...h3! 39.gxh3 e5!!
Finding this beautiful triple-clearing move is the most difficult part of the
combination.
40.Qxe5
40.dxe5 Qb6+–+.
40...Qh4+ 41.Ke2 Re6 42.Rxg7+ Kh6–+
Exercise 6.7
Endgame study
White to move
White to move and win.

Challenge Yourself: try to solve this puzzle in blindfold mode.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.7 Endgame study
F.K.Amelung
1907
1.Rd8+ Ke1 2.Re8+
White is happy to get rid of his knight to eliminate the ...cxd1 threat, but
Black ignores it with
2...Kd2!.
On the other hand, 2...Kxd1 is met by 3.Rd8+, followed by the approach of
the white king to the black pawn.
3.Nc3!!
The key move of the study.
3...c1=Q+ 4.Nb1+ Kd1 5.Rd8+ Ke1 6.Rf8!+–
The queen is helpless against 7.Rf1#.
Exercise 6.8
Endgame study

White to move
White to move and win.
Challenge Yourself: try to solve this puzzle in blindfold mode.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.8 Endgame study
Y. Bazlov
1975
1.Nf3+
1.Rd1+ Kc3 2.Kg5 Nf7+ 3.Kf4 Nd6=.
1.Nf3+ Ke4! 2.Rc3!
Using a favorable knight geometry. 2.Ng5+ Kd3=.

2...b1=N
This underpromotion was forced, in view of 2...b1=Q 3.Nd2+ Kd4
4.Nxb1+–.
3.Rb3 Ng4+ 4.Ke6 Kf4
Another important variation is 4...Nf2 5.Ng5+ Kf4 6.Rf3+ Kxg5 7.Rxf2
Nc3, when White needs to find in advance 8.Ke5!!+–.
analysis diagram
and the knight will eventually be dominated.
5.Ng1!!
This move prepares a cunning checkmate.
5...Nd2 6.Rd3 Nb1
6...Ne4 7.Nh3# is a neat point.

7.Rd4+!!
Forcing the decentralization of the king is the key.
7.Rf3+? Kg5 8.Nh3+ Kh4=.
7...Kg5
Importantly, 7...Kg3 meets a nice geometric refutation: 8.Rd1! Nc3 9.Rd3+
Kg2 10.Rxc3 Kxg1 11.Rg3++–.
8.Nf3+ Kh5 9.Rd3
Trapping the knight is the most methodical, although an even cooler
winning idea is 9.Kf7!? Nc3 10.Kg7!, and Black is in zugzwang!
9...Nf2 10.Rb3+–
Exercise 6.9
Endgame study

White to move
White to move and win.
Challenge Yourself: try to solve this puzzle in blindfold mode.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.9 Endgame study
Yochanan Afek
1973
1.Rxb5+
1.Ne5? Kxb6 2.Nd7+ Kc6 3.Nxf8 Bxg4 4.Nh7 Bd1 5.Nxg5 b4=.
1.Rxb5+ Kxb5 2.Ne5+ Ka4
2...Kc5 3.Nd7+ Kd6 4.Nxf8 Ke5 5.Bh3! Kf4 6.Ne6+ Kg3 7.Nxg5+–.

3.Nd7 Be2!
This opponent’s resource should have been foreseen, otherwise you do not
get full credit for this study. 3. ..Rb8+ 4.Nxb8 Be2 5.Bg2+–.
4.Bxe2 Rb8+
5.Bb5+!!
A fantastic move, with an even more impressive point.
5.Ka2 Rb2+ 6.Kxb2 is stalemate.
5...Rxb5+ 6.Ka2+–
And Black is in a peculiar zugzwang! A beautiful study.
Exercise 6.10
Analysis

White to move
Please analyze 1.Nxe5 and evaluate its consequences.
Note: you can also play it out against a sparring partner with a rapid time
control.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.10 Analysis
sparring game
2017
1.Nxe5?!
This is a risky continuation that allows Black to obtain strong tactical
counterplay. Would you have guessed that the key role in the upcoming
complications is played by the white pawn on a6, though?!

1.h3 is better, solving the back-rank issue and keeping a positional
advantage.
1.Nxe5?! Rxf2!
Introducing pin and back-rank motifs.
Worse is 1...Qf6 2.Nf3 g5 3.h3 h5 4.e5 Qf5 5.Qxf5 Rxf5 6.g4! hxg4 7.hxg4
Rf4 8.Kg2 Rxg4+ 9.Kh3 Rxb4 10.Nxg5, and Black still needs to equalize
in the endgame.
2.Rxf2 Qxe4! 3.Nd3
3.Kf1 Qxe5 4.Rd2 Qf4+ 5.Ke1 Qxb4 6.Rh3 h6 7.Kd1 Bd4ƒ.
3...Bxf2+
This is, at least practically, stronger than 3...Rxd3
analysis diagram

which seems to be winning at first, but sees White solve both tactical
problems with a quiet defensive move 4.Kf1!! (4.Qxd3 Qe1+ 5.Qf1 Bxf2+
6.Kh1 Qxf1#) 4...Bxf2. This threatens checkmate again, but White has
5.Qc8+ Kf7 6.Qb7+!. This is the first instance in which the a6-pawn plays
the key part. White can press a bit in the endgame after 6...Qxb7 7.axb7
Rd8 8.Rd3 (or 8.Kxf2 Rb8 9.Rxa7 Kf6 10.Ke3 Ke5=) 8...Rxd3 9.b8=Q
Bh4! 10.Qxb5 Rd5 11.Qb7+ Be7, but it should ultimately be drawn, of
course.
4.Qxf2 Rxd3 5.Rxd3 Qxd3 6.Qxa7
And here is the second instance where the a-pawn is important. Due to the
promotion threat, Black needs to hold the perpetual with
6...Qd1+ 7.Kf2 Qd2+ etc.
Exercise 6.11
Analysis

White to move
Please analyze the moves
42.Bf6 and 42.Ne6 in as much depth as you can.
Note: you can also play it out against a sparring partner with a rapid time
control.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.11 Analysis
Falko Bindrich 2602
Gabriel Sargissian 2677
Batumi Ech 2018 (5)
42.Ne6!
In the game, Bindrich missed the winning shot, and instead played 42.Bf6?,
when Sargissian forced a draw with 42...Rxd4 (he could have been more

ambitious with 42...Rxe1+!? 43.Rxe1 Nf4 44.Qb2 Rxd4 45.Bxd4 Qxf3,
when the only move to keep the balance would be 46.h4! Qxg4+ 47.Kf1
Qf3+ 48.Kg1=) 43.Rxe8 Rxg4+ 44.fxg4 Qxg4+ 45.Kf1 Qf3+ 46.Kg1
Qf2+ 47.Kh1 Qf3+ 48.Kg1.
42.Ne6! fxe6
42...Re5 43.Rxe5 Qxf3 44.Rf1 Qxg4+ 45.Kh1+–.
43.Qf6 Rg8
This is the only defense. White needs to show precision in the attack now.
44.Rc7!
The only winning move. 44.Bf8? is very tempting, but it is brilliantly
refuted. 44. ..Nxc1 45.Qf7+ (45.Rxc1 Rd7–+) 45...Kh8 46.Rxc1.
analysis diagram

It seems like there is no defense against the mating attack, but if you
overcome resistance in calculation, you will find 46...Rf5!! (46...Qh4
47.Be7!+–) . Now it is White’s turn to find the only move: 47.Bg7+!
(47.gxf5 allows Black to obtain a dangerous attack with 47...gxf5+ 48.Kf2
Qxh2+ 49.Ke3 Qe5+ 50.Kd3 Qd5+ 51.Kc3 Rg2!) 47...Rxg7 48.Rc8+ Kh7
49.Qe8. Again, there is only one move for the defender, but enough to
make a draw: 49...g5 50.Qh8+ Kg6 51.Qe8+ with a perpetual check. A
possible variation is 51...Rff7 52.Qxe6+ Kh7 53.Qe4+ Rg6 54.Qe8 Rgg7=.
44...Rg7 45.Rxe6!
This move is the key. White has enough time for it because the black queen
is completely stuck. There is no defense against the sacrifice on g7 now,
with a mating attack. 45.Qxg7+? Kxg7 46.Rxe6 would be the wrong move
order. Black saves his skin with 46...Kf7! 47.Rf6+ Kg7 48.Rf8 (or 48.Bd8+
Kg8 49.Rxg6+ Kf8 50.Be7+ Ke8 51.Rg8+ Kf7 52.Rf8+ Kg7 53.Bd6+
Kg6=) 48...g5 49.Bb4+ Kg6 50.Rc6+ Kg7 51.Rc7+=.
45...Nf4 46.Qxg7+! Kxg7 47.Bd6+ Kg8 48.Re8#
Exercise 6.12
Analysis

White to move
Please analyze the continuation 20.Ned5 exd5 21.Nxd5 and provide a
conclusion at the end: does the piece sacrifice work?
Note: you can also play it out against a sparring partner with a rapid time
control.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.12 Analysis
blitz game
2017
20.Ned5?
seems like a very promising sacrifice, but closer analysis reveals that it is
incorrect:

20...exd5 21.Nxd5 Rxc1!
This is the key intermezzo. Otherwise, Black loses simply. Many people
already fail on this exercise at this point by not overcoming resistance in
calculation and failing to consider this move altogether, thinking that
White’s combination has to work.
A) 21...Qe6 22.f5+–; and
B) 21...Bb5 22.Nxe7+ Kf8 23.Nxc8 Bxe2 24.Nxb6 Bxf1 25.Kxf1 axb6
26.Bxb7+– are feel-good lines that can make one think that the knight
sacrifice works.
22.Rxc1
White gives up too much material for the queen in case of 22.Nxb6 Rxf1+
23.Kxf1 axb6–+, so this recapture is forced.
22...Qe6 23.f5 Qh6
This was the point of the exchange on c1 – the rook on c1 is hanging. Now,
things take an interesting turn.
24.Nxe7+ Kf8

Two white pieces are hanging, but White can still fight back with
25.Qc2!,
indirectly defending the knight on e7. However, Black strikes back with
25...Qg5!.
25...b6? stops the check on c5, but allows 26.Nc6=.
26.f6!?
The most stubborn reply, but Black gets an unexpected resource as a result.
26.Nd5, on the other hand, allows 26...Rc8 27.Nc3 Bxf5 28.Qb2 Bh3 29.f4
Qg4–+, and White is pinned left and right.
26...Bh3!
After 23...Qh6 and 25...Qg5, this is another surprisingly strong tactical
resource for Black. 26...gxf6? is wrong because of 27.f4! Qxf4 28.Qc5, and

White’s activity is sufficient to keep the balance: 28...Kg7 29.exf6+ Qxf6
30.Rf1 Qb6.
27.f4
This is the only move, but it does not improve White’s position much. The
pin on the bishop and the misplaced knight on e7 promise Black a nearly
decisive initiative.
27...Qg4 28.Kh1
In case of 28.fxg7+ Nxg7–+, the knight is trapped on e7!
28...Bxg2+ 29.Qxg2 Rd1+ 30.Rxd1 Qxd1+ 31.Qg1 Qf3+ 32.Qg2
32...Qxf4!
This is the right capture, keeping an eye on the f1-square. 32...Qxa3? allows
counterplay: 33.Qxb7 gxf6 34.Nc6=.

33.fxg7+
33.Qxb7?? Qf1#.
33...Nxg7 34.Nd5 Qxe5–+
At the end of the combination, Black emerges with a healthy extra pawn
and excellent winning chances.
Exercise 6.13
Developing imagination
White to move
Challenge Yourself: try to solve this puzzle in blindfold mode.
Show/Hide Solution

Exercise 6.13 Developing imagination
Sergey Volkov 2623
Bartosz Socko 2657
Stockholm 2013/14 (7)
16.Bg6!!
A cool blocking idea. Alternatives:
A) 16.Nxd5? cxd4 17.cxd4 Nc6 18.Bb2 Na5ƒ; and
B) 16.g5?! Qd6 17.h5 Ba6∞ miss the point.
16.Bg6!! hxg6 17.g5 Qh7 18.h5 Kf8 19.hxg6 Qg8
The black queen was forced to hide in a mouse hole, and all Black’s pieces
but one are on the last rank. It is clear that White does not need a piece to
obtain a winning attack now.
20.Qg3!
20.Rh7 fxg6 21.Rh8?! Qxh8 22.Nxg6+ Kf7 23.Nxh8+ Rxh8∞.
20...Bb7
20...f6 21.Rh7+–; 20...fxg6 21.Rh8 Qxh8 22.Nxg6+ Kf7 23.Nxh8+ Rxh8
24.Qd6+–.
21.Nxd5?!
Quicker was 21.Rh7 Nc6 22.Qh3 Ke7 23.Nh5!+–.
21...Ne5 22.gxf7 Nxf7 23.Nc7 g6 24.d5 Nd7 25.e4 Nde5 26.Kc2 Rac8
27.Ne6+ Ke7 28.Bf4 Nc4 29.Rh4 Red8 30.a4 Qe8 31.Bc7 Ne3+ 32.Kc1
Rxd5 33.exd5 Bxd5 34.Nf4 Kd7 35.Nxd5 Nxd5 36.Re4 Qh8 37.Be5
Nxe5 38.Rxe5 Nxc3 39.Kd2 Re8 40.Rxe8 Qxe8 41.Re1 Qh8 42.Qg4+
Kd8 43.Qf4 Kc8 44.Qf6 Qh4 45.Qc6+

Black resigned.
Exercise 6.14
Developing imagination
Black to move
Black to move and draw.
Challenge Yourself: try to solve this puzzle in blindfold mode.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.14 Developing imagination
Davorin Kuljasevic
composition 2016

I composed this exercise while tinkering with an idea of perpetual check
that happened in an analysis session with my students. It is not particularly
difficult, but it is pretty.
1...dxe5 2.fxe5 Ng4!
2...Ne4 3.dxe4 Qxg5 4.Rxd4 Rxd4 5.Qxd4 Bxe5 6.Qf2 Bxg3 7.Qf3+–.
3.Qd2
This is the most testing move for Black. 3.Bxd8 Nxf2 4.Rxf2 Rxd8 5.Nc4=.
3...Qxg5!
This queen sacrifice is the point. Black delivers a cool perpetual check with
two knights. 3. ..f6 4.exf6 Nxf6 5.Nc4±.
4.Qxg5 Ne2+ 5.Kh1 Nxg3+ 6.Kg1 Ne2+=
Exercise 6.15
Developing imagination

White to move
White checkmates in 4 moves.
Challenge Yourself: try to solve this puzzle in blindfold mode.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.15 Developing imagination
J. Breuer, mate in 4
chess problem
The geometry of the white pieces in the initial position is pleasing and
confusing at the same time – how are we supposed to checkmate while
disturbing this perfect harmony?
1.Ba7!
Initially, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the black king has to
be checkmated on the kingside. As we can see from the variations below:

A) 1.Bd4 f6 2.Nhxf6 Kg3 3.Bf2+ Kh2 4.Ng4+ Kh3 5.Nf4#; and
B) 1.Bd3 f6 2.Bd4 Kg4 3.Ndxf6+ Kh3 4.Bf2 Kh2 5.Bg3+ Kh3 6.Bf5#.
White does not manage to checkmate in 4 moves this way. Thus, the king,
surprisingly, has to be allowed to move towards the center!
1.Ba7! f6 2.Nb6!!
Self-interference is the key. A counterintuitive solution!
2...Ke3 3.Nc4+ Kf3 4.Nd2
Mate!
Exercise 6.16
Developing imagination
White to move

White checkmates in 4 moves.
Challenge Yourself: try to solve this puzzle in blindfold mode.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.16 Developing imagination
F. Giegold, mate in 4
chess problem
This is probably the most brilliant chess problem that I have ever seen.
1.Ra3!!
Other ideas are too slow:
A) 1.Rc1 b4 2.Rg8 b3 3.Rf1 Kh6 4.Rh1+ Kg5 5.Rh5#;
B) 1.Rh3 b4 2.Rc7 b3 3.Nh7+ Kg4 4.Rxf7 g5 5.Nf6#;
C) 1.Rc7 b4 2.Rxf7 b3 3.Rg8 Kh4 4.Rh7+ Kg5 5.Rh5#.
1.Ra3!! b4 2.Ra4 b3 3.Rh4!! Kxh4 4.Nf3
Mate!
I don’t know about you, but I was left in awe of the beauty of this concept
even a couple of minutes after I had solved this study.
Exercise 6.17
Developing imagination

White to move
White has a strategically winning position and many moves win here, but
the goal is to find the strongest continuation that wins by force. Use your
imagination!
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.17 Developing imagination
Elmar Magerramov
correspondence game
This position was shown to me by grandmaster Elmar Magerramov. If I
recall correctly, it happened in one of his correspondence games.
1.Rf6!
White also wins with 1.Bf6!?
or 1.Qg3, but the main line is the most forcing and impressive!

1.Rf6! gxf6 2.Qg3+ Kh7 3.Bxf6
3.Bxf7?? Ra1+ 4.Kh2 Qe5–+ . Oops!
3...Ne6
Importantly, 3...Ng6 is refuted by 4.fxg6+ Qxg6 5.Bc2!+–.
4.fxe6 Rg8
And here comes the point:
5.exf7!! Rxg3 6.f8=N#
Splendid!
Exercise 6.18
Developing imagination

Black to move
Please analyze the position and suggest how to defend against White’s e4-
e5 threat?
Note: you can also play it out against a sparring partner with a rapid time
control.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.18 Developing imagination
Alexandr Lenderman 2582
Timur Gareyev 2653
St Louis ch-USA 2014 (2)
In a tough situation, the creative grandmaster Gareyev came up with a
stunning defense:
25...Kg6!!

I give one exclamation mark for the practical (and objective!) strength of
this move and another one for the amount of courage needed to play such a
move. If I could, I would give it another one for the imagination factor –
Black’s king moves exactly under the x-ray of the white queen; how
obvious is that!? However reckless it might look; this move is based on a
strong tactical idea that Black managed to demonstrate ideally in the game
with some help from his opponent. Let us consider the possible alternatives
to appreciate the strength of this move.
A) A more ‘natural’ possibility was 25...Kg8!?, and if 26.Qb2 (26.e5 dxe5
27.fxe5 Ng4 is similar), 26...Ng4! 27.Bxd8 Nf2+ 28.Qxf2 Bxf2 29.Rf1
Rxd8 30.Rxf2 gives White a slightly better endgame;
B) An attempt to unpin with 25...Qd7?! would be unsuccessful because of
26.Qb2! Qd8 27.e5 Ng4 28.h3 Nf2+ 29.Kh2 Nd3 30.Qd2, with a powerful
white attack;
C) 25...Bd4? is obviously a poor defense because the bishop is loose on d4.
White is clearly better after 26.Qc4;
D) 25...h6 does not change much after 26.Bh4.
25...Kg6!! 26.e5+?
Lenderman probably missed something when he entered the tactical
complications with this move. It was better to keep playing for a long-term
attack with 26.Bh4 or 26.h3, especially considering the fact that Black
cannot untangle from the pin so easily. The position would remain quite
unclear, but I would take White any day of the week.
26...Bf5
The point behind 25...Kg6 !
27.Qxf5+!?
Pretty, but not sufficient.

27...Kxf5 28.Bxf6
28...dxe5!
With this counter-queen sacrifice, Gareyev elegantly eliminates the mating
threats and transposes into the endgame. The materialistic approach
28...Qb8?? would backfire after 29.Bh3+ Kg6 30.f5+ Kh6 31.Re4!, with a
forced checkmate!
29.Bxd8
29.fxe5 would have been refuted by 29...Rxe5!.
29...Raxd8 30.Be4+ Kf6 31.Bxh7 exf4 32.Rxe8 Rxe8 33.gxf4 Bd6
After the dust has settled, Gareyev obtained a winning endgame with rooks
and opposite-colored bishops, but somehow did not manage to win it in the
end 1⁄2-1⁄2 (67).

Exercise 6.19
Developing imagination
White to move
White to move and win.
Challenge Yourself: try to solve this puzzle in blindfold mode or under 20
minutes.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.19 Developing imagination
Vlastimil Jansa
Nona Gaprindashvili
Gothenburg 1967/68 (1) (analysis)
For those who have read a couple of good chess tactics books, this position
might not be new. Still, it was difficult to skip it in this selection.

27.Rxe5!
Clearing the seventh rank for an attack.
27.Nxf6? is very tempting, but playing it would mean that you missed the
opponent’s resource: 27...Rd8! 28.Rxd8 Qxd8 29.Rxe5 (29.Ne8+ Kf8
30.Rxe5 Qd4μ) 29...Qxf6=.
27.Rxe5! fxe5
The game saw 27...Rd8 28.Rxd8 Qxd8 29.Re6? (but Jansa could win with
29.Rc5! Qd1+ 30.Bf1 Qxg4+ 31.Ng3) 29...Qd1+ 30.Kg2 Qxg4+ 31.Kf1
1⁄2-1⁄2 .
28.Rd7+ Kh8 29.Nd6!
29.Rf7 looks very promising, but after 29...Qg8! (29...Qe8 30.g5!+–),
White would have to repeat the position because of 30.Nf6? Qxf7 31.Bxf7
Kg7μ.
29...g5!
This is the best defense, clearing the g6-square for the king. 29...Qf4 loses
to 30.Nf7+ Kg7 31.Ng5+ Kf8 (31...Kf6 32.Nh7#; 31...Kh8 32.Rh7#)
32.Ne6+ Ke8 33.Nxf4 Kxd7 34.Nxg6.
White needs to pull out something special from his hat now to keep the
attack going.
30.h4!!

A brilliant attacking idea, strengthening the Nd6-f7+xg5+ threat.
30...gxh4
30...Qf4 31.Nf7+ Kg7 32.Nxg5+ Kg6 33.Rd6++–.
31.Nf7+ Kg7 32.Nxe5+ Kf6 33.f4!
The second point behind 30.h4. Black’s king is trapped on f6, and material
losses are inevitable for Black.
33...Qc5+
33...Re8 34.Rf7+ Qxf7 35.Bxf7 Rxe5 36.fxe5+ Kxf7 37.b4+– .
34.Kh1 Rf8 35.Rh7!

The geometry works perfectly for White.
35...Qd4 36.Nd7+ Kg6 37.Nxf8+ Kf6 38.Rf7#
Exercise 6.20
Developing imagination

White to move
Please analyze this complicated position as deeply as possible.
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 6.20 Developing imagination
Teichmann
NN (?)
This is a fantastic example that I found in the Encyclopedia of Chess
Combinations, but I could not find the source game in the database. The
solution and counter-solution are among the most imaginative that I have
ever seen.
1.Rxh6!!
It is all about promoting the g-pawn.

A) 1.Qf5 would be the wrong way to go about it, though, because Black
protects the eight rank with 1...Ba6! (or 1...Bb7!?–+; 1...Qe7?? 2.Rxe6 dxe6
3.Qh7+ Kxh7 4.g8=Q#) 2.Bxe6 dxe6 3.Qf6 Qd4 4.Rf1 Qd8–+;
B) 1.Bxe6 dxe6 2.Rf6 Qe7–+.
1.Rxh6!! Nxh6
1...Rxh6 2.Bxf7++–; 1...bxc4 2.Rh8++–.
2.Qg5 Nf7
2...Bb7 3.Qxh6+–.
3.Qd8+!!
A beautiful queen sacrifice combining clearance, interference, and pin
motifs.
3...Nxd8 4.h6

It seems like Black can resign because there is no way to prevent the
promotion of the g-pawn with a mating attack, but he has an equally
astonishing saving resource.
4...Qd4!!
Incredible. White is allowed to promote two pawns to queens, but Black’s
king runs away and finds safety on the queenside.
A) One of my students proposed the following clever defense: 4...Ng6!?
5.Rxg6 Qf8!

analysis diagram
which, however, does not work. White wins with the problem-like
6.Bxe6+!. It is essential to force Black to decide which way to recapture on
e6 immediately. Tempting continuations: 6.h7+? and 6.gxf8=Q+ both have
tactical flaws that are remedied by 6.Bxe6+:
A1) 6.h7+? Kxh7 7.gxf8=Q Rxg6! 8.Qe7+ Kh6=;
A2) 6.gxf8=Q+? Kxf8 7.Bxe6 dxe6! 8.h7 Nf7 9.Rf6 Kg7 10.Rxf7+ Kh83;
A3) 6.Bxe6+! dxe6 (6...Nxe6 7.gxf8=Q+ Kxf8 8.h7+–) 7.h7+! Kxh7
8.gxf8=Q Kxg6 9.Qxd8+–.
B) 4...Qxd2? is the wrong way to execute the game idea because after
5.h7+ Kf7 6.g8=Q+ Ke7 7.h8=Q Kd6 8.Qxd8+–, the rook on g1 is not
under attack!
5.h7+ Kf7 6.g8=Q+ Ke7 7.h8=Q

7...Kd6!
The king should keep running away. In a position with a weird material
imbalance, it is rather White who has to be more careful now.
7...Qxg1+ 8.Qxg1 bxc4 9.Qg5+ Kd6 10.Qf8++– .
8.Rg7!
8.Qf8+ Kc7 9.Qxd8+ Kb7 10.Rg3 bxc43.
8...Qxd2 9.Qf8+ Kc7 10.Qxd8+ Kb7 11.Bxe6 Qd1+ 12.Kb2 Qd4+
13.Kb1 Ne2!?
Black can even be ambitious!
14.Rxd7+ Bxd7 15.Qxa8+ Ka6 16.Qh6! Qd1+ 17.Kb2 Qd4+ 18.Kb1
Qd1+=

Chapter 7 – Preview
Black to move
Would you trade the rooks on c1 or not?
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
White to move and win!
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
How does White win this endgame?
(go to the ANSWER)
White to move
White to move and win.
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
White to move and win!
(go to the ANSWER)

Black to move
White’s last move was 19.Kc4-b5!?. How would you explain this move?
(go to the ANSWER)
White to move
Is it better for White to trade a pair of rooks in this position with 21.Rd1 or
keep both pairs of rooks on the board, and why?
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
White can recapture the pawn on a5 with the rook, knight, or the pawn.
Which one is the best?
(go to the ANSWER)
Chapter 7
Make your endgame study more enjoyable
‘Study of chess should commence with the third and final phase of a chess
game, the endgame’ – José Raul Capablanca.
While the advice of the ex-World Champion may sound counterintuitive at
first, it is actually completely logical. Whatever we study in life, we first
need to learn simpler, elementary things to master the more complex ones.
It so happens that the relatively simplest phase of a chess game is its last
phase, while the first phase, the opening, is the relatively most complex

one. The initial position in chess contains infinite possibilities, while the
further we move into the endgame, the more calculable things become. This
can be seen from the fact that, at this point in time, all endgames with 7
pieces and less have already been ‘solved’ with the help of tablebases.
This is not to say that endgames are easy. They contain many nuances,
complexities, and unique features. The point is that this phase of the game
is fundamental to everything that precedes it. To be more concrete, here are
some of the most important fundamental values of the endgame:
1. The skills of precise calculation and concrete evaluation that we usually
have to perform in endgames can be applied to other phases of the game.
2. The ability to play positions with a few pieces well provides us with a
better feeling for the capabilities of particular pieces, their interaction, and
the geometry on the chessboard. Likewise, these skills can be transferred
to other phases of the game.
3. A good endgame technique is a valuable skill for every chess player,
because the outcome of the whole game is often decided in the endgame
and the margin for error is usually smaller than in the opening or
middlegame.
4. Knowledge of theoretical endgame positions and typical methods is
essential, not only because it helps us play the best moves in the final
stage of the game. It also allows us to confidently transform more
complex positions into well-known simple ones or avoid unfavorable
simplifications. We can see both these situations in the next two
examples:
Game 49
Davit Shengelia 2512
Ante Brkic 2565
Batumi ol 2018 (9)

Black to move
White is threatening to win the pawn on d3, when Black’s position would
become critical.
If you study this position carefully, you will realize that there is actually no
way for Black to save this pawn. Winning one of White’s pawns in return
also seems unlikely, because the seemingly passive bishop on e1 protects
them perfectly.
However, a solution does exist!
49...g5!
Black is aiming to trade off the kingside pawns to simplify into a drawn
endgame with a wrong colored bishop + a-pawn. An elegant, yet not
entirely obvious solution.
When given this position as a puzzle, some players suggested 49...Nf5+
50.Ke4 Rf1 51.Kxd3, with the idea to win back a pawn with 51...Nxg3??,
forgetting that 52.Bxg3+ comes with check, and Black loses everything.

