Introduction

I was always aware that there is computer cheating in online chess. However, I never regarded it as an insurmountable problem because I always thought their number is too low in terms of the percentage of total players.

Also, it wasn’t such a big problem for me personally, since I almost exclusively played blitz and bullet in the past – disciplines with short time controls where computer cheating is much more difficult to pull off (although not entirely impossible).

However, some 2 months ago, I decided to take online chess more seriously and gave myself aim to play at least one longer game – rapid (10+0) or classical (15+15) – a day. Soon after I started doing it, I became aware of how many computer cheaters actually are there in online chess, as I started encountering them on a regular basis.

Without exaggeration, I think I encounter one cheater in every five games. I successfully reported over 30 of them, ¹  I even started reporting people I have never played against, just on the basis of their account. But new cheaters keep appearing every day and there is seemingly no end.

I got to a point where I have started aborting games against anyone who I consider even mildly suspicious ² – I decided it is worth being overly suspicious than spending anywhere between 20-40 minutes to play against the engine. ³

Just another day in the office when playing longer games online

Since this situation is incredibly frustrating and annoying and since one of the reasons why many cheaters get away with it is people not bothering/not being aware that they play against one, I’ve decided to write this article and share my experience regarding computer cheating in online chess accumulated during the last two months.

The article will be divided in two parts. First, I will talk about recognizing cheaters and describe signs you might be playing against one. Then I will talk about how I personally deal with them and what steps do I take after losing a game against someone I find suspicious.

I hope you will enjoy it and find it useful ⁴

How to recognize computer cheating in online chess: 12 signs a player might be a computer cheater

Big correlation to engine moves in multiple games

First and most obvious. Computer cheaters make very strong moves and usually crush you mercilessly.

It has to be pointed out that these aren’t ordinary crushes. In my online games, I regularly play against titled players. But even when I am up against a Grandmaster, I rarely feel I have zero chance from the start to finish – especially if we play multiple games. ⁵

When playing against an engine, the feeling is completely different. You have the feeling as if you were never really in the game. Their moves are just perfect and, needless to say, are unanimously correlated to top 3 (top 5) engine choices.

If you see your opponent had a small average centipawn loss, ⁶ you have to be vigilant that there is something fishy.

Finding beautiful and deep tactical ideas

Since chess is 90% tactics, ⁷ it is no wonder computer engine users excel in this area of play. Very often, they demonstrate very deep, long and forcing tactical ideas that are very difficult for a human (even of a higher playing strength) to find.

The previous game against SharpBishopChess is a good example, but this one is no less fascinating:

Demonstrating perfect conversion technique

Even though the difference between a human and the engine is apparent in all stages of the game, it gets even more pronounced when the stronger side obtains a clear advantage and has to convert it.

Upon obtaining an advantage, human players have a tendency to relax and start playing suboptimal moves. It is not a coincidence that there is a saying that „the hardest game to win is a won game“. Numerous games have been spoilt by laziness/over hastiness in a position with a clear advantage, ⁸.

Also, humans usually have a way they go about converting their advantage. We all tend for simplifications in such positions and avoid sharp continuations that might offer tactical counter chances.

Engines don’t have this problem, as the following game demonstrates:

Playing bad/weird openings and then continuing to play strongly

Another common trait of engine users is playing very bad/weird openings, landing in a suspicious/bad position with a lot of pieces on the board and then proceeding to outplay you.

I am not sure why this is characteristic. Perhaps some of them use engines without access to opening database ⁹ Or they just don’t bother because they know they will win anyway so they want to humiliate you.

But in any case, it is another sign to be aware of. Take my game against the user Marshall_The_Goat as an example:

Making very unnatural, „engine like“ moves

There is also a way engines play. There are some moves that are very difficult to find for humans (and some moves humans don’t even consider) – we all have certain aesthetics ingrained.

But engines don’t care – they will calculate and play the best continuation no matter how it looks.

A continuation such as the whole sequence ending up in Ng5 and Rf4-Rh4, trapping the queen, such as my afore-mentioned game against SharpBishopChess or seveshnikov.

This beautiful queen sac played against IM Eric Rosen is also a move worth noting:

Playing moves in regularly spaced intervals

Another typical cheater trait is playing the moves in regularly spaced intervals (say 3-5 seconds for blitz games), because it takes them time to feed the move to the engine, get its output and then play it on the board. A good example of this can be seen in the following video by Christoff Sielecki A.K.A. Chessexplained:

To be frank, I haven’t encountered this one myself all that much, probably because longer time controls provide the cheaters with more degrees of freedom.

But it is definitely something to keep in mind!

Taking time to make very obvious moves

Irrespective of whether they take in regular intervals or not – all cheaters do take time for all their moves.

Even the most obvious ones like a forced exchange or capture of a loose piece. For example, take a look at yet another game I played against user Marshall_The_Goat. It took my opponent more than 30 seconds to take the piece after executing a double attack. I actually didn’t realize he was cheating after that first one we have seen, but after this one, I had no doubt he was:

The following one against NT_99 is also worth noting:

Therefore, if someone executes a brilliant 5-move combination and then takes his time to play the final move and reap its rewards, you are more probably playing against a cheater.

A significant drop in level when faced with time trouble

I personally haven’t yet encountered it in longer time controls (although I did suspect some people in blitz because of it), but many cheaters start playing really badly when faced with time trouble.

The reason is simple – with little time, they don’t have the luxury of consulting their „silicon friend“ any longer. So they start playing themselves and reveal their „true“colors. The final result is sometimes comical, as the afore-mentioned video by Chessexplained demonstrates.

Having an anonymous account

This is probably self-understandable, but every single player I successfully reported for cheating had an anonymous account.

I usually check the profile before every game (even blitz ones) to see who I am playing against. If a player has a name listed, I also check his FIDE profile, just to see if he is legitimately a strong player of not.

With cheaters, you usually don’t have that luxury. You can’t see if they have a FIDE profile. Sometimes they even put some arbitrary FIDE rating, but there is no way to verify it.

But I guess that is kinda the point – nobody wants to risk their reputation by writing their name out in the open.

Having a recent/new account

Another thing I have noticed with cheaters – many of those I reported have made their account relatively recently and didn’t have a huge number of games.

Many cheaters don’t want to risk their „actual“ account, so they open a new one just for cheating purposes. Also, they all eventually get caught, so it is impossible to keep cheating consistently through a huge period of time and games.

Accounts made recently don’t have that constraint.

Having big discrepancy in rating between short and long time control (or no ratings in shorter time controls whatsoever)

Another thing I always look when dealing with potential cheaters is their blitz and bullet rating.

Many of them have a big discrepancy between ratings in short and long time controls. It is not uncommon to for me to play against a user with 1700 or 1800 blitz and bullet rating and 2200-2400 classical/rapid rating. Even though to speak of one is not to speak of another, I believe a certain correlation between these ratings has to exist.

Also, many cheaters don’t have blitz or bullet ratings whatsoever, which makes is it even more suspicious? What kind of player has NEVER been tempted to play at least one shorter game?

Different ways of trying to make the account less suspicious

Last, but not least, even though cheaters are very dumb, they are not completely dumb.

Some of them do realize that the account with high rapid/classical rating, big winning percentage, or big discrepancy in rating between bullet/blitz and rapid/classical is suspicious.

That is why some of them try various methods of making their accounts less suspicious. Here is an overview of different methods I have seen while investigating and reporting cheaters in my lichess classical career:

Using engine only in some games/only in some moments during a game

The most obvious thing. Even though the majority of cheaters is dumb enough to use the engine during the entire game, some of them realize this doesn’t help them to reduce the suspicion, so they use the engine irregularly – only in some games or – more commonly – only in some moments during a game.

This game against TheRicketsRick927  fooled me:

We will also see another game against polish_warrior_3000 later which was a good example of this. Also, both games against Marshall_The_Goat are exemplary of that (he skipped engine in the opening completely).

Intentionally resigning games to reduce their winning percentage

Since cheaters most often crush their opponents mercilessly, they usually have absurd winning percentages.

Some of them realize that and try to reduce it intentionally, by losing games on purpose. Some of them are smart enough to play an entire game without the engine and lose it in a human way, but some of them are so dumb that they play anywhere between 5-10 moves and then resign, irrespective of the position on the board.

I guess your time is too valuable to spend on actually playing chess when you could be cheating instead.

Losing casual rapid/classical games intentionally

Often combined with the previous point – many cheaters play casual games and then lose them intentionally. It both increases the total number of games they have played and includes loses in classical in their career stats.

Playing a huge number of games against the same opponent (friend) and losing some of them, but still gaining rating

I caught one or two cheaters playing 10-20 classical games against the same opponent and essentially trading rating with him. Most of the games ended up in quick resignations /checkmates and both cheaters actually gained rating at the end of it.

It was a clear attempt to include some classical games in their collection of games to make the account seem more legitimate.

Playing a low number of games in all time controls/variants

Some engine users know that an account with only classical games is suspicious, so they try to play some games in all time controls and even variants of the game.

It is not too hard to detect if you actually click on the profile and see the number of games. If you bother to check the actual content of the games, you will most probably see a lot of short games and early resignations, as well.

But if you don’t bother to click on their profile and just check if they have any ratings by hovering over it, ¹⁰ you might get fooled, so some of them like to implement it.

Playing the first game on their own/with moderate engine use, asking for a rematch and then using the engine

Last, but not least, I recently played a pair of games against a clear engine user.

In the first one, he played a horrible opening, then after my imprecisions found a very good defence, managed to equalize, reached a completely drawn endgame and then fell for the checkmate of the knight against an edge pawn. The game was actually pretty funny:

Since I assumed he was playing by himself, I accepted his rematch offer.. and got crushed like a bug, as we have seen earlier (the third game I have given in the article).

I guess it can be compared to a drug dealer. He first “hooked me” in the first game (although I am not sure he actually wanted to – he probably aimed for a draw and then relaxed prematurely) and then punished me in the second one.

Disgusting.

How to deal with computer cheating in online chess in 4 steps

Now that I have described how to recognize a computer cheater, I can get on with how to deal with them. Even though the answer: „Report them“ is self-evident advice, I’d like to expand on it a bit. I have pinpointed 4 important steps of dealing with computer cheating in online chess.

Don’t make premature accusations. Give your opponent the benefit of a doubt (everyone can play 1 good game)

I have recently read the book Talking to Strangers by famous writer Malcolm Gladwell. The topic of the book is the human tendency to evaluate unknown people completely wrong, which often leads to misunderstandings and conflicts.

In one of the chapters, Gladwell writes about Harry Markopolous, an American investor and financial fraud investigator, who warned people about the Bernie Madoff pyramid scheme as early as in 2001. He tries to explain why how exactly Bernie Madoff managed to keep his fraud going for so many years and why nobody listened to Markopolous even when he came out with his claims. ¹¹

Gladwell mentions that we humans have a truth bias – a certain tendency to expect the truth and to convince ourselves that even the most unviable events are actually possible. He also points out that this mostly a good characteristic and that world would be unable to function normally if we suspected everyone.

He also emphasizes that Markopolous is one of those rare people whose brain is wired completely differently. He was incredibly suspicious in all spheres of his life and Bernie Madoff scheme was just one of the examples of how it manifested itself.

Now, you might be wondering why I am blabbering about Gladwell, Madoff and Markopolous. The reason is that both extremes – tendency to expect the truth and tendency to suspect everyone – are bad when dealing with computer cheating in online chess. ¹²

One of the reasons I think many of the cheaters manage to get away with it is the fact that other players simply don’t suspect them. Some of the accounts I reported and got banned were so blatantly obvious that it left me wondering how on Earth did none of their previous opponents did not react earlier. Of course, I don’t recommend anyone to become a narcissistic, overly competitive rating-whore like myself, but I do think that cheaters would have a much harder time if an average Joe was slightly more vigilant.

On the other hand, I also think I have become too suspicious, borderline paranoid. I think it is important to give your opponents the benefit of a doubt and realize that anyone can play one good game. Acting too rashly, sending reports without any investigations and publicly accusing people of cheating just because it „felt like it“ are more likely to start a witch hunt than to help anyone.

I think it is important to keep everything private and under the table and to be rational when it comes to dealing with such a situation – not to go „full Markopolous“.

