Druss Blog

More of a focus on playing

2006-07-08T09:34:00.000+01:00

Again, I haven't posted for a while. Partly this is because I've been busy at work. And partly I just haven't felt so enthusiastic about MDLM training.

I have still been plugging away at CT Art. Running it on a mobile device has been a real benefit, as I can fit in the odd half hour at lunchtime etc, and if it wasn't for this then I suspect things might have ground to a halt.

So I have been struggling through the 30s. The 10s are now easy, the 20s are OK and I can usually find the answer fairly quickly, but the 30s are worse. Not that I can't solve them, but that it takes that bit of effort. I find it difficult to get the motivation to solve more than 5 or 10 of them a day, and as a result it is taking a while to get through them.

However, recently I have been focusing more on playing 5 0 blitz on ICC. My real goal is to get a peak rating of 1500 here, and I'm not too far off. Here's my latest ICC rating graph:

A - when I first started playing on ICC, and (rather optimistically) said my rating was 1400

B - brought down to earth with a real rating of 1000

C - 1300 peak, after my first session of training, which was mainly reading opening theory and solving puzzles. This is also when I first discovered - and started - the MDLM training programme

D - 1300 peak, still, the last time I posted this graph

E - 1400 peak, after more focus on playing

So I'm getting there, and it has been interesting playing. I think that tactics are a large part of the game, but are not the complete answer. I find that I also have to have a 'plan' - even if it is something as high level as 'attack on the kingside' or 'push the pawns in the middle'. I'm also finding that if I'm controlling the game more, and my opponent is reacting to my attacks, then I'm more likely to get a tactical shot ... I suppose this is what they mean by initiative. However, I have to be careful not to over extend, or to push an attack to far when it isn't completely sound ... something I can get into the habit of doing after too much CT Art.

That said, the main reason why I've gone from my all time low of 1000 to my all time high of 1400 is tactical training.

I've won my first tournament!

2006-05-31T16:58:00.000+01:00

I've not posted for a while - been getting bogged down in CT Art level 50 problems, which I have now finished. I've started going through from level 10 again. Rattled those off in about an hour, and now working my way through level 20s. I can do these fairly rapidly, but not at the quick fire pace of the 10s. It will probably take me the best part of a week to get through them.

But more importantly, I have entered - and won - my first chess tournament! I feel a bit of a fraud though really, because it wasn't exactly a challenging tournament. I discovered it while wandering around one lunchtime at work - there was a notice in a cafe window saying "amateur rapid chess tournament". I phoned up and it was being run by this guy trying to start up a local chess league between cafes and bars in the area. Almost all the people who turned up hadn't played in years, and certainly weren't involved in intensive MDLM training! So I felt like I'd been cheating by using CT Art.

Thinking about it the day after, I concluded:
1) I'd forgotten just what it is like to be a novice. You miss all sorts of stuff and there are tactical shots all over the place. I now realise how far I have come since I first learned how to play, rather than looking at how much I still have to learn.
2) Most of the time I could tactically overwhelm people. I would just throw out a few opening moves and then win a tactical combination or two.
3) The most benefit I have got from endlessly repeating CT Art problems is from levels 10 and 20, and a bit of 30. If you get this stuff right, and rarely miss an opportunity when it arises, you can significantly increase your playing strength.

Slow progress through the 50s

2006-05-06T09:16:00.000+01:00

I've been working my way through the level 50s. It is slow progress, but I'm enjoying it. I've completed about 40 of them, and I'm scoring about 60%.

They are definitely more difficult problems. I'm really struggling to try and see all the possibilities, but I'm improving a bit.

This made me think a bit about what I'm really learning from this tactical training. My feeling at the moment is that it could be two things:

1) My ability just to see more tactics in the position. By this I mean instantly realising that there is a concealed check, a pin etc. And that this is reinforced by iterating through the problems a number of times - especially the lower level ones

2) Increasing my calculation depth. Being able to see the result of a longer sequence of moves, and also being able to visualise the resulting position more clearly and spot tactics in that position. For example, being able to see a knight fork after four or five forced moves. I feel this is reinforced by trying to do the harder levels. Although when they get too hard it can feel counter productive.

The novice's view of chess

2006-04-25T11:34:00.000+01:00

I overheard an interesting conversation between two people at work this week. One person was describing a technique a mate of his has for interviewing DBAs - he plays them at chess using yahoo instant messenger.

The other person questioned this technique. He said that if he were subject to such an interview, all he would do would be to google for grandmaster chess strategies. He would then be able to win easily by just following, presumably, the simple instructions he finds.

There is also a Alta Vista add featuring Kasparov where a kid playing a simul types How to beat Kasparov at chess into a search engine.

This seems to be a common misconception amongst novices. Googling for grandmaster chess strategies gets you a lot of links to Silman's books, and how to beat kasparov at chess gets you a link to IBM's deep blue page! So you either have to spend hours reading Silman, or build yourself a super computer ... neither easy options for passing that DBA interview.

Repeated level 40 until I got them all right

2006-04-11T16:13:00.000+01:00

Although I completed level 40 in CT Art a few weeks ago, I decided to continue to solve the 'erroneous' problems until I had scored 100%. In other words, to redo every problem until I got them all right first time. This is the same approach that I did previously with levels 10, 20 and 30. Although it is nice to achieve, it does involve trying to solve the same problems over and over. And, in the end it seems more a case of memorising the move order rather than solving, and I wonder if this is a bad situation. Am I building up a generic pattern recognition memory that will improve my tactical play, or am I learning how to solve specific CT Art problems? Also, it takes a fair slug of time to complete, especially at level 40. On balance, I like it though, and I feel it is helping by repeatedly exposing me to patterns that I miss. I definitely have tactical blind spots, and certain combinations are much harder for me to spot.

I have now completed seven circles of levels 10 and 20, six circles of level 30 and five circles of level 40. Above this, I have solved level 50 twice, and levels 60+ once.

Even with level 20, I have not managed to complete them all in one day. I have with level 10, and got it down to about 1 hour. The best at level 20 is 3 days. I'm getting a bit better at level 30, and managed to knock off 30 odd without really trying this morning.

According to MDLM I should be aiming for completing everything all in one day. At the moment I think this is unrealistic. I also think there is limited value going above level 50 problems. So my goal for this year is to try to complete levels 10 to 50 only in one day.

I am not fully convinced of this tuning the problem solving down to one day final stage - what do other people think who have achieved this? Personally, I find the iterating through the erroneous problems until you achieve 100% approach is more useful for me.

On another note, is the enthusiasm waning amongst the knights? People have commented that we are not as enthusiastic at rallying round people who are struggling. And also, I feel there is a lot of divergence in methods and more of a focus on chess improvement rather than MDLM methods. Is this bad?

Progress

2006-03-20T11:30:00.000Z

I have completed the level 40s, and scored about 64%. Not too bad. I'm now repeating the ones I didn't get 100% right, iterating through them until I do. I did this with the previous levels and found it a good way to improve.