49...Kc6 probably just loses after 50.Rxd3 Rf1 51.Bb4, etcetera.
49...g5! 50.h5
White could have tried either of two other moves, but Black can simplify
matters by force in both cases:
A) 50.Kd5!? gxh4 51.gxh4 Rf1! 52.a6 d2 53.a7 Rf5+ 54.Ke6 dxe1=Q+
55.Rxe1 Ra5 56.Rc1+ Kd8 57.Kxd6 Rxa7=; and
B) 50.a6 Kb6 51.Kd5 Nf5 52.Ke4 Rf1 53.Rxd3 gxh4 54.gxh4 Kxa6, also
with equality.
50...Nf5+ 51.Ke4 g4!
The crucial resource. Now Black can win the h-pawn and sacrifice the
knight on g3 by force, simplifying into the well-known drawn endgame.
52.Rxd3 Nd6+
Showing off a bit. Even simpler was 52...Rxd3 53.Kxd3 Ng7 54.Bd2 Nxh5
55.Bxh6 Nxg3 56.Bf4+ Kb7=.

53.Kd4 Nb5+ 54.Kc4 Nd6+ 55.Kc3 Ne4+ 56.Kd4 Rxd3+ 57.Kxd3 Nf6
58.Bd2 Nxh5 59.Bxh6 Kb7 60.Ke4 1⁄2-1⁄2
Game 50
Rainier Buhmann 2574
Mark Kvetny 2420
Austria Bundesliga 2018/19 (1)
Black to move
(back to the PREVIEW)
In this position, German IM Kvetny decided to trade the rooks with
36...Rc1+?,
hoping to hold an opposite-colored bishops endgame without two pawns.
However, this was the wrong decision, because White wins with a typical
breakthrough. Instead, Black would have retained very good drawing
chances by keeping the rooks on the board: 36...Rd2!. White’s only sensible

winning attempt is 37.b4 cxb4 38.cxb4, when 38...Ra2! is an important
resource, so that after 39.bxa5 (39.b5 Rxa4 40.b6+ Kd7 41.b7 Rb4=)
39...Bd2+ 40.Kf1 Rxa4 41.Rb7+ Kd8 42.Rb6 Bxa5 43.Rxh6 Rf4, he only
needs to eliminate the f-pawn to reach the same kind of drawn endgame as
in the previous example, Shengelia-Brkic.
36...Rc1+? 37.Rxc1 Bxc1
38.b3
You could say that Buhmann followed the good old ‘do not hurry’ principle
with this move, but there was even no need for that, since the immediate
breakthrough 38.b4! would have worked just as well (Buhmann did it a
couple of moves later, though). 38...cxb4 (38...Kb6 is no better, as White
can create the second passed pawn all the same: 39.bxa5+ Kxa5 40.Bd1 c4
41.Ke2 Kb6 42.Kf3 Bd2 43.Ke4 Bxc3 44.f4+–) 39.cxb4 axb4 40.Bd1!.

analysis diagram
This is a well-known, you could say, theoretical method in opposite-colored
bishops endgames. The point of the breakthrough sacrifice was to create the
second passed pawn that will stretch the opponent’s defenses.
Meanwhile, the white bishop easily blocks the opponent’s passed pawn so
that the king can meander into his opponent’s camp, which leads to a
winning position. Apparently, Kvetny was not aware of this during the
game and this cost him half a point. Here are two sample lines to illustrate
the winning method: 40...Kd6 41.Ke2. Black can try to block the f-pawn
with his king and the a-pawn with the bishop, or vice versa, but White’s
king penetrates either way: 41...Ke6 (or 41...Kc5 42.Kd3 Bf4 43.Bb3 Bc7
44.Ke4 Kd6 45.f4 Bd8 46.Kf5+–) 42.Kd3 Ke5 43.Bb3 Bg5 44.a5 Bd8
45.a6 Bb6 46.f3 Kf4 47.Bd1 b3 48.Kc3!+– (but not 48.Bxb3? Kxf3 with a
draw).
38...Kd6 39.Bd1 Bf4 40.Ke2 Bg5 41.Kd3 Bh4 42.Ke3 Bg5+ 43.f4 Bh4

Black provoked f2-f4 to bring the bishop to e1, but there is no time to block
the pawns since White has...
44.b4! cxb4 45.cxb4 axb4 46.Ke4
. . . and the rest was a matter of technique, as explained in the note to 38.b4.
46...Ke6 47.Bb3+ Kf6 48.a5 Bf2 49.a6 Bg1 50.f5 Bf2 51.Bc2! Bg1
52.Kd5 b3 53.Bb1! 1-0
Regardless of these and other benefits of endgame study, I have found that
some people are not fully convinced of its fundamental importance. A part
of it might be because they are not aware of how universal chess skills such
as calculation, tactics, and maneuvering can be perfected in the endgame, as
indicated in points 1 and 2. However, the most typical objection of
‘endgame sceptics’ is to points 3 and 4. The logic goes something like this:
‘I don’t get endgames much in my games, anyway. Why should I bother
studying some theoretical endgame that I will maybe never get in a game?’
While there is perhaps some truth to the notion that club players get

endgames less often than master-level players, this should not be an excuse
to approach endgame study as a necessary evil.
This kind of thinking is wrong on several levels. Firstly, it testifies to the
study mindset of not being objective enough that we discussed in the first
chapter. Secondly, lack of endgame study will definitely affect your results
adversely, if not in the short-term, then surely in the mid-term. When you
consider the fact that many endgames are played under time pressure, the
likelihood of losing a drawn endgame or drawing a winning one increases
for people who have skipped some endgame lessons. Over time, these lost
points accumulate.
Finally, if we look at the long-term picture, weak endgame fundamentals
decrease your overall potential as a chess player. Chess players with poor
endgame education eventually hit a brick wall in their progress. Focusing
only on opening and middlegame proficiency may work on lower levels,
but once you start playing against master-level opponents regularly, you
realize that you often cannot overcome them in the first two phases of the
game. And once the endgame is reached, your lack of knowledge and
technical skill in the endgame gets exposed quickly, even in simple,
‘drawn’, endgames. Referring to the experience of GM Jonathan Hawkins
once again, do you think that he would have been able to keep breaking the
ranks from an average club player to grandmaster so consistently if he had
not have developed such a solid endgame background?
To be fair, I think that most experienced chess players are well aware of
most of these points. I have found that the most common problem that
people have with endgame study is a practical one. They might have the
best intention to study endgames, but they will complain that they find them
to be tedious, not fun to study as openings and middlegames, or difficult to
understand. The way I see it, at the root of this issue, there is usually a
wrong approach to studying endgames. Studying endgames can indeed be
monotonous if you approach them the same way as you would study
openings or a subject in school. Trying to memorize a lot of technical
information that you will hardly be able to relate to previous or even future

experience eventually becomes pointless and boring. When you study the
endgame, you should strive to appreciate its unique features and ways of
learning. With the right approach, you discover that their logic, clarity of
ideas, and geometric characteristics capture the essence of chess like no
other phase of the game. In the next part of this chapter, I would like to
provide practical study ideas that can help you study endgames more
effectively and with more passion.
Theoretical endgames
I believe that the first goal when one studies theoretical endgames is to
develop a special interest in them. To make your endgame study more
enjoyable and productive, it is essential that you include engaging examples
that can both illustrate an important endgame idea or method and spark
your imagination. Endgame studies and practical endgame examples are
perfect for this purpose. Some people shun endgame studies because they
seem ‘impractical’ and ‘artificial’. While they are indeed artificial by design
and are rarely directly applicable in our games, the indirect benefits of
solving endgame studies make them very practically useful. Here are some:
• Improving overall calculation skill, visualization, and imagination;
• Getting better at spotting the opponent’s resources;
• Getting a better feeling for the interaction between the pieces;
• Reviewing theoretical endgame knowledge; and
• Learning new tactical and endgame motifs.
The second important ingredient of your endgame study should be well-
chosen practical examples in which a certain theoretical endgame idea was
applied. When a theoretical idea gets a practical ‘confirmation’, it already
becomes much more relevant to you. The more thematic applications you
see, the more likely it is that you will internalize and be able to apply these
ideas in your own game. Virtually any endgame concept can be studied in a
way that includes a mix of theoretical positions, endgame studies, and
practical applications. For instance, Mark Dvoretsky relied on this approach
in his Endgame Manual, often providing ‘endgame tragicomedies’ to

present typical practical mistakes in various types of theoretical endgames.
To drive the point home, I would like to illustrate two theoretical endgames
and one fundamental endgame concept in a similar manner:
Theoretical endgame #1
Example 7.1
Position 1
White to move
In endgames with a knight versus the rook’s pawn, one of the basic rules is
that if the knight gets into the a7-c8-d6-b5 circuit before White’s pawn
reaches the seventh rank, it does not need the king’s help to draw the game.
A sample line is
1.Kb6 Nc8+ 2.Kb7 Nd6+ 3.Kc6 Nc8 4.Kc7 Na7 5.Kb7 Nb5 6.Kb6
Nd6 7.a7 Nc8+ 8.Kb7 Nxa7 9.Kxa7
Draw.

The prolific Russian composer Nikolai Grigoriev composed a wonderful
study that nicely demonstrates our first theoretical endgame.
Game 51
N.Grigoriev
1932
Black to move
Black, naturally, has to start with the move
1...Ng5.
Now, the most challenging winning attempt is
2.Kd6,
trying to shoulder the knight away from the central squares. The first point
of the study is that the direct 2.a5 does not work, in view of 2...Nf3! 3.a6
Nd4, catching the pawn before it reaches the seventh rank. 4.Kd7 (4.a7

allows Black to fork the king and pawn with 4...Nc6+=) 4...Nb5 5.Kc6
Na7+=, and the knight gets to the promised land.
2...Nf3!
This precise move gives the black knight the most flexibility with potential
routes toward the pawn. 2 .. .Ne4+ is met by 3.Kc6!, when the knight is
completely helpless against the march of the a-pawn, while in case of
2...Nf7+ 3.Kd5!, the board is too narrow for the knight to maneuver its way
to the a7-square: 3...Nd8 4.a5 Nb7 5.a6+–.
3.Kd5
It is well-known that diagonal king-knight opposition is the most unpleasant
for the short-legged knight since it takes it several moves to ‘reset’ to give a
check or find another available route. With such a dominant central position
of the white king, and the black king so far away, it might seem like it is all
over for Black, but the versatile knight shows its full potential with
3...Nh4!!.

This unlikely saving move is the second and main point of the study. It
would seem the most natural to approach the pawn from the center, but
these attempts fail, as we can see in the following variations: 3...Kf2
(3...Ne1 4.a5 Nc2 5.Kc5!+–) 4.a5 Ke3 5.a6 Nd4 6.Kc5! (avoiding the last
trick; 6.a7? Nb5! 7.a8=Q Nc7+=) 6...Ne6+ 7.Kb6+–, and the knight cannot
reach the safety zone.
4.a5
If the white king continues chasing the knight with 4.Ke4, it wiggles out via
4...Ng6 5.a5 Ne7 6.a6 Nc6=.
4...Nf5!
The f5-square turns out to be the perfect springboard for the knight as it
provides access to two quickest routes toward the key a7-square: f5-e7-c8
and f5-d4-b5. White’s king is simply unable to close them both down.
5.Kc6!?

This is White’s best practical attempt. 5.Ke6 Nd4+ 6.Kd5 Nb5=; 5.Ke5
Ne7 6.Kd6 Nc8+=.
5...Nd4+!
It would be wrong to play 5...Ne7+?, due to 6.Kd7 Nd5 7.a6 Nb6+ 8.Kc7
Nd5+ 9.Kb7+–.
6.Kb6
White has achieved the diagonal opposition and covered the b5-square, but
the knight can be successfully reset toward the other route with
6...Nf5! 7.a6 Nd6=,
reaching the safety zone just in time to threaten the fork on c8 should White
push his pawn forward.
Let us now see an application of this drawing method in a practical game:
Game 52
Anthony Miles 2562

Joel Lautier 2658
Ohrid Ech 2001 (12)
White to move
(back to the PREVIEW)
White is the only one who can win this endgame because of his queenside
pawns. Truth be told, one of them is bound to fall since Black is about to
play 54... Nc4 next, but then we get the familiar endgame where the knight
has to catch the a-pawn. With this in mind, White should try to advance his
a-pawn as far as possible, preferably not allowing the knight to block it on
a7. However, GM Anthony Miles lost sight of this important detail when he
played
54.Ke2?.
What can be more natural than centralizing the king? Well, as we have
already seen in games 10 and 11, exceptions to this conditioned reflex
definitely exist and this is another one. Black will use exactly the

unfortunate position of the king on e2 to reach the a7- square just in time.
Instead, the paradoxical 54.Kg1!! would have won,
analysis diagram
because the black knight could not use the c3-square as a springboard as he
did in the game. On g1, the king is further away from the center but, more
importantly, it is safe from all possible checks (on e1 and f2, it would also
allow the knight to catch the pawn in time with the help of ...Nd3+). So, if
Black plays 54...Nc4, White continues 55.a4 Nxb2 56.a5 Nc4 57.a6 f5
58.a7 Nb6 59.g3 Kf6 60.Kf2, etc., with an easily winning position, since
the knight cannot hold the a-pawn on its own and White has another outside
passed pawn on the h-file.
54.Ke2? Nc4 55.a4 Nxb2 56.a5 Na4!
Miles had probably missed this nice move that is reminiscent of ...Nf3-h4!!
in Grigoriev’s study.

Knights are tricky pieces that often use unusual angles to get to their final
destination.
57.a6 Nc3+ 58.Kd3 Nb5

The knight is in the right circuit now, and the endgame is drawn regardless
of the kingside pawns. The point is that it can hold the a-pawn on its own,
allowing the black king to defend his pawn and block the opponent’s
pawns. Lautier held it easily, as we can see in the remainder of the game:
59.Kc4 Na7 60.Kd5 Kg5 61.Ke5 f5 62.g3 Nc6+ 63.Kd6 Na7 64.h4+
Kg4 65.Ke5 Nc6+ 66.Kd6 Na7 67.Ke6 f4 68.gxf4 Kxf4 69.Kd6 Kg4
70.Kc7 Kxh4 71.Kb7 Nb5 72.Kb6 Nd6 73.Kc6 Nc8 74.Kc7 Na7
75.Kb7 Nb5 76.Kb6 Nd6 77.a7 Nc8+ 78.Kb7 Nxa7 79.Kxa7 1⁄2-1⁄2
Theoretical endgame #2
Example 7.2
Position 2
We have a typical positional draw here. White’s extra piece is meaningless
because he cannot win the last black pawn. For example:
1.Ke6 Kd8 2.Bh4+ Kc8 3.Ke7 Kb8 4.Kd7 Ka8

And the black king can only be stalemated. One would expect that anyone
who has read an endgame book in their life would know about this simple
theoretical endgame, but, quite shockingly, two 2700+ players were
apparently not aware of it in their recent games!
But first, let us see how this position was used in an endgame study.
Game 53
H.Weenink
1922

White to move
This nice and instructive study is based on the knowledge of the drawn
theoretical endgame in position #2. The solution is not difficult to find, even
by the process of elimination as shown below, but it is still a pretty one.
1.Bb1!
Alternatively:
A) If White moves the bishop to f5 (1.Bf5) (1.Bd3 and 1.Be4 are similar),
he allows Black to win the crucial tempo after 1...Kc3 2.Kb5 Kd4 3.Kc6
Ke5 4.Bb1 and then force the exchange of g-pawns with 4...g6! 5.Bxg6
Kf4=;
B) The next idea is to move the bishop as far from the king as possible,
1.Bh7, but even if Black cannot win a tempo by attacking the bishop, he
still draws with 1...Kc3 2.Kb5 Kd4 3.Kc6 Ke5 4.g6 (or 4.Kd7 g6 5.Ke7
Kf5=), because Black’s king shoulders its white colleague with 4...Ke6 to
reach the f8-square and claim a draw.

These unsuccessful attempts give rise to the idea to sacrifice the bishop and
try to win the pawn endgame. The first such thought might be to play
1.Kb4, but after 1...Kxc2 2.Kc4 Kd2 3.Kd4 Ke2 4.Ke4 Kf2 5.Kf4 Kg2,
Black’s king is close enough to the g-pawn, so the endgame is drawn after
6.Kg4 (or 6.g6 Kh3 7.Kf5 Kh4 8.Ke6 Kh5=) 6...g6!=. This idea can be
improved upon with 1.Bb1!, forcing the black king to the unfavorable first
rank, as can be seen in the analysis of the main variation below:
1.Bb1! Kxb1
If Black tries to seek a shelter on f8 instead, by playing 1...Kc3 2.Kb5 Kd4
3.Kc6 Ke5, White’s king is quicker: 4.Kd7 and even 4...g6 does not save
Black because after 5.Ke7!, Black does not have 5...Kf5 as in the similar
position in the 1.Bh7 variation!
2.Kb3
If we compare this to a similar position from the 1.Kb4 variation, we will
realize that the distance between the kings is the same. Yet, White wins
because his king has much more maneuvering space here than its
counterpart.
2...Kc1 3.Kc3 Kd1 4.Kd3 Ke1

5.Ke3
White should not approach the pawn yet with 5.Ke4, as this also allows
Black to use the diagonal movement of his king (more on that soon!) to win
the opponent’s pawn: 5...Kf2 6.Kf5 Kg3 7.Kg6 Kh4=.
5...Kf1 6.Kf3 Kg1
Black’s king is running out of space on the edge of the board, and White
can take advantage of it with
7.g6 Kh2 8.Kg4!

The key is that the board is too narrow for the black king. The only way it
could compete with White’s king is to keep moving it upward. In a similar
position in the 1.Kb4 variation after the move 6.g6, White’s king is on f4,
so Black draws by moving his king up to h3. Here, this is not legal, so the
black king needs to take a pass with
8...Kg2
which gives White a decisive tempo to win the last black pawn with
9.Kf5 Kg3 10.Ke6 Kg4 11.Kf7
And White wins.
And now, the main dish: endgame tragicomedies!
Game 54
Anish Giri 2783
Samuel Shankland 2725
Wijk aan Zee 2019 (11)

Black to move
Shankland managed to capture the last kingside pawn with
41...Ng1 42.Bxg5 Nxh3
at the price of being trapped with
43.Be3.
Nevertheless, we know that Black does not need the knight to draw this
endgame. He only needs to bring his king back to c8. The presence of
another b-pawn (or any other white pawn on that file) does not matter in the
slightest. However, after
43...Kd6 44.Kf5 Kd5 45.b6

Shankland, shockingly, resigned. Many spectators have speculated that this
was a blackout of some sort, but he candidly admitted in the interview on
the next day that ‘... it was just a lack of chess culture. I thought this
position was drawn only with the king on a8 and that I wasn’t getting it
there in time.’
As fate would have it, only six days later another top-GM, David Navara,
forgot about the same theoretical draw in the following game.
Game 55
David Navara 2738
Hrant Melkumyan 2660
Gibraltar 2019 (10)

White to move
(back to the PREVIEW)
In a winning position, Navara continued:
60.b4 axb4 61.axb4?
The problem with this recapture is that Black can sacrifice his bishop for
White’s c-pawn when White pushes his pawn to b6. Black’s king is in the
close proximity of the safe haven on f8, so this is the same draw as we have
seen in a sub-variation of Weenink’s study. Navara could still have won
with 61.a4!, which is very reminiscent of the breakthrough motif from
Buhmann-Kvetny. The passed a-pawn decides the issue: 61...Bf1 62.a5 Ba6
63.Bb3 Be2 64.Bc4 Bxc4 65.Kxc4 Kd6 66.Kxb4 Kxc6 67.Kc4+–.
61...Bf1 62.b5 Bg2!

Black is getting ready to sacrifice the bishop on c6 if White pushes the b-
pawn.
63.Bb3
63.b6 cxb6+ 64.Kxb6 Bxc6 65.Kxc6 Ke6 leads to our theoretical draw.
63...Be4 64.Bf7
Navara tried his best to squeeze out one last chance from a drawn position,
but it was to no avail.
64...Kf6 65.Kc4 Ke7 66.Kd4 Bf5 67.Ke5 Bd3 68.b6 cxb6 69.Be6 Ba6
70.Bf5 Bb5 71.c7 Bd7 72.Bd3 Bg4 73.Ba6 Be6 74.Bb5 Bc8 75.Kd5
Bb7+ 76.Bc6 Ba6 77.Ke5 Bc8 78.Bb5 Be6 79.Ba6 Bh3 80.Kd5 Bg2+
81.Kd4 Bh3 82.Ke5 Be6 83.c8=N+ Bxc8 84.Bxc8 b5 85.Bf5 b4 86.Be6
b3 87.Bxb3 Kf8 88.Kd6 Ke8 89.Bg8 Kf8 90.Kd7 Kxg8 91.Ke8 Kh8
92.Kf8
Draw.

Fundamental endgame concept No. 3
Example 7.3
Position 3
White to move
I bet you have never seen such a position in a chess book. I created it to
demonstrate an important endgame principle and a peculiar feature of the
geometry of the chessboard. Let us, for a moment, imagine that there are no
checkered squares on the board, and that it was just an empty space. White
wants to capture one of Black’s knights with his king as quickly as possible.
Which one would you go for? I believe that most people would answer:
‘The closer one, on a8.’ Of course, this intuitive answer could be confirmed
by measurement: the straight line to a8 is indeed a shorter route than the
diagonal one to h8. However, in chess, this relation does not hold true.
Thanks to the 8x8 squares set-up, the distances from a1 to a8 and a1 to h8
are exactly the same in terms of the number of moves (7), as can be seen in
the variations below:

A) Diagonal movement of the king: 1.Kb2 Kg1 2.Kc3 Kf1 3.Kd4 Ke1
4.Ke5 Kd1 5.Kf6 Kc1 6.Kg7 Kb1 7.Kxh8;
B) Straight-line movement of the king: 1.Ka2 Kh2 2.Ka3 Kh3 3.Ka4 Kh4
4.Ka5 Kh5 5.Ka6 Kh6 6.Ka7 Kh7 7.Kxa8.
This might seem counterintuitive because we are simply used to thinking
that the straight-line movement will get the job done quicker than diagonal
movement in our every-day life. As we will see shortly, even the World
Championship contender fell victim to this conditioned reflex!
This specific geometry of the chessboard gives rise to some interesting
possibilities related to the king;s diagonal movement in the endgame. As
usual, we start with an endgame study that features our theme.
Game 56
Jindrich Fritz
1964
White to move

This simple study by Jindrich Fritz illustrates very well the power of the
diagonal movement of the king. White starts with:
1.Ke4!
1.Kxd2 Nf4=;
1.Ke3 Ng5=.
1.Ke4! d1=Q 2.Rxd1 Nf2+ 3.Kf5 Nxd1
And now the key idea of the study:
4.Kg6!
The king moves apparently further away from its pawn, but thanks to the
specific geometry of the chessboard, it supports its pawn just as well from
g6 as from the physically closer f6-square. As a matter of fact, 4.Kf6?
would be a mistake, because the king enters the knight’s geometry (as in
Miles-Lautier), allowing it to catch the pawn with 4...Ne3 5.e7 Nd5+=.
Now, the pawn is unstoppable:

4...Ne3 5.e7 Kd7 6.Kf7
With promotion on the next move.
Game 57
Practical application
Student’s game 2019

White to move
(back to the PREVIEW)
Interestingly, a student of mine could have made use of virtually the same
idea in one of his games if he had played
41.Ba4+!
The point of this check is to take away the e8-f8 route from the black king.
Instead, he played 41.Kf5, hoping for 41...Ne3+? 42.Kg6 Nxc2 43.f7 Ke7
44.Kg7+–. However, his opponent did not fall for the trick. He blocked the
pawn with 41...Ke8 and the position was drawn.
41.Ba4+! Kd6
Other moves lose trivially: 41...Ke6 42.Bb3 b5 43.Kg5 and 41...Kd8
42.Kg5 Nxb2 43.Kg6.
42.Kg5 Nxb2

Black could retreat the knight instead of taking the pawn, but then White is
winning in many ways. Here White wins only with
43.Kh6!
just as in Fritz’s study! Another similarity with this study is that the more
‘natural’ 43.Kg6? does not work, due to 43...Nd3 and not only does Black
save the game, but White even has to be careful not to lose it by playing
44.f7? Ne5+ 45.Kf6 Nxf7 46.Kxf7 c4–+.
43...Ke6 44.Kg7
And the knight is just too far away.
However, probably the most famous instance in which this concept was
applied was the 6th game of the 1951 World Championship match between
Botvinnik and Bronstein.
Game 58
David Bronstein
Mikhail Botvinnik
Moscow Wch m 1951 (6)

White to move
This endgame is drawn because White can only stop the promotion of the e-
pawn by sacrificing the knight for it. The most natural way to do it is to
play 57.Ne6+ followed by 58.Nd4, after which all the white and black
pawns would soon disappear off the board. However, for some reason,
Bronstein decided to bring his king closer to the pawn:
57.Kc2??
This turned out to be the losing move! 57.Ne6+ would have led to a drawn
pawn endgame after 57...Kf3 58.Nd4+ Kf2 59.Ka4 e2 60.Nc2 e1=Q
61.Nxe1 Kxe1 62.Kxa5 Kd2 63.Kb4 b6 64.Kb3 Kd3 65.Kb4 Kc2 66.Kb5
Kxc3 67.Kxb6 Kxc4=.
57.Kc2??
Botvinnik shocked him with an unexpected reply:
57...Kg3! 0-1

Bronstein forgot that the black king could reach the key f2-square
diagonally in the same number of moves as via the ‘mined’ f3-square and
support the promotion of the e-pawn. This prompted him to resign
immediately. Presumably, he only counted on Black supporting his pawn
with the straightforward 57...Kf3 when he would be in time to catch the
pawn with 58.Nf7! e2 59.Ne5+. This crucial check is possible only with the
black king on f3, but not on g3! 59...Kf2 60.Nd3+ Kf1, and White
liquidates everything with 61.Kb3 e1=Q 62.Nxe1 Kxe1 63.Ka4=.
To conclude the topic of diagonal king movement in the endgame, you
might want to solve a mini quiz with two puzzles from real games:
Exercise 7.1
Diagonal king movement
Black to move
Black to move and draw.
Show/Hide Solution

Exercise 7.1 Diagonal king movement
Oleg Korneev 2591
Iva Videnova 2386
Casablanca 2015
When you have a passed pawn on the second rank, you usually rush to
support it with your king. Well, here the only way to draw the game is the
counter-intuitive
42...Kg2!*
* 42...h5 would be another move order to secure a draw that way, provided that
Black plays ...Kg2 at some later point.
Instead of supporting the further advanced pawn, we should support the h-
pawn. Videnova played 42...Kf2? and lost the pawn race by a single tempo:
43.b8=Q Rxb8 44.Kxb8 e1=Q 45.Rxe1 Kxe1 46.b5 h5 47.b6 h4 48.b7 h3
49.Ka7
analysis diagram

49...Kf1 (only here did she realize that the intended pawn promotion 49...h2
50.b8=Q h1=Q
analysis diagram
would lose to the 51.Qb1+ skewer, and the queen on h1 falls! That’s why it
was essential to move the king diagonally to g2 in the first place and push
the h-pawn before the e-pawn) 50.b8=Q+–. White’s queen was promoted to
a perfect square. From b8 it controls the h2-square, so Black cannot even
push the pawn forward to get a theoretically drawn position with the h-
pawn. Tough luck! 50...Kg2 51.Qb2+ Kg1 52.Qc1+ Kg2 53.Qd2+ Kg1
54.Qd1+, and Black resigned.
42...Kg2! 43.b8=Q Rxb8 44.Kxb8 h5 45.b5
45.Re1 does not achieve anything after 45...Kf2 46.Rxe2+ (or 46.Rh1 h4
47.b5 e1=Q 48.Rxe1 Kxe1 49.b6 h3 50.b7 h2 51.Ka7 h1=Q 52.b8=Q=)
46...Kxe2 47.b5 h4 48.b6 h3 49.b7 h2 50.Ka7 h1=Q 51.b8=Q=.
45...h4 46.b6 h3 47.b7 h2 48.Ka7 h1=Q 49.Rxh1 Kxh1 50.b8=Q e1=Q=

The king and the queen have only reversed their positions compared to the
previous diagram and there are no more skewers. A pretty unique
geometry!
Exercise 7.2
Diagonal king movement

