This is a part two of the interview with Andrzej Krzywda, in which we talk about chess improvement and the tournament of his life, in which he scored an IM norm.
You can read the first part of the interview here.
You can read the final part of the interview here.
HOW TO IMPROVE YOUR CHESS AS AN ADULT
Q: Okay, let’s finally talk about chess. In the Perpetual Chess Podcast you talked about great detail about your approach to chess training and chess improvement. I’d like to make an overview of the most important points you mentioned.
First of all, the biggest change you made was hiring a coach. You are working with the renowned Polish Grandmaster, Bartosz Soćko. Can you tell us what criteria were important to you when choosing a coach? What would you advise to players seeking one?
A: One thing I knew was that I not only need to improve my rating, but that I want and need to really change the way I’m playing. I wanted more active positions. I wanted to play faster and with more confidence. I wanted to be more professional about my chess attitude.
Active, fast, professional – those 3 words in the Polish chess world describe best what Bartosz Soćko is about. Once I understood it, it was clear to me that I want to work with him. I remember my first email to him and how excited I was when he replied he was happy to start working with me.
I’d advise seeking coaches/players who represent what you think you’d like to become.
Also, don’t be afraid to experiment. Try with the first lessons and decide if it’s a good fit for you.
Q: You are working over Skype. Can you tell us how exactly these sessions with your coach look like? What exactly do you do? How much does he talk and how much does he let you figure things out on your own?
A: Bartosz is a very idea-oriented player. He’s great at connecting ideas from different games. That’s my way of thinking too. I love ideas, connecting them, sharing them. We often start by looking at my games – classic, rapid, blitz, but then we jump between ideas which are somehow connected to my game. There’s also a big focus on calculation skill. That’s the one thing that makes a difference and made me calmly aim for big goals. If my calculation skill is improving, then I’m improving.
We focus on activity/aggression examples a lot. Also, we focus on creating practical problems for the opponent, regardless if I’m better or worse now.
Q: Does he share his opening analysis with you? Does he give you homework?
A: Opening analysis – yes. I can ask for ideas/directions and can always count on help. However, openings, while important, are probably the least pushed topic overall. That was my biggest lesson here – openings are not that important. Ideas are important, the calculation is important.
Q: What about the monetary side? Many chess players can’t afford to work with an experienced coach regularly (say GM level). Do you think it is better to get a „cheaper“ one? Or to have less frequent sessions with a stronger one?
A: In my case, I can see that it makes a huge difference if I work with a coach or not. It’s hard to say, where I would be with my chess understanding if I went to work with someone else. Despite my current rating drops, I’m very happy overall where I am and it’s hard for me to believe that other ways would be better for me.
Still, I do have the occasional sessions with FM Plichta, who represents a completely different attitude to chess, but also very inspiring. I love collecting his ideas too, even though they’re like from a different world. Often focused on psychology. He’s great at online chess too. Oh, and he’s like a killer against lower-rated players, a skill I need to work on.
(FM Plichta’s Lichess Coach profile)
Q: Do you think it is absolutely necessary for anyone pushing for Master level to get a coach? Since chess information is available today like never before, do you think it is possible to train chess completely on your own and still become a titled player?
A: I know it’s necessary for me. The evidence is clear – whenever I worked with someone, I’ve had better results.
At the age of 17, my first successes – winning the semifinals and become the champion of opolskie region, after just one 3-days session with IM Kalinin.
Then at the age of 26, getting to 2197 after the work with NM Perdek.
Now, at the age of 38, getting an IM norm and close to 2300 after working with GM Soćko.
It’s also very clear that when I don’t work with a coach for some time, then there are like no great results at all. On one hand it’s sad, but on the other hand, I’m happy – I know what works for me, I just need to more persistent with it.
There are players who are more successful without coaches. It’s great for them. Each of us is different.
Q: But it’s not just about the pure chess aspect – Soćko also offers invaluable advice, right? During the Podcast, you mentioned he helped you with your time management. How to behave during the tournaments. To prepare during the tournaments.