Also, my 5 0 blitz rating on ICC has improved - my peak rating is now 1421. My goal is to try and reach 1500 which now seems in sight rather than a distant dream. I am certainly improving. Mostly this is as a direct result of the tactical training. After one year of tactical training this peak has risen by just over 100 points. Not the 400 points in 400 days though! But then I do have a job.

John Nunn was an early knight!

2006-03-04T18:23:00.000Z

Still plodding through the level 40s, but it is going OK with my new approach. I'm taking my time and trying to think deeply about the problems - I even get a surprising amount right!

On a more interesting note however, I came across this bit in Jacob Aagaard Excelling at Chess:

It is a game John Nunn played against Portisch in the Reykjavik World Cup 1988.

Black played 31 .. c5? and Nunn followed up with a nice tactical finish:
32 Re4 Rg8 33 Qxh7+! 1-0

Aagard says:
"Nunn had obviously intended this combination. It is no coincidence that in his Best Games Collection he writes that, as a child, he had solved every combination (999 in all!) in a book and this very same theme had featured."

Sounds like knight training to me, and even a grandmaster level game can be decided as a result!

Progress and a game against an IM

2006-02-22T12:14:00.000Z

Although I'm trying not to think about it and measure progress, I completed level 30 today, scoring 84%. Still reading the books though.

Also, I played a game against an IM on ICC yesterday. I've never played a titled player before, so it was an interesting experience:

This browser is not Java-enabled.

According to Fritz analysis I started drifting off about move 15. Instead of exchanging bishops, I should have noticed that the c3 pawn was pinned to the undefended black queen on c7 and moved by knight to d2.

Then he just outplayed me, winning pawns until I slipped up and let him pin my queen to my king with his rook.

He never seemed to make any amazing moves, just consistently kept on top of the tactics and picked up pieces. I suppose he didn't need to do anything else when he was playing someone as weak as me!

Modifying my approach

2006-02-15T11:28:00.000Z

In my last post I described how I'm bored with grinding through tactical problems. So I have decided to try and change my approach. I'm not giving up tactical problems, but I'm going to try and incorporate some positional training as well. I will continue to solve tactical problems daily, but I will try to think differently about my goal. My old goal was to solve CT Art problems in seven circles, getting quicker and quicker until I could solve the lot in a day ... as MDLM suggests. But I found this was driving me to grind through problems just for the sake of it, which was no fun and boring. My new approach is to think that I will spend a certain amount of day solving them, but with no long term goal in mind.

Aagaard's new book is interesting, and in a lot of ways is a response to John Watson's Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy and rule independence. Aagaard claims that there are positional rules, but you have to know when to apply them and when not to. He has some interesting examples (a number of which from Kasparov's games) where he points to a key, single positional move as being the crucial turning point in the game.

I have also bought a couple of Kasparov's DVDs on opening theory ... the Najdorf and the Queens Gambit Declined. Again, it is interesting that Kasparov emphasises key position aspects of the positions. For example, freeing black's light squared bishop in the Najdorf. However, he also emphasises the importance of tactics in the new age of computer chess. Tactics are vital, but so are positional and strategic play.

I'm coming round to thinking of tactics as essential, but not the whole answer. It is as if tactics are like grammar and spelling in a piece of writing. If they are poor then it is rubbish, they are an essential part, but they are not the whole answer.

So what to do?

Well, I will continue with my tactical training as I described. But also I am not going to forget positional play. Partly this will involve finishing reading Aagaard and other similar books, and of course all the Silman ones. But it may involve trying Chess Strategy by Convekta, which I have bought already but not experimented with much. I may even try a seven circles approach with Silman's Reassess Your Chess Workbook and Convekta's Chess Strategy program, but I'll see how it goes.

The other thing I want to try is winning won positions. I want to get an example of a position where some chess books says, "and white has a decisive advantage" and try playing it out with Fritz. Hopefully this will give me a much more intuitive feel for why positional advantages work, and when they don't.

However, one thing I need to think about is what are the positional advantages I want to try and play? What are the key positional advantages? Is there any book out there which lists them?

Bored

2006-02-08T16:27:00.000Z

I've finished the level 10s and 20s for the sixth time, but I didn't enjoy it. I rattled through them fairly quickly, but it was very boring. I find these final stages tedious ... when you are recognising patterns more than calculating. Starting the 30s is a better, but not exactly fun.

So I'm easing off a bit. Not totally taking a break, but planning to do other things as well as just solve CT Art problems.

So ... I bought Excelling at Chess by Jacob Aagaard (mostly because of the Rowson review in New In Chess). He has an interesting sentence in the first chapter:

"I believe that most tournament games are not won by superior calculation or imaginary power, as I used to think, but rather due to superior understanding of the very basics of the game."

Which sounds to me much like strategic rules! Anyway, interesting to find out more what he has to say, and a bit of strategy will be a welcome break from all this tactical calculation.

6th circle progress

2006-02-02T12:44:00.000Z

Last week I finished off the erroneous level 30s, which took some time.

I then started again at level 10 for the 6th time. I polished these off in a day, and have started the level 20s. I've completed 187 of these so far, with 99 left to do.

I am solving the level 20s a lot quicker - mostly in under a minute. However I worry that I am just learning these positions. Rather than calculating, I'm thinking, "Oh yes, this problem. I move my knight to g6. Now why do I do that? Oh yes, so that ..." Am I really learning pattern recognition, or am I learning to recognise CT Art problems!

It is also boring going through these low level ones again. I'm scoring about 92% on the level 20s, but I'm not 'solving chess problems' ... more like grinding through hundreds and hundreds of puzzles I've done loads before.

On another note, I discovered how to get a graph of my rating over time from ICC:

(a) is when I first joined ICC and rather ambitiously said my rating was 1400, which was quickly corrected.

(b) was when I started reading up on opening theory

My tactical training started in early 2005. And as you can see the results have been varied. The tactical training seems to have made me more unpredictable - sometimes I play well and rise, and then I can just get into a loosing streak. No definite upward trend however.

Toppy tactics at Wijk aan Zee

2006-01-25T18:42:00.000Z

It has been amazing watching Toppy's games at Corus. Both the games today and yesterday are very interesting.

Yesterday he had two rooks en prise, and he moved his queen. Admittedly into an excellent position, but one that was just full of tactics. Chessbase has an excellent write up: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2885 with white's response on move 35.

And then today he made two exchange sacrifices! And then was left in a winning position with two bishops vs two rooks. Again, tactics galore.

I wonder if he's just finished Maza training ... ?

Finished the level 30s

2006-01-20T14:05:00.000Z

For the fourth time. Slower than the 20s, but not too bad and I scored 72%. I'm now going to go back over the erroneous ones and repeat them. After that I'll try a few 40s, then maybe cycle back through the 10, 20 and 30s.