White to move
To save the game, White needs to support the h-passer with his king.
Should he do it with 50.Kg5 or 50.Kf5 ?
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 7.2 Diagonal king movement
Robert Zelcic 2526
Marin Bosiocic 2598
Zagreb 2019 (3)
The right move is
50.Kf5!.
Somehow, the Kf4-f5-g6 route is less intuitive than the Kf4-g5-g6 one. I
cannot recall a single person to whom I have given this puzzle who has
suggested 50.Kf5 before 50.Kg5 ! In the game, GM Zelcic also moved his

king closer to the pawn, probably just counting on 50...e3 51.Kg6 (which
transposes to the main line of 50.Kf5), but he was in for a surprise:
50.Kg5? 50...Rb7!–+. Black is now in time to eliminate the b-pawn and
return to sacrifice the rook for the h-pawn. Then, the connected passers
should decide the game. 51.Kg6 Rxb3 52.h7 Rb8 53.Kg7, and here
Bosiocic missed a forced win with 53...Rb7+! 54.Kg6 Rxh7 55.Kxh7 e3
56.Kg6 e2 57.Kf5 Kd2 58.Kf4 d3, but he won the game later nevertheless.
50.Kf5! e3
The point of stepping on the f5- instead of the g5-square is that the king
keeps contact with the e4-pawn, so 50...Rb7 would now be met by 51.Rxe4!
Rf7+ 52.Kg6.
51.Kg6
Now we get the position that Zelcic was most likely aiming for. The pawn
race, similar to the one in the previous puzzle, ends with a simultaneous
queen promotion.
51...Rh8 52.Kg7 Rb8 53.h7 e2 54.h8=Q Rxh8 55.Kxh8 Kd2 56.b4 d3
57.b5 Kc3 58.b6 d2 59.b7 e1=Q 60.Rxe1 dxe1=Q 61.b8=Q

No skewer tricks this time!
A caveat about endgame manuals
Strangely enough, when I discussed the study of endgame resources with
several of my 2000+ rated students, I got a similar answer: ‘I tried going
through Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual/Silman’s Complete Endgame
Course/De la Villa’s 100 Endgames You Must Know, but I couldn’t finish
it.’ My response is: ‘Well, who says that you have to finish it?’ Allow me to
use a small analogy to clarify. At home, I keep a copy of my car’s user
manual, which is about 500 pages long. The only time I open it is when I
have an issue to check or a problem to fix, such as changing a setting on the
car display or setting up the kit to inflate a flat tire. I definitely do not intend
to read the whole user manual to learn everything about my car, because
there is simply too much information in there, most of which would be
practically useless or quickly forgotten if not applied. I think that, by
analogy, the same goes for endgame manuals, encyclopedias, and similar
comprehensive endgame works. An attempt to read them from cover to

cover, as you would a regular chess book, would most likely result in
frustration or boredom as the study area is too large to cover and much of
information, while generally useful, is not practically relevant. I feel like
behind such efforts, there is sometimes this naïve notion, if only a
subconscious one, that completing a study of such books equals learning
endgames. Please recall from Chapter 1 that learning in chess is rarely a
linear process. You do not learn endgames by reading an endgame book
cover to cover. Just as with many other things in chess, learning theoretical
endgames is a layered process that takes time and involves ongoing study,
practice, and analysis, over many years. To master, let’s say, a rook + h- and
f-pawns vs rook endgame, you need to study it from an endgame
manual/textbook first, review it several times, get it at least once in a real
game, analyze other similar endgames that you see in games of other
players, maybe play it out in sparring or against a computer, etc.
When it comes to the study of such comprehensive theoretical endgame
resources, I think that a much more rational approach is breaking up your
study into smaller study projects (for example, pawn endgames with 2
pawns vs 1 pawn; rook endgames with 4 pawns vs 3 pawns on the same
flank, etc.) and studying them intermittently. There is no need to cram all
theoretical endgames at once, and you should just try to study and
understand a couple of key ones (just as you would study opening tabiyas)
and keep in mind several important theoretical positions and methods of
play. Very often, you will be triggered to learn more about a certain
endgame after it had happened in a game that you played or when you see it
in an online game, a tournament, or stumble upon it in a database. The
greatest value of theoretical endgame manuals is that they give you a lot of
useful long-lasting information in one place that you can look up and revisit
for reference at any time.
Doing your own research and analysis
Once you have built up a decent base of theoretical knowledge, it is
strongly recommended that you go a step further and analyze and research
interesting theoretical endgames on your own. These study methods support

advanced learning processes, allowing you to gain a deeper understanding
of endgames and develop endgame intuition (as discussed in general terms
in Chapter 1). The study material for analysis and research usually comes
from two sources: your own games and games of other players. We have
already seen how to research and analyze endgames deeply on the pages of
this book (R+N+2§ vs R+3§ endgame in Chapters 2 and 4 (see page 73 and
page 177) and R+B vs R in Chapter 2 (see page 102)). Here, I would like to
present an additional example of such work on practical theoretical
endgames:
Game 59
Davorin Kuljasevic 2555
Robert Zelcic 2554
Croatia tt 2010 (2)
White to move
While rook endgames with 2 vs 1 pawn on the same flank are theoretically
(and usually practically) drawn, one can nevertheless try to put the pressure

on the defender and hope for a mistake. Losing such endgames is not
unheard of; for example, Nikita Vitiugov lost it fairly recently in the World
Cup. Once, I somehow managed to win a similar endgame with g4-f5 vs
g5-pawns against GM Christian Bauer, but I also lost a similar endgame in
my youth. Therefore, chances always exist. In this game, I also came very
close to winning it from the drawn position on the diagram, but after many
twists and turns in mutual time trouble, I finally split the point with GM
Zelcic. Some years later, I did a little research on this endgame using the
Similar Endgames tool and found five relevant GM/IM games that reached
this exact or a similar endgame position. They will be referenced in the
analysis below. Returning to the position at hand, it makes most sense to
deliver an ‘informative’ check first:
70.Rg6+
which is sometimes psychologically unpleasant for the opponent, especially
with little time on the clock. Well, it might seem like Black does not have a
choice but to play
70...Kh7
but this is not the case. He could also sacrifice the h-pawn by playing
70...Kf7!? 71.Rxh6

analysis diagram
transposing into a theoretically drawn rook endgame with h- and f-pawns.
As a matter of fact, this is perhaps the simplest way to draw this endgame,
and IM Sam Collins used it to draw pretty comfortably against GM Hebden,
as we can see below: 71...Ra5+ 72.Kf4 Ra1 73.Rb6 Rf1+ 74.Kg5 Rg1+
75.Kh6 Rf1 76.Rb5 Rh1 77.Rb2 Kf6 78.Rf2 Rh3, and White could not
make substantial progress in Hebden-Collins, Hastings 2007/08.
71.Rd6 Kg7 72.Ke6 Rf7
White has managed to force the black rook to a passive position, which
allows him to activate his own rook with
73.Rd1.
A similar move, 73.Rd2, was played in two other GM games that reached
this position. After 73...Rf6+ 74.Ke5

analysis diagram
we have the critical moment.
A) In the game Tseshkovsky-Dvoirys, Sochi 1983, Black opted for the
passive 74...Rf7?, and after 75.Rg2+ Kh7 76.Ke6 Rf8, White had an
opportunity to win the game with 77.f6! (instead, he played 77.Rd2 Kg8
78.Rd6?, which was not sufficient to win (he could still go back to the
winning position with 78.Rg2+! Kh7 79.f6+–) . Black held after 78...Ra8
79.Kf6 Ra2 80.Rd8+ Kh7 81.Kf7 Ra7+ 82.Ke6 Ra2 83.f6 Re2+ 84.Kd7
(unfortunately for White, 84.Kf7 fails to win due to a stalemate motif:
84...Re7+! 85.Kf8 Rf7+!=) 84...Rf2 85.Rf8 Rd2+, and draw agreed)
77...Ra8 78.Rg7+ Kh8 79.Kf5!.

analysis diagram
Normally, such a construction invites rampant rook checks as the black king
is stalemated, but White actually wins this one after 79...Ra5+ 80.Kg6
Rg5+, and now 81.Kf7! eliminates the stalemate threat (81.Kxh6 Rxh5+=):
81...Ra5 82.Rg1 Kh7 83.Re1!+–;
B) The only move that draws is 74...Ra6!, which is essentially a version of
the Philidor (sixth rank) Defense.
This was played in Pashikian-Rublevsky, Ohrid 2009 and draw was soon
agreed: 75.Rd7+ Kg8 76.f6 Ra1 77.Rg7+ Kf8 78.Ke6 Ra6+ 79.Kf5 Ra5+
80.Kg6 Rg5+ 81.Kxh6 Rxg7 with a handshake, since after 82.fxg7+ Kg8=,
even two extra pawns are not enough to win.
73...Rf6+ 74.Ke5 Rf7?
Zelcic commits the same mistake as Dvoirys. By analogy with 73.Rd2, the
right defense was 74...Ra6!=.
75.Rg1+ Kf8

75...Kh7 was played in yet another game that reached this position:
Istratescu-Bancod, Biel 1993. We already saw in the 73.Rd2 variation that
White wins with 76.Ke6, 76...Rf8 77.f6, but GM Istratescu made a different
kind of mistake – he pushed the pawn too early: 76.f6?. After 76...Ra7
77.Rd1, Black had the last chance to save the game by bringing his king
closer: 77...Kg8 (however, he opted for the useless rook move 77...Ra2?,
which led to a technically winning position for White after 78.Ke6 Re2+
79.Kf7 Re5 80.Rd7 Re1 81.Re7 Ra1 82.Ke6+ Kg8 83.Re8+ Kh7 84.f7+–
etc.) 78.Ke6 Ra6+ 79.Rd6 Ra8 80.Kf5 Ra1! 81.Kg6 Rg1+ 82.Kxh6 Kf7=.
76.Rg6
Black loses his h-pawn now, so the only question is whether he can reach a
theoretically drawn endgame with h- and f-pawns, such as the one in the
game Hebden-Collins.
76...Re7+ 77.Re6 Rh7 78.Kf6 Rf7+ 79.Kg6 Rg7+ 80.Kxh6 Rg1
Black is one move away from getting his king to f7, but White can win,
nevertheless!

81.Rg6 Rf1 82.Kg5 Kf7 83.Rf6+ Ke7
The only move. In endgame theory, it is known that Black loses this kind of
endgame in most positions in which his king is pushed back to the 8th rank.
Therefore, 83...Kg7? loses automatically to 84.h6+ Kh7 85.Rf7+.
84.Re6+!
This is an important check. Unfortunately, I failed to appreciate its real
purpose in the game.
84...Kf7
(back to the PREVIEW)
The critical moment. White has only one path to victory, but it is not
85.h6?.
I figured that my king could hide from checks on d7, but I misevaluated the
arising endgame as winning for White. Instead, White wins with 85.Re4!,

shielding the king from checks first and pushing the pawns later. After
85...Rg1+ 86.Rg4 Rf1 87.h6 Ra1
analysis diagram
White wins instructively with 88.Rh4!. The first stage of the winning plan is
to force the black king to block the h-pawn. (however, 88.h7? would be the
wrong way to go about it, since after 88...Kg7 89.Rh4 Rg1+ 90.Kf4 Kh8,
White cannot make further progress due to the stalemate motif; namely,
91.f6 Rf1+ 92.Kg5 Rxf6=) 88...Rg1+ 89.Kf4 Rf1+ 90.Kg4!. The king
remains close to the pawns. 90...Kg8 (it is essential that Black cannot keep
giving checks at will to drag the king back, since 90...Rg1+ is already game
over after 91.Kf3! in view of 91...Kg8 92.Rg4++–) 91.Kg5 Kh7. Once the
black king has been lured away from the f7-square, White should put all his
resources into the other pawn: 92.f6! (92.Kf6? is pointless. Black draws
with 92...Ra1=) 92...Rg1+ 93.Rg4 Ra1 94.Rf4! Rg1+ 95.Kf5, and Black will
not be able to stop the promotion of the f-pawn.
85...Rg1+ 86.Kf4 Rf1+ 87.Ke5 Re1+ 88.Kd6 Rd1+ 89.Kc7 Rc1+?!

This is still fine, but there was no point allowing the king to get closer.
Instead, Black should have kept the king cut off. The simplest way to draw
is 89...Rd5 90.h7 Kg7 91.Rh6 Kh8 92.Rh5 Rd1, and in case of 93.f6, Black
can play for a stalemate with 93...Rd7+ 94.Kc6 Rd6+=.
90.Kd7 Rd1+ 91.Rd6 Rh1?
This, however, should have been a decisive mistake. Once again, keeping
the king cut off by 91...Re1= would have been the right approach.
92.Kd8!
Not a difficult move to find, but still a strong one. The point is that h6-h7
becomes possible due to Rd7+. White is winning again.
92...Rh5
It is too late for 92...Re1 now, because of 93.Rd7+! Kg8 94.f6 Rf1 95.h7+
Kh8 96.Ke7!+–, while 92...Kf8 also fails to save Black, since White has
93.Rf6+! Kg8 94.Ke7 Re1+ 95.Re6 Ra1 96.Kf6+–.

93.h7 Kg7
Black cannot sit on the position with 93...Rh1, as the key check 94.Rd7+
clears the path for the white king once again. 94...Kf6 (or 94...Kf8
95.Kc7+–) 95.Ke8 Kxf5 96.Kf8+– .
94.Rd7+ Kh8 95.f6
White is obviously winning now with such far advanced pawns and no
stalemate in sight. However, I managed to do what I usually do the best –
mess up a winning position under time pressure.
95...Rf5 96.Rd6?!
Technically speaking, White is still winning after this, but it was rather
pointless to play this way, since 96.Ke7 would win virtually by force after
96...Re5+ 97.Kf7 Kxh7 98.Kf8+ Kg6 99.f7+–.
96...Kxh7
Here, I had to find the only move to win the game, but it was not to be.

97.Ke7?
Throwing away the win. Once again, it was essential to keep the seventh
rank available for the rook by playing 97.Ke8!.
analysis diagram
White’s plan is to play Rd7+, f6-f7, Re7 and promote the pawn. If Black
plays the same way as in the game: 97...Kg6 (97...Kg8 does prevent the
pawn push, but the king is placed too passively on g8, so White wins with
98.Ke7! Re5+ 99.Re6 Rf5 100.Re1, eventually transposing into the winning
Lucena position) 98.f7+ Kg7, then 99.Rd7! Re5+ 100.Re7+– is the point.
This move would not be available in a similar position in the game.
97...Kg6 98.Re6 Rf1 99.Re2
I cannot recall it at this point in time, but I may have thought that this was
winning, forgetting that my opponent would be in time to achieve the basic
long-side defense with

99...Ra1! 100.Rg2+ Kh7 101.Rg7+ Kh6.
Draw agreed.
Endgame technique
As everyone knows, to play endgames well, besides having a solid
theoretical endgame knowledge, one should also possess a good endgame
technique. ‘What is technique in chess?’ This is a question that GM Evgeny
Bareev raised in the book From London to Elista while discussing the 8th
game of the match between Garry Kasparov and Vladimir Kramnik. He
immediately provided an answer himself: ‘It’s not when you intuitively
make a good move. Technique is the precise calculation of short variations.
Not blundering with elementary tactics, constantly keeping the pressure on,
calculating a short line, two or three moves ahead, but broadly, and without
losing sight of all your opponent’s resources.’
I found this to be a very insightful comment and I have no reason to doubt
the reasoning of such an experienced and strong player. If you think about
it, how many times have you tried to convert an advantage in your own
games according to the textbook principles (such as centralize your king,
put the rook behind the passed pawn, think schematically, etc.), only to
mess it up in one move by missing the opponent’s tactical counterplay. In
endgames, the margin for error is usually much smaller than in the
middlegame. This is why precise calculation of variations is of paramount
importance in endgames and a prerequisite for a good endgame technique.
However, another important factor for a good endgame technique, which
Bareev omitted probably because a player of his caliber and chess education
takes it for granted, is the skill of playing out non-theoretical and non-
forcing endgames in accordance with correct endgame methods. One of the
pivotal works on this topic was Shereshevsky’s Endgame Strategy, a book
that I had already mentioned in the first chapter. In this book, the author laid
out the most important endgame methods, such as: the principle of two
weaknesses, the ‘do not hurry’ principle, schematic thinking, when to
exchange pieces, etc. I believe that every aspiring player should study these

methods of endgame play carefully, whether from this book or other
resources on the subject.
Once you have gotten acquainted with these methods, you should try to
upgrade your knowledge by relating it to practical examples, preferably
from contemporary games of strong grandmasters who generally display a
high level of endgame technique. The internalization of endgame technique
works in a similar way as with theoretical endgames – the more practical
applications of a particular endgame method you see, the stronger it
becomes embedded in your own subconscious. In my experience, this
learning process consists of three steps:
Step 1: Study a couple of model games with a certain endgame method;
Step 2: Analyze several recent games in which the same or similar
method was applied; and
Step 3: Apply this method in your own game(s).
I would like to illustrate this process on the endgame method ‘king
invasion’.
Step 1 – model games
Game 60
Evgeny Sveshnikov 2535
Walter Browne 2555
Wijk aan Zee 1981 (5)

White to move
For me, this was one of the most remarkable endgames from
Shereshevsky’s book Endgame Strategy. I would bet that if you give this
position to 10 random chess players, 9 of them would instinctively retreat
the king to c2 and slowly proceed to exploit the typical bishop pair
advantage. However, Evgeny Sveshnikov demonstrated a more profound
idea.
29.Kb4!
Preparing to invade the queenside via a5 and b6!
29...Ne4
The alternative 29...b6 would only postpone the king’s invasion, since
White could secure an entry for his king with 30.a4! h6 (if 30...a5+, then
31.Kb5! or 30...Nd7 31.Bxf7!+–) 31.a5 bxa5+ 32.Kxa5, when the a6-pawn
is very vulnerable.

30.Ka5! Nd6
Black would not be successful in preventing the king invasion with 30...Rc6
either, due to 31.Bf3 Rd6 32.Rxd6 Nxd6 33.Kb6! Nc4+ 34.Kxb7 Nxb2
35.Kxa6 Bxc3 36.Kb5, and we have a classical situation: the outside
passed pawn supported by the bishop pair decides the game in White’s
favor.
31.Kb6 Rc6+ 32.Ka7!
Just imagine walking around the playing hall and seeing this position. It
almost seems illegal for White’s king to be where it is! Yet, as strange as it
looks, the king’s position deep within the opponent’s ranks is highly
effective, since it puts permanent pressure on the vulnerable queenside
pawns. If the king were on c2 instead, Black would probably be able to
organize active counterplay, but now his pieces are completely tied up by
defensive duties.
32...Rc7

32...b5 loses to 33.Bf3 Rc8 34.Kxa6.
33.Bb6!
Sveshnikov begins a nice maneuver to improve the position of his dark-
squared bishop, while also controlling some key squares in the process (c7,
d8).
33...Rc6
33...Nc8+ doesn’t work because of 34.Kb8+–, while 33...Rd7 with the idea
to play ...Nc8+ on the next move, allows an unpleasant pin: 34.Bc5 Be5
35.a4!, and it is difficult to suggest something for Black.
34.Ba5 Be5 35.Bf3 Rc5 36.Bb4
White’s pieces completely dominate the board, and Black is not able to
sustain such pressure without incurring material losses.
36...Rc7 37.Kb6 Rd7 38.Re1 f6 39.a4 Kd8 40.Bxd6

Sveshnikov decides that it is time to transform his big positional into a
decisive material advantage.
40...Rxd6+
40...Bxd6 41.Rxe6+– is even more hopeless.
41.Kxb7 Rd2 42.Rd1!
Sveshnikov correctly judges that the opposite-colored bishops’ endgame
will be winning, so he trades off Browne’s only active piece.
42...Rxd1 43.Bxd1 a5 44.Kb6 Bc7+ 45.Kc6 Bf4

46.Kb7
Similar to the game Buhmann-Kvetny, White hesitates with the decisive
breakthrough, although there was no reason not to play 46.b4 immediately:
46...Bd2 (46...Kc8 47.b5+–) 47.bxa5 Bxc3 48.a6 Bd4 49.Kb7+–. Anyway,
he did it a couple of moves later.
46...Be5 47.Be2 Bd6 48.g3 f5 49.Kc6 Bb8 50.Bc4 e5 51.b4! Ba7 52.Kb7
Bxf2 53.bxa5 Bxg3 54.a6 Bf2 55.Be6 f4 56.Bd5 h5 57.Bf3 1-0
Another classical game with the same motif is the fifth game of the 1963
World Championship match between Botvinnik and Petrosian. This game
has been referenced in chess literature so many times, though, that it makes
little sense repeating it. Let us rather look at a more recent and less well-
known, yet, in my view, equally remarkable example.
Step 2 – recent games
Game 61
Leinier Dominguez Perez 2739

Alan Pichot 2552
PRO League rapid 2018 (4)
White to move
With a couple of quick piece exchanges in the opening, the players reached
this endgame fairly early on.
To use the same analogy as before, 9 out of 10 random chess players would
probably suggest either 15.Kb1
or 15.Bb3 here. These are completely natural moves that would probably
promise White a slight edge, but top-GM Leinier Dominguez came up with
an original idea:
15.Kc2!? Nb6 16.Kb3 Nxc4 17.Kxc4
The king has been centralized within three moves. Still, this is not all that
we will see from it!
17...Bd6 18.d5 e5

Black should keep the center closed, since 18...exd5+? 19.Rxd5 would
allow White to exploit his lead in development and, well, better
centralization.
19.Kb5!?
(back to the PREVIEW)
‘What kind of a move is that?’, was my first reaction when I saw it. Soon,
however, I realized that the idea behind it was to tie down the rook on a8 by
discouraging ...a7-a6. If Black pushed his a-pawn, the king would invade
the b6-square, just as in Sveshnikov-Browne!
As cool as it looks, though, this whole concept is not particularly strong,
objectively speaking. In a classical time-control, it would not be too
difficult to find a good continuation for Black. However, in a rapid game it
may have very easily confused his opponent and taken away precious
minutes from his clock while he tried to figure out what to do about it.
19...Kd7

Pichot plays the most natural move, although an even more ambitious
alternative existed: 19...a6+!? letting the king in 20.Kb6 0-0-0 21.Ka7
(otherwise, Black plays ...Kb8 on the next move and expels the king from
b6)
analysis diagram
and we have a Sveshnikov-Browne flashback! However, unlike that
position, Black can actually cause some trouble for the white king in this
one with 21...Kd7! (it would be amusing to see 21...Bb8+ 22.Ka8!) 22.Rc1
(22.Kxb7 runs into a mating net: 22...Ra8 23.Ba7 Bc5!), and here Black can
solve all his problems by force with 22...b6 (or even keep the tension with
22...f5!?) 23.Kxa6 Ra8+ 24.Kb5 Ra5+! 25.Kc4 Rxa2=.
20.Rc1 Rhc8?!
A wrong exchange. After this, Black will be left only with a passive rook
on a8. There was actually no need to do anything on the c-file because the
c7-square was well-defended. Instead, he should have set his kingside
majority in motion at once with 20...f5 and if 21.g3 Rhf8!3, Black would

already have the threat of ...f5-f4, which would allow him to activate his
rook.
21.Rxc8 Kxc8 22.Rc1+ Kd7 23.g4!
A strong technical player like Leinier Dominguez will not miss an
opportunity to make this kind of move. Now, it is much more difficult for
Black to organize active play on the kingside than if he had played 20...f5
when he had a chance.
23...f6 24.a4!
The king can perform another important role on b5 – support his pawns!
24...g6?!
In principle, there is nothing wrong with this move, but Black should have
finally dealt with the annoying king by playing 24...Bc7 on this or on one of
the next moves. 25.b4 a6+, and after 26.Kc4 Rc8 27.Kd3 g6 28.Ke4 Rf8=,
he would have had a solid position.
25.h4 Be7 26.h5 g5?
A terrible positional decision. Pichot seems to have panicked in response to
the opponent’s threat to open a file on the kingside. He could have still
obtained fine counterplay with 26...gxh5 27.gxh5 f5, and if 28.f3 then, once
again, the right plan would be to chase away the king first with 28...Bd8!
29.Rg1 a6+ 30.Kb4 and then the flexible bishop covers the seventh rank
with 30...Bf6=.
27.f3±

White’s positional advantage is indisputable. The king on b5 still hangs like
a sword of Damocles over the black position, and I suppose that Pichot’s
previous mistakes were largely caused by the indecision as to what to do
about its unusual presence. The rest of the game was not so accurate from
the technical point of view; it was a rapid game, after all. Dominguez Perez
was mostly in control, and, although his opponent had a couple of chances
for a successful defense, he eventually managed to convert his advantage
into a full point.
27...Bd6 28.b3 h6 29.Kc4 f5 30.gxf5 Rf8 31.Kd3 Rxf5 32.Ke4 Rf8 33.Rc4
a6 34.b4 Rf7 35.b5 axb5 36.axb5 Rf8 37.Ra4 Rc8 38.Ra7 Rc4+ 39.Kd3
Rb4 40.Rxb7+ Kc8 41.Rh7 1-0
Step 3 – applying the method in your own game
Game 62
Miroslav Susnjar 2224
Davorin Kuljasevic 2537
Croatia tt 2011 (2)

Black to move
This position should be technically pretty easily winning for Black, but the
manner in which I won is quite stunning. Not that I had planned it initially,
but within only 9 moves, my king was, believe it or not, on the c2-square!
Another peculiarity was that until the end of the game I did not need to
make a single move with my nominally strongest piece, the rook, to force
my opponent to resign!
Well, it all started with a regular king centralization.
32...Kf7
In response, my opponent tried to prevent further expansion with
33.Kg4 Kf6 34.h4,
but he missed a tactical nuance:
34...h5+!

The pawn cannot be taken because 35...Kf5 closes the mating net around
the king, so it has to retreat.
35.Kg3 Kf5 36.Rb3
White tries to push b4-b5, but this is a poor choice. Truth be told, even after
the more stubborn 36.Rd2, Black could prepare ...d5-d4 with 36...Rd8, with
a winning position.
36...d4 37.Bd2 Ke5!
Getting ready to invade the queenside via d5 and c4. My opponent tried to
discourage this by playing
38.f4+,
but this move opened an even more attractive passage for the king:
38...Ke4!
Black is just completely winning now, though it was nice to finish the game
in style after
39.Rb1 Kd3 40.Be1 Kc2!.
A picturesque position!

Black’s king has single-handedly brought the white army to its knees. The
rest is trivial.
41.Ra1 Nc7 42.b5 axb5 43.Ba5 Nd5 0-1
This king invasion through the center was somewhat inspired by the above-
mentioned model game Petrosian-Botvinnik, in which Petrosian’s king
invaded through the center. On the other hand, the model game Sveshnikov-
Browne, in which the king invaded via the flank, was helpful in finding the
winning endgame plan in my game against Zovko (see page 216) that was
already discussed in the chapter on openings. I am sure that I have seen
many more such examples and applied this endgame method in other
games. Over time, such methods get internalized and you do not really
think about them consciously; they become a routine. With a patient and
diligent endgame work, as described above, you will add many such routine
methods to your endgame arsenal.
One last note that I would like to make about the study of endgame
technique is: make sure to analyze endgames from your own practice
thoroughly. As we discussed already, the positive feedback loop between

playing and analysis is essential, and I feel like this kind of analysis is the
most helpful study method to improve your skill in technical endgames in
the long run. For the end of this chapter, I would like to show an example of
a deep analysis of a technical endgame that contained some instructive
methods, technical mistakes, and defenses.
Game 63
Davit Maghalashvili 2515
Davorin Kuljasevic 2564
Turkey tt 2014 (1)
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 b6 3.g3 c5 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.0-0 g6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Re1 Nc6 8.e4
0-0
9.e5
This principled move leads to the endgame on the next diagram virtually by
force. Alternatively, White could keep the position more complex with
9.d3.

9...Ne8 10.d4 Nxd4 11.Nxd4 Bxg2 12.Kxg2 cxd4 13.Qxd4 d6 14.Bf4
dxe5 15.Qxd8 Rxd8 16.Bxe5
We have reached a common 3-2 queenside vs 4-3 kingside pawn majority
type of endgame. To an untrained eye, especially one that relies heavily on
engine evaluations, this might seem like a ‘very drawish’ endgame.
However, this attitude can be deceiving. While this endgame is objectively
equal, a player with a better endgame technique usually gets the upper hand
in such equal positions in practice. I have to admit that, while I had this
position in my opening file many months before the game, I never analyzed
it properly, committing the same mental mistake as discussed above. I
thought that it is just equal and that I would be able to figure things out over
the board, which was a wrong approach that I almost got punished for. It
just so happened that I played this game sick, the day after an exhausting
20-hour trip – and obviously not in the best shape to figure things out over
the board. In fact, already the next move, which was somehow the main
move in my file, is a slight inaccuracy, or at least the relatively worst choice
in the position.