A: It’s not only about chess. It’s a lot about physical preparation too. The last 3 years were the most active in my life probably 😉 I got to a better shape, I lost some weight. I’m back at playing football. It’s all due to the advice of Bartosz.
During tournaments, I can also count on his help – whether it’s opening tips or general advice. When things go bad, he knows how to motivate. When things are going well, he also knows how to push me to an even better result.
Bartosz and Monika (his wife, also GM) are like role models to follow in terms of professional chess. Their careers are great examples that it works for them. Always at the top level.
Time management is an important factor. Part of the lessons is on what kind of moves to use time and when to play immediately.
But probably the most important advice was to start solving endgame studies regularly. On your social media you always mentioned it as the most important part of your chess training. Can you tell us how much hours per day do you solve endgame studies? And which resources do you use to find them?
A: Endgame studies – where they have been my whole chess life? Why did no one tell me about their value before?
It’s crazy, how underrated they are in the chess world.
When I started working with Bartosz, I was a bit surprised with the focus on studies, but I trusted that it’s the right thing to do.
At first, I hated it.
I was not able to solve a single study among dozes which I tried. But then, things got better. More and more often at least I got the first move right. Then 2 moves. Then the whole lines. Then came the first ones, fully solved.
Endgame studies is a great measure of my current chess shape.
At the minimum, I solve 2 studies a day. When I have more time, it gets bigger, up to 5-6. After such studies session, I’m warmed up and ready to look at my own games or Kasparov’s games and continue calculation work.
Usually, I set 10 minutes for 1 study, but when I’m better, then 5 minutes is enough. I write down the solution and then compare to the book solution.
I use the Kasparian’s collections most often. They have enough studies to keep me busy for about 5 years 😉
Q: I know studies are recommended by strong players. I think Vidit Santos Gujrathi said he wished he started solving them earlier. However, they are often avoided by club players. And considered too difficult.
How successful are you in solving these studies? How successful were you at the beginning? Did you ever give up and get discouraged because you didn’t have the slightest idea what to play in a certain position?
A: I’m often not successful, meaning not able to find all the needed lines. But even then, I can see which part I missed and why. This gives me clear hints what to improve. Is it my candidate moves? My opponent resources? Did I miss important ideas? Am I able to calculate long lines? Can I see the board at the end of the line? What category of moves do I often miss?
In the beginning, it was a nightmare. I’m not surprised many people give up early.
However, the truth is, when I started doing them, my calculation skills sucked. They were almost non-existent. I’m surprised how I could even reach 2100 with so bad calculation skills. The endgame studies just make such stuff visible and explicit.
I rarely give up with a study. I try to use all the remaining time to find what ideas am I missing.
Q: Apart from endgame studies, you also sometimes do calculation exercise on Chesstempo, read chess books (last time I checked, Kasparov’s „On Kasparov“ series), work on your openings with the help of Chessable. And of course – play blitz chess online.
How much time per day (or week) do you spend on chess? How is this time distributed among the activities mentioned above?
A: There are different days and different periods of time. Sometimes I spend 1 hour on chess a day, sometimes it’s closer to 4 hours. The minimum is usually 0.5 hour – the endgame studies.
Now, how is this distributed? At least 50% is endgame studies for my recent training structure. Then 25% on Kasparov’s, maybe 10% on openings and some blitz games as the remainings. Recently, blitz games I keep under discipline, rarely more than 5 games a day. And as a rule, after those games, I keep them as the source for opening work.
I think it’s important to always look for the right flow for a chess player. It can’t be focused on what feels good, but more on what’s effective. This requires a lot of retrospectives every now and then.
Most people seem to be fine with having a repeatable structure of training. I’m not one of them. I’ve had to accept at some point that I’m one of those people who need changes to the structure.
My flow is constant experiments to get myself excited. Finding new ideas in chess is crucial to get my excitement up. I’m an idea-oriented person/chessplayer. Seeing a new idea in an already known position motivates me. I’m collecting ideas.
Some things do stay constant, though. There’s a correlation – when I do endgame studies my results are fine. When I’m lazy at endgame studies, the results are worse. The same applies to sessions with my coach – when we stop doing them, I have worse results.