I had a bit of a think about where I'm improving. As a number of other knights have observed, there is definitely a pattern recognition thing going on. Especially around sacrificial attacks on the king's pawn shelter! But I'm also improving my look-ahead capability. I can see slightly further than I used to.

I recently subscribed to New In Chess, partly as a result of following (on www.chessbase.com) Toppy win the recent World Championship. The first edition of New In Chess that I received was heavily focused on this event. I am finding it easier to follow annotated games - MDLM said that, didn't he? - not that I really understand what's going on in them though! I was surprised about just how tactical the world championship games appeared. Some of the openings seemed crazy, I would feel very exposed and nervous playing them. The top chess players at the World Championship seem to be able to effortlessly combine tactics with a real mastery of the game. It is not what I would call strategy necessarily (or at least what I think of as strategic play), more exactly knowing when to swap that duff old rook for that knight.

Good progress with CT Art on my pocket PC

2006-01-10T11:48:00.000Z

I completed the level 20 problems (for the fifth time) last week, and started on the level 30s. I've completed about 60 of these so far - the pocket PC is proving to be an excellent way of solving CT Art problems. It is far more portable than a PC, and the slight limitations don't bother me. I'm finding that I can get more problem solving hours in each day as a result.

However my circles are becoming blurred. This is only my fourth cycle through the level 30s, and I've been through the level 10s six times. I've decided not to focus on a strict 7 times through in 7 circles approach. I'm going to cycle through each level enough times until I can solve the problems almost straight away ... or quickly enough so that I could sit down and do several hundred in a day. So I'm retaining MDLM's end goal of trying to have a final circle in which I solve all the problems in one day, but not sticking to a rigid 7 times through to achieve this, and also not trying to solve all the CT Art problems - capping it at level 50s probably.

Is it working? The continual question :) My online play isn't improving much, I think that focusing on tactical puzzles creates bad habits for real play. My sense of danger is not heightened enough - I think that I've got the superior tactical position and that the other side hasn't really got anything. Playing through the chess problems, even when oppo has a tactical shot you can always get yours in first! If only this were true in actual games ...

Mobile CT Art

2006-01-04T11:07:00.000Z

After thinking about it for a couple of days, I just went out and bought an iPaq. Then I went along to my friendly local chess shop and ended up buying not only Pocket CT Art and Pocket Fritz, but a couple of other convekta programs as well ... Pocket Chess Strategy and Pocket Chess Endings. I thought I might as well while I was there.

Chess Strategy and Chess Endings are almost exactly the same format as CT Art, but with different problems. I've had a bit of a play with them, but not that extensively. I'm still planning to mainly focus on CT Art. Chess Strategy feels different because there is not really a definite 'checkmate like' solution, so it is more vague. Fun though. I completely can't identify good moves to exploit weak squares though! ... the only theme I've explored so far.

Pocket Fritz is good, although it was very difficult to install. The standard out-of-the-box install program didn't recognise the newer Window Mobile operating system, and I had to hack around using a patch update installer from the chessbase website. Got there in the end though.

Pocket CT Art definitely does the job, but is a cut down version of the PC edition. There is no 5x5 help board if you go wrong, and you can't play a position against Crafty in practise mode. I would recommend using the PC version initially, and use the Pocket PC version for practise on subsequent circles.

There is a bug in CT Art though - selecting tactical themes from the drop-down list doesn't properly work, and the number of new vs solved exercises is wrong. Playing a practise game first in the themed mode solves this.

I've started my 5th circle on my Pocket PC now. I completed level 20 on my PC in my 4th circle, and then decided to start from scratch again on the Pocket PC.

I whizzed through level 10, and I am progressing swiftly through level 20 and have completed about 70% of the problems. Level 20 is becoming a lot easier and I'm solving them in less than 1 minute on average. So I can sit down and do 20 to 30 in a session. However, I can still only dream of doing this for the level 90s! Maybe one day ... or more like maybe one year!

Progressing through 4th circle

2005-12-27T10:13:00.000Z

Some progress on my 4th circle, but not rapid ... I'm about two thirds of the way through the level 20s. Enjoying them though.

I don't get as much time to solve chess problems now that I've got a kid. So I'm thinking of getting a Pocket PC and buying Pocket CT Art ... and probably Pocket Fritz while I'm at it. Then I can get in some chess training at lunchtime while I'm at work and when I'm commuting.

Has anyone tried Pocket CT Art? It looks like it has the same functionality as the PC version, but I don't know how easy it is to use. What about Pocket Fritz?

Chess For Zebras

2005-12-22T09:08:00.000Z

The new book from Jonathan Rowson arrived through the post yesterday - Chess For Zebras.

Rowson is one of my favourite chess authors, I really like reading his thoughts about chess. So I dived straight in as soon as the brown cardboard Amazon parcel thudded through my letterbox. This latest book doesn't disappoint.

The first footnote in his opening chapter is interesting:

"...I agree with the advice of FM Ken Smith who said that until you are about 1800 "your first name is tactics, your middle name is tactics and your last name is tactics" ... For players rated below 1800 who desperately want to improve I recommend Michael de la Mazza's thoughtful and honest book, Rapid Chess Improvement"

Started by 4th circle

2005-12-19T15:47:00.000Z

I have started solving CT Art problems again, after a break of about a month, and decided to start my 4th circle. I was plodding through the 40 level puzzles in my 3rd circle, but have decided to abandon these and start off my 4th circle from level 10 again.

Although the 40+ problems are interesting, and good for improving my concentrated thinking, I think that if I could just master the 10, 20 and 30 level ones then I would improve dramatically. I have been playing my chess computer a lot, and also playing 5 0 blitz on ICC. The majority of games that I loose are because of a tactical slip - and one that isn't that difficult ... about the 10, 20 or 30 CT Art level.

So I have decided to forget about the complicated stuff for the moment, and just repeat the low level CT Art stuff until I can nail them. I will still try and achieve MDLM's goal of repeating these puzzles enough times until I can solve them all pretty much at one sitting (which hopefully will not take more than 7 times!).

I started my 4th circle just over a week ago. I finished the level 10 problems in one sitting reasonably easily, however the level 20s are taking longer. I can solve them, but I have to think a bit. I can generally only do about 10 or 15 at a stretch before having a rest, so they can take a while. I'm about half way through these.

It occurred to me the other day that chess is a surprisingly rich tactical game. Much more so than I used to think! CT Art really highlights all the possible tactical hits out there, and I'm missing so much of the basic stuff in my games. If I could just get on top of these then I would see a definite improvement.

So my new goal is to get my ICC 5 0 blitz rating "all time highest score" above 1500. Which is achievable, but will take some time. It is 1330 at the moment.

Tangible progress at last!

2005-12-06T12:51:00.000Z

I have been beating my chess computer more regularly now. This game was the latest and I won as white against it on level 3:

This browser is not Java-enabled.

The computer doesn't have that high regard for its king safety!