16...Bxe5
This exchange allows White to weaken my queenside pawn structure with
c4-c5. It may not seem like a big deal, but the thing is that some positions
are ‘more equal’ than others. From that perspective, there were a couple of
better options. Firstly, if Black wants to exchange the bishops, then a better
way to do it is 16...e6 17.Bxg7 Kxg7. Now, there is no c4-c5. After
18.Rad1 Nd6 19.b3 g5 20.Rd2 Kf6 21.Red1 Ke7, the position is indeed
completely equal.
Another reasonable and even more ambitious reply was 16...f6!? 17.Bf4,
and now both 17...g5!? 18.Be3 Nd6„ and 17...e5 18.Be3 Nd6 19.b3 Rf7
20.Rad1 Rfd7= are just totally fine for Black. If I had analyzed the position
more carefully at home, I would have realized that any of these
continuations would be a better choice than 16...Bxe5, and thus spared me
the practical problems that I had in the game.
17.Rxe5 e6 18.c5!
Thanks to this move, White will create and later attack a single-pawn
weakness on the queenside, whether it is the a7- or b6-pawn, which would
hardly be possible in case of 16...e6. Even though some strong players have
already played like this with Black, in hindsight I see no reason why Black
would allow it.
18...Nf6
This was still in my opening file. Alternatively, Black could play 18...bxc5
19.Rxc5 Nf6, keeping the a- instead of the b-pawn. In this case, I find the
white position to be slightly more pleasant after 20.Rd1 Rxd1 21.Nxd1 Rd8
22.Ne3 Ne4 23.Rc2, etc. I think that Aronian once won a nice technical
game with White in this pawn structure.
19.cxb6 axb6 20.Rb5 Rd6

(back to the PREVIEW)
Here is where my knowledge, more or less, ended. I figured that there
wasn’t much to be concerned about as Black, but this attitude was a result
of a superficial, rather than deep, analysis of this endgame. It was only
during the game that I realized that Black’s play is not as simple as I had
thought.
21.a4!?N
This is an interesting novelty. In some lines, White can activate the rook via
a3 and b3. Of course, it also marks the beginning of White’s long-term plan
to create an outside passed pawn.
A) I was only aware of 21.Rd1, where I vaguely remembered the following
GM game from a tournament in which I previously had participated:
21...Rfd8 22.Rxd6 Rxd6 23.a4 h5 24.h3 Rc6 25.Kf3 Ne8 26.Ke2 Nd6. I
might have been subconsciously aware of this maneuver because I also
transferred the knight to d6 in my own game, but I did it in completely
wrong circumstances. After 27.Rb4, the following sequence shows how
tricky this ‘simple’ endgame can be, even for grandmasters: 27...f5?!

(27...Kf8 was better) 28.Kd3?! (instead, White should have immediately
fixed the black pawns with 28.f42) 28...Kf7?! (likewise, Black should have
expanded his pawn majority with 28...g5„) 29.f4!. Better late than never!
29...Ke7 30.h4, and White had a nice edge in Banusz-David, Trieste 2012.
After I had done a more serious analysis of this endgame, I concluded that
White would do best to exchange a pair of rooks as in the Banusz-David
game above. The reason for that is that Black can create counterplay with
two rooks more easily and prevent the white king from actively
participating in the game. The following game is a case in point:
B) 21.Re1 Rc8 22.Re2 Kg7 23.h3 h5 24.Kf3 Rc4!„ 25.Ke3 Rcd4. After
only a couple of moves, the black rooks have become more active than the
white rooks, which indicates that White should have exchanged a pair when
he had a chance. 26.Rc2?! h4, and Black already took the initiative in Mohr-
Adler, Bled 1992.
21...Rc8?!
By the reasoning above, the right move was 21...Rfd8, preventing the rook
exchange on d1. I assume that White would then continue 22.Ra3 (22.b4 is
premature because the white knight loses a foothold, so after 22...Rc6
23.Nd1 Ne4 24.a5 bxa5 25.bxa5 Ra8 26.Nb2 Nd6=, White cannot make
further progress with his passed pawn), and only then is 22...Rc8! a good
idea. Black would have a fine position after 23.Rab3 Nd7 24.R3b4 f5=,
preparing ...Kf7, ...g6-g5, etc. Please note how one of the white rooks feels
useless, while Black is happy to have both rooks on the board to keep the
white king cut off from the queenside.
22.Rd1

22...Rxd1?!
Another poor choice. I initially thought that I am winning a tempo, thinking
that White’s knight would return to c3, but it was already too late when I
realized that it could explore new and more dangerous routes via the e3-
square.
A) The obvious alternative was 22...Rcd8, but this would mean that White
has won a clear tempo compared to Banusz-David. And tempi matter, even
in such simple-looking positions. After 23.Rxd6 Rxd6 24.Kf3 Nd7 25.Ke3
f5 26.b4 Rc6 27.Kd32, the difference between two kings is obvious, not to
mention that White is already ready to create an outside passed pawn;
B) However, the best response was 22...Rd7!. This strong counterintuitive
retreat is based on tactical and strategic considerations alike. The point is
that in case of 23.Rxd7 (23.Rxb6? does not work tactically: 23...Rxc3!
24.Rxd7 Nxd7 25.Rb7 Rd3, and Black wins a piece) 23...Nxd7, the knight
assumes the ideal defensive position. Let us see what happens when White
centralizes his king: 24.Kf3 f5 25.Ke3 Kf7 26.Kd3 Rc6 (26...Nc5+ is a

tempting continuation, but it does not quite work in view of 27.Kd4! Rd8+
28.Ke3 Ra8 29.b3 Rd8 30.Ke2!2) 27.b4.
analysis diagram
Please compare this position to a similar one from the 22...Rcd8 variation.
Black is up a full tempo here, which allows him to obtain timely
counterplay with 27...Kf6! (preparing ...Ne5+) 28.a5 (28.f4 e5„)
28...Ne5+ 29.Kc2 bxa5 30.bxa5 Nc4 31.Kb3 Nd2+ 32.Kb2 Nc4+=.
23.Nxd1 Rc6
I spent some time considering 23...Nd5?! but I did not like the look of the
rook endgame after 24.Kf3 Rc6 25.Ne3 Nxe3 (25...Nc7 wouldn’t be any
better because White could force another favorable trade with 26.Rb4 Kf8
27.Rc4! Rxc4 28.Nxc4 b5 29.axb5 Nxb5 30.Ke4±, and the knight endgame
with the outside passed pawn for White is equally cheerless) 26.Kxe3 Kf8
27.b4 Ke7 28.a5 bxa5 29.bxa5±, when White has a distilled outside passed
pawn.

24.Ne3
24...Ne4??
This evaluation might be a bit harsh, but this apparently active move is
absolutely terrible. Not only will the knight be unsustainable on d6, which
indicates a lack of strategic foresight, but this is also an outright tactical
blunder. Playing this game sick had some impact on my thinking process
but cannot be a justification for a series of poor endgame decisions that I
made. It was necessary to centralize the king at once: 24...Kf8 25.b3 Ke7.
Now, in case of 26.Nc4, my knight also gets a nice outpost on 26...Nd5 and
while White’s position is still easier to play after 27.Kf1! h5 28.h4 f6
29.Ke1 Kd7 30.Kd2 Kc7 31.Kd32, Black should be solid enough.
25.Rb4 Nd6 26.Kf3
Maghalashvili chose the most straightforward plan, which is still good, but
a much more unpleasant move would have been 26.Ng4!ƒ.

analysis diagram
I only spotted this when I played 25...Nd6. Suddenly, it is annoyingly
difficult to defend the b6-pawn in a good way. I really wasn’t sure what I
would have played in the game because all my choices were uninspiring.
The engine suggests a tactical defense 26...b5, which feels a bit like
pressing the emergency button (the other options I considered in the game
lead to a clearly inferior position for Black: 26...Nc4 27.b3 Nd2 28.Ne5
Rd6 29.f4± as well as 26...Nc8 27.Ne5 Rc7 28.Nc4 Rc6 29.f4±). 27.axb5
Rb6 28.Kf3 Kf8 (the knight endgame after 28...Rxb5 29.Rxb5 Nxb5
30.Ke3± is also difficult for Black) 29.Ke3 Nxb5±. The engine claims that
this feeble defense is acceptable for Black, but I have serious doubts about
that.
26...Kf8 27.Ke2 Ke7 28.Kd3

White plans to play Nc4 next, when all piece exchanges would work in his
favor. For example, the pawn endgame is just winning for White. This
simple plan reveals just how ill-judged my idea to transfer the knight to d6
was. Here, I finally realized the seriousness of the situation and tried to put
up the most stubborn defense I could find. A drawish endgame can become
a difficult one very quickly if you make a couple of wrong technical
decisions!
28...Nb7
The idea was to use the position of the white king to maneuver the knight to
the square on which it should have landed a long time ago – d7.
29.Nc4 Nc5+ 30.Kd4 Nd7 31.Rb5 Kd8
I decided to entrench and wait for my fate – what else was there to do? An
attempt to start some active play on the kingside, such as 31...f6, could
always be neutralized – White’s pieces are just placed much better. For
example: 32.f4 h6 33.b4 g5 34.f5! exf5 35.Rxf5 Ke6 36.Rd5, and Black’s
position is critical.

32.b4
My opponent continues with straightforward and logical play, preparing to
get his outside passed pawn. However, from a technical point of view, there
was no need to rush things (Black has no counterplay anyway), and
preparing the creation of the second weakness on the kingside with 32.g4!?
Kc7 33.h4 seemed more methodical.
32...Kc7 33.f4 h5 34.a5
The time for a queenside breakthrough has arrived. Nevertheless, the ‘two
weaknesses’ approach still had its merits: 34.h3!? Kc8 35.g4 hxg4 36.hxg4
Kc7 37.g5 Kc8 38.a5 bxa5 39.Rxa5 Kb8 40.Ra3 Nb6 41.Ne5±, and
compared to the game, White has one more weakness to work with – the f7-
pawn.
34...bxa5
(back to the PREVIEW)

35.bxa5?
A serious technical mistake. Even though it might seem more dangerous to
create an outside passed pawn on the more ‘outside’ file, the a-file would
have actually been more suitable for the rook. White would obtain serious
winning chances if he had recaptured the other way: 35.Rxa5. A possible
line is: 35...f6 (35...Kb8 prevents the rook’s intrusion, but Black has
literally nothing useful to play after something like 36.Ra2±) 36.Ra7+ Kd8
37.Ra8+ Rc8 38.Ra6 Rb8 39.Kc3 Ke7 40.Ra7±. Black’s defense would
hang by a thread.
35...f6 36.h3
Logically, White proceeds to create the second weakness on the kingside
with g3-g4-g5, etc. Once again, the position begins looking critical for
Black since there are no active options in sight. However, here I found a
strong piece regrouping that my opponent had probably missed.
36...Ra6!

The idea behind this move is twofold:
1. The king will take the rook’s place on c6, thereby expelling the rook
from the stronghold on the fifth rank; and
2. The black rook will be activated via the 8th rank.
I already felt better about my chances when I spotted this defensive scheme,
and the game continuation confirmed this assessment.
37.g4 hxg4 38.hxg4 Kc6 39.Rb1 Ra8 40.g5
40...Rd8!?
In the game, I thought that this is an essential inclusion because in case of
40...fxg5 41.fxg5 Rd8, White would have 42.Ne5+ Nxe5+ 43.Kxe5 Rd5+
44.Kf6, which looked scary, so I stopped calculating it. However, further
analysis revealed that Black easily draws even the rook endgame after
44...Rxa5 45.Kxg6 Kd5 46.Kf6 e5 47.g6 e4 etc.
41.Kc3

There were a couple of concrete variations that I had to calculate to make
40...Rd8 work tactically. This was the main line, but there were also 41.gxf6
Nxf6+ 42.Ke5 Nd7+ 43.Kxe6 Re8+ 44.Kf7 Rf8+ 45.Kxg6 Rxf4= and
41.Ke3!? fxg5 42.fxg5 Rh8=, and Black is fine in either case.
41...fxg5 42.fxg5 Nc5!
This is the most direct way to play for a draw. It was important to realize
that White can be allowed to give checks on b6 and e5 without fatal
consequences.
43.Ne5+
In case of 43.Rb6+ Kc7 44.Kb4, Black obtains enough counterplay with
44...Nd3+ 45.Ka4 Rd4, while 43.a6 is met by 43...Ra8 44.Ne5+ Kd5
45.Nxg6 Rxa6=.
43...Kc7 44.Kc4
44.Nxg6 Ne4+ 45.Kc2 Rd2+ 46.Kb3 Rd5=.

44...Rd5 45.Rb5
45.Nxg6 Rxg5=; 45.Re1 Nb7 46.a6 Nd6+ 47.Kc3 Kb6=.
45...Ne4!=
The final precision. White cannot avoid simplifications and the draw was
soon agreed:
46.Rxd5 exd5+ 47.Kxd5 Nxg5 48.Nxg6 Kb7 1⁄2-1⁄2
Besides the study methods discussed in this chapter, I would also like to
refer you to Chapter 2 in which I suggested other ideas that you could use to
add variety into your endgame training, like endgame drills, sparring
games, playing out endgames against a computer, etc. Endgames can be a
lot of fun to study if you approach them the right way.
Chapter 7 summary
• ‘Study of chess should commence with the third and final phase of a chess
game, the endgame’ – José Raul Capablanca. In other words, the endgame
is fundamental to everything that precedes it.
• The skills of precise calculation and concrete evaluation that we usually
have to perform in endgames can be applied to other phases of the game.
• The ability to play positions with a few pieces well provides us with a
better feeling for the capabilities of particular pieces, their interaction, and
the geometry on the chessboard. These skills can also be transferred to other
phases of the game.
• Knowledge of exact endgame positions and typical methods (theoretical
endgames) is essential because it allows us to confidently transform or
simplify more complex endgames into the well-known simple ones.
• Lack of endgame study will definitely affect your results adversely, if not
in the short-term, then surely in the mid-term. Weak endgame fundamentals
decrease your overall potential as a chess player.

• With the right study approach, you discover that the logic, clarity of ideas,
and geometric characteristics in the endgame capture the essence of the
game of chess like no other phase of the game.
• Studying theoretical endgames can indeed be monotonous if you approach
them the same way as you would study openings or a subject in school.
• To make your endgame study more enjoyable and productive, it is
essential that you include engaging practical examples and endgame studies
that can both illustrate an important endgame idea and spark your
imagination.
• The more thematic applications of an endgame concept you see, the more
likely it is that you will internalize and be able to apply it in your own
game.
• The specific geometry of the chessboard in which diagonal movement is
equivalent to straight-line movement gives rise to some interesting and
counterintuitive possibilities, which are particularly visible in the endgame.
• Endgame manuals should not be read cover to cover like other chess
books, simply because they contain too much information that is not
particularly relevant and becomes quickly forgotten. A more rational
approach is breaking up your theoretical endgame study into smaller study
projects and studying them intermittently.
• The greatest value of theoretical endgame manuals is that they give you a
lot of long-lasting useful information in one place that you can look up and
revisit for reference at any time.
• Learning theoretical endgames is a layered process that takes time and
involves ongoing study, practice, and analysis, over many years.
• Once you have built up a decent base of theoretical knowledge, it is
strongly recommended that you go a step further and analyze and research
interesting theoretical endgames on your own.
• ‘Technique is not when you intuitively make a good move. Technique is
the precise calculation of short variations ... without losing sight of all your
opponent’s resources’ – Evgeny Bareev.

• Once you have gotten acquainted with the most important endgame
techniques, you should try to upgrade your knowledge by relating it to
practical examples, preferably from contemporary games of strong
grandmasters who generally display a high level of endgame technique.
• Make sure to analyze endgames from your own practice thoroughly.

Chapter 8 – Preview
White to move
Evaluate this position. Which plans would you suggest for both sides?
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
How would you continue?
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
Which plan would you suggest for White?
(go to the ANSWER)
White to move
Evaluate the position that arises after 31.exf4 and give a few variations.
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
Would you trade the light-squared bishops or not?
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
How would you respond to the offer to trade the rooks?
(go to the ANSWER)
Black to move
How would you continue?
(go to the ANSWER)

White to move
How would you evaluate the exchanging operation 16.Nd5 Qxd2 17.Nxf6+
?
(go to the ANSWER)
Chapter 8
Systemize your middlegame knowledge
The middlegame is arguably the most complex phase of the chess game.
There are some obvious reasons why studying middlegames is relatively
more challenging compared to openings and endgames:
1. It is more difficult to systemize and study middlegames in a theoretical
manner because they appear in a greater number of complex forms;
2. Memorizing exact middlegame variations and positions is not
particularly useful because it is not likely that you will get them in a

game; and
3. Application of middlegame learnings is less straightforward and often
requires a fair degree of interpretation and creativity.
Thus, learning methods for the middlegame are relatively more subtle and
diverse than for other phases of the game. Thankfully, a wealth of chess
literature has been (and continues to be) published on various middlegame
topics, making it easier than ever to understand its secrets and systemize our
middlegame knowledge. In this book, I have listed some of the most
relevant middlegame topics as specific study areas in Chapter 3 and
accompanied them with recommended study resources in Chapter 4. I also
have, directly, or indirectly, suggested various study methods for the
middlegame throughout the book. I would like to list some of the most
notable ones here, once again, for your reference.
Study methods for the middlegame:
• Play over relevant games in a typical middlegame pawn structure;
• Analyze (on your own or with an analysis partner) a complex
middlegame, especially the one that could arise from your opening
repertoire;
• Make notes of useful middlegame ideas from your readings;
• Collect and categorize examples with typical middlegame patterns;
• Analyze the transition phase from the opening to middlegame;
• Check your middlegame analysis with an engine to discover new ideas;
• Do FBM practices and simulations of interesting middlegames;
• Solve challenging positional or strategic exercises;
• Play out complicated middlegame positions in sparring games or against a
computer; and
• Research typical middlegame structures, plans, maneuvers, and material
balances with the help of chess software.

While this is a rather long list of ideas, there are still many more ways to
explore the vast middlegame territories. My goal in this chapter is not to try
to fill this gap (I happily leave this to other authors!), but to add a couple of
more practical ideas about studying middlegames.
Enriching your middlegame arsenal
‘If people are going to devote so much time to the study and memorization
of opening lines let them devote just as great a zeal to the study and
building up of a memory bank of logical plans’ – Alexander Kotov.
One of the best ways to enrich your ‘memory bank’ of middlegame ideas is
to do your own research on middlegame topics that interest you, on top of
studying the traditional resources. When I say traditional resources, what I
have in mind is the material from middlegame books, video courses,
learning centers, and other publications. Such material will provide you
with a good basis, but an ambitious chess player would do well to upgrade
and update this book knowledge by doing organized self-study. In my
experience, one of the best ways to accomplish this is to collect interesting
examples and model games into middlegame databases. Whenever you spot
an interesting application of a certain middlegame idea, whether you are
analyzing games or researching a certain type of position, you can
categorize it and add it to an appropriate middlegame database. It is also a
good idea to collect insightful quotes of strong players about the
middlegame (and all other areas) from books and interviews, because they
can sometimes serve as good practical guidelines in abstract middlegame
scenarios.
How to pick good material for a middlegame database? It helps if the
examples are strong (stand out from many similar ones with a remarkable
or unusual move or idea), so as to be more easily remembered. Games in
which the positional or strategic idea in question is demonstrated in a lucid
and compelling way throughout a larger portion of the game are good
candidates for model games (a typical example is the Ding Liren-Li Yankai
game analyzed later in the chapter). Such games should preferably have few
tactical complications, unless tactical play is part of the strategy (as in the

Spassky-Kortchnoi game below). This allows us to focus on a ‘distilled’
version of a certain idea that usually works in similar positions.
The examples can be systemized by the sub-themes (e.g ., rook-lift on the
third rank, rook-lift on the fourth rank, how to arrange the rooks on the first
rank, etc.) used to illustrate an important guideline or a ‘rule’ (e.g ., pawns
cannot move backwards), or simply serve as a blueprint on how to play a
certain position (e.g., exploiting the bishop pair advantage in an open
position). Usually, 4 to 5 examples with the same positional and strategic
sub-theme should help fully to embed a certain middlegame concept and
provide you with a couple of ideas that you could apply in similar positions.
For illustration purposes, I will present eight examples of such material
from my own middlegame databases.
Structure-based middlegame study
In Chapter 4, I suggested several research tools in ChessBase that allow you
to explore typical middlegame positions according to the pawn structure.
This is a great way to study the middlegame, because the pawn structure is
one of the most permanent positional factors in a chess game. The relative
durability of pawn structures also allows us to link our study of the
middlegame more easily to both the opening and the endgame. In his book,
Dynamic Chess Strategy, GM Suba described nicely one aspect of this link:
‘A healthy pawn structure tolerates exchanges better. In other words, it is a
preparation for a good ending from the opening or middlegame.’ This only
confirms the notion that was proposed in Chapter 5, that the right way to
study openings is to analyze the typical middlegames and even endgames
that arise from them.
Such study allows you to understand better the finer tactical and strategic
points in a certain pawn structure (e.g ., the best piece placement, favorable
pawn structure transformations, favorable transitions into the next phase of
the game, dynamic options, etc.) and get an edge over potential opponents
who have not investigated it so deeply. This holds true even for structures
that are considered inferior in some way by the books or engines. For
example, the Philidor Defense that arises after the moves: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6

3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7 has always been considered as a clearly
inferior 1...e5 defense by theoreticians (and confirmed by the older
generation of engines), since White easily gets a space advantage in the
middlegame and Black has to play a somewhat passive position. However,
Daniil Dubov, one of the strongest modern Russian players and opening
innovators, has come to a somewhat different conclusion after he
thoroughly analyzed the middlegames that arise from this opening. Here is
what he said about it for New In Chess Magazine issue 2020#5 in the
commentary on his rapid win over Magnus Carlsen in that very opening: ‘It
doesn’t look exciting for Black, I agree, but I spent some time analyzing it.
It’s not like Black is not worse at all. White has the pawn center, has space,
you seemingly can do more or less whatever you want, but it is trickier for
White than we used to think... you basically start waiting and when they try
to checkmate you, you start to do something. When they go g2-g4, f2-f4,
you go ...d6-d5 and you hope for counterplay in the center. It’s not bluff, I
analyzed it and I failed to come up with something convincing for White,
looking at it with engines.’
I particularly like it when I find instructive games that show the positive
sides of a certain pawn structure for both colors. This type of analysis helps
one develop an objective attitude when evaluating positions, something that
I have already stressed throughout the book. We can see two pairs of such
games below, one in the Carlsbad pawn structure, the other one in the
French pawn structure with the pawn on f5. The emphasis of the comments
is on the instructive strategic and tactical content, so all the ‘impurities’,
that is, variations not pertaining to the key ideas are omitted.
Game 64
Lajos Portisch 2600
Garry Kasparov 2775
Skelleftea 1989 (9)
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nc3

The move order chosen by Portisch is not the best way to enter the
Exchange Variation of the Queen’s Gambit, because Black usually manages
to develop his ‘bad’ bishop to f5. This is usually a considerable strategic
achievement for Black in the Carlsbad pawn structure.
5...c6 6.Qc2 Na6!?
A somewhat unusual way of development. The idea is to interfere with
White’s plan to develop the bishop to d3 with a combination of ...Nb4,
. . .g7-g6 and ...Bf5. Perhaps Kasparov played it to surprise his experienced
and theoretically well-prepared opponent.
6...Be7 7.Bg5 g6 is more common. Black usually equalizes easily after
exchanging his strategically most problematic piece: 8.e3 Bf5 9.Bd3 Bxd3
10.Qxd3. Several years before this game, Kasparov played a nice positional
game against Ulf Andersson in this line: 10...0-0 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.b4 Qd6
13.Rb1 Nd7 14.0-0 Rfd8 15.Rfc1 Nb6 16.Nd2 Qe7 17.Qc2 a6 18.a4 Bg7
19.Ne2 Bh6! 20.Re1 Qe6 21.Nc1 Nc4! 22.Qc3 Nd63. We will see a
similar knight maneuver in the game against Portisch. Kasparov had a slight
positional edge, but later made some inaccuracies and Andersson-Kasparov,
Belgrade 1985, was eventually drawn.

7.a3 Nc7 8.Bg5 g6 9.e3 Bf5 10.Bd3 Bxd3 11.Qxd3 Be7 12.0-0 0-0
We have achieved a position that would be very similar to Andersson-
Kasparov if Portisch had taken on f6 now. However, the move he played
was definitely an inaccuracy from a strategic point of view.
13.b4?!
In case of 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.b4 a6 15.a4 Qd6, the only notable difference
compared to the aforementioned game would be the position of the knight
on c7 instead of b6, which does not make that much of a difference. Black
is fine either way.
However, a more ambitious alternative would have been 13.Bh6!? Re8
14.Ne5 Nd7 15.f4 f5 16.h3∞, where White does take some strategic risks,
but also has more chances to develop the initiative on the kingside.
13...Ne4!

After this well-known simplification maneuver, Black gets a comfortable
position. White would have done better if he had chopped off this knight
while he had a chance.
14.Bf4
14.Bxe7 Qxe7=; 14.Nxe4?? dxe4 15.Bxe7 Qxe7–+.
14...Nxc3 15.Qxc3 Bd6 16.Bxd6?!
An uninspired decision, allowing Black to demonstrate a nice tactical point.
It was definitely better to play 16.a4. While this allows Black to damage the
opponent’s pawn structure with 16...Bxf4 17.exf4 Re8, White could
compensate his structural defects with a strongly positioned knight on e5
after 18.Ne5 or, in case of 18...f6 19.Nd3, on the c5-outpost.
16...Nb5!
A lovely intermezzo, transforming an ugly duckling on c7 into a beautiful
swan on d6.
17.Qb3 Nxd6

(back to the PREVIEW)
This is one of those positions that seem equal on the surface, but an
experienced player would already prefer the black pieces. The d6-square is
ideal for the knight in the Carlsbad pawn structure as it controls many key
squares (b5, c4, e4) from a safe position. Kasparov will go on to show how
Black can take advantage of this and develop the initiative.
18.a4 a6 19.Ne5
An alternative plan for White was to transfer the knight to c3 to support the
b4-b5 break: 19.Nd2 Re8 20.Nb1 Qe7 21.Nc3. However, this is quite time-
consuming, which can be highlighted by Black’s own version of the
minority attack: 21...f5!, and if White plays 22.b5 now, Black strikes
powerfully at the white pawn chain with 22...axb5 23.axb5 Rxa1 24.Rxa1
f4!ƒ.
19...Re8
Kasparov understands that the white knight has no purpose on e5 besides
looking active, so he refrains from 19...f6 for now, keeping it for a more

appropriate moment. His main plan is to mobilize the major pieces – his
queen can go to g5 or h4, while the rooks would be ideally placed on e7 and
e8 (thus 19...Re8). It is particularly important that White’s typical minority
attack has been stopped in its tracks by the perfectly placed black knight.
Since the other break, e3-e4, is also under firm control, White is doomed to
passive maneuvering, whereas Black can improve his position in a more
meaningful way, as Kasparov demonstrates in the next stage of the game.
20.Rfe1 Qg5 21.h3 Kg7 22.Qc2 Re6 23.Rac1 Rae8 24.Qb1 Qh5 25.Qb3
f6
Once he has mobilized all his pieces, Black is ready to expel the knight
from e5.
26.Nd3 g5!‚
Kasparov stops Nf4 with this move, but, even more importantly, prepares
the kingside pawn attack. The h3-pawn is a hook for the eventual ...g5-g4
break. While the position is still evaluated as equal by most engines, it is
easy to see that Black is the only one with a promising plan.

27.Qd1 Qg6 28.Qc2 R6e7 29.Red1 h5 30.Qb1 h4 31.Qc2
After the necessary preparations, it is time for the kingside break.
31...g4 32.Nf4?
Facing the upcoming attack on the g-file, Portisch tries to ‘steal’ a tempo,
expecting the great attacker to keep the queens on the board. However, this
turned out to be a wrong expectation and a decisive mistake. He had to play
32.hxg4 Qxg4, when his position looks dangerous. Of course, the engine
calmly defends with 33.Kh2 Rg8 34.Rg1, but it is clear that for a human,
defending the white position would be difficult in a practical game.
32...Qxc2!
Kasparov suddenly trades queens, but he has a particular idea in mind.
Portisch was probably hoping for 32...Qg5 33.hxg4 Qxg4, when his
defense would have been easier.
33.Rxc2 g3!