Q: You also said your coach motivated to you to play chess as often as possible. You play in one classical event every two months. One of the „problems“ that interferes with my chess career is my day time job.
How crucial is the fact you are able to work remotely? What would you advise to someone who doesn’t have that „luxury“?
A: Yeah, it’s a good question. Being able to work remotely doesn’t bring me some opportunities. However, it’s not really that I work during tournaments. I do look at what is happening in the company (I’m a CEO) and I intervene if needed (very rarely).
But mostly, a tournament is a work vacation for me. I’m lucky to have great coworkers and the company runs fine also when I’m not there. This is a result of my work on my business skills.
It was a difficult lesson for my ego – but the fact is – my company can work fine without me.
Q: You also said you devote special attention to physical preparation? What does your training regiment consist of in this area?
A: It keeps changing.
The biggest change since working on my chess goals is the fact that now I’m constantly doing something that helps with the physical preparation. This is great for my life, also outside of chess.
I’ve had some periods of time when biking was the main activity. A big forest starts just outside my house so I use it a lot. Last 2 months it was mostly long fast walks in the forest. I go out and walk for 1h-1h30m sometimes. It’s great for creativity and keeps me in a good shape.
I also built myself a small gym in my house. Nothing fancy, just to make some simple exercises easier.
BTW, very often during physical activities, I listen to the Perpetual Chess Podcast so it’s like doing 2 things at one time.
During summer tournaments, when I was with my chess friends, we played football often – it’s important to be active also during the tournaments. During my best life result, I’ve had quite a regime – waking up at 6 am, going to the gym/pool/sauna, every morning.
Q: One thing you repeatedly mention is that is important to study chess actively and not passively. What is your opinion of online blitz? Some strong players told me they consider it useful for practicing new openings. Others say it is a complete waste of time. Your thoughts?
A: I’m not a big fan of online blitz nowadays. I think it was a big addiction in my life, not leading me anywhere, but giving this false feeling of improvement.
I try to limit myself to no more than 5 blitzes online a day.
I do use it for practicing new openings – after the games, I look up the line in my Chessable and review the lines.
However, once I got to 2200 I immediately applied for the CM title. Once I got it I could be the titled player on Chess.com and Lichess. This gives me the right to play in their “Titled tournaments” which happen once a month. I enjoy playing in them, as it gives me a chance to play against IM/GMs.
On the board blitzes are fine to me. I often go blitz tournaments. It’s just the online ones that I consider bad for myself.
BTW, in those real-life blitz tournaments, I have the habit of opening a chess program on my mobile phone (but engine off) and quickly enter the game. Later, after the tournament, I review the openings and the middle game positions.
Q: Do you analyze your own games? Do you use chess engines to do so?
A: Yes, analyzing own games is important. It’s a great source for improvement ideas. I try to avoid engines here, but in some crazy lines where I feel I may be missing something I do turn them on.
Q: Do you count watching broadcast of the chess tournaments as chess training? I know it is a bit lazy. But on the other hand, during the recently concluded World Chess Championship 2018, we had the opportunity to watch Grischuk, Svidler and Giri commenting.
On one hand, they shared their knowledge. On the other hand, I didn’t use the main brain cells at all. I am really interested in your opinion.
A: I do watch the broadcasts sometimes, but I don’t consider this a training at all. It’s just a way of relaxing. I still haven’t found a good way of benefiting from watching them, especially live. However, it’s like watching soccer games – it does bring some good emotions, it’s entertaining.
Q: While we are at it – who did you root for in the World Chess Championship 2018?
A: I’ve had mixed feelings here. I consider Carlsen to be the best player nowadays (but only because Kasparov stopped playing 😉 ).
I was really impressed by Caruana’s improvement recently, though. There were moments where I was rooting for Caruana. I like rooting for the underdogs. Caruana ’s win would have a big impact on the chess world – US is a very rich country and his win would trigger a bigger revolution in the US, I believe – this would impact the rest of the world, maybe via sponsors.
Q: What do you think of the tiebreak format? Do you think Magnus’ victory was deserved?
A: Yes, I think Magnus victory was deserved.
Those were the rules and they both played according to them. Magnus match strategy was once again very effective.