It has taken me 20 years to beat this chess computer. I had progressed in my chess ability as a kid until I tried playing this machine, and failed to get close to winning, as I described on my first blog post

So I'm really pleased. This tactical training has paid off. It has allowed me to play a sharper game against this computer without blundering. Computers aren't so tough when you don't fall foul of their tactical shots.

Fritz doesn't really like 9 h3 though!

Back at work, but even less progress

2005-11-28T11:02:00.000Z

I've started work again, but have found myself with even less spare time. I'm working, or I'm looking after my daughter ... not much else.

I'm still playing my Kasparov Cosmos chess computer, but not solving any CT Art problems. I think I will have to take a bit of a rest from my tactical problem solving. Although I am having a lot of fun playing my chess computer. There is definitely a real difference trying to spot and create tactics in real games, as opposed to solving problems when you already know that there is a tactical shot in there somewhere.

No progress on CT Art

2005-11-21T20:14:00.000Z

I'm still off on paternity leave looking after my daughter, which is turning into a full time job at the moment. I'm due to go back to work on Friday, when things might get more back to normal, but so far I haven't tried to solve a single CT Art problem since she has been born. It has been too difficult to get a large enough chunk of concentrated time to sit down and think about them ... I've been put off by other things.

However, I have been playing my chess computer a lot. It is a Kasparov Cosmos, which I bought a few years ago. I've lost a fair number of games, but actually started drawing some after a while. And then I beat it on level 2, which I've never done before, playing black. Still haven't beaten it with white yet though.

I'm a lot better at playing against it than I used to be. It used to just hammer me all the time. Tactical training has definitely worked in this regard - it is quite a tactical player. It will quite often charge out with its queen very early on, or play some speculative pawn gambit ... which makes me think I'm in the lead positionally ... but then it's got some cunning tactic up its sleeve. I used to fall foul of these all the time, but they are easier to spot now. I still don't see them all the time, and indeed more often than not it gets me with its tricksy moves, but I'm blocking it more than I was.

It is also interesting playing full games rather than solving isolated tactical problems. I am more aware of when tactical shots might be in the air, but playing a real game where they might not actually appear is certainly different from solving countless CT Art problems. CT Art can lead you down a dangerous path of thinking that there is always some cunning tactical sacrifice, if only you looked hard enough to find it.

Playing against a good tactical computer is good training as well ... one slip and it nails you.

Anyway. Normal CT Art training should be resumed soon ... although I'm thinking of going back and doing levels 10, 20 and 30 again ...

thanks

2005-11-10T12:05:00.000Z

Thanks for all the congratulations. Having to type this one handed with her in my other arm!

Having a kid makes me wonder ... how soon can you start them playing chess? I think I remember Karpov saying somewhere that he started when he was 4. I've got a nephew who is 4 and 3/4 ... should I try and start him off this Christmas? Any suggestions on the best way? I remember seeing some CD designed for kids somewhere.

Not a lot of progress in the last week

2005-11-08T16:43:00.000Z

My daughter was born on Saturday, which was fantastic. But as a result I have played virtually no chess in the last week. I imagine it will be a few weeks before things get back to normal.

At the moment though it is very hard to concentrate on those tricky level 40 ones. My mind keeps getting distracted :)

Progressing with 3rd circle

2005-10-31T10:46:00.000Z

I've now finished level 30s and started the level 40s - I've completed 50 of them, or about 25%.

The 40s are definitely harder than the 30s, but not a lot so. I find myself either solving them quickly, or being stumped. But I felt that with the 30s as well.

Thoughts on more difficult problems

2005-10-26T10:32:00.000+01:00

Some interesting feedback on my last post. Phorku described level 30 as 'rearranging the pieces' to make the tactics work, and that there aren't really any new ideas. I think this is spot on.

Pale Morning Dun said that the jump between level 20 and level 30 is one of the more dramatic, and that don't rush the early problems. Again, I agree with this.

Both these made me think that following the plan of stopping early and not completing all the difficult problems above 50+ is good. Also, repeating the erroneous problems on levels 10 and 20 until I got them right is worth while. When I first read about these two approaches I was sceptical. Shouldn't tactical training be about solving all the problems in CT Art? I thought this approach of stopping early was wimping out. Now I'm glad I've switched. Yes, it is about solving all of them eventually, but the easier problems feel like the foundation.

Chugging through level 30

2005-10-24T15:43:00.000+01:00

I completed 155 out of 221 level 30 problems last week. I did at one stage have hopes of finishing them all, but it was not to be.

It has been difficult transitioning from level 20 to level 30. I had got into the 'got to score 100%' mindset by repeating level 20 until I got them all right, this made trying the level 30s very disappointing.

Still, getting through them more quickly than in my first or second circle.

2 weeks into my 3rd circle - finished level 20

2005-10-17T11:31:00.000+01:00

A nice week last week - I finished off the level 20s. Also, I went back over the ones I got wrong using the 'erroneous' filter and redid them until I got them all right. I tried this approach with the 10s and it works well. You get to repeat all the ones you didn't get the first time round ... or in some cases the second or the third time round!

My new plan is to progress this each circle - on circle 2 I repeated level 10 until I got them right. Circle 3 will repeat levels 10 and 20. And so on. Also, I'll progress the maximum level I try, so I stopped at level 40 on circle 2 and I'll aim to stop at level 50 on circle 3. At least that's the new plan this week. I'll see how I get on with this as this circles progress.

It is an interesting exercise to repeat the problems you got wrong - it highlights areas of weakness in your thinking. I think mine fall into two areas:
(1) blindness to certain themes
(2) not enough breadth of analysis.

(1) blindness is easy to spot. Here's a good example (problem #149):

I thought through the problem to this stage (problem #149 a couple of moves later):

But then thought, "So what?". I couldn't see that taking either rook would open up the back rank mate.

This is an example of (2) - not enough breadth of analysis (problem #259):

I kept wanting to play h4 instead of f4. I am not thinking through all the options thoroughly. In fact the only way I managed to finally solve this problem was by learning f4. Am I just learning some of the specific problems off by heart rather than understanding them? Is this bad? Or will I remember the pattern somehow?

There are other examples where I get carried away with quite a complicated line of analysis, only for it to not draw any definite conclusions. My initial thought is that I'm just not seeing deep enough, and there is in fact a solution possibly a couple of moves more ahead. What I'm really doing though is missing an easy 2 or 3 move combination! I can get distracted focusing just on one line and miss a number of other (simpler) ones.

OK - definitely started my third circle

2005-10-10T10:39:00.000+01:00

Bit of a strange week last week. For the first 4 days I struggled with level 50 in my second circle. I managed to complete about 5 a day, but it was really hard going and I wasn't really fully understanding the problems.

Then I decided to have a bash at the level 10 ones again, as I detailed in my last post. These were much easier, and I rattled through all 110 in just over an hour.

Spurred on, I tried some level 20s. Over the last couple of days I've completed 146 of these, or about half. So that's over 250 easy problems in the second half of the week vs 19 tricky ones in the first half. That's telling me something!