This is the point! With this move, Black undermines the base of White’s
pawn chain, completely exposing the e3-pawn. A nice transformation of an
advantage by Kasparov and an instructive positional motif. In a way, Black
has accomplished his own version of the minority attack.
34.Rd3
This passive defense will not save White, who has too many weaknesses,
but hardly would 34.fxg3 hxg3 35.Nh5+ Kg6 36.Nxg3 either, since after
36...Rxe3–+, the queenside pawns are ripe for taking.
34...Kh6 35.Kf1 Kg5 36.Ne2 Nc4 37.Rcc3 Nb2 38.Rd2 Nxa4–+
Kasparov crowned his strategic success by winning the least ‘valuable’
pawn, but his positional advantage was still so huge that Portisch could not
put up a serious resistance over the next 20-odd moves.
39.Rb3 Nb6 40.Ng1 Nc4 41.Nf3+ Kh5 42.Rdd3 a5 43.bxa5 Ra8 44.Rd1
Rxa5 45.Re1 b5 46.Re2 Ra1+ 47.Re1 Rea7 48.fxg3 Rxe1+ 49.Kxe1 Ra1+
50.Ke2 hxg3 51.Ne1 Ra2+ 52.Kd1 Rd2+ 53.Kc1 Re2 54.Kd1 Rxe3

55.Rxe3 Nxe3+ 56.Ke2 Nf5 57.Nc2 Nh4 58.Nb4 Nxg2 59.Kf3 Nh4+
60.Kxg3 Nf5+ 61.Kf4 Nxd4 62.Ke3 Nf5+ 0-1
Game 65
Viswanathan Anand 2788
Anatoly Karpov 2619
Corsica rapid m 2009 (1)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bf4 c6 6.Qc2 Nf6
Anand is more subtle with his opening moves in this variation than Portisch
was in the previous game. Now, the plan 6...g6 7.e3 Bf5 that Kasparov
employed would be met by 8.Qd2! (8.Bd3?! Bxd3 9.Qxd3 Nd7=) 8...Nf6
9.f3!2, when we can see how postponing the knight’s development to f3
gives White additional strategic options.
7.e3 Nbd7 8.h3
Another precision in the opening. With this move, Anand preserves his
important dark-squared bishop from an unfavorable exchange. 8.Bd3?!
would allow 8...Nh5=.
8...0-0 9.Bd3 Re8 10.Nf3 Nf8 11.0-0

White’s positional advantage in this quiet position is mostly based on the
more active bishops. Karpov decides to trade the dark-squared one with
11...Bd6
but there was also a possibility of trading the light-squared bishops with the
help of a well-known knight maneuver: 11...Ne6 12.Be5 g6 13.Rab1 Ng7!,
preparing ...Bf5. Usually, White gets a slight plus in such positions by
carrying out a quick minority attack: 14.b4 a6 15.a4 Bf5 16.b5 Bxd3
17.Qxd3 axb5 18.axb5 Nf5 19.Rfc1.
12.Bxd6 Qxd6 13.Rab1
The minority attack is a default plan in the Carlsbad structure. If we
compare this early middlegame position to the one from Portisch-Kasparov,
we realize that White has to be positionally better here for at least two
reasons: firstly, he has a better bishop and secondly, the black knights are
far away from the ideal-d6-square.
13...a5 14.a3 Be6

(back to the PREVIEW)
15.Na4!
Anand makes an instructive move. Instead of rushing with b2-b4, he first
sends his knight toward the future c5-outpost. I had first seen this important
idea in one of Petrosian’s games (if I recall correctly) from Zlotnik’s Typical
Middlegame Structures, but it may not be that well-known to players who
have less experience with the Carlsbad pawn structure. The point is that in
case of 15.b4 axb4 16.axb4, Black has 16...b5!?, making the knight on c3
look somewhat useless.
15...N6d7
Karpov probably played this move with the idea to transfer the knight to the
queenside. A more active alternative was 15...Ne4!?, and if 16.b4 (16.Bxe4
would be bad, of course, due to 16...dxe4 17.Qxe4 Bb3–+) 16...axb4
17.axb4 Bf52, he would have at least improved a couple of his pieces. By
the way, 17...b5 would allow White to get a great pawn structure after
18.Nc5 Nxc5 19.dxc5!±, which was featured in another one of Petrosian’s

classical ‘squeeze’ games with white. The d4-outpost and c6-weakness
spell trouble for Black.
16.b4 axb4 17.axb4
This was the critical moment for Karpov from a strategic point of view.
Clearly, White’s threat of Na4-c5 will force him to make some sort of a
structural concession on the queenside. There were several options, but the
one he chose was not the best.
17...b5?!
A) The least committal move was 17...b6, leaving a backward pawn on c6,
but not so desperately backward as it was in the game. More importantly,
the knight could not jump to c5 and would remain a bit vulnerable on a4.
White would keep a slight, but stable advantage with something like
18.Rfc1 Rec8 19.Qb3;
B) 17...Ra7, with the idea to double the rooks on the a-file, could be well-
met by 18.b5 Rea8 19.bxc6! bxc6 20.Nb6 Nxb6 21.Rxb6±, with long-term
pressure on the c6-pawn. Please notice how this is a much better version of

a similar position from the 11...Ne6 variation, since Black is left with a
passive light-squared bishop here;
C) Finally, 17...Rec8 18.Nc5 Nxc5 19.bxc5± is a nightmare pawn structure
for Black with a weakling on b7.
18.Nc5 Nb6
Tit for tat – Karpov allowed Anand to plant his knight on the c5-outpost,
but he plans to do the same with his knight on c4. Nevertheless, White
keeps a clear positional advantage due to a superior pawn structure and
more active pieces.
19.Ra1 f6 20.Qc3!?
The fight for the a-file starts. However, there was a cleverer way to take
control of it: 20.Ra5 Nc4, and now with 21.Ra2!±, White takes advantage
of the fact that Black’s knight doesn’t control the a8-square anymore. With
Rfa1 coming next, White takes over the only open file, with an indisputable
positional advantage.
20...Bf7 21.Rxa8 Rxa8 22.Ra1 Qb8
Karpov is holding things together, not letting White to establish his
dominion on the only open file. White needs another plan and Anand
displays his strong positional intuition by choosing the best one.
23.Nd2!
The knight is slowly headed toward the a5-square, from where it can attack
the weak c6-pawn.
23...Nc4 24.Ndb3 Ra7

25.e4?!
While a thematic move, this is perhaps the only inaccuracy of Anand in an
otherwise perfect positional game. White generally wants to break the
center open to attack the c6-weakness from both sides, but this was not the
best moment to do it. However, this being a rapid game, I can fully
understand Anand’s decision.
It may have been better to slowly improve the position first, according to
the ‘do not hurry principle’. For example, 25.h4!? Qa8 26.Rxa7 Qxa7
27.Na5 Qa8 28.Bf52, trying to provoke the second weakness on the
kingside and keeping e3-e4 in reserve for a moment when Black’s defenses
are less compact.
25...dxe4?!
Going along with the opponent’s intentions. It was better to keep the central
tension with 25...Rxa1+ 26.Qxa1 Qe8„ since White cannot push e4-e5
anyway.

26.Bxe4 Bd5?!
Karpov’s strategic decisions were not great in this game. Once again, it was
better to trade a pair of rooks first, so that after 26...Rxa1+ 27.Qxa1 Qc8
28.Na5 Bd5 29.Bxd5+ cxd5 30.Qd12, he would not have a useless rook in
the same pawn structure.
27.Bxd5+ cxd5
The pawn structure was transformed into a symmetrical one with fixed
central pawns. On the surface, it may seem like Black has profited more
from this because he has gotten rid of the backward c-pawn. However,
Anand refutes this premature conclusion with a strong and elegant move:
28.Re1!±
In positions where one has an initiative, especially in symmetrical pawn
structures, exchanges of heavy pieces should generally be avoided (more on
that later in the chapter). This move is an excellent example of this
principle. The a-file is not so important anymore, so the rook abandons it to

take control of the newly created e-file. This puts additional pressure on
Karpov’s defense, because he needs to protect vulnerable squares like e7
and e8 in addition to the isolated d5-pawn.
28...Qd6 29.Qf3 Kf7 30.g3 g6 31.h4!
Nice strategic play by Anand: not rushing, just slowly improving his
position, and trying to provoke new weaknesses in the opponent’s camp.
Black’s position is already critical, because he is out of good moves and it is
difficult to find any decent waiting moves either. His knight on f8 is
completely cut off from the game, while White has some nice maneuvering
options for his knights, such as Nc5-d3-f4/Nb3-c5. Already on the next
move, Karpov sped up the end with
31...Re7?!.
On the other hand, the seemingly active 31...Ra2 would also not work, in
view of 32.Na5! Kg7 33.Nab7+–.
32.Ra1!

Once again, Anand applies the no-exchange rule, but this time with decisive
effect since Black cannot oppose the rook’s intrusion via the a-file.
32...Rc7 33.Ra6 Qd8 34.Qf4!+–
The simplest. Black has no good defense against the upcoming deflection
tactic.
34...Kg7 35.Rxf6 Qxf6 36.Qxc7+ Kg8 37.Kg2 Qf5 38.Qe7 h6 39.Nc1 g5
40.hxg5 hxg5 41.N1d3 Nd2 42.Qe2 Nc4 43.Ne5 Kg7 44.Ng4 Ng6
45.Qe6 Qxe6 46.Nxe6+ 1-0
Ironically, Anand defeated Karpov with the kind of play that was his own
bread and butter back in the day: gradually outplaying his opponent in a
patient positional manner and then delivering a final tactical blow as a
result of all the accumulated positional advantages.
Let us now look at two model games in the French center pawn structure.
Game 66
Sergey Karjakin 2779

Alexander Grischuk 2763
Astana Wch Rapid 2012 (4)
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2 Ne7 6.0-0 h6 7.Nbd2 Nd7
8.Nb3
We have reached a tabiya of the extremely popular Short Variation of the
Caro-Kann. It is surely one of the strategically most interesting and
complex variations in modern opening theory. Both sides have a variety of
strategic ideas at their disposal and we will see a couple of them in this
game. While Black is reasonably happy to have his light-squared bishop
outside the ‘French’ pawn chain, his main issue is lack of space, which
makes his development slightly awkward. Particularly problematic is the
knight on e7, which is in the way of the other bishop. The ideal square for it
would be c6, but the purpose of White’s last move was exactly to clamp
down on Black’s plan to push ...c6-c5. Black has, therefore, tried several
other ways to complete his kingside development in practice. Grischuk’s
choice

8...Bg6
is fairly rare, but still reasonable in that context. The idea is to clear the f5-
square for the knight. To get a full picture of the strategic ideas for Black in
this position, let us look at the most important alternatives:
A) A different way to shuffle the bishop and the knight is 8...Bh7, preparing
. . .Ne7-g6, ...Bf8-e7, etc.;
B) Yet another typical knight maneuver is 8...Nc8 – again, clearing the e7-
square for the bishop and preparing the ...c6-c5 break. Needless to say, the
knight is disturbing the coordination of heavy pieces on this square, so it
needs to be relocated eventually;
C) Recently, Black players have tried to solve the problem of kingside
development with the risky-looking move 8...g5!?. The idea is to leave the
knight on e7, develop with ...Bg7, and if possible, attack White’s pawn
center with ...f7-f6. This seems to be the main direction for Black these
days.
9.a4 Nf5 10.a5!
While it seems like White is just generally taking space on the queenside
with this pawn push, its main purpose is more concrete – to prepare c2-c4
by taking away the b6-square from the black knight. This can be best seen
in case of the premature 10.c4 dxc4 11.Bxc4 when Black plays 11...Nb6=
and obtains a nice outpost on d5, basically solving the opening problems
that we have just talked about.
10...Rc8
Grischuk prepares the thematic ...c6-c5 break, but Karjakin strikes in the
center first.
11.c4 Be7

This time around, 11...dxc4 12.Bxc42 would leave Black with a rather
passive knight on d7.
12.cxd5 cxd5
(back to the PREVIEW)
In this French-like pawn structure, White enjoys a space advantage, but
Black can boast of having a ‘good’ French bishop on the b1-h7 diagonal.
Since both sides are about to complete their development, the main question
is which plan should White employ in the transitional phase? Karjakin
provides a satisfying answer with his next couple of moves.
13.Bd3! 0-0 14.g4 Nh4 15.Nxh4 Bxd3 16.Qxd3 Bxh4 17.Bd2
The point of the exchanging operation was to clear the b1-h7 diagonal for
the typical kingside expansion with f2-f4-f5. Grischuk logically preempts
this plan with
17...f5,

blocking the key f5-square.
It makes little sense for White to surrender his space advantage by taking en
passant, so Karjakin continued:
18.h3 Qe7 19.f42
The situation is pretty clear-cut. White controls more space on both flanks,
but Black is very solid. Typically, in this structure White tries to work with
the g-file and Black with the c-file. A good circumstance for White is that
he controls a lot of squares on the queenside, which makes Black’s task of
developing queenside counterplay that much more difficult. I suppose that
Karjakin was aware of this going into this type of position around moves
12-14. Over the next 5-6 moves, both players will maneuver logically,
trying to make improvements on their respective battlefields.
19...a6 20.Kh2 Qf7 21.Rf3 Rc4 22.Rg1 Rfc8 23.Bc3!
With this move, Karjakin not only barricades the c-file, but also clears the
d2-square for the knight. This idle knight will soon assume the crucial role
in White’s plans.

23...Kh8 24.Nd2 R4c6 25.Nf1!
The key move of White’s strategy. Grischuk has kept a solid blockade of
the kingside with his pawn on f5 and bishop on h4, so Karjakin plans to
remove it. For that purpose, he will maneuver the knight to e3 first, where it
would provoke a weakening of Black’s pawn structure with ...g7-g6, and
then to g2 in order to expel the bishop from h4 and double the rooks on the
g-file. Meanwhile, Black has a more difficult time developing his queenside
counterplay.
25...g6 26.Ne3 Nf8?
Grischuk abandons the fight for the g-file with this move and leaves the
defensive duties to the knight. However, this allows Karjakin to force a
favorable change in the pawn structure, as we will see in the game. Instead,
he could have kept the structural integrity with 26...Rg8 27.Ng2 Be7
28.Rg3 Rcc8, because of the possibility to recapture ...gxf5 when White
takes on f5. In Grischuk’s defense, these retreating rook maneuvers are not
particularly attractive nor intuitive from a human point of view. I reckon

that most people would want to keep both rooks on the queenside for
counterplay.
27.Ng2 Be7 28.Rg3 b5
Grischuk finally launches his queenside counterplay, but it comes a bit late
to trouble White.
29.axb6 Rxb6 30.gxf5 exf5 31.Ne3±
Grischuk had no choice but to recapture with the e-pawn on f5, which
leaves him with two vulnerable pawns on d5 and g6. Meanwhile, all the
white pawns are very well defended. It is clear that Karjakin has won a
small strategic battle and that he is in an even better position now to slowly
build up his advantage. However, the logical flow of the game was
interrupted by Grischuk’s tactical blunder, not uncommon for games with
shorter time controls.
31...Rb5??

Instead, he should have played 31...Bd8, when the piece sacrifice
32.Nxf5?! gxf5 33.Qxf5 does not quite work in view of 33...Rc7!∞. Of
course, White wouldn’t have to go for this, and instead, could keep pressing
positionally with 32.Ra1!?, for example, highlighting another pawn
weakness in Black’s camp.
32.Nxf5! gxf5 33.Qxf5!
Breaking the blockade. Grischuk’s position falls apart as he cannot take the
queen, so he resigned.
Game 67
Boris Spassky 2630
Viktor Kortchnoi 2665
Belgrade ct m 1978 (18)
1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bd7 6.Be2 Nge7 7.Na3 cxd4
8.cxd4 Nf5 9.Nc2 Nb4 10.Ne3 Nxe3 11.fxe3 Be7 12.a3 Nc6 13.b4 a6!

Compared to the previous game, Black has a more passive light-squared
bishop, which is normal for the French Defense. With his last move,
Kortchnoi prepared a standard knight maneuver with the aim to offer its
exchange on the b5-square.
14.Rb1 Na7 15.a4
Spassky’s reaction was expected because the bishop exchange on b5 would
bring immediate relief to Black. However, this also leaves the white
queenside pawns a bit vulnerable. Kortchnoi tried to exploit this with
15...Nc6.
When I saw this game for the first time, I was impressed by this back-and-
forth knight maneuver with the aim of provoking weaknesses on the
queenside. However, further analysis revealed that Black had a better way
to target the pawns with the simple move 15...0 -0, the point being that after
16.0 -0, he has an unpleasant 16...Qe8!, when White doesn’t have a good
way of keeping the queenside bind. Considering this threat, White should
probably play 16.b5, but then Black gets the a-file and a good outpost for
the knight after 16...axb5 17.axb5 Nc8!, with fully equal play.
16.Bd2 a5
With this prepared follow-up, Kortchnoi secures an outpost for the knight.
17.b5 Nb4 18.0-0 0 -0
If the black knight was not placed so actively, White could claim a clear
advantage. However, its presence on b4 impedes White’s attacking
ambitions – Bd3 is not possible and Black’s counterplay on the c-file can be
annoying. In a must-win game (he was trailing by two points in the match
with three games to go), Spassky really had no choice but to try to mount an
attack on the kingside, so he played

19.Qe1 Kh8.
With this move, Kortchnoi seeks a direct fight in the center by preparing the
typical ...f7-f6 break. The natural alternative was 19...Rc8 20.Qg3 Na2!?,
trying to create counterplay on the c-file. A sample line is 21.Bd3 Nc3
22.Rb2 Ne4=.
20.Qg3 f6 21.Rbc1?!
A slight strategic inaccuracy by Spassky. He preferred to keep the position
closed, but a greater potential lay in opening it up with 21.exf6 gxf6
22.Rbc1. There is still everything to play for in this type of position, but a
better pawn structure and a safer king would have promised White a slight
advantage. A possible variation is 22...Rg8 23.Qf4 Rg7 24.e42.
21...f5!
After this move, the pawn structure becomes similar to Karjakin-Grischuk.
Compared to that game, Black has a stronger case for counterplay on the c-
file, while White’s kingside play doesn’t seem to be that dangerous.

However, there is one positional element that works in White’s favor (and
was not present in the previous game) that Spassky did not take advantage
of. I am talking about the f4-outpost. If he had managed to transfer his
knight there, I believe his chances would have been better. Anyway, the
game continued logically:
22.h4 Rc8 23.h5 Rxc1 24.Rxc1 Na2 25.Ra1 Nb4
Considering the match situation, the great fighter Kortchnoi was not
opposed to a draw by repetition, but Spassky had to decline it, of course.
26.Qh3 Be8
Similar to Karjakin in the previous game, Spassky has gained space and
taken control over some important squares with the advance of the rook’s
pawn, only on the other side of the board. This is an important strategic idea
worth keeping in your toolbox. However, in itself this is not such a big
accomplishment – White still needs to play g2-g4 to make real threats.
Spassky had the right idea when he played

27.Kf2?!,
clearing the g1-square for the rook to strengthen the g2-g4 break. However,
there are two problems with this plan. Firstly, Kortchnoi will prove in the
game that this plan can be neutralized. Secondly, there was a stronger
positional move 27.g3!2, preparing the knight maneuver Nf3-e1-g2-f4.
With the knight on the perfect f4-outpost, the g3-g4 break would not only
gain in strength, but Black would also be devoid of the counterplay on the f-
file that he had in the game. In the previous game, a similar knight
maneuver brought Karjakin nice positional dividends, yet Spassky
obviously did not think in this direction, trying to open the kingside as soon
as possible.
27...Qb6 28.g4 g5!
This is the key. Kortchnoi fights back with this fine defensive move.
29.hxg6 Bxg6 30.g5
I believe that this was a turning point in the game. So far, Spassky has had a
slight initiative, slowly preparing a kingside attack thanks to his space
advantage. However, Kortchnoi completely changed the course of the game
with
30...f4!„

(back to the PREVIEW)
A textbook dynamic decision! With this pawn sacrifice, Kortchnoi takes
over the initiative by opening up the corridors for his light-squared bishop,
rook, and queen, while also exposing the d4-pawn and, most importantly,
the white king. Black’s seemingly passive pieces will soon display their full
dynamic potential.
31.exf4 Nc2 32.Rd1 Be4?
The pawn on d4 was untouchable due to the Be3 pin. However, this
(attr)active move is also not the right solution because of a tactical
drawback that went unnoticed. Kortchnoi had an opportunity to activate his
last piece with 32...Ba3!, preparing to attack the d4-pawn in an unusual way
–
with ...Bb2!. While the position remains unclear, it seems like much more
fun for Black.

33.Be3?
Spassky misses his last chance to get an advantage – he will not get another
one. The right move was 33.Bc1!±, not only defending the central pawn,
but also preparing 34.Bd3!, when Black starts feeling some heat around his
king, as well (with g5-g6 and Rd1-h1 in the air).
33...Nxe3 34.Kxe3 Qc7!
In the absence of the dark-squared bishop, White’s king starts to feel
exposed.
35.g6 Bxg6 36.Qxe6 Ba3!
The bishop uses the whole board to join the attack.
37.Qxd5 Bc1+ 38.Kf2 Bxf4 39.Qc4?
My guess is Spassky was in time trouble because this is quite a poor
decision. He could still have kept things interesting with 39.Bc4!∞, since

39...Bh5 would be met by 40.Rg1, with a mating threat on g8.
39...Qg7!
This quiet queen maneuver is enormously powerful. Black threatens
. . .Bg3+, ...Be4, and ...Qh6 followed by ...Be3+ and against all these threats,
there is no good defense. White’s king is about to fall under a decisive
attack.
40.Rg1 Qh6 41.Qc3 Bd2
As games were adjourned back then, this was the move that Kortchnoi had
sealed. Spassky’s team, realizing the uselessness of further resistance in this
sad position, resigned the game and the match without a continuation. Here
is a sample variation that shows the monstrous attack that Spassky would be
exposed to if he had continued the game:
42.Qa3 Be4 43.Rh1 Qf4 44.Rh3 Bb4 45.Qb3 Qg4 46.Rg3 Be1+!–+

In my view, this game is an impressive display of the dynamic potential of
the black position in the French pawn structure. Definitely a model game in
my book (database, actually).
These are just a few of many excellent examples that I have in my
databases with typical pawn structures. I would encourage you to collect
such model games routinely yourself, just as you would collect opening
ideas or solve tactical puzzles. You might need to spend a couple of more
hours a week going through tournament games, databases, or chess
periodicals, but this work is not in vain. Such systemized and broad
knowledge comes in handy in your games, as it allows you to simplify
complex middlegame problems into more manageable or familiar ones, and,
consequently, make more informed positional and strategic decisions.
Next, I would like to show how a general positional or strategic concept
can be studied in a similar, systematic way.
Piece exchanges
One of the skills that immediately reveals a player’s class is the ability to
make the right and avoid the wrong piece exchanges. Chess players who are
not very proficient in this area often do not realize which piece exchanges
are favorable for them and which are not, and they view them merely as a
way to simplify the position. However, this simplistic attitude inevitably
gets punished by players with a deeper strategic understanding. As Peter
Svidler put it nicely: ‘If your opponent wants to exchange pieces, let him
exchange, but on your conditions. So that any exchange slightly damages
his position. A chance will arrive...’ .
Of course, every educated chess player knows in theory not to exchange
their strong pieces for the opponent’s weak pieces and vice versa, but things
are not always that simple in practice. In reality, an exchange is often used
as a strategic tool to achieve certain positional goals, sometimes even by
breaking the well-accepted positional rules, such as the one that I just
mentioned (more on that later in Larsen’s and Anand’s games!). Thus, I find
piece exchanges to be a rather subtle and important topic, yet somewhat
neglected by the middlegame literature. I would like to present several

instructive examples on this topic, peppered with a mini-test at the end of
the chapter, which will hopefully spark your interest in it. We will start with
a model game in which Ding Liren, currently one of the strongest players in
the world, gives a masterclass in positional play. The instructive value of
this game is primarily in the convincing execution of the main strategic
idea: avoiding piece exchanges. GM Suba formulated a useful guideline for
it: ‘The most important strategic piece should be protected from exchange.’
Game 68
Ding Liren 2759
Li Yankai 2392
China tt 2017 (3)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Be7 7.0-0 Nc6
8.Nbd2 Nxd2 9.Bxd2 Bg4 10.c3 0-0 11.h3 Bh5 12.Qe2 Re8 13.Rae1 Bd6
14.Qd1 Rxe1 15.Rxe1 Bg6
(back to the PREVIEW)
In this typical symmetrical Petroff structure, White has a very slight edge
thanks to the somewhat better placement of his pieces, the knight in

particular. With his last move, Black has offered a trade of bishops and
Ding Liren had an interesting strategic decision to make – to trade or not?
He decided on
16.Bf1!?.
On the surface, it may seem strange to surrender a long diagonal to your
opponent this way, but Ding Liren’s logic is not without its merit. Piece
exchanges generally favor Black in this structure, each one getting him
closer to full equality. By keeping more pieces on the board, White keeps
more options open; for example, he could activate the bishop with c3-c4 or
g2-g3, etc. That said, he could also have exchanged the bishops: 16.Bxg6
hxg6, followed by 17.Qe2, establishing control of the e-file. He could later
try to exploit the doubled pawns with moves like Nf3-g5 and h3-h4-h5. On
the other hand, all of this might be too slow if Black is somehow in time to
oppose on the e-file and neutralize his slight initiative. Ding Liren didn’t
want to take that chance and preferred to keep things strategically more
complex. And this approach proved correct, because his opponent made a
small positional mistake on the very next move.
16...Qd7?!
This allows White to win the bishop pair. 16...Be4 would have been better,
putting the bishop to good use.
17.Nh4! Ne7
17...Be4 doesn’t change too much now, as after 18.f3 Bg6 19.Nxg6 hxg6
20.Bd32, White still wins the bishop pair. Perhaps Black can consider
provoking the weakening of the dark squares on the kingside an
accomplishment, but White could make a similar claim about the doubling
of the g-pawns.
18.Nxg6 Nxg6 19.g3!2

Ding Liren is making sure that Li Yankai cannot exchange the dark-squared
bishops on the f4-square. He can now claim a slight advantage thanks to his
bishop pair. It may not seem like much, especially in a semi-closed position
where Black does not have clear weaknesses, but Ding Liren will
demonstrate how to utilize this slight positional advantage to obtain greater
ones. Please pay attention to his strategy to avoid piece trades that could
simplify Black’s play in the next phase of the game.
19...c6 20.Kg2 Nf8
In case of 20...Re8, White could use a nice tactical motif to push Black’s
queen back: 21.Qg4! Qd8 22.Bg5 Qb8 and only then 23.Be3!2, avoiding
unnecessary piece exchanges.
21.Qe2

21...Qe6?!
This is not the best way to fight for the e-file. Stronger was 21...Ne6, with
the idea to ‘fianchetto’ the knight after 22.h4 g6! 23.h5 Ng7, followed by
. . .Re8. White still keeps a slight edge, but Black would be closer to making
a favorable trade of one major piece this way. For example: 24.hxg6 hxg6
25.Qf3 Re8 26.Rd1 Qf5, and the queen trade could not be avoided.
22.Qf3!
While there is no doubt that the rook and minor pieces endgame after
22.Qxe6 Nxe6 23.Bd3 would be better for White, Ding Liren’s decision to
keep the queens on the board is more to the point, because this gives him an
additional (and important) possibility of a kingside attack in the
middlegame.
22...Qd7 23.h4 Re8

(back to the PREVIEW)
24.Rd1!
Ding Liren follows the ‘no-exchange’ policy to a tee. Black was looking
forward to the piece trade 24.Rxe8 Qxe8 that would facilitate his defense.
After 25.Bd3 Ne6 26.h5 g6, his position would be quite solid.
He may control the e-file now in theory, but this is not of much use in
practice because there are no infiltration points. Once the bishop comes to
d3, White will control all the central and kingside squares from the first to
the fifth, and even sixth rank. This is the power of the bishop pair. Black is
basically confined to a passive waiting game as he lacks a constructive plan.
Faced with such uninspiring prospects, Li Yankai tried to display some
activity with
24...Re6?!.
However, the rook has no business on the sixth rank. Once again, 24...Ne6
was more to the point.

25.Bd3 Rf6 26.Qe2 h6?!
This is a wrong pawn push. Black wanted to prevent Bg5 to keep the rook
on f6, but besides being useless (what exactly is the rook doing there?), it is
also structurally problematic since it:
1. leaves the b1-h7 diagonal wide open; and
2. creates a hook for the pawn attack with g3-g4-g5, etc.
We have already seen in a couple of previous variations that Black should
limit the scope of the light-squared bishop with 26...g6. Naturally, White
would open the h-file with 27.h5 Ne6 28.Rh1 Ng7 29.hxg6 fxg6 30.Bg5,
when his position is obviously more pleasant, but Black would still be fairly
solid.
27.Bc2±
A simple move, clearing the d3-square for a potential diagonal battery.
White’s positional advantage has grown to significant proportions as a
result of Ding Liren’s patient strategy to improve his pieces without making
exchanges, as well as his opponent’s positional inaccuracies.