I know there are now many discussions around the format. I think I’ll be the conservative here – chess is this area of my life where I would prefer no big changes overall.
Though I have to admit, this year I started playing some Chess 960 and I do enjoy them.
Q: I am digressing. I’d like to wrap up this part with the following: can you order the following chess training activities in order of importance (from the most to least important)?
Solving endgame studies
Solving tactical puzzles
Working on openings with an opening book
Analyzing your own games
Following chess tournaments
Playing in classical chess tournaments
Playing blitz online
Reading a chess book
A: 1. Playing in classical chess tournaments
2. Solving endgame studies
3. Analyzing your own games
4. Solving tactical puzzles
5. Reading a chess book
6. Working on openings with an opening book
7. Following chess tournaments
8. Playing blitz online
THE TOURNAMENT OF HIS LIFE
Q: In any case, in May 2018, this hard work paid off. You managed to do the unthinkable – to score an IM norm and gain +95 rating, breaking the 2200 barrier and landing at 2258. I’d like to talk about this performance.
So this was a closed round-robin tournament in Ukraine. You had played in a similar event in March, without particular success. How did you feel prior to the tournament?
A: It was probably the first tournament with no real expectations. That March round-robin in Ukraine was yet another attempt to prove something. It was a big failure.
Arriving to Katowice (where the tournament of my life took place) was without expectations. I wasn’t prepared for any opponent up front. Heck, I even arrived at the tournament from another part of Poland just before the first game, against an IM. I risked being tired, but the lack of pressure helped me.
I think the psychological surrounding has a big impact on me.
I was rated as the last one. I just wanted to play good chess, enjoy the game. I knew that my expected result would be 2/9 and even without expectations I knew/hoped I would at least get it.
Katowice 2018 was one of the first IM round-robins in Poland (at least that I’m aware of). It was organized by a group of people whom I knew of good organization skills – like Lukasz Turlej who also organized European Rapid Championship in Katowice. He’s now a VP of FIDE.
The arbiter was my favorite Alexandr Prohorov, whom I knew from those round-robins in Ukraine.
For me, the playing and living conditions are really important during the tournament. The venue was very elegant. We’ve had all the games being shown on the projector. I often went to sit on another chair while my opponent was thinking, the projector was great here.
Also, the hotel was of great quality, the rooms were excellent, there was a gym, a pool, a sauna. The restaurant was great. There was a park nearby which was helpful for my walking habits too.
There was a nice welcome lunch with all the participants and the organizers. I actually felt a bit not belonging there. I was aware I’m the weakest player on the table.
Q: By your own admission, you were in a good form – 3 days before the tournament your drew with Navara and beat a GM. You also said you realized that, as the lowest rated player in the tournament, you have nothing to lose.
On the basis of that, did you think you can score a good result? Or was your approach closer to „let’s play and see what happens“ attitude?
A: Yes, a few days before there was this blitz tournament also in Katowice. In the last round in a winning position, I offered a draw to David Navara to his big surprise. That was after beating GM Bulski and a strong IM Maciej Klekowski. I hate myself for that draw offer to Navara.
My coach is right here – if I won against Navara, I’d remember this always, so would other chess players. While, a draw, still good, is something I already almost forgot. I was rightly criticized by my coach and this was also the beginning of my big change in regards to draw offers – nowadays, I almost never offer draws and I rarely accept them.
Q: Okay, already in the first game, you played very well. You faced the highest rated player, IM Artur Frolov (rated 2432). In a sharp Sicilian you managed to outplay him (with Black!) and reach a superior endgame. However, instead of trying to push for the win, you went for a repetition.
We all have trouble playing for the win when the draw is a good result (and a bonus of rating points). Can you describe your thought process at that moment? How can a player work on the elimination of this deficiency?
A:
That was an interesting game. It started as Sicilian but my move order allowed White to play c4 and get into Hedgehog. I wasn’t really prepared to Hedgehog here, but this is kind of my specialty now. I like the structure, I know some plans, I know some ideas (thanks to Shipov for his amazing books on the topic). You could say that I was surprised by my opponent opening choice – a pattern which will repeat in that tournament.