Much as I want to think I can solve all the problems in CT Art - I can't. I have tried hard to struggle through the more difficult ones, but have realised that it will take ages. Reluctant as I am to give up on level 50 plus, I feel I get more benefit from solving the easier ones.

So my revised plan is much like a number of other knights have already concluded - circle round the easy levels in CT Art. I can always come back to the more tricky ones later, and indeed this might be a better way to solve them. The more difficult problems tend to rely on a more simple theme, but with added complications. If I'm not seeing the simple theme all the time, then I'm never going to really understand the complications.

I'm going to get more benefit understanding all the themes well in levels 10, 20 and 30.

Had another crack at doing level 10

2005-10-06T17:13:00.000+01:00

I've been getting a bit bogged down in the level 50 ones. I occasionally get one right, but it is slow going. However, I am very emotionally attached to finishing them - I feel that I should try to reach the stage where I can solve every puzzle in CT Art, even though this might take a very long time.

Just out of interest, and without really thinking that I was giving up on the 50s, I thought I might have another go at running through the 10s.

They were easy! Some of them I definitely remembered, but even with the ones I didn't the answer just jumped out. I felt really on top of them - that's just another easy knight fork. It felt good solving them, and it is much better practicing success than failure.

I completed all 110 problems in 1 hour 15 minutes and scored 92%. The problem with level 10s is that you lose loads of points as a percentage if you get one wrong - one slip and half the points are gone. So I got 11 wrong, but then tried these ones straight away and got them all right a second time. Except one. Problem 86.

Also, I think I found an alternative, equally valid solution for problem 83. This is the first time I have encountered a minor error in CT Art. This is problem 83:

Ct Art says Qf4 Qxf4= . Isn't Qxg6 Kxg6 equally a stalemate?

Maybe I'll start my 3rd circle after all ...

Completed level 40

2005-10-05T14:47:00.000+01:00

I have finally finished level 40, which is pleasing. I ended up with a score of 58%. So my scores for the first 4 levels are:
level 10 - 92%
level 20 - 80%
level 30 - 61%
level 40 - 58%

I've fallen below the recommended 60% threshold! So I'm wondering about continuing on, especially given the comments on my last post. But I think I'll have a bit of a go at some of the 50s, until I get frustrated.

Some of the 50s are easy, I solved this one (#832) straight off with no mistakes:

But then had my confidence dented with the following 50 where I didn't have a clue (913). Even now I still have problems remembering the solution.

There is definitely a pattern here - I struggle with the problems with a lot of pieces on the board. I am distracted by lots of sidelines which seem interesting, but don't lead to anything.

Better progress, apart from this morning

2005-09-28T12:48:00.000+01:00

My new slower approach is working well with my percentages creeping up for the 40s. Initially I scored 92% on level 10, 80% on level 20 and 62% on level 30. My level 40 score was more like 52%, but the more careful approach has brought it up to 57%. I'm also enjoying it more and I get a kick when I just nail a problem straight away.

So it is working well. Apart from this morning. I had a bad session where I just couldn't see anything, I think I was too tired. I could feel myself being lazy and not really thinking deeply enough and guessing a bit. One advantage I have found in my approach to this circle is that I have more of a feel for how deeply I should be thinking. In my first circle I went through by theme and completed all the puzzles before moving on to the next theme. I did this so that I would get a better feel for the various themes in CT Art, even though it goes against MDLM. Going through by difficulty level lets me get a much better feel for how deep I need to go. If I see a knight fork in level 10 that's it. If I see one in a level 40 problem then there is usually some complication that goes along with it - e.g. deflecting a piece. As a result I know more when I'm lazy and not bothering to think deeply enough.

Also, my confidence is growing and I am definitely seeing more deeply than I did. This is nice. I feel like I've now got a chess board in my head. One where I can move pieces around and explore different lines for four or five moves. For the first time this feels different from what I previously experienced, which was much more focused on the board in front of me. I would imagine moving pieces on the board on the screen and trying to visualise the resulting position. Now my focus is more on an internal board in my head. When it works, which is still not all the time, this process is far quicker and feels much more natural ... I just see the results and know that they are right.

So, all going well. But I have been thinking about whether I should try to complete all the difficulty levels, or should I stop after (say) the 40s? Should I start another circle with the 10s, 20s, 30s and 40s? Some knights have debated this, and also whether CT Art is too hard for the more novice player. I'm rated about 1300 on ICC (on a good day!), and I do struggle with CT Art. It takes me a long time, and some of the problems are definitely beyond me. Which led me to think about the pros and cons of trying to complete all the problems in all the circles:

Cons:
- it is hard, and I might get frustrated and give up
- am I really learning something from a level 90 problem?
- it is very time consuming, and I am definitely behind the original MDLM timescales by an order of magnitude. Am I just wasting time on the more difficult ones? Time that could be spent really getting to grips with the simple themes.

Pros:
- even though it is hard and takes a long time, I feel that to obtain my goal of getting my rating up to 1600 I need to be able to complete these problems. If I've got to learn them sometime, why not now? As long as I keep going and am continuing steady progress I feel I should continue
- the approach so far, 60% of the way through my 2nd circle, is working. I am definitely improving my tactical vision.

On balance I think I will continue for the time being.

New approach - more slowly through the 40s

2005-09-26T15:02:00.000+01:00

I'm now deliberately going more slowly through the 40s, in line with my new approach.

As of this morning, I've completed 118 out of 204. Total of 735 in my second circle - so over 60% of the way through.

Although going more slowly, I still managed 74 problems in the last week. Also, my solving percentage is creeping up.

Slowly progressing through the 40s

2005-09-22T12:39:00.000+01:00

I am still plugging away at the 40s. I was concerned that I wasn't getting through them quickly enough, and this lead to me guessing answers. I've now decided to take it more slowly and take my time. I am letting myself think as much as I can about each problem and trying not to be concerned over how long it is taking.

This approach works much better - avoiding thinking that I must keep up with some schedule. As people have recommended previously - I am now trying to enjoy myself more and have fun solving the problems. Sometimes it is difficult to keep this approach in mind though, and the worry about timetables creeps into my head. Calling them all circles doesn't help - makes me think getting through them is the challenge, rather than actually learning!

So, with my new approach, I was pleasantly surprised to get full marks on the following problem (#721):

This is a fairly typical level 40 problem - there is a main checkmate theme, and a complication.

However, my new found confidence took a bit of a dent with the next problem (#669):

I just couldn't see the idea here at all.

Over half way through my second circle

2005-09-19T12:07:00.000+01:00

As of this morning, I have completed 661 problems in my second circle - so over half way through. I finished the last remaining difficult level 30 problems and have now started tackling the level 40 ones, and have solved the first 44 out of 204.

It is definitely more difficult at this level, and I am slowing down. I now rarely just see the answer, and I have to think about each problem for several minutes. If I haven't got anywhere in 4 minutes, then I'll make a guess and look at the hints. However, this is far more frustrating. For most of the level 10, 20 and 30s I more or less got what the problem was about. The majority of the time with these 40s I don't - and I need the hints.