27...Ng6 28.Re1 Nf8 29.Qh5 Ne6 30.Qe2 Nf8
After some moves to buy time before move 40, Ding Liren proceeds with
the main plan:
31.b4!
Initiating play on the new front. Black will have new positional challenges
to solve as White tries to create the second weakness on the queenside. We
could say that, even though Black has no tangible weaknesses on the
kingside, the whole kingside is his first weakness because it is potentially
vulnerable to the attack. The next stage of the game is interesting from the
perspective of the ‘two weaknesses’ strategy – in the middlegame!
31...Re6 32.Be3
Of course, Black should not be allowed to exchange pieces for free.
32...Re7 33.Qf3 Qe8 34.Rh1!

Ding Liren attacks on both wings, making the opponent’s defensive task
even more difficult. It was also possible to immediately strike on the
queenside with 34.b5!?, followed by Rb1, but Ding Liren’s strategy to
dominate the whole board is even more instructive.
34...Re6
In case of something like 34...Nd7, White would be ready to launch a
kingside attack at once: 35.g4.
35.a4
Ding Liren is in no rush to do anything, alternating queenside with kingside
initiative on each move. Impressive display of technique.
35...a6
Structurally, this looks bad, but even if Black tried to sit tight without
making any structural concessions with something like 35...Bc7, White
makes progress with 36.b5 Bd6 37.bxc6 bxc6 38.Rb1, and with c3-c4 at the
right moment, Black will soon find himself in a critical position.
36.a5!

Now, the b7-pawn is a permanent ‘second weakness’. Mission
accomplished.
36...Rf6 37.Qd1 Re6 38.Bf5!
Ding Liren already sets his sights on the weakling on b7. Do I need to
mention that this move would not be possible if Black had simply played
. . .g7-g6 earlier?
38...Rf6?!
Self-trapping your rook is rarely a good idea. 38...Re7 looked more
sensible.
39.Qd3 g6?
The final mistake, but Black was probably already tired of defending
passively. His last line of defense was 39...Ne6 40.Bd2 Nc7 41.Re1 Qf8,
playing without the rook but keeping all other weak squares under control.

Ding Liren would still need to find an idea or two to break this shaky set-
up.
40.Bh3
White is winning now since the h6-pawn cannot be defended properly.
40...Qe4+
40...Kg7 41.Qd2 h5 42.Bg5 Qe4+ 43.Kh2 Rf3 44.Bg2+– finally traps the
poor rook.
41.Qxe4 dxe4 42.Bc8! 1-0
Curiously, Black lost exactly because of the second weakness. While this
positional masterpiece is instructive on many levels (no-exchange strategy,
bishop pair advantage in a symmetrical semi-closed position, two
weaknesses strategy in the middlegame), what I found particularly amusing
about it, is that the white pieces effectively crossed the middle of the board
just two times (36.a5 and 38.Bf5) and Black had a losing position! In that
sense, this is a particularly valuable game for players who think that games
should be won primarily by aggressive or tactical means.
As pretty much every rule in chess has an exception, so does this one. In
some positions, exactly trading off a strategically important piece for an
apparently less important one can be the best decision. We will see a couple
of compelling examples on this topic. The first one may be well-known
from some other sources, but even if you have seen it before, I believe that
it is worth revisiting.
Game 69
Eleazar Jimenez
Bent Larsen
Palma de Mallorca 1967 (9)

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 dxe5 5.Nxe5 g6 6.Bc4 Be6 7.Bb3 Bg7
8.0-0 0-0 9.Qe2 a5 10.Nc3 c6 11.Nxd5 cxd5 12.a4 Nc6 13.c3 Qb6 14.Ba2
White did not impress with his opening play, so Black is already quite
comfortable. What would most people do here as Black? Probably capture
the knight on e5 with... well, the knight, of course. Instead of that, Larsen
did something pretty outrageous by classical positional standards.
14...Bxe5!
Giving up your fianchettoed bishop when the opponent still has one might
look like playing with fire – how will Black defend the dark squares around
his king? Moreover, why did he even make this exchange and not a more
natural-looking one? Larsen will provide answers to these questions over
the next couple of moves.
In case of 14...Nxe5 15.dxe5, Black would be doing well after 15...d4 (or
15...Qa6 16.Qxa6 Rxa6 17.Re1=) 16.Bxe6 fxe6, but the position would
remain balanced. Larsen was more ambitious.
15.dxe5 d4!

This was the prepared follow-up. I give the word to Larsen himself: ‘Black
has excellent play. He took the initiative in the center, while White’s pawns
on the queenside and in the center are weak. It does not happen too often
that this kind of a bishop trade is good – its role is to defend the king!
Jimenez was very surprised by this, even after the game. However, White
cannot succeed with his kingside attack, his bishop is too ‘strong’ for that.
Meanwhile, Black controls the center.’
16.Bh6?!
Larsen’s original strategic idea already bears fruit. Tempted by the
prospects of a kingside attack, Jimenez plays this active, but, as it will turn
out, inaccurate move that gives Black an extra tempo to centralize his rook.
It was already time to think about equalizing. White could probably manage
to do it with 16.Bxe6 fxe6 17.Qg4! Rf5! (the point being: 17...Nxe5?!
18.Qe4! Rf5 19.cxd4) 18.cxd4 Qxd4 19.Qxd4 Nxd4 20.Be3, with drawing
chances in the endgame.
16...Rfd8 17.Bxe6 fxe63

While Black’s king seems very exposed after these exchanges, there is not
much White can do about it. He has more pressing problems to solve in the
center; namely, to defend his e5-pawn and block the opponent’s d-pawn.
We can safely say Black is already better.
18.Rfe1
18.cxd4 was hardly any better in view of 18...Qxd4 19.Rfe1 Rd5, and the e-
pawn falls without compensation.
18...Rd5 19.Bf4 Rf8 20.g3 Rf5!
Thanks to superior strategic vision, Larsen has besieged the weak e-pawn
with all his forces, while turning the white pieces, particularly the bishop,
into mere spectators.
21.Rad1?
This move surrenders the queenside as well. Larsen gives 21.h4 as White’s
best chance, with the following continuation: 21...d3 22.Qd2 Qd8! 23.Rad1
Nxe5 24.Bxe5 Rfxe5 25.Rxe5 Rxe5, and Black wins a pawn with good
winning chances since 26.Qxd3? fails to 26...Rd5–+ .
21...Qb3! 22.h4 Qxa4 23.Qe4 Qb3 24.cxd4 Qxb2 25.Rb1?
The final, this time a tactical, mistake, which is nicely refuted by Larsen.
Truth be told, even after the relatively best 25.Be3, White’s position would
remain rotten.
25...Qxd4 26.Rxb7

Here is a tactical puzzle for you: Black to move and win.
26...Rdxe5! 27.Qb1
The point is that after 27.Bxe5, there is 27...Qxf2+ 28.Kh1 Rxe5 29.Rb8+
Kg7 30.Qxe5+ Nxe5 31.Rxe5 Qxg3–+, and Black takes all white pawns.
27...Rxe1+ 28.Qxe1 Qd5
The rest is fairly trivial.
29.Qc1 Nd4 30.Rb8+ Rf8 31.Rxf8+ Kxf8 32.Bh6+ Ke8 33.Qc8+ Qd8
34.Qc4 Nf5 35.Bf4 Kf7 36.Be5 Qd1+ 37.Kh2 Qd2 38.Qc5 a4 39.Bc3
Qc2 40.Kg1 Qd1+ 41.Kh2 Qd5 42.Qb4 Qf3 43.Kg1 a3 0-1
Anyone who thinks that studying classical games of the strong players of
the past is not of much value might change their mind when they see the
next ‘twin’ game.
Game 70
Vladislav Tkachiev 2672

Alexander Morozevich 2745
France tt 2001 (2)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 a6 5.Qc2 g6 6.Bd3 Bg7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.0-0
Bg4 9.Ne5 Be6 10.cxd5 Nxd5 11.Nxd5 cxd5 12.Bd2 Qb6 13.Rfc1
(back to the PREVIEW)
13...Bxe5!
Morozevich uses a remarkably similar strategic concept as Larsen against
Jimenez some 35 years before him!
Also similarly to the previous game, he could have gone for a knight
exchange; in this case with 13...Nd7 14.Nxd7 Bxd7, which would allow
him to ‘only’ equalize the game, since the tempting 15.Qc7?! Qxc7
16.Rxc7 does not work for White in view of 16...Bc6 17.Bb4 Bf6! 18.Bxe7
Bxe7 19.Rxe7 Rfc8 20.e4 Kf8 21.Re5 dxe4! 22.Bxe4 Bxe4 23.Rxe4 Rc2,
and if anyone is better in the endgame, it is Black.
14.dxe5 Nc6 15.Bc3 Rfd8 16.Qd2 Rd7 17.Bf1 d4!

Just like Larsen, Morozevich takes the initiative in the center with this pawn
push. White has no good way of organizing a kingside attack in these
circumstances.
18.exd4 Nxd4 19.Qe3 Qd8 20.Be2 Rc8 21.h3 Kg7 22.Kh2 h6 23.Bg4?!
Tkachiev makes an inferior version of the exchange of the light-squared
bishops compared to Jimenez-Larsen. There, White at least doubled the
black pawns in the process, while here White voluntarily doubles his own.
It was better to retreat 23.Bf1, when Black would keep the positional
initiative after 23...b5. I think that anyone would take Black here, despite
the engine claiming that it is an equal position.
23...Bxg4 24.hxg4 e63

Morozevich obtained a similar kind of knight over bishop domination and a
superior pawn structure as Larsen in his game. Later in the game, Tkachiev
traded the bishop for the knight, but he remained with the weak e5- and g4-
pawns in the major pieces’ endgame. Despite having some practical
chances to save the game, he did not manage to hold it.
25.Qe4 Nb5 26.Ba5 Qh4+ 27.Kg1 Rxc1+ 28.Rxc1 Qg5 29.Re1 Rd5
30.Bb6 Qd2 31.Qe2 Qb4 32.Be3 Nd4 33.Bxd4 Rxd4 34.a3 Qa4 35.Qf3
Rf4 36.Qxb7 Rd4 37.Rf1 Rxg4 38.Qf3 Rg5 39.Qf6+ Kg8 40.Rc1 Qd7
41.b4 Rf5 42.Qh4 Qd2 43.Rf1 Rxe5 44.Qc4 Qe2 45.Qf4 Kg7 46.Qd4
Kh7 47.a4 Rd5 48.Qc3 Rd1 49.Rxd1 Qxd1+ 50.Kh2 Qxa4 51.Qc7 Qe8
52.Qb7 Kg7 53.Qxa6 Qb8+ 54.g3 Qxb4 0-1
The final example features two remarkable strategic decisions that, in my
humble opinion, are on par with Larsen’s in terms of their originality. I hope
that the reader will not mind that the example is taken from an endgame
rather than the middlegame – I would not want to miss showing these
brilliant ideas for the sake of compartmentalizing study areas!

Game 71
Vasily Ivanchuk 2720
Viswanathan Anand 2690
Linares m 1992 (1)
White to move
(back to the PREVIEW)
In a fairly normal Sicilian position, Ivanchuk decided to simplify matters
with
16.Nd5 Qxd2 17.Nxf6+?.
This ‘automatic’ intermezzo, which was a part of Ivanchuk’s plan to
exchange queens, was based on a conditioned reflex – he expected Anand
to recapture with the bishop. In hindsight, it would have been better to play
17.Rxd2 Nxd5 18.exd5 Bd7, where it would be a bit optimistic to say that
Black is better, but his position does seem to be easier to play considering
White’s weaknesses.

Alas, Anand shocked him with
17...gxf6!!.
A fantastic move that shows the depth of Anand’s strategic understanding.
The point behind it is that he can take the initiative on the h-file with the
subsequent ...h6-h5. This would not have been possible in case of the more
natural 17...Bxf6 18.Rxd2. Black could still get a fine position with 18...Rd8
19.h4 d5=, but the counterintuitive game continuation is definitely stronger.
18.Rxd2 h5 19.Rg1
This seems like the most logical way to protect the pawn, since 19.Be2
would allow Black to infiltrate with his rook after 19...hxg4 20.fxg4 Rh33.
Surprisingly, though, this was a lesser evil, as we will see in the game.
19...hxg4 20.fxg4
It seems like White is about to consolidate with h2-h3, when the blockade
of the d- and f-pawns would give him at least equal chances. However,
Anand crushed these optimistic expectations with another stunning move:
20...Bc4!!

In positions with weak d5- and f5-squares (very common in the Boleslavsky
pawn structure), how often do you voluntarily trade your light-squared
bishop? Almost never! It is an important strategic piece that you typically
preserve from an exchange. Moreover, in this pawn constellation, we can
consider White’s light-squared bishop as a ‘bad’ one, which makes Anand’s
decision to exchange his good bishop even more confusing on the surface.
This is how Anand explains it: ‘In time to stop White getting some sort of
fortress on the kingside. Black’s ‘bad’ bishop will protect his pawns while
he exchanges towards connected h- and g-passers.’
Okay, you might say, but what about the weaknesses on d5 and f5 once the
light-squared bishops are exchanged? Well, these ‘academic’ weaknesses
will be irrelevant, because White will have no pieces to exploit them – his
rooks will be too busy defending weak kingside pawns.
Alright then, but what about the ‘bad’ bishop on e7?
As a matter of fact, when I give this position as a positional puzzle to
students, about half of them, especially those below the master level,
suggest the move 20...Bf8?, with the idea to exchange the ‘bad’ dark-
squared bishop for White’s good one via h6. This is a reasonable positional

idea, but strategically speaking it is much inferior to Anand’s ‘anti-
positional’ bishops’ trade. This can be seen in the following, more or less,
forced variation: 21.h3 Ke7 22.Bg2 Bh6 23.Bxh6 Rxh6 24.Rgd1 Rb6=.
Black is fine, but that’s about it. His pawns are blockaded and there is not
much he can do to improve the position. On the other hand, we can see how
White’s ‘bad’ bishop is doing a great defensive job, whereas Black’s ‘good’
bishop is practically useless. Anand applied a similar idea in the game with
his own ‘bad’ bishop – it remained on e7, defending the backward d- and f-
pawns while the rooks attacked along the semi-open files.
21.b3 Bxf1 22.Rxf1 Rh3μ
Now that this square is under Black’s control and the white pawns are split,
the initiative is firmly in his hands.
23.Re2
Another possibility was 23.Bg1!? (preparing to challenge the black rook
with Rfd1 and Rd3). Here, I really like the breakthrough motif in the
following variation: 23...Rh4 24.Rg2 Kd7 25.Rf3 Rg8 26.h3 Rgh8 27.Rh2,
and now: 27...f5!!.

analysis diagram
Powerful stuff. With this temporary pawn sacrifice, Black breaks the central
blockade and releases his whole pawn chain. 28.exf5 e4 29.Re3 d5 30.Rc3
Bd6! 31.Rg2 Rxh3 32.Rxh3 Rxh3μ.
23...Kd7!
The king not only clears the eighth rank for the other rook, but also prepares
to assume the role of the missing bishop on e6.
24.g5 Ke6 25.gxf6 Bxf6 26.Bd2 Be7!
A nice regrouping by Anand. His plan is to play ...f7-f6 and push ...d6-d5.
27.Be1 f6 28.Bg3 d5 29.exd5+ Kxd5

Anand’s strategy was a success! Even though material is equal, this
endgame is nearly winning because the two connected pawns in the center
are much stronger than the disconnected backward pawns on h2 and c2.
Over the next few moves, Ivanchuk had a practical chance to make Anand’s
conversion task more difficult, but he missed it and the ex-World
Champion’s technique was impeccable from that point on.
30.Rf5 Kc6 31.Ref2 Rh6 32.Kb2 Kd7 33.Re2 Bd6 34.Rf3 Rc8 35.Be1
Ke6–+

The pawns are finally ready to roll!
36.Rd3 Rh7 37.Rg3 Bc5 38.Ka2 Rd7 39.Rc3 Rcc7 40.h4 Rd1 41.Bf2 Bd6
42.Rg3 e4!
A pretty finish.
43.Rxe4+ Be5 44.Rxe5+ fxe5 45.Kb2 Rd2 0-1
Positional play vs Strategy
If you were to take Anand’s moves 17...gxf6 and 20...Bc4 in a vacuum; that
is, not connected to a greater strategic idea, you would not be wrong to
conclude that they are positionally bad (resulting in doubled and backward
pawns, bad bishop, weak squares). Something similar could be said about
Larsen’s 14...Bxe5 and 15...d4 (weak king, doubled pawns). However, these
examples clearly show how positional play, while sometimes used
interchangeably with strategy in chess terminology, is often subordinated to
it. I think that GM Jacob Aagaard made a good and simple distinction
between these two terms: ‘A positional decision is in my definition: A small
decision that reacts to the piece placement or pawn structure with

immediate effect.’ . .. ‘Strategy is more than basic understanding of piece and
pawn placement, more than just good square and weak pawn. Strategy is
positional elements in dynamic action.’
I would like to highlight Aagaard’s last sentence. We have already talked
extensively about dynamics in Chapter 6, but only in a tactical context.
Regardless of the different context, the principle is the same – dynamics are
present whenever we initiate a purposeful change in the position with a
maximum time economy. Coming back to our two examples, in the first
game, Larsen initiated a central operation with the goal to take the initiative
there, while in the other one, Anand had a similar idea, only on the
kingside. In both cases, they were ready to sacrifice some sacred positional
cows to make their strategies work. This is what modern strategy is about,
as many chess authors, such as the already mentioned Mihai Suba and John
Watson, have elaborated in their works.
Positional evaluation models
Of course, positional principles are important in chess, and we routinely
make good or bad positional decisions – improving or weakening some
element of a position – without them being a part of some bigger strategic
idea. Since these principles are many, chess players typically like to follow
positional models that capture the most relevant ones and that are robust
enough to help them evaluate and make the right positional decisions in
various types of positions. Here are some of them:
Table 8.1: Positional models
Positional model
Author
Positional
evaluation/decision
making elements
Three positional
questions
Jacob Aagaard
Where are the
weaknesses?
Which is the worst-
placed piece?

Positional model
Author
Positional
evaluation/decision
making elements
What is your
opponent’s idea?
The Method in
Chess
Iosif Dorfman
Position of the king
Material
Transfer into the
endgame
Weaknesses-pawns and
squares
My own positional
model from my
youth
slightly modified from the
one suggested by Alexander
Kotov
Pawn structure
Position of the pieces
Control of space and
center
Weak squares and
square complexes
Open files, ranks and
diagonals
As you can see, there are overlaps, but also some significant differences
between these models. Trying to prove which one is the best would be
pointless, since there is hardly the one positional model that can help you
evaluate the position correctly and make the right decision in every single
instance. Models are just a representation of reality, and, as such, they are

not always 100% accurate. Thus, one should be flexible rather than
dogmatic with their application. As long as you get some benefit from
looking at positional issues this way, you should be fine.
In my experience, these checklist-type positional models are useful for
improving players as a way to increase their awareness of various positional
elements in a game and direct their attention toward more abstract aspects
of a position. However, I believe that it is best if they are used primarily in
training; for example, when solving exercises or analyzing a particular
position. If you use them in such a way routinely and get used to them, they
will help you develop a positional intuition over time. As a corollary to that,
I would not recommend using such positional checklists consciously on
every move while playing an actual game, especially if you are new to the
method, because going through all these steps is time-consuming and
impractical. You want to internalize this kind of positional evaluation
through your studies first, so that you can perform it subconsciously
whenever you see a new position.
A final word about making over-the-board decisions based on positional
evaluation models. While you are trying to find the best move, rarely do
conscious positional evaluations fully motivate your decisions. In reality,
general positional ideas, such as identifying a weakness in the opponent’s
position or evaluating a pawn structure, are often intertwined with concrete
ideas in the form of moves and variations that spontaneously spring to your
mind. International Master Willy Hendriks, the author of two thought-
provoking books about the nature of decision-making in chess, used, in my
opinion, a very appropriate term ‘spiral’ to describe how we make most of
our decisions in practice. In his article for New in Chess Magazine
(2020#5), he elaborated on this idea: ‘... the moves that pop into your mind
as soon as you start looking at a position are not random at all, but based on
all the knowledge you bring with you to the board. To find out what a
position is about, the question ‘what will work’ or ‘what might work’ is
indispensable. Instead of a linear model (‘evaluation-plan-candidate moves-
calculation-move’), a ‘spiral’ model seems much more effective, because of

the reciprocal character of chess thinking, with all the different aspects
constantly affecting each other.’
Chapter 8 summary
• It is more difficult to systemize and study middlegames in a theoretical
manner because they appear in a greater number of complex forms.
• The application of middlegame learnings is less straightforward and often
requires a fair degree of interpretation and creativity.
• One of the best ways to enrich your ‘memory bank’ of middlegame ideas
is to do your own research on middlegame topics that interest you, on top of
studying the traditional resources.
• Organized self-study of middlegame can be accomplished by collecting
interesting examples and model games into your own middlegame
databases.
• Such systemized and broad knowledge comes in handy in your games as it
allows you to simplify complex middlegame problems into more
manageable or familiar ones, and, consequently, make more informed
positional and strategic decisions.
• It is also a good idea to collect insightful quotes of strong players about
the middlegame (and all other areas) from books and interviews, because
they can sometimes serve as good practical guidelines in abstract
middlegame scenarios.
• Strong examples of middlegame concepts stand out thanks to a
remarkable or unusual move or idea, and as such, they are more easily
remembered.
• A game in which the positional or strategic idea in question is
demonstrated in a lucid and compelling way throughout a larger portion of
the game is a good candidate for a model game.
• The pawn structure is one of the most permanent positional factors in a
chess game. The relative durability of pawn structures allows us to link our
study of the middlegame more easily to both the opening and the endgame.

• Such a study allows you to understand better the finer tactical and
strategic points in a certain pawn structure and get an edge over potential
opponents who have not investigated it so deeply.
• Instructive games that show the positive sides of a certain pawn structure
for both colors help us develop an objective attitude when evaluating
positions.
• One of the skills that immediately reveals a player’s class is the ability to
make the right and avoid the wrong piece exchanges.
• Exchanging is often used as a strategic tool to achieve certain positional
goals, sometimes even by breaking the well-accepted positional rules.
• ‘The most important strategic piece should be protected from exchange’ –
Mihai Suba.
• ‘A positional decision is a small decision that reacts to the piece
placement or pawn structure with immediate effect. Strategy is more than
basic understanding of piece and pawn placement, more than just good
square and weak pawn. Strategy is positional elements in dynamic action’ –
Jacob Aagaard.
• Modern strategy is often about sacrificing some positional advantages or
incurring positional disadvantages for the sake of achieving a greater
strategic goal.
• Chess players typically like to follow positional models that capture the
most relevant positional principles; however, there is hardly the one
positional model that can help you evaluate the position correctly and make
the right decision in every single instance.
• Thus, one should be flexible and not dogmatic with their application, and
make sure to internalize this kind of positional evaluation through studies
first, to perform it subconsciously in real games.
• In reality, general positional ideas, such as identifying a weakness in the
opponent’s position, evaluating a pawn structure or a transfer into the
endgame, are often intertwined with concrete ideas in the form of moves
and variations that spontaneously spring to your mind.

Positional mini test: piece exchanges
Show in Text Mode
Finally, I would like to invite you to attempt the positional mini test below,
in which your goal is to make the right piece exchange decision. Good luck!
Exercise 8.1
Piece exchanges
White to move
Show/Hide Solution

Exercise 8.1 Piece exchanges
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov 2752
Magnus Carlsen 2765
Baku 2008 (4)
24.Rf1!
White could use the rook for the kingside attack. The c-file can be
surrendered because Black cannot exploit it in time. Attacking without it, as
in the variation 24.f4 Rxc1 25.Bxc1 b5 26.g4 Be7 27.f5 Qc6 would not be
nearly as dangerous for Black.
24.Rf1! b5 25.f4 Qc6 26.Rc1 Qb7 27.Rf1 Qc6 28.Qf3ƒ
White is obviously quicker with his kingside attack, since opening of the f-
file with f4-f5 cannot be prevented. Carlsen sped up the end with a poor
defense:
28...Qb6?! 29.f5 exf5 30.Bc3! a5? 31.Bxa5! Qxa5 32.Qxf5+–
And Mamedyarov soon obtained a decisive attack.
32...Qd2 33.Qxf7+ Kh8 34.Rf2 Rd8 35.Qxd5 Qa5 36.Nf4 Qa8 37.Ng6+
1-0
Exercise 8.2
Piece exchanges

White to move
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 8.2 Piece exchanges
Viswanathan Anand 2782
Alexander Grischuk 2772
Riyadh Wch Rapid 2017 (14)
16.Bxf6!
By exchanging the powerful bishop for the knight, Anand removes the last
source of the opponent’s counterplay in the center and consolidates his
positional advantage.
A) 16.Nh4? would be wrong, on account of 16...Nxe4! 17.Nxg6 Nxd2
18.Qc3 f6; while

B) 16.Qc3?! would be met by 16...c6! 17.dxc6 Ba5 18.Qc4 Nxe4 19.Nxe4
Bxe1 20.Rxe1 d5∞.
16.Bxf6! Qxf6 17.Nc4±
A fairly rare sight – the knight pair completely dominates the bishop pair.
Anand gradually increased his advantage and obtained a winning position
around move 30.
17...Ba7 18.Qd3 h6 19.Re3 Rad8 20.g3 Bh7 21.Rfe1 g5 22.Qe2 Kg7
23.Rd1 Qg6 24.Re1 Qf6 25.Kg2 g4 26.Nh4 Qg5 27.f4 gxf3+ 28.Qxf3 Qf6
29.Qe2 Qg5 30.Rf1 Kg8 31.Nf5+–
White went on to win the game.
Exercise 8.3
Piece exchanges

Black to move
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 8.3 Piece exchanges
Alexey Dreev 2633
Igor Kurnosov 2566
Dresden Ech 2007
16...Bh6!
Black should refrain from the exchange of bishops, since this would allow
White to re-establish the harmony of his forces.
A) 16...Bxc3?! 17.Qxc3 leaves Black with long-lasting issues on the dark
squares;
B) It should be noted that 16...Bf8!? and
C) 16...f6!?, with the same idea as in the game, were also playable.
However, the game move is the most active.
16...Bh6! 17.Ne5?! Rd6
Soon, Kurnosov won a pawn and eventually the game as well.
18.b3 Ba6 19.Nc4 Bxc4 20.bxc4 Nxc4
With a clear advantage for Black.
Exercise 8.4
Piece exchanges

White to move
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 8.4 Piece exchanges
Viktor Erdös 2636
Ilja Zaragatski 2467
Deizisau 2013 (4)
19.Be2!
It is best to avoid the exchange of bishops to use the bishop pair advantage
in the long run. At the same time, this decision keeps the black pieces
cramped in a passive position. 19.Bxc6?! Rxc6 20.0-0 would keep some
edge for White, but Black’s play would be considerably easier than in the
game.
19.Be2! Qc7 20.0-0 Nc5 21.Rab1 Nfd7 22.Rfd1

White obtained a clear positional edge and went on to win the game.
Exercise 8.5
Piece exchanges

Black to move
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 8.5 Piece exchanges
Ivo Maris 2340
Davorin Kuljasevic 2549
Hoogeveen 2017 (2)
20...Nab3!
The knight on a1 may seem like a terrible piece, but it was about to become
the best white piece in a couple of moves if it were not exchanged.
For instance, 20...Ba6?! would allow White to complete the knight
maneuver: 21.Nc2 Qe6 22.Ne32, targeting the weak d5- and f5-squares.
20...Nab3! 21.Nxb3 Nxb3 22.Rd1 Rac8

Black has a pleasant edge now thanks to the chronic weakness of the c4-
pawn, for which White has no counterplay.
23.Bd3 Ba6 24.Rc2 Rc6 25.Bb4 Qe6 26.Rc3 Rdc8 27.g3 h5!
With this move, Black obtained excellent prospects to play on both flanks,
but he did not manage to win the game.
Exercise 8.6
Piece exchanges

Black to move
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 8.6 Piece exchanges
Vladislav Artemiev 2736
Lucas van Foreest 2515
Skopje Ech 2019 (4)
24...Bxe2?
This was played in the game, but it was the wrong exchange.
A) Black should have kept his light-squared bishop for the attack, so
24...Bc8! was the principled strategic decision. Black’s plan is to push his
kingside pawns and for this kind of attack to achieve success, he would
need both his bishops. We can see this in the following lines: 25.Nf3 (25.e4
Bf4!) 25...g5! 26.Bf1 (26.Nd3 is now strongly met by 26...Bf5!, which

would not be possible in the game. 27.Qa1 Rae8 28.Rd1 Bxd3 29.Bxd3
f5‚) 26...Qf7 27.g3 Ra7 28.Rec1 h5‚, and White would be under serious
pressure;
B) A more dynamic solution was 24...f5!? 25.h3 Qh4! with excellent
prospects for Black as well.
24...Bxe2? 25.Rxe2 Qf7 26.Nf3 Bxc5?
Another wrong piece exchange decision. Black should have kept the bishop
to keep some chances of a kingside attack. After 26...g5 27.Nd3 Qg6
28.Qd1 Nxd3 29.Rxd3 b4, the position would be balanced as White would
not have a free hand on the queenside due to a latent threat of kingside
attack.
27.Rxc5 Rfe8 28.Qd1 Re6 29.Qd2 Na6 30.Rc1
White obtained a slight, but lasting positional edge and eventually managed
to win the game.
Exercise 8.7
Piece exchanges

White to move
Show/Hide Solution
Exercise 8.7 Piece exchanges
Anatoly Karpov 2725
Nigel Short 2685
Linares ct sf match 1992 (1)
15.Bg4!
It may seem counterintuitive to give up the bishop pair advantage, but the
exchange on d7 enables White to transform it into a better pawn structure.
15.Qc2, or any similar move, would give Black an opportunity to determine
the queenside structure favorably with 15...a5!=.
15.Bg4! a5

Black gets doubled pawns one way or another, as the variations below
show:
A) 15...Nb6 16.Bf3! Rb8 17.bxc5 dxc5 18.Qc22;
B) 15...Bb7 16.Bxd7 Qxd7 17.bxc5 Qc6 18.Qd5! Qxd5 19.cxd5 dxc5
20.Rfd1 Rfd8 21.e4±;
C) 15...Ne5 16.Bxc8 Raxc8 17.bxc5±.
16.Bxd7 Bxd7 17.bxc5 dxc5 18.Qd52
Karpov won a pawn shortly and eventually converted his advantage.