Take your time to investigate their profile and analyze their games. Search for signs and patterns mentioned above

I think this is the most important step of dealing with cheaters most people are not willing to make. ¹³ Before reporting a cheater, it is necessary to gather as much information/evidence as possible by going over their profile, analyzing their games and searching for signs and patterns they might be cheating mentioned above.

I usually do it by checking obvious stuff such as when was the account made, whether it has a name and what are the ratings in all time controls and variants.

Then I go and analyze a lot of their games  (5-10) by myself. At first, I look at their average centipawn loss (which is available immediately in the lichess environment) and then check the nature of games.

It usually takes me 30-60 minutes to do this. But it is definitely worth it – not only because I convince myself that the person is actually cheating and avoid starting a witch hunt, but also because I am able to provide moderation with much more context and more convincing arguments. ¹⁴

Report the cheater and let the moderation do their job

After you have done your homework, there is nothing else left to do but report the cheater, block him and wait for the moderation to respond.

Don’t be like me and report the cheater several times – the moderation is doing their job the best they can, ¹⁵ so filling several reports about the same person doesn’t really help.

Laugh in the cheater’s face and taunt him if he gets reported and goes on to insult you below your Youtube videos

Of course, if you followed these instructions closely, the cheater will have no ideas who reported him or what hit him.

However, if you are a sore, salty loser like the author of these lines you can also accuse a person of cheating in the post-game chat, report him and get him banned and then have some fun when he posts angry comments below your Youtube videos because he knows exactly who caused his online chess career to end:

I don’t usually endorse the use of the „mum“ jokes, but when it comes to computer cheating in online chess, I have no inhibitors or empathy, whatsoever. Good riddance.

In any case, I hope you have found this article helpful and that you will manage to deal with computer cheaters in online chess more successfully after reading it.

The post How To Deal With Computer Cheating In Online Chess appeared first on Chessentials.

I have been meaning to write this post for a while. Considering that the annual January Tata Steel chess tournament recently finished, I thought it might be a good moment to take stock and try to predict the outcome of the FIDE Candidates Tournament 2020.

Hope you will enjoy it!

The format and the venue

So, from March 15 to April 4, FIDE Candidates Tournament will be held in Yekaterinburg, Russia. The tournament will be a double round-robin – 8 participates will play 2 games against each other, one with the White pieces and one with the Black pieces, amounting to a total of 14 games.

Time control is rather “long”: 100 minutes for the first 40 moves, with additional 50 minutes gained after move 40, and 15 minutes gain after move 60. Starting from move 1, the standard 30 seconds increment is included.

The Candidates tournament is an “all-or-nothing” event – the winner will gain the right to challenge Magnus in the World Chess Championship 2020 match (which will be held toward the end of 2020). The other seven participants will go home¹ and watch the match in front of their TV screens² (or computer screens, considering that Twitch is the new standard for the World Championship matches).

Participants

As mentioned above, the lineup of the Candidates tournament comprises a total of 8 players. Clause 2 of the FIDE regulations for the Candidates tournament describes the qualification criteria in great detail. In any case, for the 2020 edition of the Candidates tournament, the following players are eligible to participate:

• Fabiano Caruana – 2018 World Championship runner-up

• Teimour Radjabov – 2019 World Cup winner

• Ding Liren – 2019 World Cup runner-up

• Wang Hao – FIDE Grand Swiss Tournament 2019 top finisher (winner), who hasn’t qualified by one of the above two methods and is not Carlsen himself (Carlsen played in FIDE Grand Swiss Tournament, which is a paradox in itself)

Erm, sorry, that’s the wrong Wang Hao – former table tennis World Champion and Olympic silver medalist. Here is the right one:

• Alexander Grischuk – winner of the FIDE Grand Prix 2019

• Ian Nepomnhiachtchi – runner-up of the FIDE Grand Prix 2019

• Anish Giri – highest average rating in the period between February 2019 and January 2020

• Kiril Alekseenko – wild card selected by the organizer, subject to eligibility criteria. Alekseenko was eligible for the wild card based on his performance in the FIDE Grand Swiss Tournament 2019, although his selection has caused some controversies, as will be pointed out later in this answer.

Now that we know the names (and the faces), I’d like to take a moment to talk about my estimation of each player’s chances in the upcoming tournament.

Predictions

• Fabiano Caruana

Even before Tata Steel, Fabiano Caruana has been considered as one of the pre-tournament favourites, together with Ding Liren.

His playing strength and accolades are well known. He has been one of the strongest players in the world for years, he has won a number of super tournaments and he proved to be Magnus’ equal in the previous World Championship match.

Another factor I think is very important is – Caruana already has a lot of experience playing in the Candidates tournament (this is his third time) and he proved that pressure doesn’t affect him all that match. He came second in 2016 (losing to Karjakin in the final round because he was forced to play for the win with the black pieces) and he won convincingly in 2018.

Another reason Fabi’s fans have a lot of ground for optimism is his Tata Steel performance. 10/13, +19 rating points, 2900+ performance, would all be impressive even if it were a regular tournament. But when you also consider he might have been hiding his preparation, it was just a surreal performance.

There is even an “urban myth” that previous Candidates winners traditionally perform poorly in Tata Steel – Caruana himself had a terrible tournament in 2018.

Will he be able to break this “curse”? It remains to be seen.

• Teimour Radjabov

Radjabov’s win at the World Chess Cup qualification for the Candidates Tournament 2020 is probably one of the biggest upsets in the entire history of chess.

Even though he was one of the strongest players in the 2000s and at the beginning of 2010s, he has disappeared from the scene in recent years. He didn’t play much at all and has openly talked about how he lost the drive for chess and how he is considering retiring/doing something else.

Even after the qualification for the Candidates, he made some…strange remarks. For example, he initially said he doesn’t yet know if he will participate (?!). ³

Therefore, when you consider his inner struggles, the fact that he was a very solid player even at the height of his powers (drawing more often than winning) and that he wasn’t as active in the recent years, it is clear why he is considered as one of the outsiders.

(Performances such as this one don’t win you tournaments. Source:FIDE)

On the other hand, he is devilishly talented and during the World Cup, he reminded everybody of his strength.

So, who knows. Maybe he will defy all expectations and do well.

• Ding Liren

Together with Caruana, Ding Liren is considered as the main favourite to win the tournament. Before Tata Steel, I even thought this might be his year, but consider how Caruana played there, I am not so sure any longer :D.

Ding is currently the world number 3, he has had a very good 2019 (World Cup finalist, Sinquefield Cup winner, beating Magnus in the tiebreak) and is just generally regarded as an ultra-strong player.

It is well known that he is very solid and that he rarely loses games. Whereas this is, without denying, an important trait of a chess player, for a tournament of this caliber this might actually be a deficiency. For example, in the previous edition, Ding didn’t lose a single game, but just won 3 of them, finishing only fourth. Already back then, some people commented that he is too solid.

(A bit too solid to win the event of this caliber. Will Ding manage to increase the risk margin, but not overstep it? Source: FIDE)

He did adjust his style a bit recently and started winning more, but it will be very interesting to see his approach in March. Will he be able to defy his character and risk more, will that lead to him risking too much, or will he once again (over)focus on not losing? It remains to be seen.

• Wang Hao

Apart from Ding Liren, China will have the second candidate for the first time in history. And whereas it was not surprising to see Ding’s name on the list, Wang Hao’s qualification was as equally unexpected as surprising as Radjabov’s.

In a way, there are similarities between Wang and Radjabov. Both are huge talents, who were once members of the world elite who then almost disappeared from the elite circuit. Both seem to struggle with the motivation and professional approach to chess ⁴ and for both, the qualification for the Candidates represented a sort of a comeback.

Therefore, Wang Hao can – just like Radjabov – be definitely regarded as an outsider. Especially since he is Chinese – I get the feeling that Ding Liren is more likely to receive the full support of the federation (just like, say, Botvinnik got it in Soviet times), because

A) He is the stronger player and has greater chances of winning the tournament

B) I remember reading somewhere how Wang Hao lamented that Chinese players have to turn their prize money to their Federation/Government. I wouldn’t say that this open criticism is received too well in his homeland.

Of course, it may be pure speculation and Wang might become the next challenger. Time will tell.

As for those worrying about whether having two Chinese players in the same tournament might lead to potential collusion, I don’t think it is very likely:

• Alexander Grischuk

Apart from clear favourites Caruana and Ding and clear outsiders (Radjabov, Wang Hao, Alekseenko), I’d divide the rest of the players into the third group – those I don’t expect to win the event, nor to be last.

Grischuk falls into this category. His class as a player is undoubted and he has been a regular World Championship Candidate for almost a decade (he famously lost to Gelfand in the final of the 2012 cycle and he participated in 2014 and 2018).

However, even though he is always there somewhere, he has never been close to qualifying for the match (nor is he winning super tournaments on a regular basis). It is hard to say what is that little something that is missing. Depth of opening preparation? Nerves in critical moments? Weird handling of the clock?

I really don’t know. And I really don’t care. His chess performance during the Candidates tournament is secondary to his regular press conference comedy routine. Who would forget all those hilarious “Yes, I can read” and “Mr. Ding” remarks from Berlin 2018.

Candidates tournament without Grischuk wouldn’t be the same.

• Ian Nepomniachtchi

Even though my impulse is to put Nepo in the same category as Grischuk and Giri (not the favourite, not the outsider), his performance is most difficult to predict.

I think that Nepo, as a player, is more dependant on his emotions than some other top players. I think he is more likely to go on fire when things are going really well and more likely to have a disastrous set of results once things don’t go his way.

His performance at Croatia Grand Chess Tour 2019 is a perfect example. After winning first three games and leading the event, something went wrong in the middle of everything and Nepo collapsed (although it has to be said he had suspicious positions and a lot of luck in the first three games, as well):

His manner of play is also something that makes him unpredictable. Compared to all other players in this tournament, Nepo lands in dubious positions more frequently (sometimes result of his superficial play, but maybe also the consequence of somewhat inferior opening preparation ?). However – just like in the first three games of the Croatia Grand Tour – he often manages to extricate himself from danger. There is a reason he is regarded as a very tricky player.

In an event such as Candidates, this might be a double-edged approach. On one hand, the importance of an opening preparation in such an event is increased. On the other hand, his tenacity and defensive skill might make it more difficult to his opponents to finish him off – sometimes that is already difficult in itself when the nerves are operating and the stakes are high.

In any case, it will be interesting to follow his play. Even though I’d like Caruana to win in order to provide us with a close Wch match, and even though I also like Wang Hao because he likes anime and video games, Nepo has long been my favourite and seeing him challenge Magnus would put a big smile on my face :).

• Anish Giri

Anish Giri is often mocked in the chess community as a “drawing master” who “never wins super tournaments”. As usual, there is some truth in these overly used jokes because Giri is in a way, just like Grischuk – always somewhere close to the top, never quite climbing it.

However, due to his reputation, people often underestimate him and reach conclusions a priori, without even looking at his games. For example, the drawing jokes were all the rage after the Candidates tournament 2016, where Giri scored the “perfect” 14/14 in terms of drawn games.

Alas, many people forget he reached a number of winning positions, such as in his 9th round game against Caruana:

(White is completely winning here. The engine gives +3 for White)

Or in his 11th round game against Nakamura:

(Here, 50 Re5 seems very promising, although it is not easy to calculate and evaluate the consequences of taking on f2. Giri forced a draw instead)

So yeah, even though he is not the nr. 1 contender, we shouldn’t forget he can be very dangerous and that his opening expertise might land him in several good positions during such a long tournament.

If he starts converting them, we might be in for a surprise.

• Kiril Alekseenko

Last but not least, the clearest outsider is the wild card nominee Kiril Alekseenko.

Alekseenko become eligible for the wildcard on the basis of his performance in the FIDE Grand Swiss tournament and basically got invited because he is Russian – the company sponsoring the Candidates tournament insisted on this and, as usual, the money decided the issue.

His invitation caused some controversy. Many felt a player who is currently nr. 37 in the world and who only recently broke the 2700 rating barrier shouldn’t get a place in an elite event such as Candidates tournament. French chess fans were especially devastated that their fan, Maxime Vachier Lagrave, once again missed the qualifying spot, despite being incredibly close on several occasions (he was second on rating, he lost in the semifinal of the World Cup and he came in third in the FIDE Grand Prix).