Here is an example of a level 40 problem that I solved this morning (black to move)

I struggled with this one. I could see some of the threats, but not all of them. And I missed how they all linked together.

After finishing all of my seven circles, will I look back and think this is easy?

Progress update

2005-09-14T12:56:00.000+01:00

Getting close to finishing the 30s.

I was going to post this a couple of days ago, but work has been hectic and I haven't had a chance until now. It is amazing how my chess deteriorates when I'm stressed out because of work. It has really gone to pot recently.

Anyway, as of Monday I have completed 576 problems in total in my second circle, which is 125 in the last week. Steady progress, and a pleasing amount. And I have completed 179 out of the 221 level 30 problems, so in the final stages. I've almost reached the half way mark in my second circle, and it will be interesting to see how I progress through the more difficult problems in the second half.

Based on how quickly I completed my first circle, and how I'm now progressing through the second, I'd say that I'm running at about half the speed of MDLM. My second circle will take about as long as his first did - 9 weeks - and my first circle took about 18 weeks. Should I try and make up the time? Or maybe perform an eighth additional circle? Or maybe continue on through all seven at this half pace?

Is this tactical training working?

2005-09-07T12:24:00.000+01:00

After a bit of a lull, I've started playing more on ICC. Mainly blitz games.

I thought I'd be better after all this tactical training, but I'm not. I was about 1300 ish before I started my training, but I lost a fair number of games and have now slid down to 1100. Have I got 200 points worse?

I think there might be several factors at play. Partly I'm out of practice. Time management is crucial to blitz, and it is all too easy to spend too long thinking, only to get a piece up and lose on time. The opposite can be true as well - too little time and I blunder away pieces. However, I think there is something else going on as well.

Most of my chess in recent months has been focused on CT Art. I've got into a mindset that there is always some killer tactical blow ... some cunning queen sacrifice or such leading to mate ... all I have to do is think about it hard enough and I'll discover it. Dangerous when you are playing real games! I find I am quite reckless now and throw games as a result.

I did calm a bit and playing more sensibly, but it was a struggle. I played an interesting couple of games against a 1750 rated player. I gave up trying just to go for the cheap tactical hit, because he was a lot stronger than me, and tried just to gain small positional advantages. I lost both games, but the 1750 complemented me and said I was exerting a nice amount of pressure.

This lead me to thinking about chess from a whole game perspective. At my level, is it a slow build up of pressure which cracks when one player makes a tactical error? If so, I suppose the key to better play is going to be something along the lines of:
- don't try for anything too rash too soon ... slowly build up little advantages
- have a good enough tactical brain to pounce as soon as there is a tactical play
- avoid conceding tactical plays to your opponent

After thinking this, I remembered MDLM's description in Rapid Chess Improvement of a game he played move-by-move. This seems to be what he is saying as well.

So the tricky bit is how do you spot the tactical play? One way is to train yourself with loads of tactical examples until those patterns just spring out by themselves from the board. The other is to try and work out some rules for when they might exist - common thoughts are: weak king position, unprotected pieces, overloaded pieces. But how much use are these rules? Doesn't it have to be more natural?

Also, how long could I keep using this approach? When do players eradicate tactical slips from their play? Silman is most critical of MDLM's approach and values the strategic analysis of imbalances etc. However, I remember reading somewhere that Kasparov thought that GMs could often tactically overwhelm IMs. So it seems that this approach could stand me in good stead for some time.

Slow progress

2005-09-05T11:45:00.000+01:00

Completed 451 problems in my second circle - which means I completed 75 in the last week. 10 a day, or about half the speed of the week before. I didn't spend much time on them though, and they were mostly difficulty level 30.

Things are definitely more tricky with these 30s. I don't see the solutions so quickly, and the 5x5 hint screen is coming up more often. Still, I am progressing through. Just have to keep plugging away at it.

Completed the 20s

2005-09-01T16:01:00.000+01:00

I finished off the remaining twenty or so level 20 difficulty problems yesterday. I decided to try and use my theory about seeing how all the pieces interact as a whole. It worked very well, I got through these problems in record time and only made one mistake.

I also had trouble sleeping the night before last and found myself wide awake at four in the morning. Stressful week at work. So I read a bit of Understanding Chess Move by Move by John Nun - a very nice book which takes some classic games and really goes into detail about what is happening and why ... surprisingly, move by move ;)

I read a game between Kasparov and Karpov. Ruy Lopez opening with Kasparov playing white. I always thought that the Ruy Lopez was a bit boring, but Kasparov won with a vicious attack on black's king. The next day I hammered by chess computer with a similar game. I rarely beat it - usually I make a tactical slip-up somewhere along the way and hang a piece or something, or when I've gained an edge I'll throw it away with an inaccuracy in the end game. But with my chess training I'm definitely getting more accurate. No tactical errors and a knight sacrifice on h5 followed by a bit of king chasing and checkmate.

I've also put a hit counter on my page - courtesy of Bravenet who provide them for free. Interesting to see how many people are actually reading this blog.

Another week - another 150 problems solved

2005-08-30T12:30:00.000+01:00

Second week of my second circle - now completed 376 problems, so I solved almost 150 in the last week. 150 sounds a reasonable amount, but I had hoped for more. I'm still in the difficulty level 20 section with 264 complete out of 286 and I had hoped to finish this off. Also, they are 20s so they should be quicker ... although I can't solve them almost instantly like the 10s.

So, progress, but not as much as I would have liked. I have been quite busy over the last week though, and didn't devote as much time to chess problems as I would have liked.

I should finish off the remaining 20s over the next day or two and start on the 30s. That will be interesting. At what point will I start getting really bogged down? The prospect of a long grind through tricky problems, with no easy ones for a spot of light relief, doesn't exactly thrill me.

Still, moaning about the more difficult problems aside, I am still having fun. My tactical ability is definitely improving. I am focusing more on the important candidate moves and also able to look deeper into combinations.

Is chess really about seeing how all the pieces interact as a whole and being able to recognise patterns? Previously my thoughts have darted about with a lot of, "if I move this, then he does that, then I can take this" and I miss obvious things. Sometimes now I just try to picture the whole board & all the pieces and the obvious line springs into my mind. Great when it works, but really, really frustrating when your brain refuses to come up with that obvious line!

2nd circle progress

2005-08-22T17:24:00.000+01:00

I've been running nicely through my second circle over the last week - I've now finished all the 10s and I'm almost half way through the 20s. 230 completed so far, so that's over 200 in the last week. Although it is all the easy ones!

Two thoughts:

- Tackling all the problems in strict priority of levels is easier, although I still think going through the tactical grouping for the first circle is worth it. I might really slow down when I hit the difficult ones though.