Chapter 9
Get organized – create a study plan
From conversations with chess players of all levels, I have come to understand that
planning and execution of study activities are perhaps the trickiest aspects of studying
chess. People usually don’t have a problem finding a good study resource or trying a
new study method; however, they often struggle with the management of their study
time, as well as keeping a steady level of discipline that is required to complete their
study projects once they are up and running. I think that no one described the typical
inefficiencies in a training regime of an average chess player better than GM Axel
Smith in his well-known chess improvement book Pump Up Your Rating. Smith used
the term ‘mummies’ to describe chess players who spend a lot of time on chess but
fail to improve due to a chronic lack of structure and commitment in their studies. As
he points out, ‘many mummies actually see themselves as quite ambitious players’,
yet they are stuck in a vicious cycle of poor time management, ineffective study
activities and self-deception.
While this archetypal depiction of an unproductive chess player may be a tad
exaggerated, it is true that many people could use more purpose and structure when
they study chess. If you also feel like that about your own chess training, then you
might want to commit to a study plan. I suggest that we start with a little exercise that
should help you get a better idea about creating a structured study plan, especially if
you haven’t had much experience with it before. Let us imagine that you want to
follow a study plan over the next couple of months. I would like you to record your
answers to the following questions:
1. Which goals would you like to achieve as a result of completing your study plan?
2. In which time period would you like to complete your study plan?
3. What is your available study time during that period?
4. Which study areas (general and specific) would you include in your study plan?
5. Which are your key study areas?
6. Which resources would you like to use to study these areas?
7. Which methods would you employ when studying these resources?
The main objective of this exercise was to help you get started with the basic
components of a study plan. If you are not exactly sure about some of the answers,
perhaps several practical examples could help. Below, you will see three study plans

that I created in the years 2002, 2013, and 2018. The 2002 one was, as far as I can
remember, my first ever study plan when I was in the 1st grade of high school (later in
the text, we will refer to it as 2002 study plan). You might also recall that I have
previously referenced the two study plans that we will also use as examples here: the
‘2013 summer study plan’ was mentioned in Chapter 6, while the ‘2018 study plan’
was introduced in Chapter 3.
Figure 9.1: 2002 study plan
1. Goals: Study chess for 4 to 5 hours a day on average; Deepen understanding of
various strategic aspects;
2. Duration of the study plan: 6 months;
3. Available study time: 4 to 5 hours a day on weekdays; 6 to 7 hours a day on
weekends;
4. Study areas:
• Openings: Repertoires for White and Black;
• Tactics: Calculation accuracy and speed;
• Endgames: Endgame technique; Theoretical rook endgames;
• Middlegames: Typical middlegame positions and strategies;
• General improvement: Games of Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov; Games of
other strong players.
5. Key study areas: Strategy in middlegames and endgames;
6. Study resources and methods:
• Openings: ChessBase Opening Key – play over new theoretically-important games;
• Encyclopedia of Chess Openings – learn and review variations from my opening
repertoire;
• Material provided by a coach – review opening variations and model games;
• Chess Informants – analyze annotated games from opening repertoire.
• Tactics: ChessBase – solve tactics training questions;
• Solve exercises from Strategy and Tactics by Georgy Lisitsyn.
• Endgames: Read and deeply analyze instructive examples from Endgame Strategy
by Mikhail Shereshevsky;
• Review theoretical rook endgames from my notebook with rook endgames.

• Middlegames: Read and deeply analyze instructive examples from Typical
Middlegame Positions by Boris Zlotnik;
• General improvement: Chess Informants – deeply analyze annotated games of
Karpov and Kasparov;
• ChessBase – lightly analyze interesting games;
• Reread Think like a Grandmaster by Alexander Kotov;
• Read, analyze, and do simulations of interesting games from Šahovski Glasnik chess
magazine.
Figure 9.2: 2013 summer study plan
1. Goals: Study tactics every day; Improve my handling of dynamics;
2. Duration of the study plan: 2 months;
3. Available study time: Around 5 hours a day on average;
4. Study areas:
• Openings: Repertoires for White and Black;
• Tactics: Initiative and attack;
• Double-edged positions;
• Tactical puzzles;
• Combinations;
• Chess problems.
• Endgames: Endgame studies;
• General improvement: Annotated games of Botvinnik, Petrosian and other classical
players.
5. Key study areas: Tactics – Dynamics
6. Study resources and methods:
• Openings: analyze in ChessBase;
• review my opening databases;
• test openings in blitz games.
• Tactics: Advanced Chess Tactics by Lev Psakhis – read in blindfold mode, solve, and
analyze;
• do simulations of double-edged games from recent tournaments;
• solve tactical puzzles on chess.com;

• solve chess problems from a friend’s problems collection.
• Endgames: 1000 Chess Studies by Yakov Vladimirov – solve and solve in blindfold
mode;
• General improvement: My games collection database ‘Classical games’ – do
simulations, play over, and analyze.
Figure 9.3: 2018 study plan
1. Goals: Improve calculation accuracy; Improve play in double-edged positions;
Improve strategic understanding of middlegame positions;
2. Duration of the study plan: 4 months;
3. Available study time: 4 hours a day on average;
4. Study areas:
• Openings: Tabiyas from my opening repertoire;
• Tactics: Overcoming resistance in calculation;
• Candidate moves;
• Opponent’s resources;
• Double-edged and imbalanced positions.
• Endgames: Endgame studies;
• Middlegames: Positional decision making;
• Maneuvering in static positions;
• Flexible strategic thinking;
• Typical middlegame positions.
5. Key study areas: Calculation;
Double-edged and imbalanced positions.
6. Study resources and methods:
• Openings: Analyze tabiyas from opening files in more depth;
• Tactics: Solve exercises from Chess Manual of Avoidable Mistakes by Edouard;
• do FBM practices with games of players with original playing style;
• solve exercises from the book Recognizing Your Opponent’s Resources by
Dvoretsky;
• collect interesting double-edged games into a database and analyze them.

• Endgames: Solve in blindfold mode endgame studies from 1000 Chess Studies by
Vladimirov and The Art of the Endgame by Timman;
• Middlegames: Read Positional Decision Making by Gelfand;
• Collect interesting games/examples with a closed center into a database and analyze
them;
• read Dynamic Strategy by Suba;
• collect interesting games with atypical positional ideas into a database and analyze
them.
You have probably noticed that all three plans have the same structure. This is not the
only possible structure, of course – a study plan may be refined to an even greater
degree of detail than the one above. However, in my experience, less is more when it
comes to such an ambitious project. The more variables your plan has, on the one
hand, and the more fixed elements on the other (e.g., study endgames every day at 7
pm), the more difficult it becomes to complete and manage. You want to make sure
that your plan is structured well enough to allow you to focus on your goals and not
get distracted by useless stuff, but at the same time, you should try to keep it as simple
and as flexible as possible. Thus, when creating a study plan, I prefer this simple
structure as it can be prepared fairly quickly and has helped me study effectively in the
past.
That being said, I would encourage you to design your own study plans with a format
and to the extent that is appropriate to your own taste, level of commitment, and
resources. My intention here is not to provide a one-size-fit-all study blueprint, since
every chess player has different study needs. Rather, the goals of this chapter are:
1. To provide a basic framework and tools that you can use to create your own study
plan (time management, selection of study material, scheduling of study activities,
etc.); and
2. To address typical obstacles and issues with the management of your study plans
(goals, motivation, discipline, etc.) .
Whichever components you want to use in your study plan and in whichever way you
see fit, one thing is certain: studying with a purposeful structure makes you more
determined, focused, and productive than approaching your chess study in a
haphazard manner. I guarantee you that even seasoned chess mummies would come
back to life if they followed through with study plans such as those presented above!

In the upcoming sections, we will explore the key components of a study plan in a
bit more detail, so that you can get a better idea about applying them in your own
study plans. We will also see how to link macro-planning from the study plan
framework presented above with micro-planning (i.e., daily study) with the help of
weekly and daily study schedules. Finally, as every chess player knows, having a good
plan is only half of the equation – following through with it is just as important. Thus,
in the last part of this chapter, we will discuss how to keep steady levels of motivation,
mental focus, and discipline while working on a study plan.
Weekly timetables
Before you start working on the specifics of your study plan, it is a good idea to create
a weekly timetable with an overview of available study time for each of the seven
days in a typical week. I find this step to be of crucial importance, because it
simultaneously allows you to manage your study time fairly efficiently in the short
term while keeping sight of long-term goals. On the other hand, if you tend to allocate
your study time randomly or on a day-to-day basis, it is more likely that your projects
will remain permanent ‘works in progress’.
Generally speaking, as you look for available slots in your schedule, I would suggest
that you try to be on the conservative side. In other words, do not plan for more time
than you think that you can realistically spare on a focused chess study. If some extra
time pops out – great; but if you plan too optimistically, more often than not, you will
fall behind your schedule. Let us use the ‘2002 study plan’ to present hypothetical
examples of weekly timetables. Please note that at this stage we still are not assigning
any study activities to specific time slots (e.g., analyze games of Karpov for 2 hours
on Wednesday afternoon); this step comes a bit later.
Table 9.1: Weekly timetable 1
Week 1 (school in the morning) Available study time
Monday
Afternoon: 3h
Evening: 2h
Tuesday
Afternoon: 3h
Evening: 2h
Wednesday
Afternoon: 3h
Evening: 2h
Thursday
Afternoon: 3h

Week 1 (school in the morning) Available study time
Evening: 2h
Friday
Afternoon: 3h
Evening: 2h
Saturday
Morning: 2h
Afternoon: 2h
Evening: 2h
Sunday
Morning: 2h
Afternoon: 2h
Evening: 2h
Week 1 total
37 hours
Table 9.2: Weekly timetable 2
Week 2 (school in the evening) Available study time
Monday
Morning: 2h
Evening: 2h
Tuesday
Morning: 2h
Evening: 2h
Wednesday
Morning: 2h
Evening: 2h
Thursday
Morning: 2h
Evening: 2h
Friday
Morning: 2h
Evening: 2h
Saturday
Morning: 2h
Afternoon: 3h
Evening: 2h

Week 2 (school in the evening) Available study time
Sunday
Morning: 2h
Afternoon: 3h
Evening: 2h
Week 2 total
34 hours
If you are a student or have fixed working hours, the chances are that you have a
similar type of weekly schedule that allows you to plan your other activities, including
chess study, in a fairly straightforward manner. If, however, you work flexible hours
or have a variable schedule in general, you will probably need to be a bit more
creative with your chess study planning. Either way, it is highly unlikely that you will
actually be able to execute your chess activities exactly as you had originally planned
in your schedule, because the circumstances in life inevitably change and cannot be
predicted. Thus, you want to always leave some room for adjustments in case of
contingencies. It is definitely possible to achieve your study goals without following
the original plan strictly. All you have to do is always keep your goals in mind and be
creative in finding alternative time slots for chess study. I like to call this dynamic
planning. Below are a couple of ideas that could help you with dynamic planning.
1. Buffer time
This is the time that you keep in reserve in case you miss some of your regular study
sessions. For example, you have an optional 3-hour activity on Saturday afternoon that
you like to attend but can skip every now and then. You can pencil in these 3 hours on
Saturday as your buffer time for chess study in case you fall behind your schedule
during the week, for instance.
2. Extra time
If you are dedicated to your goal, you will even find time for chess study at atypical
places and times. Some people solve puzzles or play chess on their phone while
commuting by public transportation. I often solve endgame studies blindfold or think
about my opening repertoire problems while I wait in a long line, lay on the beach, or
pretend to listen to my wife’s rants, etc. I was kidding about the last one, though ☺.
3. Tournaments

As we will discuss shortly in the ‘Duration of study plan’ section, the time that you
spend in tournaments is considered to be practice, rather than study time.
Nevertheless, tournaments often provide fresh study material, whether we need to
prepare for games, analyze them afterwards, or work on problematic areas. You can
incorporate this new material into your study plan using dynamic planning.
Let us examine a few hypothetical examples of dynamic planning using the 2002
weekly timetables above.
Table 9.3: Dynamic planning in week 1
Week 1 (school in
the morning)
Available
study time
Unplanned circumstance - dynamic
planning
Actual
study time
Monday
Afternoon:
3h
Afternoon:
3h
Evening: 2h
spent some extra time reviewing for an
exam on Tuesday morning
Evening:
1h
Tuesday
Afternoon:
3h
hung out with friends, less time for
chess study
Afternoon:
1.5h
Evening: 2h
Evening:
2h
Wednesday
Afternoon:
3h
invited to play in a football match on
Saturday afternoon
Afternoon:
3h
Evening: 2h
decided to skip favorite TV series to
catch up on chess studies
Evening:
3h
Thursday
Afternoon:
3h
Afternoon:
3h
Evening: 2h
Evening:
2h
Friday
Afternoon:
3h
found out about a blitz tournament on
Sunday
Afternoon:
3h
Evening: 2h
Evening:
2h
Saturday
Morning: 2h
Morning:
2h

Week 1 (school in
the morning)
Available
study time
Unplanned circumstance - dynamic
planning
Actual
study time
Afternoon:
2h
decided to skip football match to catch
up on chess studies
Afternoon:
4h
Evening: 2h
was tired and went to bed earlier than
usual
Evening:
1h
Sunday
Morning: 2h
played a blitz tournament in another
city
Afternoon:
2h
Evening: 2h
analyzed blitz games
Evening:
3h
Week 1 total
37 hours
planned to add another hour of study
on Monday morning
33.5 hours
Table 9.4: Dynamic planning in week 2
Week 2
(school in
the evening)
Available
study
time
Unplanned circumstance - dynamic planning
Actual
study
time
Monday
Morning:
2h
added an hour of study to check a few openings
from blitz games
Morning:
3h
Evening:
2h
didn’t feel so well in the evening; cut chess
studies short
Evening:
1h
Tuesday
Morning:
2h
got sick with fever and could not study chess;
didn’t go to school
Evening:
2h
Wednesday
Morning:
2h
Evening:
2h
gotten better; solved some tactics puzzles in the
afternoon
Afternoon:
1.5h

Week 2
(school in
the evening)
Available
study
time
Unplanned circumstance - dynamic planning
Actual
study
time
Thursday
Morning:
2h
stayed at home for another day to recover; had
extra time in the afternoon to catch up on
school and chess studies
Morning:
2h
Evening:
2h
Afternoon:
2h
Evening:
2h
Friday
Morning:
2h
found out that the deadline for an assignment
due next week was extended, leaving extra time
to study chess over the weekend
Morning:
2h
Evening:
2h
Evening:
2h
Saturday
Morning:
2h
Morning:
2h
Afternoon:
3h
unplanned family visit in the afternoon; less
time for chess studies
Afternoon:
1.5h
Evening:
2h
Evening:
2h
Sunday
Morning:
2h
added an hour of study to prepare for an
upcoming tournament
Morning:
3h
Afternoon:
3h
Afternoon:
3h
Evening:
2h
Evening:
2h
Week 2 total 34 hours
having fallen behind on my schedule slightly, I
planned to find 2-3 extra study hours next week
29 hours
In this particular hypothetical case, the weekly study hours objectives (37 and 34
hours, respectively) were not met, but that is fine. Such statistics give you feedback to

perhaps plan for fewer study hours in the upcoming weeks. The most important thing
is that you are executing most of your planned activities and gradually moving toward
the completion of your study goals.
Another thing that I want to point out is that the 30+ available study hours per week
that I used to have as a high-school student is a luxury for many (non-professional)
chess players. A more typical figure is somewhere between 15 and 25 hours a week. I
believe that this is just enough time to fix a study routine or two (puzzle solving, blitz
session, etc.) and work on a couple of goals (learning a new opening, completing a
middlegame course, etc.) at a reasonable pace. On the other hand, some ambitious
chess players may not be able to spare more than 10-15 hours a week for chess study,
typically due to their busy school/university studies or work/family obligations. In
such cases, it is often impossible to fit everything that you would like to work on into
your plan, so you should prioritize your study activities and leave some study areas
and practices out*. It would also make sense to aim for a longer duration period of a
study plan to spread out your study activities.
* More on focused study plans shortly.
Duration of a study plan
Let us quickly discuss how to determine the duration of your study plan if you are
unsure. This is not an exact science, of course, but you should at least try to guess an
approximate time that you will need to accomplish your most important study goals.
Let us see some typical situations:
Table 9.5: Typical duration of a study plan
Study goal
Approximate study plan
duration
Learn a new opening
1-2 months
Study several middlegame courses or books
1-2 months
Improve overall form before upcoming
tournaments
1-2 months
Cover several important study areas
3-4 months
Switch opening repertoire from 1.c4 to 1.d4
4-6 months
A comprehensive study plan covering all study
areas
6-12 months

As you decide on your study plan’s duration, you should also account for non-study
periods in that time window. These would include the time that you expect to spend at
tournaments, on vacation, or not studying chess for any other reason. To get a better
picture, you can create an approximate schedule of all activities (study and non-study)
in that period. Take, for instance, the schedule for a hypothetical 6-month (26-week)
period below:
Table 9.6: Study and non-study periods
Month/Week January February
March
April
May
June
Week 1
Study
Study
Study
Study
No
study
Tournament
Week 2
Study Tournament
Study
Study Study Tournament
Week 3
Study Tournament Tournament
Study Study Vacation
Week 4
Study No study
Study Tournament Study Study
Week 5
No
study
Study
If you add up the study weeks, you will see that the effective study time is actually 16
weeks (a bit less than 4 months) and not 26, as one might have originally thought.
Thus, if you plan to study something for full 6 months, you might want to plan for a
longer period than that; probably 8-9 months would be more appropriate.
Study areas
From my experience, when it comes to the areas that you plan to study, there are two
types of study plans: comprehensive and focused.
A comprehensive study plan is the type of plan in which you do not focus on any
particular study area, but rather distribute your time evenly across all of them. People
usually take this approach after a long hiatus from chess activities or when they are
trying to get their overall game to a higher level. When creating such a study plan, the
main issue is how to distribute your study time between the major study areas. In
Chapter 3, we have already discussed general guidelines for five typical playing
levels, and I think that they could come in handy in this situation. The ‘2002 study
plan’ is an example of a comprehensive study plan in which, as far as I can remember,
the study time was distributed pretty evenly across all study areas.

The second type is a focused study plan where you devote the majority of your study
time to one or several key study area(s). This approach makes sense if you have some
significant performance goals or key study areas to work on, for example, specific
preparation for an important tournament or weaknesses that you have displayed in
your recent games and want to get rid of. In such cases, you could combine general
guidelines based on your playing level with your individual performance goals and/or
key study areas to get an idea of approximately how much time you will spend on
each study area. A typical example of such a plan is my ‘2013 summer study plan’.
From the example of a ‘usual study day’ that I presented in Chapter 6 (see page 246),
it is clear that I devoted 50-75% of my study time to tactics and the rest to openings
and general improvement.
Study resources and methods
Choosing your study resources is probably the most fun part of planning. As I
explained in Chapter 4, you can find something useful to study from virtually any
chess resource. However, it makes sense that you plan at the start which will be the
main resources that you will use for each study area so that you do not get distracted
by a plethora of other chess material. The study resources from my three study plans
at the start of the chapter were all main study resources, but, naturally, I would
sometimes use additional resources that were not planned originally.
Another important aspect when planning this step is choosing the methods that you
will use to study the selected resources. I believe that the variety of study methods
presented in Chapter 2 should provide you with enough ideas. As you merge the study
resources and methods, you get your study activities; for instance, ‘Simulation of
double-edged games from recent tournaments’. You might need to invest some time in
this step, but the upside is that the more precisely you define your study activities, the
more under your control they become and the more motivated you will be to complete
them. For instance, compare a generic study activity ‘study endgames’ to a more
specific one ‘analyze three examples from Endgame Strategy for 2 hours every second
day of the week’. You will immediately feel more empowered and driven by the
second one, because you know exactly what you need to do to achieve something
tangible and get closer to accomplishing your goals. On the other hand, activities that
are too general, vague, or randomly assigned are probably not going to be as effective,
as you might lose sight of how what you are doing now contributes to your overall
improvement.
Provisional study schedule

Once you have determined all the basic components of your study plan and come up
with study activities, you can incorporate them into your weekly timetable(s) to create
a provisional study schedule. As I already explained in the ‘Weekly timetables’
section, I prefer scheduling my study activities on a weekly basis, which is also
reflected in the hypothetical provisional schedule below. For consistency’s sake, I used
the information from the ‘2002 study plan’ once again.
Table 9.7: Provisional study schedule
Week 1 (school in
the morning)
Available
study time
Study activity
Study
time
Monday
Afternoon:
3h
Strategy and Tactics - solving
1h
Endgame Strategy – reading, analysis 2h
Evening: 2h
Chess Informant – light analysis
2h
Tuesday
Afternoon:
3h
Strategy and Tactics – solving
1h
ChessBase Opening Key – opening
study
2h
Evening: 2h
Typical Middlegame Positions – reading,
analysis
2h
Wednesday
Afternoon:
3h
ChessBase tactics – solving
2h
Material from coach – opening review
1h
Evening: 2h Endgame Strategy – reading, analysis 2h
Thursday
Afternoon:
3h
Strategy and Tactics – solving
1h
Typical Middlegame Positions – reading,
analysis
2h
Evening: 2h
Think Like a Grandmaster and Sahovski
Glasnik – reading
2h
Friday
Afternoon:
3h
Chess Informant – deep analysis of one
game of Garry Kasparov
3h

Week 1 (school in
the morning)
Available
study time
Study activity
Study
time
Evening: 2h
Encyclopedia of Chess Openings –
opening review
2h
Saturday
Morning: 2h
Endgame Notebook – rook endgame
review
2h
Afternoon:
2h
ChessBase tactics – solving
2h
Evening: 2h Endgame Strategy – reading, analysis 2h
Sunday
Morning: 2h
Blitz tournament – playing
2h
Afternoon:
2h
Blitz tournament – playing
2h
Evening: 2h
Typical Middlegame Positions – reading,
analysis
2h
Week 1 total
37 hours
We can make such provisional study schedules for several weeks ahead, but the next
week is the most realistic in terms of planning your daily study activities. As we
discussed in the section on weekly timetables, it is highly unlikely that you will be
able to execute your activities exactly the way you have scheduled them originally, no
matter how well you have planned. Thus, the provisional study schedule is merely
something to provide a structure and general direction for your studies and not to be
taken as a rigid framework. For example, if you have missed some planned activities
this week, you could carry them over to the next one. Or, if an unexpected slot in your
general schedule opens up, be ready to adjust your chess study schedule to it. The key
is to keep planning dynamically, being focused on your goals yet flexible in their
execution.
Once you have your weekly provisional schedule in place, you want to make sure
that you get the most out of your daily study. In the next section, we will discuss how
to structure and execute your daily study activities most effectively.
Daily schedule

My suggestion is to start by preparing to-do lists for the next study day with
actionable tasks: what exactly you will study, when, and for how long. You can do this
the evening before or in the morning before you start your training for the day. When
defining your study activities, try to go into more specifics than in the weekly
provisional schedule so that you know exactly which chapter of the book you will
read, which games you will study, and which line of the opening you will review. Let
us illustrate this on three random days from the provisional study schedule above (see
added column ‘Specific study activity’:
Table 9.8: Daily to-do lists
Thursday
to-do list
Available
study
time
Study activity
Specific study activity
Study
time
Thursday
Afternoon:
3h
Strategy and
Tactics – solving
Solve 5 easy warm-up puzzles;
then solve more difficult puzzles
in the chapter ‘Destroying king’s
pawn shield’
1h
Typical
Middlegame
Positions – reading,
analysis
Read the chapter on the typical
King’s Indian structures and
analyze model games
2h
Evening:
2h
Think Like a
Grandmaster and
Sahovski Glasnik –
reading
Reread the chapter on positional
evaluation
2h
Friday
to-do list
Available
study
time
Study activity
Specific study activity
Study
time
Friday
Afternoon:
3h
Chess Informant –
deep analysis of
one game of Garry
Kasparov
Analyze game Kasparov-
Azmaiparashvili, Moscow ol
1994
3h
Evening:
2h
Encyclopedia of
Chess Openings –
opening review
Review the ...c7-c6 cxd5 cxd5
line of the Fianchetto Variation of
the Grünfeld Defense
2h

Thursday
to-do list
Available
study
time
Study activity
Specific study activity
Study
time
Saturday
to-do list
Available
study
time
Study activity
Specific study activity
Study
time
Saturday
Morning:
2h
Endgame Notebook
–
rook endgame
review
Review theoretical rook
endgames with the e-pawn on the
sixth rank
2h
Afternoon:
2h
ChessBase tactics –
solving
Solve as many training questions
as possible within 90 minutes and
check the solutions in the
remaining time
2h
Evening:
2h
Endgame Strategy
–
reading, analysis
Analyze 3 examples from ‘Two
weaknesses’ chapter
2h
I have found it useful for scheduling purposes to make distinctions between various
study activities based on intensity and type. Let me explain what I mean by that.
Firstly, study activities vary by intensity – some, like playing over games and
reading, are of a relatively low to moderate study intensity, while activities like
simulation and analysis are of high intensity. We have already touched upon this
aspect of study methods in Chapter 2, so I would like to refer you to the middle
column of table 2.1 from that chapter. There, you will see a rating that signifies the
intensity of a particular study method. I would say that all methods that have a rating
of 4 and greater can be considered to be high-intensity methods. That means that when
you sit to analyze a complex position or solve challenging puzzles, you will need to be
fully mentally invested in your practice. I would suggest trying to find at least 60 to 90
minutes a day when you are relatively fresh and motivated for high-intensity training.
I have found that high-intensity study sessions that last 3 hours or more have a strong
positive impact on one’s mental stamina, which can translate into tournament games.
On the other hand, playing over games, watching chess videos, reading, light
analysis, and computer-assisted analysis (those rated with 3 and less in table 2.1)
require relatively moderate/low level of mental effort, so you can schedule them in

slots when you may not be in the position to concentrate intensely for a longer period
of time. Let us consider some typical examples:
• Easy warm-up tactics are a good way to start your training;
• Watching and reading are perfect for a relaxed evening study or while travelling;
• I like to schedule playing over recent games and doing light analysis when I know
that I have about 30 minutes to one hour before I need to take care of some other
business;
• You can also review well-known opening lines or theoretical endgames with fairly
low intensity, leaving the high-intensity slots for more demanding activities.
As indicated above, in a typical study day, you will probably have study slots with
varying degrees of study intensity. For example, if you are fresh in the morning, you
might want to put your highest intensity activities, such as deep analysis or solving
challenging exercises, in these time slots. When possible, I like to do simulations,
FBMs, blitz sessions and similar high-intensity activities in the afternoon since most
of the tournament games are played at that time. Also, I typically do not plan high-
intensity practices at the end of the day when my energy level and ability to
concentrate are typically at their lowest, but this might not be an issue for night owls.
At the end of the day, what you will study and when depends primarily on your own
study schedule and your preferences. Let me now give you an example of scheduling
that includes the high-low intensity of study activities from a random excerpt of my
study records at the start of the year 2017:
Table 9.9: Scheduling high/low-intensity activities
Date
1 Feb-2017 2 Feb-2017
3 Feb-2017
4 Feb-2017
Day
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Morning:
High
intensity/study
time
High (2h)
High (2h)
High (2h)
High (2h)
Study activity
Simulation of
the game
Topalov-
Howell, 2017,
1-0
(90 min)
Simulation
of the game
Lu Shanglei
- Hansen,
2017, 0-1
(90 min)
Solving 3 endgame
studies in blindfold
mode (1h)
Playing out a
position from
the Qc2
Nimzo-Indian
against an
engine (1h)