Maxime’s manager even wrote an open letter to FIDE, appealing for a match between Alekseenko and Maxime to determine the final spot, but in vain.

In a way, nobody can blame Alekseenko for anything. He got his chance and he took it. But his qualification should raise a question about the current qualifying system and whether it is a good time to abolish the wild-card concept whatsoever.

In any case, I don’t estimate Alekseenko having any chances for winning the tournament whatsoever and, quite frankly, anything than him coming last would be a huge surprise for me.

Conclusion

To be honest, compared to the previous editions, I feel that this year’s edition of the Candidates tournament is a bit uneven – at least of paper. It was very surprising to see Wang Hao and Teimour Radjabov qualify – both players haven’t been members of the world elite in the years prior to 2019 (and it was an impression they don’t take chess up as seriously and professionally as their colleagues). Also, there is no denying that Kiril Alekseenko is a clear outsider.

It is very easy to pick the pre-tournament favourites (Caruana and Ding), players who nobody expects to have serious chances (Wang Hao, Teimour Radjabov, Kiril Alekseenko) and those “inbetweeners”, who are expected to reside in the middle of the tournament table (Grischuk, Giri). Arguably, Ian Nepomniachtchi also belongs to this category, although he might be a sort of a “dark horse” of the tournament.

Of course, there is a high probability that all these predictions and speculations will fall into the water once the actual play begins. A number of other factors will play a crucial role – how the players will be able to handle the pressure and control the nerves, how lucky they will be with their choice of openings and catching their opponents in prepared variations, whether they will be on form or not, whether they will play too recklessly against Alekseenko because they expect to beat him, etc.

In any case, considering that the previous Candidates tournaments were bloodbaths with a huge number of decisive games, I think the 2020 edition will be the most exciting and dramatic tournament of the entire year.

Can’t wait for it to start!

The post Candidates Tournament 2020: Analysis and predictions appeared first on Chessentials.

If you don’t know what Chessable is, or you don’t know how exactly it works, I recommend reading this introductory post to Chessable first

INTRODUCTION

A couple of weeks ago, I listened to the 120th episode of the Perpetual Chess Podcast hosted by Ben Johnson, featuring John Hartmann, who is a book reviewer for Chess Life Magazine and editor of Chess Life Online.

In the episode, Hartmann talked about his career as a chess book reviewer and offered advice to all aspiring chess writers. Among other things, he said it is worth to „try and knock on other people’s doors“.

I decided to heed his advice and sent a bunch of emails. One of them landed me into a conversation with members of Chessable, who asked me if I would be interested to write a review of their recently published course, Keep It Simple: 1. d4, by International Master Christof Sielecki.

As I have explained in the Chessable introductory post, considering I am a fervent Chessable devotee who believes their product is useful, there weren’t any internal conflicts that would prevent me from accepting it. ¹ They gave me access to the course, I went through the variations and wrote down my impressions.

The final result – an honest, in-depth review of the Keep It Simple: 1. d4 – is now in front of you.

Hope you will find it useful!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

International Master Christof Sielecki is better known to the wider chess audience as IM Chessexplained, nicknamed after his popular Youtube Channel he started back in 2011. According to his website, in 2014 he gave up his day-time job and started to make a living out of chess.

Most of his time is devoted to his work as a chess-teacher, but he has been also very active as a chess content producer. Apart for the videos for his Youtube channel, he has made video series on chess24 (on Ruy Lopez and English Opening), written a book on Nimzo and Bogo-Indian defences and live-streamed banter blitz session for both chess24 and International Chess Club.

However, during the last couple of years, he has been rather busy with publishing repertoire books for Chessable where he published six courses so far:

• Short & Sweet: The Petroff
• Chessexplained Benko Repertoire: A complete answer to 1. d4
• Chessexplained English: A complete repertoire based on 1. c4
• Fight 1.e4 like Caruana
• Keep It Simple: 1.e4 (which became the first-ever Chessable course that got published as a print book)
• Keep It Simple: 1.d4

ABOUT THE COURSE

Following the success of Keep It Simple: 1. e4, Keep It Simple: 1.d4 was the logical next step. The aim of both KIS courses ² is to provide a complete opening repertoire for the White player on the basis of different 1st moves.

In the KIS: 1 d4 course, the author proposes us to play an universal system based on the fianchetto of the bishop, castling and going c4 (1 d4 – 2 Nf3 – 3 g3 – 4 Bg2 – 5 0-0 – 6 Bg2). Although the aim of the repertoire is to go for this plan almost regardless of what Black does, the author does cover 14 different setups Black can go for, in which we sometimes deviate from our ‘scheme’ (say by playing c4 before castling), due to the concrete features of the position. These setups are divided into 14 chapters (not including Introduction), as follows:

• …d5: Sidelines/ Tarrasch
• …d5 and …c5: Grünfeld Reversed
• …d5 and …e6: The Catalan
• …d5 and …Bf5: …Bf5 Setups
• …d5 and … Bg4: Bg4 Setups
• …g6 and …d5: Grünfeld-style
• …g6 and …d6: King’s Indian Setups
• … e6 and …c5 Benoni Declined with …e6
• …g6 and …c5 Benoni Declined with …g6
• The early …c5: Benoni Systems
• The early …b5: The Anti-c4 approach
• The early …b6: Queen’s Indian Setups
• The early …f5: Dutch Setups
• Black plays something else

There is a marked difference in approach between Keep It Simple 1 e4 and 1 d4 courses. In the former, it was not possible to recommend an universal setup, because the play is more concrete and different replies by Black lead to markedly different positions. For example, after 1…e5 or 1…c5, you know you will never get a Pirc-like or French-like position ³. The simplicity of the repertoire was based on the avoidance of any danger and complications and limiting Black’s counterattacking options by reaching very stable and simple positions, not on universality.

Consequently, move orders and transpositions were of less importance, in contrast to 1 d4 where they are crucial. Since the play is less forced and more flexible, Black can transpose to certain lines later than expected, by delaying some critical moves. For example, in the following variation:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple Review"]  [Black "Line 1"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "A49"]  [PlyCount "9"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. O-O *   

Black can decide whether he wants to play the Grünfeld setup with d5 or King’s Indian setup with d6. That is why Sielecki has devoted particular attention to all possible move orders and transpositions.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER AND THE REVIEWING PROCESS

Now that you have the idea about the structure of the course, I should provide a bit information on my preferences as a chess player and perhaps explain how I approached reviewing it.

I am a 2170 ELO rated chess player, who plays 1 e4 most of the time. I have very little experience with 1 d4 – I played it only a couple of times in tournament games, both times avoiding the mainlines and opting for the London System and/or Trompowsky. I am also primarily a tactical player and have a preference for fighting and risky variations, and am therefore not the target audience of the repertoire with ‘Simple’ in title, that often results in quiet, positional play.

In order to review the course, I first had to study it. Due to its sheer volume, I’ve decided to go over every single variation, but less thoroughly. That is why I set the number of repetitions to 1, the Quiz option to ‘Immediately’ and decided to study only the key moves. ⁴ I didn’t watch the complete video material, but I have referenced it on several occassions to hear the author’s thoughts about specific positions.

With that being said, we can finally get started with the actual review. I have decided to organize it as follows: first I will talk about things I liked about the course. Then I will focus on the things I wasn’t fond of. In the end, I will wrap up the review with my final impression and evaluation of the course.

WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE COURSE

The main thing I like about this course is its sheer volume. Purely on the basis of the variations and lines of text, it consists of, it is clear that the author has put an enormous amount of work into building this repertoire.

As you go through it, it manifests itself as follows:

• Amount and depth of variations

The course consists of astounding 1031 variations, with the average depth of the line of 13.35 moves. If you disregard all 6-7 move long variations where author covers various transpositions and move orders, an average depth of the main line is probably even greater.

A number of important variations ~20 moves long. On numerous occassions, the author extends the opening variation and transitions deeper into the middle game, directing the student toward potential plans and ideas in subsequent play.