- I'm definitely improving. Solutions just spring into my head sometimes, and when they don't it is easier to calculate. I'm better at seeing more moves ahead as well and analysing an alternative through to a conclusion. Also, I tend to focus down more on practical candidate moves - although I'm still not sure exactly how I select these in the first place ... I feel like it is a memory recall of patterns.

Started my 2nd circle

2005-08-15T10:18:00.000+01:00

I completed my first 20 problems in my second circle this morning. All level 10, and they went very well ... I only made one mistake, but this was in a "win 1 P material" problem and I don't fully agree that there is only one solution.

I am definitely better than when I started my first circle. I'm solving these more quickly and more accurately. Although this is only the first level 10 lot, so I'll have to wait to see how I get on with the more complicated stuff.

Success! Finished my first circle!

2005-08-14T21:07:00.000+01:00

Finally made it! Finished my first circle! Woo-hoo!

I'm not sure exactly how long I took to complete this, but it was probably about 3 months. But finally I've done it - completed 1235 problems in CT-Art. I'm very pleased.

I couldn't complete number 385 though. Playing black, After 1 ...Ra4+, it followed a line of: [2.Kb1 Ra1+ 3.Kxa1 Nb3+] and then it wouldn't play the next move for white. It just froze. Strange bug.

Well, I didn't make it

2005-08-09T15:57:00.000+01:00

I had hoped to finish off my first circle before my holiday. I didn't make it. There just wasn't enough time with packing and what-not, and the problems were too tricky.

I felt down about this. I'd really set myself a target and thought it would be nice to go away for a break before starting my second circle.

Having come back from holiday though it doesn't seem so bad. My wife wouldn't let me take my computer with me so I had the longest break from CT Art since I started this whole Mazza training thing. This allowed me to get a bit more perspective - I was getting too obsessed with finishing the circle and keeping up to an artificial timescale. I'm no where near the original MDLM timescales anyway, so an extra few weeks don't matter. Really it is about two things - having fun and learning chess tactics.

So I've started tackling the rest of my first circle problems with this in mind. As of yesterday I had completed 1188 problems in total and 219 from 266 in the final section ... leaving 47 left.

However, I do have a bit of a hard deadline coming up ... the birth of my daughter who is due on 6th November. I wont' have nearly as much time after that.

I didn't give up chess problems entirely on holiday - I went through a few from Silman's Reassess Your Chess Workbook. I like these. They are a nice balance to the full-on pure tactics stuff ... I get to think about bad bishops and weak pawn chains and stuff rather than "attack the king", "attack the king"!

I also worked out how to solve Su Dokus and read 2/3rds of Greg Bear's excellent Sci-Fi book Eon. Although that's not really chess, is it. Maybe I should feel bad for using up valuable chess learning time?

Over 1100 now

2005-07-25T12:23:00.000+01:00

Another week and up to 1130, so that's past the 1100 mark and I have completed 161 out of 266 in the last section. So only 105 to go and I've finished my first circle. But it's getting harder, I've completed the 40s and these last 105 are all 50s and above.

I don't think I'm going to complete my first circle before I go on holiday. After only completing 54 in the last week it doesn't look good for finishing up by Friday. I haven't been putting in as much time as normal, partly because I've been dodging terrorist bombs - I live and work in central London - but also because I've got a bit bored after my big push over the two weeks previously. Oh well, it would have been nice to have wrapped it up before my break.

On the plus side I completed a 50 this morning in no time at all. The solution just seemed to leap out the board at me, a nice six move checkmate with a couple of sidelines. So I'm definitely improving. I keep worrying about the seventh circle though - how can it be possible to do all these problems in a couple of days? I've been at this for weeks now and I've not even managed to do everything once. Probably a bit counterproductive thinking like this. Must stop and just focus on this first circle.

Another week

2005-07-18T17:56:00.000+01:00

Not such a good week this last one. After a big push the week before I didn't do so much this week.

Completed 1076 in total in my first circle, which is only 64 in the last week. Partly this is because I spent less time on them (especially last weekend as it was sunny, and I was out having fun!) but also because they are getting more tricky. I'm on my last section "Conjunction of Tactical Methods", and I've completed all the 10, 20 and 30 difficulty level ones. I've been ploughing through the 40s and 50s last week, and this is slower.

I've completed 107 out of 266 in this section. It is the largest section, which is a bit depressing for the final one ... although that does mean I've only got 159 problems to go and then I'm finished my first circle! I'm going on holiday in a couple of weeks, so I'd like to get it done before then if I can. My wife says that I'm not allowed to take my computer with us, so I won't be able to do any then. It would be good for that break to be at the end of my first circle as well.

Past the 1000 mark!

2005-07-11T17:55:00.000+01:00

As of this morning, I've completed 1012 problems (out of 1216) in my first circle (out of 7). I'm very pleased that I passed the 1000 mark! Only 204 to go, so the end of this first circle now seems in sight.

That also means I did 140 in the last week, getting my average of 20 per day above my target of 16 for the first time.

I did put in a big effort last week, I made sure I plugged away every evening. Although I don't think I'll be able to sustain that pace going forward.

I am on to the final section though - 16: Conjunction of Tactical Methods. Seeing solutions is getting easier as well - sometimes they now jump out at me, and I'm certainly solving them more quickly.

Will I be able to speed this up considerably for subsequent circles? If not, this whole exercise is going to take a long, long time. Still, I'm positive about it all at the moment. I'm making progress, and the end of the first circle is in sight.

More progress

2005-07-04T17:54:00.000+01:00

Now completed 872 in my first level. That's 124 in the last 11 days … an average of 11.3. Again, under the 16 per day average, but still fairly consistent with the last bout. I tend to do it in fits and starts. I hadn't completed many during the week, but then had a spurt at the weekend.

Not quite so depressed about it as I've finished the dreaded "Destruction of the pawn shelter". This went on for ages! I get through the easy problems quite quickly and then get stuck on the tricky ones. Maybe my idea of going through each of the tactical methods by group isn't so good - the original guidelines were to run through the problems in strict difficulty order (easiest to hardest).

I thought it might be interesting to record my scores in each of the tactical sections. Hopefully this will improve in future circles!
(1) Annihilation of defence - 56%
(2) Distraction - 54%
(3) Decoy - 64%
(4) Open attack - 63%
(5) Opening of a file - 52%
(6) Space clearance - 41% (!)
(7) X-ray attack - 64%
(8) Interception - 58%
(9) Blocking, encirclement - 59%
(10) Destruction of the pawn shelter - 43% (!)

Progress

2005-06-23T17:53:00.000+01:00

I've now completed 748. That's another 130 in the last 9 days - an average of 14.5 a day. Which is under the 16 per day I'm supposed to be doing. And also I've started a new group of tests and been working my way through the easy ones!

So I'm a bit depressed. Seems like I've been doing these tests for ages, and I can't really remember when I started. One thing's for sure - I'm not going to complete it all in 6 months. At the moment I can't really see an end to it at all.