I think I was a bit overly creative in the opening, but I think this helped to get my opponent to the less known ground. When I played the classic Hedgehog’s d6-d5 – I knew it was already OK for me.
My problem in that game was time management. When we got to the ending – I was a pawn up and objectively the position was better for me. However, I lost track here. The lack of time and the feeling of not getting the position fully led me to follow the repetition line and getting a draw.
I was happy with the result overall, but this was yet another example of my problem – not playing for a win enough. After this tournament, I started working more on this.
My thought process was simple – I knew I was better but I also knew I lost many such positions in the past. I just wanted to secure the draw here. Not proud of this today.
Sometimes it’s better to play and lose, but learn something. The rating points are irrelevant in that context. That’s another of my lessons recently – rating points matter short-term, but long-term it’s more important what you learned. The lesson would give me more points in the long-term. But to be true to myself, this draw did help me in that short-term goal – the IM norm. However, during the game, in the first round, the idea of making the norm wasn’t in my head at all.
Q: After this, you really started rolling, though. Round 2 game was particularly impressive. You faced a 2372 player, exchanged queens early and then completely outplayed him. This is how stronger player usually beats the weaker player, not vice versa.
Was the decision to go for this variation of the Scotch your own? Or the suggestion of your coach?
A: Once again, I was surprised by the opening choice of my opponent.
FM Piesik (btw, after this tournament, which wasn’t great for him, he made two GM norms this year!) usually chooses Pirc-like openings. He’s the kind of positional players who feels great in calmer positions. I only prepared to some Pirc lines. When he played 1. … e5 I suspected getting into Philidor, but 2. … Nc6 and it’s clear he has something prepared.
Now, this is a good example of having a broader opening repertoire and constantly expanding on that. While in my recent games I went for the quiet Italian games (Bc4, c3, d3), I’ve had Scotch as part of my repertoire, but rarely used.
It was a quick thought process – he must have something prepared against the Italian and there’s some chance I can catch him in the Scotch ideas.
Funnily enough, it was me who confused the move order in the opening. I could have gotten a better line. But, Scotch (like Hedgehog) is more an opening of ideas than concrete lines. And I did spend some time learning those ideas. There are even my YT videos about the Scotch ideas I have learned before.
Having Scotch in my repertoire is my own idea, it wasn’t recommended (nor discouraged) by GM Soćko. I think before the game I asked my coach about some Pirc lines, Scotch wasn’t considered here. The patter of being surprised by my opponents keeps repeating in all tournaments. Nowadays, I care less about the preparation that I used too. I think until 2500 this is not that crucial. It’s more important to calculate well, to know some ideas.
At that time, I was able to play Italian, Scotch, and Ruy Lopez (against the 1… e5). Now, there’s even more in my repertoire, but I’d prefer not to reveal all my cards here.
Q: In general, how much time do you spend preparing for a game? And how often are you in contact with Soćko during an event?
A: At that tournament, as in the current tournaments, I mostly prepare specific lines when I’m just before the game. Thanks to Chessable I have all the lines in one place, ready to be reviewed. It’s a constantly growing repertoire. Chessable reviews allow me to prepare in a short time.
I also have a rich library of books in my Forward Chess account. This helps in finding new ideas if I really want to have something new.
I have a subscription to Chess Publishing. Just recently I bought the Hiarcs database, which is quite amazing too.
I often look up to Lichess database.
Because I have a Mac, I don’t use ChessBase at all. I think I would be able to configure it to run, but somehow I didn’t get to. I bought the ChessBase web access and it’s sometimes helpful too.
All the different sourced are for inspiration, while my Chessable holds all the lines that I’m ready to play
Soćko (rightly) doesn’t emphasize the opening phase that much. He’s always very helpful when I ask for ideas or hints on how to play specific positions. I probably reach to him before 30-50% of my games.
Q: After the game with Frolov, I thought you were more of a tactician. After this, I would say you are a strategist. How would you describe your playing style?
A: There is the current Andrzej and the idealistic picture of Andrzej-as-the-goal.
The goal is to play active chess, fight for the initiative, be excellent in tactics and calculation.