A good example is a variation from the …d5 and …Bf5 chapter:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "Sample line 2"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "D11"]  [PlyCount "37"]   1. d4 {This chapter is about black setups involving ...d5 and ...Bf5, usually  combined with the pawn moves ...c6 and ...e6. You will encounter this setup  quite frequently if your opponent's main defence to 1. d4 is the Slav Defence}  d5 2. Nf3 (2. c4 c6 {Slav players are very accustomed to the triangle pawns in  the centre (...d5,...c6 and ...e6) and prefer to develop the bishop outside of  the pawn chain, either to f5 or g4. I decided to examine the Slav style setups  in two separate chapters, as our reply against ... Bf5 is quite different to ..  .Bg4. How do we handle the ... Bf5 lines? When I analyzed the ...Bf5-setup it  quickly emerged that White has two principled ideas in it. One of those  involves playing for the pawn push to e4, prepared by c4,Nc3 and Nf3-d2. A  possible line with this approach is 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 c6 4. Bg2 Bf5 5.  O-O e6 6. c4 h6 7. Nc3 Nbd7 8. Nd2 and e4 next. This whole concept certainly  has some logic, but the resulting positions are not that dangerous for Black  in my opinion. Black can often trade pieces on e4 and simplify the position.  This whole approach is very solid for White, but I found the second principled  plan to be much more interesting. The second plan and the one that I chose for  this book involves White playing an early c4 and Qb3, attacking the undefended  b7-pawn. Now the most common reaction for Black is to play ...Qb6, creating a  vis a vis situation of the queens on b3 and b6. We will play the pawn to c5,  forcing a commitment. Now it seems to be most reliable for Black to trade on  b3, creating a complex queenless middlegame. This position type is generally  considered to be satisfactory for Black, but I think I have found enough ideas  to pose some problems. I need to emphasize that there are many ways for Black  to not play into this queenless middlegame, and these are usually not that  great for Black - there are many, not very obvious, pitfalls. If they know the  best line and play into the queen trade, we are going to know the ins and outs  a lot better and make their life as hard as possible. Now, about concrete  moves and move order: we play our usual setup with the kingside fianchetto and  a later c4, but there is one very important twist that I'd like to mention  right at the start of the chapter. We are delaying O-O in this line, going for  a quicker c4/Nc3/Qb3 sequence. I will discuss the reasoning behind this move  order once we reach the specific positions.}) 2... Nf6 3. g3 c6 {Here Black  may still transpose to other chapters of course, with moves like 4... e6, 4...  Bg4 or even 4... g6. Besides the obvious 4... Bf5 there is one more move that  is relevant to ...Bf5-setups.} 4. Bg2 {I recommend delaying/omitting castling,  and playing a quicker c4. The mainline, that we are about to examine, is 4.  Bg2 Bf5 5. c4. I'd like to point out that you may also play the  'hyper-accelerated' c4 by going 4. c4 immediately. This position usually  arises from the proper Slav move order 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 and  has been played quite frequently in recent grandmaster practice. This even  quicker c4 has some points, most notably lines like 4... Bf5 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nh4  or 6. Qb3 Qb6 7. c5, when 7... Na6 is fully prevented due to 8. e4. So, what's  the catch? Black may take on c4, of course. after 4... dxc4 there is no way to  regain the pawn, it is a true gambit. This is fully playable for White, but  also very complicated and committal. I felt that this does not fit too well  with the spirit of this repertoire. However, this move order might be a  welcome addition to your repertoire at a later stage. It obviously shares many  themes with the lines presented here and therefore is certainly easier to add  than something entirely different in nature.} Bf5 {Here Black may still  transpose to other chapters of course, with moves like 4... e6, 4... Bg4 or  even 4... g6. Besides the obvious 4... Bf5 there is one more move that is  relevant to ...Bf5-setups.} 5. c4 {As mentioned before, I recommend playing  this instead of castling first. Of course playing 5. O-O is not a mistake, but  in my opinion it is less precise than 5. c4 if you intend to follow up with  the Qb3 plan. As discussed in the intro, I think this is most dangerous  approach available. So, why is 5. c4 more precise? There are two main points.  The first one is best explained with a sample move sequence. Let's say you  would play} (5. O-O e6 6. c4 Nbd7 7. Nc3 h6 8. Qb3 Qb6 9. c5 {Now Black does  not need to take, but also has 9... Qa6 available. This is a reasonable way  for Black to play, intending ...b6 soon. I was not able to find an advantage  against this idea. Now, let's check what happens if we omit castling: 5. c4 e6  6. Nc3 Nbd7 7. Qb3 Qb6 8. c5. Now 8... Qa6 is not a good idea because of the  tricky move 9. Bf1!, threatening e4. The bishop retreat is not only strong,  but also very easy to miss by Black. So this way we set a little trap and  avoid an otherwise annoying line. The second point of 5. c4 instead of  castling first is the queenless middlegame after the trade on b3, for example  after}) 5... e6 {The most logical move and by far the main one.} 6. Nc3 {Black  now has three main moves of about equal strength. These are 6... Be7, 6... h6  and 6... nbd7. It might not seem like a big difference at first, but the  details are very important here. Black will usually only have some general  ideas about this line, while studying the subtle points will give you good  chances to pose Black serious problems that he has not expected in the first  place. I need to mention that some points apply to all three moves. We will  play 7. Qb3 and the best reply for Black is 7. ..Qb6 8. c5 Qxb3 9. axb3.  Deviating from this sequence is worse for Black and the way to punish these  deviations is also somewhat similar. I'll point out the differences, of course.  The endgame after 9. axb3 is very interesting to study. The three versions of  the endgame are somewhat transpositional, but one important distinction is the  placement of the b8-knight. The endgame with the knight coming to a6 is in  fact sharper and more concrete, while the placement on d7 leads to a more  quiet game. I'd like to emphasize again that studying the endgame is important,  because it will appear frequently as the moves leading to it are so natural.}  Nbd7 {This is the most popular move here.} 7. Qb3 {White has an interesting  alternative in 7. Nh4 here. As mentioned this idea is worth checking if Black  has omitted .. .h6 and the knight is on c3 already. I was not able to find any  tangible advantage, so I decided to stick to the usual recipe with Qb3. The  idea Nh4 will still be important in some lines, though.} Qb6 {This is the best  reply, but not always played. You also meet the passive (and bad) ...Qc8  frequently.} 8. c5 Qxb3 9. axb3 {We have reached the already mentioned endgame.  There are three versions of the endgame, depending on Black's sixth move. Here  Black has already committed to the knight placement on d7, which means the  endgame will be less sharp and based on concrete lines compared to the other  versions where Black might play a quick ...Na6. Let's have a look how the play  develops with the knight on d7. In this position type it is favourable to  still have the king on e1. First of all, Nc3 is more relevant for the  queenside play (b4-b5) than O-O, we are slightly faster on that side of the  board. Additionally, White has the plan to play a setup with h3 and g4, which  is also more powerful with the king still on e1. These points will become  clearer once you study the lines featuring this structure.} a6 {Black plays  this move almost all of time. Not just here on move 9, but also most of the  time at a later stage. Black wants to make the rook on a8 mobile and is afraid  that White may play b4 and even b5 quickly. By going 9... a6 right now he  makes sure that after 9... a6 10. b4 Rc8 the b5-push is prevented.} 10. b4 Rc8  {Black stops any b5-ideas. As we have seen in the 9... Be7 line, this b5-idea  is not even on our agenda.} 11. h3 {Here you may also play 11. Nh4, but it is  essential to understand the general plan of h3 and g4. This plan is relevant  for all versions of the endgame with. ..Nbd7, and may appear from other move  orders. We are dealing with various setups here, rather than very concrete  move orders.} h6 {Black will play this move at some point, getting the  h7-square for the bishop.} 12. g4 Bh7 13. Bf4 Be7 14. Nd2 {This move finally  reveals what to do on the queenside. White starts a knight tour to a5,  ultimately eyeing the b7-pawn. This position is slightly better for White,  because Black has less space and very few active ideas. Of course he is  solidly placed, but it is not much fun to just sit and wait. White also has  the idea to expand in the centre later. Let's examine some possible  continuations to illustrate.} O-O 15. Nb3 Bd8 {Black needs to react to the Na5  idea.} 16. Bd6 Re8 17. f4 {White stops ...e5 and gains even more space.} Be7  18. Bxe7 Rxe7 19. e3 {I prefer White here, being a huge believer in space. If  Black does not show some clear idea, we will play ?f3 and h4. This whole line  also shows the point of delaying castling and playing c4 on move 5. This  kingside expansion does not work after White has castled.} *   

Even though the opening has ended, the author extends the variation up to move 19 and explains typical ideas and motifs behind White’s moves.

• Amount of text/commentary

With 101.954 words of text, this Chessable course is probably the record holder (at least when it comes to the courses I own). That is almost two times more than KIS: 1 e4 (which consisted of 59.309 words).

I was especially fond of clear and in-depth explanations at the beginning of each chapter, where the author presents a detailed overview of the chapter with the main ideas of the variation. It is really helpful when encountering new opening variations for the first time.

And it also makes the task of keeping track of various transpositions and move orders much easier. Which brings me to the next point.

• The clarity in the explanation of transpositions and move orders

Probably the thing I liked the most about the course.

Throughout every previous Chessable course I have studied, I felt that the coverage of the various transpositions and move orders left something to be desired. Either it was mentioned briefly (in passing), omitted altogether, or been rather confusing.

In KIS: 1 d4, this is not the case. From the introduction to the course, the author devotes a lot of attention to dealing with Black’s flexibility. Each chapter contains several specific variations dedicated exclusively to transpositions to other chapters. It is is easy and simple to keep track of this aspect of the course.

• Amount of (new) ideas one can extract from the course

Another aspect of the course I like is that it is not merely a bunch of lines we need to memorize. The author constantly points out ideas behind certain moves and even introduces several novelties in well-known positions. Even if you don’t remember all the subtleties and exact moves of these variations, some concepts will definitely stick.

• Quality of engine analysis

Last, but not least, the quality of engine analysis is the best testament to the author’s thoroughness. The vast majority of the lines I have checked have withstood my own engine’s evaluation. I haven’t discovered a major hole and you really get the feeling that the author had every single position with engine evaluation on his board at some point (which is surprising for such a big course).

WHAT I DIDN’T LIKE ABOUT THE COURSE

Unfortunately, there are also many things I didn’t like about the course. My main objection is that the title is a bit misleading, because this is NOT a SIMPLE course. I thought that the title „Keep it Universal“ would have been more appropriate. ⁵ Even the author himself admits it at least once throughout the course!

The complexity of the course manifests itself as follows:

• Too many complicated, long, forcing and sharp lines

In contrast to KIS: 1 e4 where the main aim was striving for simplicity, with just a few complicated lines included (Four Knights Defence, I am looking at you) in KIS: 1 d4, long, complicated and forcing lines are encountered much more often.

As an example, take a look at the following variation of the Grünfeld chapter:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "Sample line 3 - bez komentara"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D77"]  [PlyCount "43"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. O-O O-O 6. c4 dxc4 7. Na3 Nc6 8.  Nxc4 Be6 9. b3 Bd5 10. Bb2 a5 11. Ne3 Be4 12. a3 Bh6 13. Nc4 Bd5 14. Ncd2 Bxd2  15. Qxd2 Bxb3 16. Qh6 Ng4 17. Qh4 f5 18. d5 Bxd5 19. e4 Bxe4 20. Ng5 h5 21.  Rad1 Qe8 22. f3 {And White wins} 1-0   

Or at the following variation of the Grünfeld Reversed:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "Sample Line Grünfeld Reversed"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "D02"]  [PlyCount "45"]   1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 c5 4. Bg2 cxd4 5. O-O Nc6 6. Nxd4 e5 7. Nxc6 bxc6 8.  c4 Be6 9. Qa4 Qd7 10. Nc3 Rc8 11. cxd5 cxd5 12. Qxd7+ Kxd7 13. Rd1 Bc5 14. Na4  h6 15. Nxc5+ Rxc5 16. f4 e4 17. h3 Rc2 18. g4 Ke7 19. Be3 a5 20. Rac1 Rxe2 21.  Bc5+ Kd8 22. f5 Bd7 23. Bd4 {And the black rook is trapped!} *   

Don’t get me wrong – I am very fond of studying sharp and forcing lines. But I think their number doesn’t quite fit in the „Keep It Simple“ repertoire.

• Too many lines where White gives up material and seeks compensation

Another sharp contrast to KIS: 1 e4, where the main aim was the restriction of Black’s counterattacking chances, is how often the author advises us to „go for it“ and asks us to sacrifice material for long-term compensation.

Chapters like reverse Grünfeld, Catalan or …d5 and …Bf5 are almost based on this concept, while various pawn sacrifices for the sake of the initiative can be found throughout the entire course. Take the following variation from the King’s Indian chapter as an example:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "King's Indian Sample Line #1"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "A49"]  [PlyCount "45"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. O-O d6 6. b3 e5 7. dxe5 dxe5 8. Ba3  Qxd1 9. Rxd1 Re8 10. c4 e4 11. Nd4 Ng4 12. Nc3 e3 13. Nd5 exf2+ 14. Kf1 Nxh2+  15. Kxf2 Ng4+ 16. Kg1 Na6 17. Ne7+ Rxe7 18. Bxe7 Ne3 19. Rd3 Nf5 20. Nxf5 Bxf5  21. e4 Bxa1 22. exf5 Rb8 23. b4 {And White has a strong initiative for the  pawn.} *   

Another example from the same chapter was even more astounding. True, the author mentioned 17 bxc4 is possible, but the very suggestion of moves like 17 Qc2 somehow does not fit in the „Keep It Simple“ repertoire.

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "King's Indian Sample Line #2"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "A49"]  [PlyCount "35"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. O-O d6 6. b3 c5 7. Bb2 Nc6 8. d5  Na5 9. c4 a6 10. Nbd2 b5 11. e4 Rb8 12. e5 Ng4 13. Re1 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Bxe5 15.  Bxe5 dxe5 16. Rxe5 bxc4 17. Qc2 {Of course 17. bxc4 is better for White as  well, but I wanted to show this interesting engine suggestion. It is not a  commonly seen idea.} cxb3 18. axb3 {White has excellent play for the pawn and  will very likely regain the material soon while keeping a strong initiative.  Black has just too many weak spots to cover at the same time.} *   

As mentioned previously – I don’t associate such variations with the word ‘simple’. Also, a number of these ‘with compensation’ variations didn’t appeal to me since I didn’t find them particularly convincing. I am not sure how much they would appeal to players lower rated than myself, since playing dynamically while being down material is one of the most difficult skills in chess to master.

• Too many nonconclusive evaluations (positions where the author advises us to investigate further)

Another thing that bothered me is how often the author left us with nonconclusive evaluations in (what it seemed to me) unclear positions, where the play is just beginning. For example, take a look at the following line of the Grünfeld chapter:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "Grünfeld Sample Line"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "A49"]  [PlyCount "31"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. O-O O-O 6. c4 c6 7. b3 dxc4 8. bxc4  c5 9. Bb2 cxd4 10. Nxd4 Qb6 11. Qc1 Nc6 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Nd2 Bf5 14. Nb3 Rac8  15. e4 Be6 16. Rb1 {In the game L.Ding-F.Caruana, Wijk aan Zee 2015, White  played 16. e5 instead. 16. Rb1 is the computer improvement, which poses more  problems. You could easily continue the analysis up to move 30, but this is a  bit too deep. I'll show some moves and then cut it. If you have some time to  spent: it's interesting to analyze a bit here and helpful for your overall  assessment of complicated positions.} *   

Maybe that is my personal reference, ⁶ but when I study openings from a book or a course, I don’t like if I have to search for answers too much on my own.

And since this is a huge and time-consuming course as it is, allotting additional hours to analyze complicated positions on my own wasn’t something that appealed to me.

• Too many positions with minimal to zero advantage

One of the problems I have with this course is trying to determine who the target audience is. As we have just seen, there is a number of complex variations I personally think aren’t suitable for <1800 (or even 1900) players.