Over half way through

2005-06-14T17:52:00.000+01:00

Now completed 618 tests out of 1217 - so past the half way mark. Still a long way to go though.

Other people doing Maza training

2005-06-08T17:52:00.000+01:00

Apparently there are quite a lot of people out there following the rapid chess improvement training program. Here's another blog http://mandelamaza.blogspot.com/.

I've decided to alter the way I approach CT Art. Up to now it has been fairly ad-hoc and I've been just trawling through the categories of problems in the random order that the CT Art monster presents them to me.

New plan - go through them in difficulty order.

My pursuit

2005-06-02T17:49:00.000+01:00

I want to improve my chess and want to try to get a rating of 2000. It is a nice round number and also seen somewhat as a watershed between the amateur and the expert.

So … 2000? How do I get there?

At the moment my maximum rating on the internet chess club http://www.chessclub.com is 1334, which is an improvement of about 150 to 200 since I started playing. Unfortunately, I started two years ago!

Also, I'm playing a lot of email correspondence chess using E4EC http://www.e4ec.org/ . Again, my rating is about 1300 ish on that.

So how to make up the difference? Where can I get an extra 700 points in my rating? I remember reading that Bobby Fischer increased by about 300 points a year … year on year. Even if I was as good as him (which obviously I'm not) it would takes ages.

Well, my new plan is much like Scitcat's http://scitcat.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_scitcat_archive.html - I have just started following Michael de la Maza's Rapid Chess Improvement course. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1857442695/qid=1118218981/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-7125100-8916642?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
This is a six month course focused on two things: (1) Lots of visualisation exercises to improve your "chess vision" - seeing all the squares a knight can move to etc. I'm doing some of this, but I get a bit bored. I do need to improve my "knight vision" though :) (2) Improving your tactical skills by running through all 1217 chess problems in CT Art, seven times!

So far I am part way through my first cycle and have completed 537 problems, but it is a slog

2005-04-05T15:51:00.000+01:00

I've been playing chess since I was a kid, although always as an amateur and have only recently started to take it more seriously.

I can't remember the first time I played chess - I have early memories of playing my dad and my grandpa, and then later my uncle Tony. I also played a couple of people at school - Fraser and Munro. Fraser was very good and a natural chess player, Munro was very knowledgeable on openings. Well, he knew some openings. This was far more than we did and counted for very knowledgeable in those days.

I managed to beat my dad fairly early on, he didn't know much more than the basics, and after a while my grandpa as well. I also got a basic chess computer at some stage and started playing it. This was the start of me analysing my play. The chess computer was fairly limited and used to always open with a four knights opening with d & e pawns diagonal. I was under the impression that this was the only way to play chess! I sat down and systematically played it and eventually managed to beat the thing - mainly by looking more than two moves ahead.

I then entered a school tournament and somehow ended up in the final playing the geography teacher. It was the first to win three games, and he quickly went 2-0 ahead. That's when I first started reading about chess in a desperate attempt to improve. I bought Lasker's Complete Chess Tutor, which is a nice little book with puzzles about a page long with multiple choice answers at the bottom … 6.exd6 turn to page 104, 6.a4 turn to page 212, etc. A bit like the Fighting Fantasy books (for those who remember them). Great stuff. This really helped me learn. Mainly as I was reading pages and pages of Lasker saying, "No, that was the wrong move ..." Eventually I clawed a game back. At this stage the geography teacher was getting a bit sick of playing chess every lunchtime, and he decided to call a halt to the proceedings. He said - rather unfairly in my view - that we would only play one more game. If he won then he'd win by being first to three games (as originally planned), but if it was a draw then he would win 2-1. If I managed to win then we would tie 2-2 each and be joint winners. I won, and still have the trophy (cheap, plastic one who's label fell off years ago).

I was then hooked on chess. Not only did I like playing it, I started to see how I could improve.
My next target was my uncle Tony, or more specifically his chess computer. A Christmas years back saw me lying on the floor for two weeks solid playing the thing. Eventually I got the hang of it. This one actually had an opening repertoire and could think a number of moves ahead - not just two. I was amazed. Still, it wasn't that good and I could soon beat it most of the time. That was in the mid 80s, and the next thing that interested me was Karpov vs Kasparov.

They were playing for the world championship in London in the Park Lane hotel. All the tickets had sold out months before, but you could queue outside each morning for a standing only ticket for £5. You didn't get a seat in the main hall, but you could see them from the balcony. Also, there were loads of rooms round the main hall with all sorts of other stuff going on … people analysing the game, playing simultaneous games against all-comers etc. I was great. I spent day after day there, coming nice and early to queue for my ticket and then playing chess in Hyde Park until they opened at mid afternoon. Also, I got to see Karpov run out of time! That was the final game where he cracked - the championship was the first to win six games, with no limit to the total number. Karpov raced ahead to a 4-0 lead but couldn't quite clinch it. Kasparov managed draw after draw after draw (forty in total), and then eventually started to win matches! The score finally reached 5-3 to Karpov when the championship stopped by FIDE. Karpov broke down. I saw him there on stage freezing and not being able to move or play. His clock just ran out of time. Fascinating stuff for a teenager.

My next step was to upgrade my chess computer. You couldn't play online in those days, and I lived in the middle of no-where in Northumberland so there were no chess clubs. Chess computers had served me well, so I decided to up the game and buy the best one I could. I did, and then couldn't beat it. Didn't even get close. Also, I couldn't find any useful books to make the transition from a relative beginner to someone who could even start to grasp what my new computer was doing. To me it was just magic - I couldn't see how to beat the thing.

That's where my chess playing stopped. I went off to university and discovered beer, girls and philosophy.

After university I started a series of games against an old university friend - we were both now living and working in London and it seemed a fun thing to do. We decided to have a tournament - first to 12 games (can't remember why we picked that now). Richard pulled ahead to an early lead, and I was again left wondering how to improve my chess playing. Then I discovered a book called Winning with the Hypermodern and I delved into the whole new world of fianchettoing. Not enough to win my tournament against Richard, but enough to inspire me again.

I then played chess on and off for the next ten years, although never that seriously. Most of my involvement in chess was watching with interest the development of chess computers and the Deep Blue vs Kasparov match. But last year I took my chess computer (the one that I bought directly after seeing Karpov vs Kasparov in the 80s) on honeymoon (I know!). Anyway, I beat it for the first time. I don't know why. I hadn't really played chess much, but I just had a bit of a revelation about chess … it just sort of clicked in my head and made more sense. It wasn't that I learned anything new, just that the stuff I remembered reading came back to me … I suppose it was the after-effects of reading "Winning with the Hypermodern" ten years on.

Since then I've discovered online chess at the Internet Chess Club and have been playing fairly regularly ever since. My rating has gone up from about 1000 to 1050 when I first joined to about 1150 to 1200 now. I'm starting to read a lot more chess books and think about what I'm doing - particularly openings. Also, playing Aidan at work at lunchtime helps … and of course writing about everything here!