The current Andrzej has lots of weaknesses, too many to even start describing my playing style.
In the past, I considered myself to be a strategist. But it was more about being lazy to calculate, so labeling myself as a strategist was just a way of justifying my laziness. Then I started a years-long process of becoming more of an attacking player. This would go nowhere if not for meeting GM Soćko and learning from him. His style is where I want to get. I started correcting my long and wrong beliefs, like overstating the value of pawn structure, overstating the material value etc.
I think my style is dynamic, but I can find my way in strategic positions too.
The game against FM Piesik is something I can be happy about. Even though the queen got out quickly, the position was very dynamic. I fought for initiative while keeping a strategic advantage. However, the converting of the advantage wasn’t best on my side. That’s one of my weaknesses overall – when players defend well, I don’t always choose the best way to proceed. At the level >2200 that’s becoming an important weakness to work on – people defend well here.
Q: Let’s continue. After a confident draw against another 2370 player, you beat a 2330 player Szustakowski Antoni in a complicated French defence. Although it was sharp, it would appear you were never worse. And you went on to convert the game confidently. Can you tell us a bit about this game?
A:
Let me first add a note to that draw against Teclaf (2370 – who is now waiting for the IM title approval). That was the player whom I was worried about the most in this tournament. It was a difficult game for me. I have to admit that after a surprise opening (again!), I was in a difficult situation. Luckily, I remembered about that Be7 idea in the opening. I knew it from some other line, but here it applied too.
After the opening, I felt I was slightly worse. I focused on defending and not hiding the fact that the draw was fine for me. Not very competitive, but it worked. That’s one thing I noticed about Teclaf’s games – he’s not the one to risk. I’m usually the opposite, but here I hold myself not to get too creative.
As for Szustakowski’s – I was worried here too. He was a fresh U18 champion of Poland at that time. I expected French, but not exactly the line which happened. It was funny, I thought that I knew the line and played Bh6 confidently, while it’s not actually what is right here.
Funnily, I think my confidence convinced my opponent he and he started playing less accurate. This got me the kind of position I like – attacking, while still having some strategical pluses. He defended very well, though and once again my not so great technical skills led to an endgame which could be saved by him. Luckily, he risked, calculated wrongly and lost.
Q: I was impressed with your technique in the end. Do you usually convert your advantages? How would you rate your conversion and/or endgame technique?
A: I think I’m getting better with technique, but it’s still not great.
I’m actually not happy where I am with that. I mean, I do convert eventually, but there’s luck involved. Sometimes it’s not about technique but more about setting traps and calculating better. The traps are often some small tactics, which are worth trying and bring more results than expected.
The problem is often less about technique but more about bad time management. If I have a better endgame but I’m only with 5 minutes, then it might be hard to convert.
Q: It would appear this 4th round game really gave you confidence. After it, you beat 2355 player Molchanov Aleksii, despite suffering in the opening. And then you held an inferior endgame against Moldena Marcin, rated 2383.
It would appear to me that, despite having unpleasant positions, you defended tenaciously and kept the cool head. What was your impression of these two games?
A: Yes, the 5th round against Molchanov was probably crucial.
Once again, surprised in the opening, but getting my favourite Hedgehog. He went for the Re1 line which is probably most complicated and full of ideas on both sides. It’s not often in Hedgehog, but I got overplayed completely and got a lost position quite early on. But then he starts playing superficially, allowing me to consolidate and to get a winning counter-play.
It’s funny how often this happens in Hedgehog structures, where I can get very passive positions, close to lost and then one mistake by White and I get the winning counter-attack. This game was also yet another example of how the <2300 players still make mistakes. Maybe not blunders, but actual big calculation mistakes. This kind of wins always boosts my confidence a lot.
In the past, getting such a bad position would result in me being very disappointed and giving up quickly. Nowadays, I’m less focused on the objective evaluation, but more focused on creating problems for my opponent. They’re just humans. They make mistakes, we just need to help them – traps, good calculation, knowing some ideas – all help.