On the other hand, there is a number of variations where the author strives for simplicity at all cost (just like in Keep It Simple: 1 e4) which might potentially repulse stronger players. Variations such as this line of the …d5 & …Bg4 setup:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "...d5 and ...Bg5 Sample Line"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "D02"]  [PlyCount "31"]   1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 c6 4. Bg2 Bg4 5. c4 e6 6. h3 Bh5 7. O-O Nbd7 8. cxd5  cxd5 9. Nc3 Be7 10. Ne5 Bg6 11. Nxg6 hxg6 12. e4 dxe4 13. Nxe4 Nd5 14. Qb3 Qb6  15. Qxb6 N7xb6 16. Nc5 {This is the move that I did not consider during the  game. White has a good, active game here with some advantage.} *   

Or the following line of the Grünfeld setups:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "Grünfeld Sample Line"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "D02"]  [PlyCount "27"]   1. d4 g6 2. Nf3 Bg7 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Nh6 5. O-O Nf5 6. c3 O-O 7. Nbd2 Nd6 8. Re1  b6 9. e4 dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Rxe4 Bb7 12. Re1 Nd7 13. Bg5 Nf6 14. Qe2 {My  opponent Etienne Bauduin played 14. Ne5 here, which was also giving White a  comfortable advantage. It's a tough call, but 14. Qe2 seems even stronger. It  keeps more pieces on the board and probably exerts pressure. We play ?ad1 next  and still may play Qe5 later to exploit the weak c6-square.} *   

Okay, my opening philosophy is not suited for such variations. They bugged me in KIS: 1 e4, but they were consistent with the overall approach. This time, they bug me even more, because they are in sharp contrast with previously examined complicated variations.

I understand some players are content with a minimal advantage, but in contrast to KIS: 1 e4, this course can’t guarantee the play will follow such a turn of events.

• Some positions where the author overestimates White’s chances

Even though I am pretty sure the author did check everything with the computer, I found some lines where he decided to ignore it/interpret it in an over-optimistic way. As an example, take a look at this position arising from the variation in the Tarrasch chapter:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "Tarrasch Defence Sample Line"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "D30"]  [PlyCount "31"]   1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. g3 Nc6 6. Bg2 Nf6 7. O-O Be7 8.  dxc5 Bxc5 9. a3 Ne4 10. Nfd2 f5 11. Nxe4 dxe4 12. Qxd8+ Nxd8 13. Nc3 Be6 14. g4  g6 15. gxf5 gxf5 16. Bf4 {I think that White is slightly better here. We have  more active possibilities, for example on the queenside based on moves like  Nb5, Rc1 and b4. Another idea worth noting is playing Bh1 to continue with f3  next. That opens the long diagonal and gets us closer to attacking the f5-pawn,  which is more exposed than the e2-pawn. Black has many possible moves now, so  I'd like to stop at this point. It is an interesting position to explore  further, together with a human or silicone partner.} *   

Or this position arising from the variation in the Queen’s Indian chapter:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "Queen's Indian Sample Line"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "A50"]  [PlyCount "25"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 b6 3. g3 Bb7 4. Bg2 g6 5. O-O Bg7 6. c4 O-O 7. Nc3 Ne4 8. Nxe4  Bxe4 9. Be3 d6 10. Qd2 Nd7 11. Bh6 Nf6 12. Bxg7 Kxg7 13. b3 *   

Or this positions arising from the variation in the …d5 & … Bf5 chapter:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "... d5 and ...Bf5 Sample Line"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "D11"]  [PlyCount "35"]   1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 c6 4. Bg2 Bf5 5. c4 e6 6. Nc3 h6 7. Qb3 Qb6 8. c5  Qxb3 9. axb3 Na6 10. Ra4 Nd7 11. h4 Be7 12. Bf4 f6 13. b4 Bc2 14. Rxa6 bxa6 15.  h5 a5 16. b5 cxb5 17. Bh3 Kf7 18. Nxd5 {And again we have enough play for the  exchange.} *   

The author claims White is better in all three positions. Even though I haven’t run a detailed engine analysis, at first sight, Stockfish and yours truly both think White can’t claim any advantage. At the very least, he obtained a playable, complex position, where he is also risking a lot. Even though I might venture to go for such a position once in a while, I wouldn’t feel comfortable if it was the foundation of my opening repertoire.

• Volume

Finally, I know it might be weird I am mentioning volume since I praised the amount of the information in the course previously and that opening book containing a complete repertoire is expected to be thick.

But I spent somewhere between 20-25 hours just quickly going through the material in the first iteration. I know it is unrealistic to expect you can craft entire 1 d4 repertoire in just a couple of hours, but considering the amount of time required and all the cons mentioned, I really wondered whether it is the most effective way of doing so. ⁷

FINAL VERDICT

To conclude – we chess players have a saying that the „calculation of every long variation“ involves a certain hole. This is a bit how I felt as I was going through Keep It Simple: 1 d4.. ⁸ Every huge course is bound to have some variations the student will simply dislike and some variations where the student will dispute the evaluation.

As mentioned above – my main objection is that it is not clear to me who should get the course. Lower rated players might get lost in the forest of complicated variations. Higher rated players might find certain variations less ambitious and the process of memorization not worth the benefits. I personally had a feeling author himself couldn’t decide when to simplify it and when to complicate it, which resulted in the great disproportion between simple and complicated lines.

Bear in mind that I am a certain profile of the player whose general approach to the opening phase is different – I, for instance, preferred FM Kamil Plichta’s Go For The Throat: 1 d4 comprehensive repertoire much more, as it goes for the more direct, conclusive and sharp lines. But nevertheless, I think it would be more consistent if the author follower the recipe of Keep It Simple: 1 e4 and decided for absolutely simple variations (say King’s Indian Exchange, Grünfeld with Bd2, Queen’s Gambit Declined, etc.).

Don’t get me wrong, Keep It Simple: 1 d4 is not a BAD course. The author put an insane amount of hours into it. It contains a gigantic amount of valuable information and a number of good lines. It is not like you will not get anything out of it. Chapters on Catalan, Reverse Grünfeld or Anti Grünfeld are very good and I am glad I have seen this analysis – I might get around to using it someday.

Also, it is definitely a cheaper option than getting yourself a separate book for every particular opening. The course is certainly worth its money.

But I am just not sure whether it is realistic to expect to build an entire repertoire for such amount of money. I am not certain that getting an entire 1 d4 repertoire just to play a couple of lines is the most effective approach. ⁹ At the very least, it depends on your strength, ambitions, time and budget.

I’d urge to at least think a bit whether it is the most effective use of your time and your money for chess improvement purposes and chess opening theory study.

Chessentials Mark: 3.5/5

The post Keep It Simple: 1 d4 Chessable Course: An Honest Review appeared first on Chessentials.

In the digital era, new technological solutions and applications that shape the modern world appear on an almost daily basis.

Chess as a field is no exception. Over the last couple of years, several interesting start-ups, offering unique technical solutions and previously non-existing features to chess players, have appeared on the scene.  Some examples include Forward Chess, which allows us to read chess e-books interactively, or Decode Chess which allows its users to analyze chess games with engines who try to explain the reasoning behind their moves and evaluation.

In this blog post, I would like to write about one start-up in particular, which has been growing rapidly and which gathered a lot of attention. Start-up offering a revolutionary chess learning software – Chessable.

What is Chessable?

Chessable is a comprehensive and social learning website whose aim is to make learning chess as easy and efficient as possible. It was first born as a private opening memorization tool by its CEO David Kramaley, who slowly developed it in today’s form. In its early days, he approached the popular teacher, streamer, chess content creator and International Master John Bartholomew, who became the „face of Chessable“ and as they say – the rest is history. The website and its team continue to grow to this day. ¹

What makes Chessable different and unique? As far as I know, at the moment of writing, ² it is the only chess learning website/app that relies heavily on the scientific approach. Chessable utilizes two main concepts – spaced repetitions/scheduling and gamification. The implementation of these scientific methods will be examined in more depth in the remainder of the article, but in a nutshell – in Chessable you repeatedly click through moves (of an opening variation, of a tactical puzzle, of an endgame) in regularly increasing time intervals and get rewarded when you do it correctly.

What does the Chessable interface look like?

After you make an account in Chessable and login to the homepage (Chessable -> Home), the first thing you notice is a list of courses you are currently studying.

If you are new to Chessable, the list of your courses will be empty.

In order to start studying, you need to purchase one from their list of courses (or select one of the free courses available). You can do that by selecting Courses -> All Courses, which leads you to the following page:

Chessable offers various courses about all phases of the game. The majority of the courses is created by the users and chess content creators, but Chessable is also transcribing popular chess books (such as The Woodpecker Method or The 100 Endgames You Must Know or My Great Predecessors) into their interface.

Of course, initially, it might be difficult to select a course since the choice is so broad. Fortunately, it is possible to search through courses via the filter, so if you are interested in Sicilian Najdorf, you can simply write it there and – voila – a list of courses about Kasparov and Fischer’s favorite opening appears:

Also, if you are not sure if a course is suitable for your rating, Chessable is here to help as it ranks every single course on the basis of its difficulty into four categories:

• Beginner: 800-1200 ELO
• Casual: 1100-1500 ELO
• Intermediate: 1500-1900 ELO
• Advanced: 1700-2200+ ELO

Once you have decided on a course, you can click on its title and it will land you on the course homepage, where it is thoroughly described.

Please note that some courses also offer a video material where the author explains the variations provided in the course. The video is bought independently of the trainable variations for MoveTrainer and offers a very cool feature of video-sync (which will be described later in this article).

What does the Chessable Interface look like? How do I access it?

The basic Chessable Interface for studying and learning variations and courses is the so-called MoveTrainer. Courses are nothing else but chess databases in .pgn format imported and adapted for use within it.

MoveTrainer is basically a tool that allows you to go through variations in the form of a quiz. The concept is as follows: MoveTrainer shows you a move of a variation and asks you to repeat it.

If you don’t get it correctly, you are shown the correct move once again instead and the quiz restarts.

Once you manage to find the right move, you get points and move to the next one.

After you go through all the moves of the variation, MoveTrainer asks you to repeat them all from the beginning, with emphasis on moves you didn’t get correctly the first time.

MoveTrainer also makes it easy to analyze a position. Just click the little chessboard symbol below the text (on the far right) and a separate Analysis board opens in a new tab. You can toggle the engine or choose to use your brain.

How do you get from the course homepage to MoveTrainer? Well, first of all, you need to purchase the course. ³ Once  you do it, you are able to enter the course dashboard (Course->Browse) and are directed to the following page:

Every course is divided into several chapters, usually on the basis of the topic it covers. You can see that each chapter of the 1 d4: Keep it Simple course covers a different set-up Black can choose against the move 1 d4. An exact division by chapters (with the number of variations) can be found on the course homepage before you make a purchase.

Once you have selected a variation you want to study, you simply click on it and will be directed to the variation page.

MoveTrainer can be accessed through the Learn Next and Review buttons on the upper right hand of the screen, which will sequentially guide you through all variations in the course. Alternatively, you can also click on the Learn/Review button below an individual variation to study it specifically.

When you click the Learn button, you open the MoveTrainer and enter the studying process described above, where variations are shown to you first and then you have to get the moves correctly.

But Chessable also allows you an additional option of reviewing the course. It is basically playing through variations after you finished learning them. The difference is that this time, no variations are shown before the quiz – only when you fail a move. It allows you to test your knowledge and memorize the lines you have trouble memorizing more effectively.

What study options does Chessable have? Where do I set them?

One of the important Chessable features is that the learning and reviewing process in MoveTrainer is customizable. There are three places within Chessable where you can adjust the study settings.

First of all, once inside the course, on the right side of the screen, you can see the ‘Course Options’ bar (see two previous photos), where you can customize your learning process by setting the following options:

• Video – whether you want to have video enabled or disabled
• Quiz – by default, the learning process consists of Chessable showing you a line and you repeat it up to 3 times. Here you can decide to skip the learning process by changing the option from ‘After Learn’ to ‘Immediately’ (which essentially turns learning into reviewing)
• Study – in every chapter, there are variations which diverge on late moves. The ‘Study’ option allows you to set whether you want to repeat the whole line from move 1, or just from the key position from which the moves diverge.
• Review – ‘Review’ option allows you to choose whether you want to review the whole variation from start to end or if you want to get a randomized position from the chapter on every move.
• Reps – the number of times you repeat the line (both during learning and reviewing). The default setting is 3, but you can also set your own.
• Depth – an option for PRO users I have never used that apparently allows you to set how many moves you want to study.
• Soft fail – certain variations in Chessable, apart from ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ moves, also have ‘alternative’ moves – moves that the author of the course didn’t quote as the main line, but that is equally playable. During the study, the default setting is that you can don’t fail the quiz if you make an alternative move and can retry it instead. You can change it here so you fail if you don’t strictly make the move author envisioned.
• Schedule – allows you to choose the option for the schedule of your spaced repetitions.
• Time – Allows you to choose how many seconds you have to think during the quiz. Default is
  60 s.