Date
1 Feb-2017 2 Feb-2017
3 Feb-2017
4 Feb-2017
Analysis of the
game (30 min)
Analysis of
the game (30
min)
Playing online blitz
(1h)
Playing
online blitz
(1h)
Evening: Low
intensity/study
time
Low (2,5h)
Low (2h)
Low (1,5h)
Low (2,5h)
Study activity
Light analysis
of 3 model
games of
Michael Adams
in the Nimzo-
Indian Defense
(1h)
Review of theoretical
rook endgames with R
vsR+pawnonthe
seventh rank (examples
6973-7004 in the
database) (1h)
Solving
medium
difficulty
tactics - 365
best puzzles
(30 min)
Playing over the
games from
Gibraltar 2017
(1h)
Solving
medium
difficulty
tactics – 365
best puzzles
(30 min)
Checking openings
from the blitz session
(30 min)
Review of the
Slav Defense,
Classical
Variation –
6.Ne5 (1h)
Review of the
Alapin Sicilian
and the London
System for
Black (30 min)
Study the
Nimzo-
Indian with
4.f3 c5, early
. . .b7-b5 for
Black (90
min)
Light analysis
of new model
games in the
Carlsbad
pawn
structure (1h)
Total study
time
4,5h
4h
3,5h
4,5h
The second way that we can break down study activities is according to the type of
activity, namely:
1. Learning (e.g ., playing over, watching, reading, reviewing);

2. Decision-making (e.g., analysis, simulation, FBM, solving); and
3. Practical (e.g ., playing blitz/rapid, sparring, against the computer).
Ideally, you want to combine all three types of activities within a training session,
although this is sometimes not possible due to a lack of study time. Still, with good
planning, it is possible to schedule all of them at least a couple of times a week. This
way, you strengthen the positive feedback loop between studying and playing, while
also avoiding repetitiveness and dullness in your training routine. Of course, it is good
to have some typical routines or weekly projects that you will do on most days, such
as a 45-minutes tactics/endgame studies solving session or watching a video course on
a particular topic for 30 minutes every evening. Still, you should mix it up with
different types of study activities now and then.
On another note, when preparing your daily schedule, make sure always to keep
your priorities in mind. If the primary goal of your study plan is to improve your
positional play, then try to schedule one study practice related to this study area on
each study day, be it reading a book on positional play, solving positional exercises, or
playing sparring games from positions in which you need to make positional
decisions.
Finally, a word or two about the general approach to your daily study sessions.
Firstly, to get the most benefit from your training, you need to be fully mentally
involved in your studies. Therefore, you better put aside your phone, earphones, chat
rooms, and other distractors when it is study time. Avoiding shallow calculation is also
crucial. Secondly, while there is nothing wrong with most of your study activities
being in the pleasant/routine area, you should try to strike a balance between
enjoyable study activities and hard work. Make sure to regularly challenge yourself
and test your comfort zone in daily studies. Learn a new playing style, do not use an
engine for a week, include blindfold and time constraints in your solving sessions,
seek stronger sparring partners, etc. One method that I like to use in my daily studies
is to add an extra 30 minutes when I already feel tired or bored. The idea is to push
through the mental barrier and get used to being uncomfortable, sort of like
‘overcoming resistance’ in calculation or ‘doing one more rep’ in the gym*. Be
creative when challenging yourself!
* Adding another repetition of a weight-lifting exercise when you think that you cannot do
any more.
Managing your study plan
It is quite likely that there will be times during your chess studies when you will not
feel like putting in the same amount of effort as you did before – it happens to

everyone. You may begin looking for excuses to skip a study practice today, feel too
tired to do it tomorrow, and before you know it, your start slacking off and eventually
perhaps even abandon your study plan. Study plans tend to be fairly long-term
projects and it is only natural for our motivation and discipline levels to fluctuate over
time. This is why it is essential to understand in advance how to deal with such issues.
In this final section, I would like to share two methods that can help you remain
committed to your study plan despite potential obstacles.
Method #1: Dream big
Behind most of our efforts in chess, there is usually some ultimate result that would
make us feel complete if we could achieve it. Some people dream big and want to
become a World Champion one day, and others just want to beat their dad at chess.
Whatever it is, everyone has their big goals. These goals give you direction,
inspiration, and motivation for your studies and performances, even when you are not
fully consciously aware of them. When preparing your study plan, make sure to
clearly define and write down your big goals, because they will serve as a sort of a
signpost for everything else that will come. Ideally, you want your big goals to:
1. mean something important to you personally, so that you feel inspired by them;
and
2. be achievable, yet preferably push you out of your current comfort zone to
accomplish them.
Here are some typical examples of big goals:
• Win the club championship;
• Win the 1st board prize in a team competition;
• Cross 2200 FIDE;
• Make the national U-16 team;
• Become a Women International Master; and
• Become a grandmaster.
The more ambitious your big goals are, even if unlikely to be achieved in the short- or
even mid-term, the more potential for success your study plan will have because you
will be more inspired to work hard to complete them. Let me give you an example.
When I was a cadet, playing World Youth championships always used to be the
highlight of my year. All of my preparations during the year were geared towards this
tournament, not because I wanted to merely participate in it, but because I wanted to

win it! Of course, for a long time this was a childishly unrealistic goal because there
were always many stronger players than me in these tournaments (Radjabov,
Gashimov, Mamedyarov, just to name a few), but this was my big goal going into
them, nonetheless. In my first such event in the U12 category in 1998, I finished with
5.5/11 (50%); in 1999 with 4.5/11 (-2); in 2000 with 50% again; in 2001 on +2; while
in 2002 I scored 8/11(+5) and tied for third place in the U16 category, with an outside
chance to tie for first place if I had managed to win in the last round against Radoslaw
Wojtaszek, already a strong player at that time (the game ended in a draw).
When I thought about this in retrospect some years later, I realized that the process
of working toward my big goal was more important than achieving it. Obviously, I
never became the World Youth Champion, but this big goal had driven me to work
passionately on chess in the most important formative years for a chess player. I am
quite sure that without it, I would not have studied chess that much and improved as
much as I did. Incidentally (or not?), I got the closest to achieving this goal the same
year that I created my first ever study plan, the one presented in this chapter. Thus, I
would encourage you to aim high when you set your goals and to pursue them
persistently and with passion. Even if you do not ultimately achieve your big goal, the
process of working toward it will surely make you a better chess player. Modest or
easily achievable goals are not going to give you that same amount of inspiration and
drive when you need it.
If you notice that you are getting lazy, begin procrastinating, lose your mental focus
or motivation for studies, reminding yourself or day-dreaming about your big goal is
often enough to get back on track. You can suddenly see a point in overcoming a study
obstacle when you remember how good it would feel to gain 50 rating points by the
end of the year, or find a reason to work harder to catch up on your weekly study
schedule if this would help you create a new opening repertoire before your next big
tournament. Ambitious goals are not only attractive as the final destination, but also
serve as a lasting source of motivation in our day-to-day studies. Thus, make sure to
have your big goals in writing (I have them in my chess study Excel files, for
example) and remind yourself of them on a regular basis.
Method #2: Keep a daily study log
While a big goal will provide you with a ‘big-picture’ kind of motivation, you also
need something to keep you disciplined in your day-to-day studies. I have found that
keeping a daily study log of your study activities is the best practice in that sense. In
such a log, you record all the study activities that you did for the day, for how long,
and at which times you did them. You can also record things like how many puzzles

you have solved and with which degree of accuracy, perform small statistics such as
how many mistakes you have made during a simulation, etc. The very process of
keeping such logs keeps you more focused, disciplined, and accountable for the
progress of your studies. On the other hand, these records also provide valuable
feedback on how successfully you have completed your scheduled activities, which
facilitates your dynamic planning. Let us use table 9.9 above to show how to keep a
daily study log.
Table 9.10: Daily study log
Date
1 Feb-2017
2 Feb-2017
3 Feb-2017 4 Feb-2017
Day
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Morning:
High
intensity/study
time
High (2h)
High (2h)
High (2h)
High (2h)
Study activity
Simulation of the
game Topalov,
Howell, 2017, 1-0
(90 min)
Simulation of the
game Lu
Shanglei -
Hansen, 2017, 0-
1 (90 min)
Solving 3
endgame
studies in
blindfold
mode; 2
correct
solutions, one
wrong
solution –
poor
visualization
(1h)
Playing out a
position from
the Qc2
Nimzo-Indian
against an
engine; a
strategic
mistake in the
middlegame;
should analyze
it deeper (1h)

Date
1 Feb-2017
2 Feb-2017
3 Feb-2017 4 Feb-2017
Analysis of the
game; List of
simulation
mistakes:
candidate moves –
3 mistakes,
overcoming
resistance – 2
mistakes,
impatient
conversion of
advantage – 2
mistakes
(30 min)
Analysis of the
game; List of
simulation
mistakes:
candidate moves
–
2 mistakes,
opponent’s
resources – 2
mistakes, wrong
positional
evaluation – 1
mistake
(30 min)
Playing online
blitz; A
problem in the
5.Qa4+
Variation in
the Ragozin
(1h)
Playing online
blitz; should
calculate more
on opponent’s
time (1h)
Evening: Low
intensity/study
time
Low (2,5h)
Low (2h)
Low (1,5h) Low (2,5h)
Study activity
Light analysis of 3
model games of
Michael Adams in
the Nimzo-Indian
Defense (1h)
Review of
theoretical
rook
endgames
withRvsR+
pawn on the
seventh rank
(examples
6973-7004 in
the database)
(1h)
Solving
medium
difficulty
tactics - 365
best puzzles;
score: 7 out of
8 correct (30
min)

Date
1 Feb-2017
2 Feb-2017
3 Feb-2017 4 Feb-2017
Playing over the
games from
Gibraltar 2017;
saved 3
theoretically
important games
in a database for
deeper analysis
(1h)
Solving medium
difficulty tactics
–
365 best
puzzles; score: 5
correct out of 6
(30 min)
Checking
openings from
the blitz
session;
5.Qa4+ in the
Ragozin;
should check
the Classical
Slav for White
in more detail
(30 min)
Review of the
Slav Defense,
Classical
Variation –
6.Ne5 (1h)
Review of the
Alapin Sicilian
and the London
System for Black
(30 min)
Study the Nimzo-
Indian with 4.f3
c5, early ...b7-b5
for Black; should
check the game
Baron-
Kryvoruchko in
more detail (90
min)
Light analysis
of new model
games in the
Carlsbad pawn
structure;
added 2 model
games to the
typical
middlegame
structures
database (1h)
Total study
time
4,5h
4h
3,5h
4,5h
Chapter 9 summary
• Even the players who see themselves as quite ambitious can get stuck in a vicious
cycle of poor time management, ineffective study activities and self-deception.
• Studying with a purposeful structure makes you more determined, focused, and
productive, rather than approaching your chess study in a haphazard manner.
• You want to make sure that your plan is structured well enough to allow you to focus
on your goals and not get distracted by useless stuff, but at the same time, you should
try to keep it as simple and as flexible as possible.

• You should design your own study plans with a format and to the extent that is
appropriate to your own taste, level of commitment, and resources.
• Once you have a basic structure of a study plan in place, it is a good idea to create a
weekly timetable with an overview of available study time for each of the seven days
in a typical week.
• If you tend to allocate your study time randomly or on a day-to-day basis, it is more
likely that your projects will remain permanent ‘works in progress’.
• As you look for available slots in your schedule, try to be on the conservative side –
do not plan for more time than you think that you can realistically spare on a focused
chess study.
• It is highly unlikely that you will actually be able to execute your chess activities
exactly as you had originally planned in your schedule because the circumstances in
life inevitably change and cannot be predicted. Thus, you want to always leave some
room for adjustments in case of contingencies, in other words, plan dynamically.
• A comprehensive study plan is the type of plan in which you do not focus on any
particular study area, but rather distribute your time evenly across all of them.
• A focused study plan is the type of plan in which you devote the majority of your
study time to one or several key study area(s).
• It makes sense that you plan at the start, which will be the main resources that you
will use for each study area so that you do not get distracted by a plethora of other
chess material.
• The more precisely you define your study activities, the more under your control
they become and the more motivated you will be to complete them.
• Activities that are too general, vague, or randomly assigned are probably not going
to be as effective, as you might lose sight of how what you are doing now contributes
to your overall improvement.
• Once you have determined all the basic components of your study plan and come up
with study activities, you can incorporate them into your weekly timetable(s) to create
a provisional study schedule.
• The provisional study schedule is merely something to provide a structure and
general direction for your studies and not something to be taken as a rigid framework.
• Start your daily studies by preparing to-do lists for the next study day with
actionable tasks: what exactly you will study, when, and for how long.

• High-intensity study sessions that last 3 hours or more have a strong positive impact
on one’s mental stamina.
• Ideally, you want to combine learning, decision-making and practical types of study
activities within a training session, although this is sometimes not possible due to a
lack of study time.
• It is good to have some typical routines or weekly projects that you will do on most
days, but you should mix them up with other types of study activities from time to
time.
• To get the most benefit out of your training, you need to be fully mentally involved
in your studies. Therefore, you better put aside your smartphones, earphones, chat
rooms, and other distractors when it is study time.
• Make sure to regularly challenge yourself and test your comfort zone in daily
studies. Be creative when challenging yourself!
• Study plans tend to be fairly long-term projects and it is only natural for our
motivation and discipline levels to fluctuate over time. This is why it is essential to
understand in advance how to deal with such issues.
• Big goals should mean something important to you personally, so that you feel
inspired by them, and be achievable yet preferably push you out of your current
comfort zone to accomplish them.
• Even if you do not ultimately achieve your big goal, the process of working toward it
will surely make you a better chess player. A modest or easily achievable outcome
goal is not going to give you that same amount of inspiration and drive when you need
it.
• Ambitious goals are not only attractive as the final destination, but also serve as a
lasting source of motivation in our day-to-day studies.
• Keeping a daily study log is one of the best ways to remain disciplined in your day-
to-day studies. It keeps you accountable for the progress of your studies, while also
providing valuable feedback on how successfully you have completed your scheduled
activities, which facilitates your dynamic planning.
Conclusion
Dear reader, we have reached the end of this book. Chess study is an inexhaustible
topic and I hope that the material presented here has helped you become at least a little
bit more competent in this area. I wish you the best of luck in achieving your chess

goals and I hope that the parting quote of GM Mihai Suba will serve as an inspiration
in your future chess endeavors:
‘Chess is complex, indeed, but it is this complexity that makes it beautiful. You have
to think positively. Look at the beauty of this game, at the pleasure such a nice hobby
brings, to the fact that it develops our thinking. Appreciate that we have a great
intellectual game that helps our brain, and is a nice social game, a game where we use
our ideas against other humans’ ideas. And do not forget: the more you understand it,
the more enjoyable it is.’

Index of names
(numbers refer to pages)
A
Aagaard 55, 165-168, 180, 320-321, 323
Adams 177, 341, 345
Adler 285
Adly 177
Afek 166, 357
Aghasaryan 238, 242
Akobian 160
Alburt 168
Alekhine 17, 47-48, 129, 167, 169, 237
Aleksandrov 177
Alekseenko 205
Amelung 356
Amin 200-201
Anand 9, 74-75, 77, 89, 173-178, 192, 298-302, 309, 317-320, 370
Andersson 295-296
Aravindh 178
Arizmendi 353
Arjun 227
Aronian 9, 22, 63, 74-75, 77, 80, 89, 177, 199, 220-221, 284
Artemiev 48-49, 73-74, 77-78, 177, 372
Arun Prasad 15

Averbakh 83
Avrukh 164, 174, 177
Azarov 200-201
Azmaiparashvili 339
B
Bacrot 124
Balogh 87, 127
Bancod 273
Banusz 284-285
Bareev 25-26, 167, 275-276, 290
Baron 200-201, 205-206, 345
Barsky 163
Bartholomew 165
Bauer 271
Bazlov 357
Beliavsky 173
Bellin 166
Bindrich 359
Boleslavsky 27
Bologan 164
Bosiocic 50, 369
Botvinnik 28, 58, 71, 167, 169, 189, 219, 268-269, 278, 282, 328
Breuer 362
Bricard 167
Brkic 255-256
Bronstein 70, 167, 169, 189, 268-269

Browne 219, 277-280, 282
Bruzon 356
Buhmann 256, 266, 278
Bukal 18
Burgess 189
Bykhovsky 134
C
Cafolla 202
Calio 221
Campora 67, 69
Capablanca 33, 129, 161, 165, 169, 254, 289
Carlsen 22, 39, 103, 126, 160, 168, 178-179, 195, 217-218, 294, 352, 370
Caruana 39, 96, 103, 105, 163, 173, 192, 210
Charbonneau 173-175
Chatalbashev 37
Chernev 165, 168
Collins 202, 272-273
Cornette 102, 107
Cox 163
Craik 101
Crumiller 168
D
Damsky 164
David 222, 284-285
De la Villa 165, 269

Demchenko 192
Ding Liren 52, 204, 293, 309-313
Dizdar 180
Djurovic 246
Dominguez 279-281
Dorfman 321
Doric 90, 229
Dreev 371
Dubov 9, 95, 98, 100, 294
Dunlop 224
Dvoirys 272-273
Dvoretsky 28, 63, 74, 122, 146, 165-168, 235, 246, 259, 269, 329
E
Edouard 165, 329
Eljanov 40-42
Elliott 69
Erdös 371
F
Farago 30, 33
Fedorchuk 242-243
Felytin 220
Finegold 161
Fischer 150, 167
Flohr 48
Flores Rios 167

Fridman 178, 245
Fritz 267
G
Gabuzyan 40-41
Gallagher 19
Galliamova 355
Gaprindashvili,N. 365
Gaprindashvili,P. 165
Gareyev 116, 364-365
Gashimov 343
Gelfand 21, 65-69, 149, 155, 165, 167, 174, 237, 329
Geller 173
Gershon 167
Giddins 167
Giegold 363
Gik 93, 349
Giri 78, 177-178, 265
Gonzalez Vidal 207
Grabinsky 165
Grigoriev 259-260, 262
Grischuk 21, 25-26, 96, 134, 302-306, 370
Grivas 53, 133, 155, 169, 185
Gufeld 167
Gujrathi 194
Gukesh 194, 352
Gulko 93, 98, 168

Gustafsson 63
H
Hall 165
Hammer 164, 178
Hansen 341, 345
Hawkins 16, 72, 127, 168, 258
Hebden 272-273
Hellsten 167
Hendriks 168, 322
Henrichs 149
Hess 178
Hjartarsson 204
Hou Yifan 178
Howell 341, 345
I
Iljushin 199
Illescas Cordoba 174
Ionov 174
Istratescu 273
Ivanchuk 84, 90, 174, 317, 319, 356
J
Jahnke 101
Jakubiec 42
Jankovic 193

Jansa 365
Jelecevic 190
Ji 174
Jimenez 314
Johansson 62
Jones 102-103, 107
Jussupow 168, 174
Ju Wenjun 173
K
Kamsky 200-201, 356
Kan 189
Karjakin 69, 78, 103, 168, 173, 177-178, 192, 302-307
Karolyi 167
Karpov 93-94, 161, 167, 169, 173, 203-204, 298-302, 327, 331, 349, 373
Kasparyan 166
Kasparov 28, 71, 82, 91, 119, 127, 168, 169, 173, 181, 275, 295-299, 327,
337, 339
Karthikeyan 178
Kaufeld 167
Kavutsky 160
Kazoks 221
Kekki 177
Keres 150
Kern 167
Khademalsharieh 173
Khalifman 173

Khanin 193
King 92, 160, 168
Kolas 193
Kopeikin 220
Korneev 368
Korobov 178
Kortchnoi 166, 167, 173, 181, 293, 305-308
Kotov 15, 27, 48, 71, 131, 168, 293, 321, 328
Kovacevic 163, 190
Koykka 353
Kozul 19-22, 30, 137-139, 141-145, 180, 183
Krämer 78, 177
Kramnik 28, 57, 91, 173, 176, 178, 220-221, 275
Kryvoruchko 174, 345
Kuczynski 189
Kuljasevic 30, 32, 35, 37, 83, 90, 137, 149, 151, 205-206, 216, 238, 242,
271, 281-282, 362, 372
Kunin 112
Kurnosov 371
Kuzmin 164
Kvetny 256-257, 266, 278
L
Lagarde 211
Lamprecht 165
Landa 166
Larsen,B 167, 309, 314-317, 320

Larsen,K. 211
Lasker 33
Lautier 261-262, 267, 354
Leitao 181, 206
Leko 63, 177
Lenderman 364
Le Quang Liem 70
Levitov 167
Lisitsyn 163, 327
Li Yankai 293, 310-312
Lockhart 101
Lund 112
Lu Shanglei 341, 345
M
Magerramov 363
Maghalashvili 282, 286
Maizelis 168
Mamedov 40-41, 43
Mamedyarov 25, 343, 370
Manish 110
Marin 164
Maris 372
Marjanovic 217
Markos 168
Marovic 166
Martins 221

Matlakov 174
Matsuura 69
Mednis 165
Meier 42, 96, 174
Melkumyan 265
Mezera 221
Michalik 222
Miettinen 224
Mikhalchishin 133-134, 146, 166, 173
Mikhalevski 164
Miles 261-262, 267, 354
Milos 181
Mishra 15
Mohr 285
Morozevich 316-317
Müller 165-166
Mulligan 224
N
Naiditsch 172
Nakamura 173
Navara 178, 265-266
Negi 164
Neishtadt 164
Neubauer 90-92
Ng 174
Nikulshina 28

Nimzowitsch 54
Nor 167
Nowaczyk 101
Ntirlis 164, 196, 198
Nunn 164-166, 168
Nybäck 177
O
Olsen 223
Onischuk 177
Ostrovsky 28
Otspere 224
P
Pachman 167
Packroff 221
Panchenko 165, 168
Paravyan 48, 222-223, 225
Pashikian 272
Perunovic 193
Pervakov 166
Petrosian 18, 57, 71, 109, 126, 163, 167, 219, 278, 282, 299, 328
Petrosyan 73, 75, 78, 177
Pichot 279-281
Piorun 200-201
Polgar,J. 235
Polgar,L. 164

Ponzetto 166
Portisch 187-188, 231, 295-299
Postovsky 168
Predojevic 217
Psakhis 82, 165, 237, 246, 328
Q
Quesada Vera 353
Quintiliano 164
R
Radjabov 343
Ragger 69
Rausis 86
Réti 234, 237, 246
Roberson 211
Robson 70, 200-201
Rodrigues 69
Rohit 211, 354
Roiz 96, 164
Romanovsky 167
Rossolimo 65
Rowson 43, 168
Rublevsky 272
S
Sadzikowski 200-201

Sakaev 166
Salgado Lopez 151
Sarana 205
Sargissian 359
Saric 204
Savchenko 110
Seirawan 160
Selen 220
Sevian 204, 207
Shah 160
Shailesh 211
Shankland 166, 180, 188, 191, 204, 231, 234, 241, 246, 265, 356
Shengelia 255-256
Shereshevsky 30, 33, 166, 277, 327
Shirov 165
Short 373
Sielecki 164
Siigur 223
Silman 167, 269
Singer 41
Skreno 35
Slugin 138
Smeets 177
Smirin 163, 177
Smirnov 353
Smith 146, 164, 168, 326
Smyslov 165

Sneed 93, 168
So 70, 87, 172, 179
Socko 361
Sokolov 167, 173
Sonntag 202
Spassky 172, 201-202, 293, 305-308
Spielmann 165, 237
Stean 166
Stefanova 32-33
Stefansson 211
Stetsko 166
Studer 112
Suba 167, 294, 309, 320, 323, 329, 348
Susedenko 220-221
Susnjar 281
Svane 227
Sveshnikov 219, 277-280, 282
Svidler 63, 103, 105, 160, 164, 309
T
Taborov 28
Taimanov 174
Tal 15, 164, 168, 172, 234
Tari 193
Teichmann 366
Ter Sahakyan 45-46
Tikkanen 164

Timman 168, 329
Timofeev 193
Tkachenko 166
Tkachiev 316-317
Tomashevsky 9, 95-97, 100, 177, 199, 231
Tomczak 224-225
Topalov 69, 235, 341, 345
Trzcinski 224-225
Tseshkovsky 272
Tuan Minh Tran 354
Tukmakov 19, 21-22, 30, 169, 183
Turov 138
V
Vachier Lagrave 78, 177, 200-201, 226
Van de Oudeweetering 35, 166
Van Foreest 372
Van Kampen 163
Van Perlo 166
Van Wely 65-66
Vescovi 206
Videnova 368
Vidit 194, 351-352
Vigorito 222-224
Vitiugov 44-47, 50, 181, 194, 271, 351-352
Vladimirov 328-329
Volkov 70, 361

Volokitin 165
Vukovic 164
W
Wang 41
Wang Hao 52, 195, 352
Watson 43, 163, 167, 320
Weenink 263, 265
Wei Yi 44-45
Willemze 166
Willow 220
Wojtaszek 344
Wong Jianwen 194, 352
X
Xie Jun 355
Y
Yakovich 163
Yanvarjov 163
Yermolinsky 168
Yudasin 174
Z
Zakharov 220
Zaragatski 371
Zarkua 83

Zelcic 50, 124, 271, 273, 369
Zhigalko 204
Zlotnik 30, 33, 299, 327
Zovko 216-217, 282

Bibliography
Train Like a Grandmaster, Alexander Kotov, Batsford 1981;
Abhimanyu Mishra becomes the youngest IM in the world, Sagar Shah,
chessbase.com 2019;
Amateur to IM: Proven Ideas and Training Methods, Jonathan Hawkins,
Mongoose Press 2012;
Think Like a Grandmaster, Alexander Kotov, Batsford 2012;
From London to Elista: The Inside Story of the World Chess Championship
Matches that Vladimir Kramnik Won Against Garry Kasparov, Peter Leko,
and Veselin Topalov, Evgeny Bareev & Ilya Levitov, New in Chess 2007;
For Friends and Colleagues: Profession – Chess Coach, Mark Dvoretsky,
Russell Enterprises 2014;
Coaching Kasparov, Year by Year and Move by Move, Volume I: The Whizz-
Kid (1973-1981), Alexander Nikitin, Elk and Ruby 2019;
Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch, John
Watson, Gambit 1999;
Chess for Zebras, Jonathan Rowson, Gambit 2014;
Thinking Inside the Box, Jacob Aagaard, Quality Chess 2018;
Positional Decision Making in Chess, Boris Gelfand, Quality Chess 2016;
Advanced Chess Tactics, Lev Psakhis, Quality Chess 2020;
Levels of processing: A framework for memory research, Craik, F.I .M. &
Lockhart, R.S . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 11,
No. 6, December 1972;
Cognition, Jahnke, J.C ., & Nowaczyk, R.H., Prentice Hall 1998;
Most Exciting Games of 2016, Arkady Naiditsch, Sebastien Maze & Csaba
Balogh, Chess Evolution 2017;
FIDE Trainer Guide: Chess Steps A Book, Efstratios Grivas, FIDE 2014;

FIDE Trainers Commission Syllabus, Efstratios Grivas, Mikhail Gurevich,
Miguel Illescas, Michael Khodarkovsky, Andrew Martin, Adrian
Mikhalchishin & Jovan Petronic, FIDE 2010;
Pump Up Your Rating, Axel Smith, Quality Chess 2013;
The Paradox of Choice, Barry Schwartz, Harper Perennial 2005;
Modern Chess Preparation: Getting Ready for Your Opponent in the
Information Age, Vladimir Tukmakov, New in Chess 2015;
Shankland on His Rise from GM to Top Hundred, Sam Shankland, US
Chess Federation 2015;
Yearbook 135, New in Chess 2020;
‘Evgeny Tomashevsky remains humble: “It is also matter of luck”’, Goran
Urosevic, Interview for Chessdom.com 2015;
Modern Ideas in Chess, Richard Reti, Russell Enterprises 2010;
Endgame Strategy, Mikhail Shereshevsky, Everyman Chess 1994;
Dynamic Chess Strategy, Mihai Suba, New in Chess 2016;
Interview: Daniil Dubov, New in Chess Magazine #5 2020;
Bent Larsen’s Best Games, Bent Larsen, New in Chess 2015;
‘The difference between Positional and Strategic Decisions’, Jacob
Aagaard, Quality Chess Blog 2012;
‘Darwin plays chess’, Willy Hendriks, New in Chess Magazine #5 2020.