The pattern was similar against Molenda. I was outplayed in the opening (Maroczy with White). I got an unpleasant position and needed to defend. That was the only game in this tournament where I made a huge blunder. At some point, he could make a 2-moves tactic and take my rook, game over. I only noticed this when I was pressing the clock. This was the longest 10 seconds in that tournament. Luckily, it was only 10 seconds – my opponent replied immediately. He didn’t spot the tactics. Uffff…
After that, it was still difficult but I got my confidence back. I was almost like Karjakin with the defensive skills. We got the R+K vs R endgame, obviously draw. But my opponent was right to play this till the end. I would do the same. We were both tired (it was the second game that day) and there are ways of making a mistake. At one point in that endgame I almost hallucinated, I thought I got to a lost position.I call it – having the daemons. Luckily, I’ve had a few minutes left to calm down and actually calculate.
Q: At this point, I assume your social media was „burning“? Did you start thinking about the norm. About winning the tournament?
A: I remember after this game I was interviewed by the “chess TV”. After the sixth round, I was the sole leader. No one expected that. This kind of “sensation” sells well. Still, even though I needed “just” 1.5/3 to get the IM norm, I wasn’t focused on that. My friends kept writing to me about that. Everyone was excited. That felt great – I knew I have a big group of people rooting for me.
People knew about my goals and many friends were supporting me. This tournament was showing that the IM norm is realistic. I think, in a way, I helped many people, by showing that I can be that close, they can be close too. I’m aware of the fact that I don’t have “the talent”, neither have many of my friends. After the 6th round, it was a big moment of time. Even if I didn’t make the norm, the result was already “great”.
I wasn’t thinking about the norm. Nor about winning the tournament. I mean, I knew I was close to the norm, but I still stayed calm.
Q: 7th round game followed a somewhat similar fashion. You were on the defensive for a while. But after your opponent rushed to take the pawn on move 40, you found a series of incredibly strong moves and his position collapsed surprisingly quickly.
You even avoided the repetition of the moves. Although your position was more winning than in the first round game against Frolov, was it psychologically difficult to avoid the draw?
A: I was surprised in the opening. Before that tournament, I usually played the 2. … d6 order of moved in Sicilian with Black. Then I extended my repertoire with 2. … e6 too. The problem with extending is usually not with the main lines, but all the minor lines. For example, with 2. … d6 when White plays 3. b3 I can set up the c5, d6, e5 bind.
Seeing his 3. b3 played against my e6, I realized I have a hole in my repertoire now. For a moment I even considered playing d6 and later e6-e5 to get to the familiar positions. We can say, that my opponent was successful with the opening choice.
However, I enjoy new types of positions. Even though it was clear, my opponent caught me, I started thinking which ideas can I bring on to get the type of position that would fit me well. This is how I came up with this f7-f5 plan. I knew those structures as they often appear in the c3 Sicilian. I knew that my opponent might be less familiar with that. I think that was a good plan, overall.
This game has also had a psychological background – I played against FM Kosma Pacan-Milej before. We’ve had an interesting game where I missed a mate in 4 (I recorded a YT video about that too) and eventually lost the game. It helped me knowing that even though he’s stronger than me, he does make mistakes.
Even though objectively he’s got a good position, it wasn’t easy for him to proceed. At some point, I knew that I can try and go for this d7 pawn sacrifice just to get my pieces active. It was a great idea, practically. When we’re both down on time, it’s easier to play with active pieces. The pawn didn’t matter. I played this for a win, so in this game, I’ve had no problems with the draw offer. Maybe also the psychological background helped – I knew I can expect mistakes.
Going back to the opening – I now have 4 different setups prepared against the b3 lines, this is how great it is to be surprised sometimes – long-term it motivates to work and prepare more.
It felt amazing after the game. Now was the moment where I switched into thinking – OK, so can I make the norm? Can I win the tournament? Maybe it was still too early, but at this moment I was unable to switch it off.
I needed 0.5 from two games to get the IM norm. Knowing the later results – 0.5/2 would also be enough to win the tournament.
Q: After the professional draw in the 8th round, you already secured the norm. And then you went on to „kill“ a 2288 opponent in the last round that sealed the victory of the tournament. It was clear you were enjoying yourself at this point.