Secondly, if you click on your username in the upper right corner of the screen and select Settings -> Study, you land on another page where you can, among other things, adjust the following settings:

• Number of moves you review if you select „randomized position“ option in Review
• Whether you want to mute the sound or not
• Your default number of repetitions
• Whether you want the moves/lines to go sequentially or randomly while reviewing
• Which type of annotation do you want to use
• etc.

Finally, inside the MoveTrainer, you can adjust the speed of the piece movement and duration of pauses between (believe me – this frustrated me for a while until I figured out I can increase it as much as possible – I found the default option way too slow). ⁴

Is there anything else I can do in Chessable?

Up to this point, I have described the extent of my personal use of Chessable. But there are many more tools and features Chessable offers its users you might find interesting. Here I will describe some that sparked my interest:

• Video-sync

Probably the coolest feature of them all; something I have never seen before. If you purchase a video, play it and toggle ‘Filter based on video’, variations the author is talking about at the exact moment are automatically filtered and presented below.

• Variation explorer

If you go to Tools/Explore-Add New Line, an opening book that contains moves from all Published Chessable Courses appears.

Here you can do the following:

• Make an overview of your entire course by selecting it from the drop-down menu
• Find a certain position in Chessable courses
• Open the Analysis board
• Add a variation to your own course

• Variation page

If you go to the list of variations and click on the title, or click on the small arrow inside a square next to the title in MoveTrainer, you open a separate ‘Variation’ page.

Here, all moves of a variation together with their annotations are shown. A great Chessable feature is implemented in the form of Comments & Notes. If there is something confusing about a certain position, you can make a comment, and the author of the course will be notified. The best thing is – all comments and notes are public and visible to everyone.

• Creating your own course

Finally, you can create your own course via Tools -> New Course. You add variations via Import PGN function or Variation explorer. You can use your courses for private study, but you can also try submitting them to Chessable team and – with luck and skill – have them published.

Of course, there are many more features I haven’t yet mentioned. Fortunately, Chessable has a very good Help and a very lively and responsive community and team. Figuring it is, therefore, not an impossible task.

Why do you recommend Chessable?

I first heard about Chessable way back in 2017. I made an account, but never used it and quickly forgot it ever existed.

My memory was refreshed in January 2019, when conducting an interview with CM Andrzej Krzywda. Andrzej told me he uses it on a regular basis, not only for the study of opening, but also for opening preparation.

Even so, I was still skeptical of its revolutionary learning method. Can it really be so effective? Isn’t repeating a variation three times in a row just dumb? Surely that can’t be better than going through a book or sitting in front of a Chessbase?

However, after I interviewed FM Kamil Plichta in February 2019, I purchased his course on the Trompowsky and gave it a shot. And I started liking it more and more as the days passed by. I started employing Trompowsky in blitz games with reasonable success and even played it in two tournaments games in my league (beating a lower rated opponent and losing to the higher rated one).

Fast forward a couple of months later, I have got myself 6 additional courses, started experimenting with a wider array of chess openings and – most importantly – started enjoying chess more than ever before.

The main reason I like Chessable so much is that, with the limited amount of hours per day an adult like me has available to study chess, it makes chess opening material much more accessible. By being able to study on your phone, it is much easier to distribute chess training in short-intervals. I usually click through the opening books three times a day for ~ 15 minutes. I find it the best way of studying openings and – needless to say – far more practical than carrying chess books around or spending time on Chessbase.

Secondly, the overall quality of the chess courses on Chessable is astounding. The authors really put a lot of thought of effort in course creation. Sure, some individual courses are better than the others and some variations within a course are more applicable than the others. But in general, the quality of the chess material does not lack compared to other chess products available out there.

Finally, there is something to the method of successive repetitions. I have noticed I remember a good amount of variations I go through. Probably the same effect (or even greater) could be achieved with long periods of time in front of a book and the engine. But in the given circumstances, I found out that clicking through Chessable is what works best for me.

Is there anything you don’t like about Chessable?

Yes, I really miss the existence of Chessable mobile app – it would make my learning on phone more pleasant (and efficient, since I ‘d be less prone to switching to Facebook tab every time I completed a variation ).

Also, I think the reviews of the courses in the comments below are a bit too unanimous in their positivity. I have never seen a review (of any course) that gave the mark below 4/5. I think that „everything is fantastic“ vibe is sometimes not completely objective.

Finally, as much as I think gamification is one of the better aspects of Chessable, I also think they have gone over the top in some regards. You can track your streaks, collect badges and rubies (red gems that allow you to purchase some additional features like extra free course slots), but unlike MoveTrainer scoring system I don’t find them particularly useful. Constant dopamine rushes reminds me a bit of how social media works and I can’t say I am the biggest fan.

But these ‘trifles’ are minor enough not to spoil an overall impression.

What is your motivation behind writing this post?

Now, I know many of you are thinking something along the „Isn’t this just a glorified commercial?“ and „How much are they paying you?“ lines. That is why I would like to take a moment to explain my motivation behind writing this post.

It is true that I recently got into contact with people who work for Chessable. We were discussing some blog writing possibilities. Then they asked me whether I would like to review the afore-mentioned 1 d4: Keep it Simple course.

Now, this wasn’t the first time somebody asked me to write about their company/product on this blog. But I never accepted it – I was always reluctant to write a typical advertising post. I am not fond of recommending something I don’t personally use.  Hopefully, screenshots in this post and my Chessable profile show that the old Latin saying „Res, non verba!“, is fully satisfied.

That is why this is the first time I accepted. I even decided writing an additional post, because I thought explaining the basic mechanics of Chessable made some sense.

I didn’t get any direct benefits in terms of money or affiliate links. ⁵ But I would also lie if I said I didn’t see this as an opportunity to put my name in there. You might also see me publishing a course in the future.

But I don’t think any exposure or potential course publishing is worth risking your integrity. I wouldn’t write this post if I didn’t honestly think Chessable had a great product.

I can’t recommend it hard enough.

If you are skeptical, I’d urge you to at least give it a shot.

Read more about Chessable

About Chessable

Science behind Chessable

The post Is Chessable all it’s cracked up to be? An honest review appeared first on Chessentials.

„B-b-b-but chess is not a sport!“

Every chess player has heard these words. The debate whether our ancient game should count as a sport is probably as ancient as… our ancient game. The opponents of the idea claim chess is primarily a mind game which contains elements of art and sport ¹. On the other hand, its supporters are ready to provide arguments why chess should stand shoulder to shoulder with, say, football, basketball or tuna tossing. ²

As the more perceptive of you probably realized after reading the title, the author of these lines belongs in the first group. Even though I am a chess player myself, ³ I believe chess should not be considered a sport. In the course of this article, I will try to do my best to put forward compelling arguments and justify my attitude.

Or at least to piss some of you off in the process !

What constitutes a sport?

Before we start talking about chess, we need to define what constitutes a sport in the first place.

The answer is not straightforward. It is highly subjective and a matter of opinion. The word „sport“ has a different meaning for different people. A clear-cut definition that will appeal to everybody simply does not exist.

However, as George Orwell once said: “All definitions are equal, but some definitions are more equal than the others!” ⁴ Some definitions of sport make a lot of sense. Others are just plain bad. To me, the one offered by Oxford Dictionary seems most elegant and comprehensive. According to it, sport is:

“An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.”

In a way, this definition is closest to our intuitive notion that sport is a physical competition. However, it is also more refined, because it breaks the physical aspect into two components.

The first one is the “exertion”. It refers to actual athletic exertion.

If you can enhance your performance by improving your physical condition, it is a sport. In football or basketball, you get better when you get into shape. In cooking or typing on a computer – not so much. The difference is that the first two require a display of some physical abilities, like strength, endurance, stamina or flexibility.

In other words – in order for an activity to qualify as a sport, it needs to be physically demanding. Above minimal threshold.

The second component of the physical aspect is “skill”. It refers to individual elements which can be enhanced to improve performance. It is important to stress they revolve around the execution of physical motions. Every sport has a specific and unique amount of these elements (a skillset) which we usually regard as “technique”. Improving your technique is just as important as improving your shape.

What is the difference between “exertion” and “skill”? It is easiest to make a distinction if you think in terms of ability and technique, as mentioned above. For example, in football, strength will help you to shoot the ball harder. Skill will help you to shoot it more precisely from different positions of the court. ⁵

Of course, in some sports (like, say, wrestling) exertion is more pronounced than in others (like, say, table tennis). The same goes for skill. But all sports in the world contain some combination of the two. ⁶

And that is precisely where chess is lacking.

Why chess is not a sport?

A common argument why chess is not a sport is that it is not a physical activity. It is often met with a counterargument that greatest players of all time and Robert Fischer all devoted particular attention to their physical condition.

To an extent, both sides were right and wrong. Yes, all chess players know how tiring and gruesome a long game can be. It is not coincidental that the greatest players of all time like Kasparov and Magnus, and also Robert Fischer, all played sports regularly. That Sergey Karjakin attributed his loss in the rapid tiebreak of the 2016 match precisely to the lack of shape.

However, what both sides usually overlook is that this is only valid when it comes to physical exertion. Even though chess is on the lower end of the scale, exertion does exist. But if we are talking about the other component, then the simplistic “you are just sitting at the board” argument has some merit.

In chess, the only real motion is the movement of the pieces. However, HOW you do it has very little impact on the outcome of the game. You don’t train piece movement to get better. ⁷ Chess simply doesn’t require any physical skill.

I am not the only know who thinks like that. One article on Psychology Today titled What Makes Sport a Sport states something similar:

Chess, on the other hand, is probably not a sport because, although it involves some physical activity, this physical activity is not particularly skilled, and, in any case, is not the primary purpose of chess. It is perfectly possible to get someone to move our chess pieces for us and still be counted as playing chess: in that much, the physical activity associated with playing chess is not central or even secondary but merely incidental.

Likewise, one guy on chesscom wrote that:

I think darts, pool and bowling are all sports because they are all to a large degree about performing physical motions well in a competitive setting. The only physical motion one does in chess is the movement of the pieces. No points in chess for excellent piece movement.

For me, therefore, there is no doubt. Absence of any physical skill is sufficient to say that chess is not a sport.

Why do people say chess is a sport?

Now, I know many of you who beg to differ will come up with arguments about why chess should be a sport. In this part of the article, I would like to address the most common ones and explain why I don’t find them particularly convincing. As we are going to see, most of them mention factors that are desirable and important, but not sufficient to define a sport.

• Chess is physically exhausting and it is important to be in good shape

The favorite counter-argument. Chess players are very fond of explaining that chess is physically exhausting. That top chess players are all in good shape.

However, they fail to distinguish that they are talking solely about physical exertion. Whereas they completely overlook the physical skill component.

This article on ichess.net is a perfect example of this fallacy. The author even quotes the definition of sport provided by the Oxford Dictionary. And then continues to talk about exertion exclusively.

• Chess has rules and etiquette

Another argument from the afore-mentioned ichess.net article. Yes, it is desirable that a sport has organized and recognized rules. But, even they admit it is not its defining mark.

• Chess requires skill

Yes, mental skill. Not a physical one.

• Chess is well-established

An argument from this article. But I don’t see how it is relevant. Prostitution is also well-established, but you wouldn’t call it a sport just because of that, would you? ⁸

I agree that sociological factors – rules and organizations – are important. But they are not sufficient in itself to determine whether something is a sport or not.

• Chess is a global game

Another argument from the same article. And another unconvincing one. Being global has nothing to do with being a sport.

• Chess players have received National Accolades

According to the same article, Magnus Carlsen, Veselin Topalov and Vishy Anand have always received the Sportsman of the year award in their countries.

I think it had more to do with them being famous and successful rather than with chess being a sport.

Besides, the involvement of institutions always has something to do with interests and lobbies than with the actual state of affairs.

Which leads me to the next point.

Why do chess institutions want to make chess a sport?

There is one argument I haven’t yet addressed. International Olympic Committee recognized chess as an international sport (not as an Olympic sport. But it IS the first step toward that). Also, it has been recognized as a sport in 24 countries in Europe.

There are compelling facts. If chess is good enough for IOC, for the majority of Europe, why is it not good enough for me?

In order to answer that, we need to understand the motivation behind this decision. If you take a look at the list of internationally recognized sports, you will notice only one board game – chess. And only one card game – bridge. Why weren’t any other board games, like checkers, backgammon, go or shogi, or any other card games like poker included?

Well, the main reason is that chess and bridge have bigger and better-organized institutions (federations). Who are able to vouch for the inclusion of chess and bridge on the list of sports. Just recently, FIDE management decided to put forward a proposition to include chess in the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris. ⁹ As usual when things become institutionalized, certain people are pushing their own agenda. It is all political.

But why do they do it? Money, of course. It is much easier to attract sponsors, to gather some capital if you are a sport. Or even better, an Olympic one. Put simply, if chess were widely acknowledged as (Olympic) sport, funding would become much more accessible.

It wouldn’t happen only on the grand scale. All national chess federations would benefit. Just the other day, I talked with a fellow Grandmaster. He told me that the Croatian Olympic Federation restricts the numbers of paid trainers of the Croatian Chess Federation, precisely because of everything written above.

Another comment on chess.com summed it up nicely:

The inclusion of mind sports within sport definitions has not been universally accepted, leading to legal challenges from governing bodies in regards to being denied funding available to sports

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not opposing the idea. If the inclusion of chess into the 2024 Olympiad would benefit all chess players, ¹⁰ I am all up for it.

But let’s not pretend institutions are doing it out of altruism or because they firmly believe chess deserves to be a sport.

Why do chess players want to make chess a sport?

So much about institutions. But what about people? Why do individuals think chess should be considered a sport?

First of all, most chess players, in general, do so, while most non-chess players don’t. We should rephrase the question and ask ourselves ‘Why chess players think chess should be considered as a sport?’. In order to answer it, allow me to digress and join me in a walk down my memory lane.

Back in the days when I was still studying, ¹¹ regional competition between engineering students in sport and knowledge (the popular „Elektrijada“) was organized every year. Among other things, I participated as a member of the team in chess competitions.

These events gave me an unique insight into how chess fares compared to other sports. It was degraded on all levels. The organization was always lacking. There weren’t any spectators as nobody was particularly interested. Even though we had very good results and won gold medals, we never got the same acknowledgment as, say, football or basketball team.

In these events, I always felt like an outsider. I yearned for external validation and acceptance. And the feeling that nobody gives a fuck ¹² helped me develop a serious inferiority complex. I deeply wanted to be on equal footing as other athletes in sports competitions.

I think many chess players go through something similar. Non-chess players often underestimate, degrade and mock our game. ¹³ And chess is a very demanding and lonely occupation. It is natural to yearn for some recognition.

That is why many chess players support the idea of chess being a sport. The reasons are personal and subjective. Behind all combative: „But chess is physically tiring“ and „Chess is a sport“ comments is the craving for acceptance and appreciation.

As yet another chess.com member put it:

I disagree with the claim that chess is a sport. I remember back in Ukraine people would keep referring to it as “sport” and usually it was just the people who spent too much time playing chess in their leisure time. They wanted to give weight and purpose to their hobby.

Is chess a sport – does it matter?

To conclude, even though the definition of sport is open to interpretation, I believe the principled answer to the question „Is chess a sport?“ is no. Even chess.com agrees with this and states it is LIKE a sport.

But in all sincerity, does it really matter in the end? No matter whether chess is a sport, art or a game, one thing is certain.

It has an ability to make people happy.

The post Is Chess A Sport? I Think Not, And Here’s Why! appeared first on Chessentials.

On May 21, 2018, a Reddit post by relatively unknown Polish Candidate Master (and software developer) Andrzej Krzywda, titled I Was ~ 2100 for > 20 years (I’m 38). Last Week I Made an IM Norm, sent a shockwave through the chess community and immediately became viral.

As the title suggests, after spending two decades in the 2100 levels, Andrzej managed to score the norm of an International Master with a rating performance of 2579. And with a +95 ELO gain.

The popularity of the post was not that surprising because Andrzej had done something incredible.  Violated the „common principle“ that rapid chess improvement at the late stage of life is impossible. Proved that it is possible to make major leaps as an adult.

Moreover, he didn’t leap from being a beginner to being a category player. He surmounted the gap between the Candidate Master and Master level. After decades of being „stuck“.

Since so many chess players find (including the author of these lines) get „stuck“ in the 2100-2200s ELO heights, Andrzej’s result was incredibly inspiring. And it made everyone curious. There were so many questions.

How did he do it? What training methods did he implement? What ‘clicked’ in this particular tournament?

How did he decide to devote himself to chess improvement after all these years? Why exactly now? Why not earlier?

How did he organize his private life to align with his old/new chess goals? What changes did he make? How did he adjust?

And so on. And so on.

He became a sort of „chess celebrity“. But he never behaved like one. Prior to this interview, we talked a couple of times over Facebook and I can honestly say that the success didn’t spoil him. Andrzej is a very nice, humble, down-to-earth and approachable guy. Who doesn’t hold the knowledge for himself. Who is open about his methods. And who is willing to share them with the world.

He answered some of the questions above in the episode of the Perpetual Chess Podcast.  He keeps answering others and talking about his path on his Facebook page (and sometimes also on his Twitter). And incredibly enough, when I contacted him about this interview, he agreed to sit in front of the „hot Chessentials mic“ and answer my questions about chess, chess improvement, the psychology behind the moves and life in general.

Because Andrzej is much more than a chess player. He is a very successful programmer, an entrepreneur and a family man. There is a lot we can learn from him, both on and off-the-board.

I hope you guys will find it useful. Or at least that Andrzej will inspire you to evaluate your own chess goals.

And to aim for more.

Note: Due to the length of the interview, we have decided to split it into three parts. In the first part of the interview, we talk about Andrzej’s chess beginnings and follow his career up to his adult years.

You can find the second part of the interview here. 

And the third part of the interview here.

THE BEGINNING

Q: Hi Andrzej. Thank you so much for agreeing on this interview, it is a pleasure to have you on Chessentials.

As usual, we would like to start… at the beginning (quite shocking, I know). I couldn’t find any info whatsoever about your earliest days. Can you tell us when did you first start playing chess? Who taught you the rules of the game?

A: When I was 5, I learned how to play by watching games between my father and my older brother. Once I started beating them they were not interested in playing with me anymore

In my primary school we didn’t have a proper gym hall, so during winters, we’ve had table tennis and chess as main activities. We’ve had a “school league” with 4 divisions. I remember that moment when I finally was promoted to the first division.

Now that I think of it – the level was quite high overall.

Q: How did the story develop further? When did you first join a chess club? Who was your first coach?

A: I was 13 when I was in the chess club for the first time. That’s very late. Those were times before the Internet and I had no idea that only 20km from my place there was an active chess club (Opole, Poland). Neither my parents knew anything about that, nor my teachers, somehow.

I only learned alone until then and I bought 2 books by mail – a collection of Rubinstein games and a collection of Tarrash games. I’ve also cut chess games/diagrams from local newspapers (I had no idea there were specialized chess magazines) and glued them into my notepad.

Q: And when did you play in your first chess tournaments? Do you remember the feeling? The games? The result?

A: My first proper classic tournament was in 1993 when I was 13. My cousin joined a chess club in his city (Prudnik) and they went to this summer tournament in Rudnik in July 1993. My mom asked them to take me but I didn’t know anyone there. My first 4 rounds were 3.5/4 and one game I won in 7 moves against a 1800 player.

I think that was the game:

     d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Bg4 4. e3 c5 5. Bxc4 cxd4 6. Ne5 Bxd1 7. Bxf7#     

I was already tricky enough to create this “omg” face when I played Ne5 and my opponent smiled and grabbed the queen.

Overall at that first tournament, I got 3rd category (1600), if I remember correctly.

The Prudnik’s coach (Jan Siekaniec) noticed my level of playing and asked me to join the club. I was a member of Zarzewie Prudnik until when I was around 20 and I started my own chess club with my friends (LZS Victoria Chroscice), where I play until today.

It felt amazing, it’s like my whole life started to make sense when competitive chess appeared. My parents were very supportive, they took me to the tournaments, financed all the trips. But they never pushed me too much. I’ve seen that among my colleagues and found it crazy how the parents could “press”. It wasn’t the case for me, full support, but no pressure at all.

Q: How good were you when you were young? How did you fare in your age group in youth competitions in Poland? Did you ever play in European Youth Championship?

A:

Playing in the club exposed me to stronger players, but I quickly got into the competitive mode of trying to beat everyone locally. When I was 15 I played in Polish Championship U-16 semi-finals for the first time. I got promoted to the finals.

However, in the Polish finals, I was never at the top or anywhere close to that. My biggest success was being 1st in the semi-finals in 1997.

That was also when I’ve had a proper coach (but only 2 sessions, 3-days each). It was IM Kalinin. He taught me how to play London

As for the European Youth Championship, I didn’t even come close. That was something I could only read about in the magazines. During this time, our Polish juniors (a bit older than me) were very successful Europe/World level. GM Kempinski, GM Macieja, GM Soćko, GM Blehm, GM Antoniewski, WGM Radziewicz and many others were an inspiration.

When I was close to 18 years old, other things were already important in my life. Even though I was qualified to U18 finals, I didn’t go there to play. Instead, I chose some school/party related events.

Q: What kind of kid were you? Were you calm and indifferent about the games and the results? Or were you angry and made tantrums?

A: More on the calm side. I don’t remember any situation where things went too emotional. I enjoyed competing, but never really took it very seriously.

YEARS OF „STAGNATION“

Q: Okay, let’s get away from the childhood years. In the Reddit thread, you said you were rated around 2100 for ~20 years. It would mean that the „years of stagnation“ started in your twenties.

Is it correct? When did you first feel you are struggling to improve?

A: When I started my Computer Science studies in 1998, this was hard for me. The studies were super hard and it was easy to drop off (more than 60% who started didn’t go to the second year). I focused on learning programming.

That was also a difficult time in personal life – our family (and our family business) were hugely impacted by the 1997 floods in Poland. Our situation has changed a lot and I just didn’t think about chess that much. I had to focus on earning money to support my studies and this was made a priority. I still loved chess, but it clearly wasn’t a priority as compared to studies, learning programming and working. In a way, this helped me get a good education and start my professional career in programming early on.

During this time I lived in Wrocław, which is a big city and very active in chess. I could compete with stronger masters now and that something new for me.

Q: With hindsight, what happened when you first reached 2100s heights? What did chess mean to you back then? Did you give up your ambitions due to lack of interest (hope?) or because your focus shifted on something else? Can you talk a bit about what went through 18-year-old Andrzej mind?

A: I never gave up on chess, but I think was smart enough to understand that I need something else in my life. The priorities have shifted. Even though as a junior I didn’t achieve much, I didn’t really have big expectations so it wasn’t big deal for me. There was no pressure from my parents, no pressure from a coach (as I didn’t have any). I always treated chess as something more long-term and didn’t focus on short-term goals that much.

18-year-old Andrzej was focused on finishing school, starting the studies, parties, girls, being exposed to a big city, having fun, trying to find jobs etc.

Q: But you didn’t give up your chess career completely. According to your FIDE profile, you were rated 2074 at the beginning of January 2000 (when you were 20). In the next couple of years, you continued improving (and playing tournaments relatively frequently). In 2007 you reached your first peak – 2197. And only in 2009 does the number of games per year drop significantly.

What was happening in the 2000-2007 period? Did you work on chess? Did you play any tournaments, or were those local and league matches?

A: I finished studying in 2004, took me 6 years, but working as a software developer was a big part of it and I’ve had my first successes in programming.