Can you tell us how did you feel immediately after the tournament? How ecstatic is it to make such a result? To get rewarded for 3 long years of grinding and training?
A:
The 8th round was a big emotional roller coaster for me. Even though the game looks very dry, I was almost shaking out of emotions.
I have big respect for IM Shkuran. He has beaten me very confidently in one of those round-robins in Ukraine and I was afraid of playing against him.
When he went for Caro-Kann, I chose to go with the Exchange line. This is not always a good choice. Luckily we went for a line, where I knew some ideas. This was very helpful as those ideas helped me get full control of the position. We’ve got a position where it was only me who could risk, but obviously, the risk wasn’t something I considered here. When I found a line where we can repeat I went for that.
So, it was IM Shkuran who congratulated me the IM norm as the first person.
Quickly, all the other players stood up from their games and congratulated me – that was very nice of them.
I was so happy!
Without this result, I wouldn’t give up on my goals. But having this IM norm made everything worth it. That was a big satisfaction. I remember I quickly called my wife too. I received so many messages, my social media was a hotline. BTW, during the whole tournament, I posted updates after each game to my FB fan page.
I can say that the biggest pressure was during the 8th round. But it was such a big pressure, that it required several hours to get relieved.
I even remember how I spent the afternoon later on. The weather was great. I first went to the bookstore nearby and rewardede myself with buying 2 books. That’s what I usually do as a gift to myself – buy some books.
Then I went for a walk and got myself a Chinese meal. Usually, during tournaments, I prefer to keep a healthy diet, but for me, this tournament was actually over. During the walk, I’ve had long calls with my closest chess friends. They were all happy for me.
When I came back to the hotel, I remember that my coach called too. He was very happy and congratulated me. However, he was also very clear what I should do in the last round – play for a win.
I have to admit it wasn’t clear to me what to do about that last round. It was still before my strict “no draws” rule, so a draw was something I was considering. But GM Soćko was right here – I’m on a roll, I should benefit from that.
I remember that I haven’t really prepared to the last game. I played against IM Bakalarz. He had a bad start of the tournament, but then had some good games too. We’ve played also in a tournament in Austria, where he was better, but I defended to a draw.
I spent the evening reading the books I bought and just enjoying the moment.
In the morning, before the last round, I felt great. I was constantly smiling. I did play for a win indeed. It just felt natural. I was surprised in the opening, obviously. But I remembered some ideas (Qb6) and went for the b2 pawn. Then I probably could end earlier by taking the h1 rook, but I wasn’t able to calculate what kind of position would be there. Instead, I went for the safe line for the better endgame. I calculated one small trap, he went into it, small tactics and a win.
Somehow, I didn’t even consider any other result for that day. My confidence was at the highest possible point now.
Not only I got the IM norm but also I won the tournament. This was surreal.
Q: As you said in the Perpetual Chess Podcast – you played in the same venue a month ago. It is impossible to improve in such a short span. What do you think clicked in this particular tournament?
A: My coach rightly says it was a cumulation of many factors. We’ve had several sessions before that tournament. I was quite active with doing the endgame studies. I’ve had the good results with blitz tournament – probably helped with my confidence. The lack of expectations is probably also good.
I’ve been working on many areas of my chess, I’ve extended my repertoire once again – 1.5/2 with Hedgehog, 1 point in e6 Sicilian. 1 point with the old Scotch which was part of my repertoire already for some time.
Understanding my flow helped me too – I’m the idea-oriented person. I need to be fed with a flow of new ideas constantly. When I enrich this with good calculation skills, miracles can happen.
My rating performance here was 2580! Unbelievable. As my coach says, this shows my range of potential.
LINKS AND RESOURCES WHERE YOU CAN FIND OUT MORE ABOUT ANDRZEJ:
Afore-mentioned Viral Reddit Thread: I Was ~ 2100 for > 20 years (I’m 38). Last Week I Made an IM Norm
Perpetual Chess Podcast: Episode 76 – Adult Improver Series With Andrzej Krzywda
Andrzej’s Audio Clip: Hard Times – Back To 2100s After A Bad Tournament