I think I mostly played the league once a year and occasionally some other tournaments, but often it was more for fun. I wasn’t really improving.

Things changed in 2005. I’ve had a good job, financially things were looking better and I was able to afford a coach, a local National Master – Mirosław Perdek. We attended the training together with my long-time chess friend (we met first in 1993), Rafał Zgadzaj, (who BTW is also now in the process of improving).

Early 2006 I moved to London and stayed there for 2 years. That was amazing for my chess, as I could literally play a classic game every afternoon. I worked 9-5 and then went to play every single day. The training started to pay off and I remember I’ve had a result of 18/21 games at some moment. In the team matches, I got to the first board in my teams and even played against some GMs.

That was my highest peak – I reached 2197.

BTW, that was a time, when I was switching from my usual 1.d4 to 1. e4 a process which ended in a complete switch later – I was an e4-only player from now on.

Q: In your Reddit threat you said you took a big break from chess between 26 and 35 years of age.

What changed in 2009? How come you „suddenly“ reduced your chess activity? I know it had nothing to do with children. Yet!

(Andrzej is a father of a 7-year-old and a 4-year-old – VN)

A: 2007 was the year when I moved back to Poland and started my programming company – Arkency. Again, chess was put aside and I didn’t have a coach. I tried to study chess on my own, but this didn’t work well.

You can probably spot a pattern here – when I work with a coach, my results get better. I guess I’m the kind of a player who needs this coach support.

The business part of my life became very important. My entrepreneurial DNA became visible and strong. Over the next years, this gave me a big satisfaction. I’m proud of what I have achieved in this area. I run a small (~15 people) but a strong company which is important worldwide in our programming niche (Ruby on Rails).

Q: Did this decision come easy? Did you regret it at a time? Did you ever feel like you were running from the fact you haven’t fulfilled your goals? From the fact you are at 2100 for quite a long time?

I ask for a friend.

A: I think I found it easy to deal with priorities. Business was more important to me. Programming was more important. I don’t regret that at all. Chess was still part of my life. I did care about getting to 2200 finally, but this didn’t work. I think I knew that chess had to wait until other things work well, especially the finances. Chess is an expensive profession and in my case, it needed to be supported by other areas (business/programming).

Q: Did you premonition you would ever return to serious chess training? Or did you think you were saying goodbye forever at the time?

A: I never said goodbye to chess. I didn’t really have a clear plan for chess at that time, but I knew it wouldn’t disappear. However, seeing that I’m getting worse and worse (rating-wise) was very frustrating. Every year I was playing in the same league (2nd Polish division). Somehow I always hoped to get a good result but it was always mediocre.

There was one specific moment of time, I think it was 2015, June, I played in that team competition and I’ve had another kind of 5/9 result and some -10 Elo. I was dangerously close to getting to <2100 level. A level which I never wanted to get to, as I wouldn’t respect myself.

(No offense to the lower-rated readers. My >2100 mindset was created before the big Fide/Elo changes. It was just my chess-bar.)

THE RESURGENCE

Q: Okay, enough about the wounds from the past. Let’s talk about the main topic – your breathtaking result and what led to it.

First of all, I would like to what led to you taking up chess seriously again. You said you started working seriously three years ago.

In the Reddit thread. you said the fact your rating dropped to 2100 again motivated you. In the Perpetual Chess Episode you mentioned you hated losing against players you „knew“ you shouldn’t lose. Anything else to add?

A: Usually I wasn’t very emotional about my chess level. But the losses were very frustrating. It’s funny because some of the losses were to players who at that time I considered weak, but now they are IMs. I was probably over-reacting a bit.

My successes in business and programming made me a stronger person overall. My success in private life (meeting my wife, having kids) has also boosted my confidence. I never really believed in the whole “chess talent” thing. I knew I was able to play better at chess and that felt like a right moment to make something about it.

I came up with this idea of a 5-year plan to get the IM. To be honest, I don’t think I really believed in this goal. But thinking big helped me in some changes.

First of all, my wife became very excited about this plan, that was so great. She comes from a chess family, she is a chess player (11 times finalist of the Polish championships). Her father is a successful chess coach – he was the first trainer for GM Jakubowski, WGM Bartel (Przezdziecka), FM Szymański. I felt the support from all the family too.

Having a clear and big goal helped me to take actions. I contacted GM Soćko and in August 2015 we started first Skype sessions.

Q: Correct me if I am wrong, but your younger child was 1 at a time. Weren’t you afraid you won’t manage to balance the paternal, the professional and chess improvement duties?

A: I was worried about it, but I also knew that I’m the kind of person who needs to have even sometimes too much on my plate, so that I can switch the contexts. When things go bad at chess, I can always remind myself of my family happiness and I’m smiling again. Or switch to my professional activities. This works for me.

Making a decision in chess was important but it was clear to me, that if my family or business would suffer because of it, I’d change the direction. It was a “let’s try it attitude”.

Q: How did your wife react? I know she is a chess player, but nevertheless… Did you ever spent a night on the couch because you were „studying that bloody Hedgehog again?“

A: She is super supportive all the time, for all the years. She understands the chess passion. We don’t really play at home together, but she totally understands why “that bloody Hedgehog” is a very important part of my life

I’m terrible at calendar thinking or things like booking hotels or registering to tournaments – she does it all for me. Otherwise, I would probably forget to register, book the flights etc.

I’m not a very organized person.

GOAL SETTING

Q: In any case, you started working on chess seriously. I’d like to talk a bit about the psychology and the training methods behind your improvement.

The first thing is – goal setting.  You said your initial goal (3 years ago) was to get back to 2200. But then you realized that was your goal forever and it never really worked. So you decided you wish to go for the International Master title. Did you think it was realistic at a time? Or were you trying to „cheat yourself“ to at least break the 2200 barrier?

A: Yeah, so 2200 was my goal for like forever. The IM goal I think at the beginning was more like cheating myself, just to get the 2200 level finally. But over time I took it more seriously. That mostly changed because I learned so much from GM Soćko. He showed me a totally different side of chess. I always loved chess, but now I’m enjoying it at a totally different level. My chess perspective is so different now that it was 3 years ago. I evaluate chess positions differently.

That was a big moment for me. I knew that with this new attitude I could reach for big goals. Even though for a long time there was nothing to support my belief, I “felt” it.

Without setting a big goal, I wouldn’t even think about reaching the top chess trainer like GM Soćko.

Q: Did you have a similar approach toward goal setting in other endeavors? Do you set high or „unrealistic“ goals in your business life, for instance? Did setting the bar very high help you in the course of your programming career?

A: This attitude with bigger goals was something that grew in me, over the years in the past decade. With more confidence, I set such goals in other areas of my life. It works for me. It doesn’t have to work for others. We’re all different and motivated by different things. I’m motivated by big visions and big goals.

Q: You also made Facebook and Twitter accounts and announced your goal to the world. You even said it was crucial because it made you more accountable about it. I kinda agree that there is no sense in hiding your desires. But some people are extremely against such approach and say you should let your results speak, not your goals.

What is your opinion? Do you think you should ALWAYS announce your goals publicly? Or is it sometimes sensible to work in silence?

A: I think the FB page did help me. I wanted to share my journey, regardless if I would be successful or not. Again, this works for me, doesn’t have to work for others. At some point, I realized that what I’m doing might be inspiring to others and I was fine with it. It does bring some responsibility but I’m OK with it. I can handle this. Chess is easy to measure – you can see when I’m doing well and when not. People can decide on their own if my journey is worth watching or not.

Q: Since the chess community is rather cynical, weren’t you afraid people will laugh at you and call you delusional? Did you ever receive some snarky and mean comments through social media? Or in real life?

A: I understand enough about human psychology that I didn’t care that much about it. I quickly forget the snarky comments. I focused on my own. But to be honest, there wasn’t much about it. Quite the opposite, I think I inspired my close chess friends and people whom I never met. This feels good. Some people approached me during chess tournaments and thanked me for being public about my journey. This is really nice.

In my programming career, I’m also very public with what I think about programming – not everyone loves it, I was already used to “the haters”. I’d be surprised if I didn’t have any It’s actually fun having haters

Q: In the Q&A website Quora, one of the most frequent chess questions is: „I am X years of age and rated Y. Is it possible for me to become a Grandmaster?“, where X is a number between 30 and 40 and Y a number between 1600 and 2000.

I personally believe some goals are not realistic. No adult that took up chess that late in life became a Grandmaster in the last 50 years. The fact is that our cognitive capabilities degrade with age.

I agree that some goals are attainable (as your result has proven), but I also think there are constraints to how much one can improve (of course, I can always be wrong about everything).  No matter how many hours he puts into the game.

How would you answer these questions? Do you think there are limits to how much an adult can improve?

A: I don’t think I’m qualified to answer this. It’s definitely something that I find fascinating – how far you can get if you start late.

I’m lucky in many areas of my life – I have a supportive wife, I have a great team of coworkers at my company, I have friends who support me, I can afford one of the best chess coaches in the world. This makes such goals less unreal.

Still, even having all of this support is not enough. There’s so much work that I have to put in. Things are not easy. But there’s a clear correlation, the more I work smartly, the better the results. I keep learning what works for me, what is not working. I don’t look much at others. I don’t believe much in chess talent, but if there is anything like that, then I don’t have it. That’s clear to me.

Can I become an IM? I believe so!

Can everyone become a GM, given X and Y? I have no idea, but I think there are more chances to it than many people believe. I think it’s more likely than most of us suspect. If you love chess and you are passionate about it, if you keep improving smartly, if you can afford to play chess (coach, trips), if you have relatives to support you then your chances are not so bad. The important question is, whether it’s really worth it for you? Such goals do require certain sacrifices – does it make sense for you to make them? In the end, IM or GM is “just” a sheet of paper and a record in the Fide database.

For me, it’s about the level of playing, more than the “certificate”. Still, I like measurable goals, so the actual IM title is my goal, nothing less than that.

Q: What would your advice be for setting the bar (not too low, not too high?). How did you determine you want to become an IM and not, say, FM or GM?

A: It wasn’t really much thinking here. Once I realized that thinking small (2200) doesn’t work for me, I targeted for something big. FM/2300 didn’t feel big enough. GM, on the other hand, sounded too unrealistic. IM it was.

Just to be clear, I do have the goal split into levels.

My first level was to get 2200 and get the official CM title. This has happened this year and if I remember correctly that was “scheduled” for last year, in my plan. So, a slight delay.

My second goal is FM/2300 and is scheduled for 2019. I was so close to it this year (2296), but then all rating progress came back to <2200….

I don’t know if setting goals works for everyone. It works for me. You need to experiment and learn about yourself to know what works for you.

One thing I learned – there’s no magic between certain levels. Once you’re 1800, then 2000 is clearly in your reach. When you’re 2000, then 2200 is an achievable goal. If you’re 2200 then IM is realistic. If you’re an IM, GM should be possible.

I’m ~2200 now and I was close to 2300. My highest rating performance in a single tournament was 2580. That’s my potential. If I did it once, I can repeat it. It won’t be easy, though. It’s a matter of getting more precise in my chess, more hard work needs to be put, more studies need to be solved, more classical games need to be played and learned from.

There’s a finite number of chess areas you can improve on. If you get systematic and smart about it, you will see the improvements.

For me, 2200 was my mental blocker. It was in my head, that I wanted it so much, that I couldn’t reach it. Once I unblocked it with bigger goals, I almost didn’t notice that I have achieved my previous life goal – getting to 2200 at least once.

What I’m worried about now is whether my IM goal wouldn’t be a similar blocker as it was with 2200…

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 Facebook Page

Andrzej’s Twitter Page

Andrzej’s Youtube Channel

Andrzej’s FIDE Profile

Andrzej’s Medium

Andrzej’s Chessable Interview

Andrzej’s Audio Clip: Hard Times – Back To 2100s After A Bad Tournament

ON 26. FEBRUARY 2019, ANDRZEJ WILL HOLD A FREE WEBINAR IN WHICH HE WILL TALK ABOUT HIS IMPROVEMENT IN GREATER DETAIL

YOU CAN JOIN HERE

The post From 2100 To International Master – Andrzej Krzywda Interview – Part 1 appeared first on Chessentials.