Mark Morss' Gift List -- 1999

Ten years ago Correspondence Senior Master Mark Morss wrote a holiday letter asking for a few chess items that he, and for that matter, all chess players and especially correspondence chess players, might want as holiday gifts. The original letter is here. As you might guess, the list is now out of date. Although I'm a couple of weeks late, I've taken a moment to update the list. I show Mark's original gift request first in italics, and then a proposed revision for 2010. I don't pretend to improve on Mark's list, which was excellent, but rather provide an update here and there, along with a quibble or two.

1. Bookup. If you aren't familiar with this software, you can still google "bookup" and find it fast enough. It's in essence a chess position organizer, particulary useful for learning openings. The new version is called Chess Openings Wizard. I find it most useful for reviewing/drilling your repertoire before an OTB tournament. It's less useful to correspondence players in this massive database age. Mark was especially high on its ability to find transpositions; however, I'm not sure that it does this better than the large commercial database products in 2010. As for "backsolving," one of Bookup's big features, it's benefit has always been overstated with respect to serious analysis. I find "backsolving" most useful as a way to explain why you simply can't rely on database statistics when choosing a move. When I see, for example, 7.Nd5 scores 72% for White, I understand that I need to look further. A few clicks deeper into my database tree will usually tell me whether there are issues with the move. Simply put, there may be a distortion of the statistics (the 72% in the example) caused by a significant number of weaker players choosing infeior moves, or there may be a bust or a TN that makes the statistics meaningless. I prefer to look for these distortions manually so that I understand what's going on, over relying on software tree analysis. It's really not that hard. Despite the quibbles, I own it and use it.

2. Hiarcs 7.32. Hiarcs is still a top-notch program. Today you'll be looking for Hiarcs 12 and you'll be asking yourelf if you want the single- or multi-core version. Having confirmed Mark's choice to some extent, I would certainly want to say more. First, if you're a correspondence player, I don't recommend one engine for conducting analysis. I would likely put Hiarcs near the end of this group of engines: Rybka 3, Shredder 12, Naum 4, Fritz 12, and Zappa Mexico II. Where there's a choice, go with the "deep" (multi-core) version, and note that some engines are programmed such that they will benefit from a 64-bit (vs. 32-bit) machine. Rybka is one of these. Now, feel free to argue with the choices or the order. Respecting GUIs, by the way, there's nothing better than the relatively new Fritz 12 GUI (which will run all of the mentioned engines).

3. and 4. Nunn's Chess Openings and Basic Chess Openings. Good books I'm sure. If you want a compreshensive, high quality compilation of moves today, however, look for the separately available Rybka 3 Opening Book by Jeroen Noomen. (If you're into Advanced Chess, you'll know that there may even be better compilations available.) These computer chess books will provide virtually zero increase to your understanding of opening theory. For that, see Fundamental Chess Openings by van der Sterren or John Watson's Mastering Chess Openings in multiple volumes.

5. and 6. Basic Endgames, Balashov and Prandstetter; and King and Pawn Endings, Fishbein. Endgame theory is more durable than opening theory (fashion), so these books are still good. Nevertheless, computers make inroads into endgames in ways they can't in openings. A modern work that has been computer-assisted is thus preferable. These were fairly easy choices: Silman's Complete Endgame Course and Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. If you really have no patience for endgames, at least read Jesus de la Villa's 100 Endgames You Must Know.

7. Sharpen Your Tactics. It's hard to improve here, but I'd add Chess Tactics for Advanced Players by Averbakh. It is an old book and was likely hard to find when Morss wrote his list. It's easy to find now.

8. The Art of Combination by Blokh. No one does it better. Readers in 2010 may recognize the name and a way to improve on the book, however. Blokh is the author of CT-ART 3.0 (now 4.0), and I'll say it again: it doesn't get any better for tactics.

9. Finally, I have to add Chessbase 10. I use it more than any piece of software I've ever owned by several multiples, and I don't even use it to store my ongoing games. It will do many things for you, some of them quite impressive, but foremost it will find opening theory, especially if you keep it updated, which takes 2-4 hours and $100-150 a year.

Returning to a Slow Slav and Wit

This game refers back to the post below Chess Improvement: A Slow Slav and Wit; it provides some insights into the Slow Slav and provides an opportunity to work on calculation and evaluation. The positions that arise are difficult and require a consistently accurate assessment.

Chess Improvement: A Slow Slav and Wit

I'm sharing two positions here from the same game. The game is against a bot on the ICC. The rating of this bot ranges from about 1750 - 1950 in ICC Elo. I try to play at least one or two such games every week, as I just don't have many OTB experiences otherwise. You may ask why a bot, and it's a good question. I find that about 1 in several of my long ICC games gets interrupted by life, and the bots are far more forgiving than a human player when I run out of the room not to return. In any event, the first is a known position that arises out of the Slow Slav. The moves are: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 Qc7 7.Nc3 e6 8.Bd2 Nc6 9.Bb5 Be7 10.Ne5 O-O 11.Rc1 [diagram] Stop now, and from Black's perspective (mine), take a look at the positions arising after 11...Nxe5. Calculate and evaluate the positions that arise. What do you think?

Did you play 11...Nxe5 12.Nxd5 Qxc1+ 13.Bxc1 Nxd5 14.dxe5 ? Now if you could choose, which side of the game would you take, and is it a close call? Stop now and take a look. Actually, this is very close to winning, if not winning, for Black. I'll circle back around in a few days to add some narrative analysis. If you care to, you can do the same in the meantime, and we can compare notes so to speak, then. And by the way, without silicon assistance, what's Black's next move after 14.dxe5?

The last position is from the end of the same game. I show it for entirely different reasons. It's White to move. Analyze the position.

Okay, so you've probably noted that it's lights out for White. I've managed to outplay the bot to this point, but not by so much as it might appear. As bots are apt to do, rather than resign, he sacs his queen to delay the inevitable. But the point I want to make here, is that at the time the bot made the queen sac, about 30 seconds after my last move, I was still analyzing White making luft by pushing the h pawn. I had not noticed that Rxg2 was mate, which almost assuredly means that I not included it in my analysis of the prior move, or the move before that, etc. I find this oversight perplexing to put it politely. What to do about such oversights? More later.

Chess Improvement: Why There?

I've been haunted a bit lately by thinking of a Nigel Short comment in, I believe, a recent New In Chess article. I do not recall the particulars (which may be symptomatic of my affliction), but he was essentially responding to a flurry of moves in an opening variation. His comment was to the effect "stop, stop, if I don't know why the pieces go where they go, I won't remember the moves." I cannot tell you how much time I've spent racing through thousands of variations over the years. Have to hurry...so many variations, so little time. Today, I remember the smallest fraction of those variations. I believe if measured, it would be substantially less than 1% of the total. One of my resolutions for the new year will be to radically change my opening study, with an eye toward understanding why a piece goes where it goes. When facing the French, I sometimes put the knight on c3, sometimes on d2, and sometimes I just play the bishop to d3. I have reasons for these choices, but when explained out loud, they are simply too vague. I'll do better in the new year.

Chess Improvement: Pattern Recognition / Endgames

The endgame pattern is tougher to see than that in the the previous post, but the pattern is essential to understanding the position and many others like it. White is up a pawn and Black is faced with a difficult defense to hold the game. Through a little pattern recognition, he sacs the Knight for a much easier route through to the draw.



Note that White can save the h-pawn, but it doesn't matter: 1.dxe6 fxg3 2.Bxe4 Kxe6 3.Kd4 g2 4.Bxg2 Kf5 5.Bf3 Ke6 6.Bg4+ Kf7 7.Ke4 and there's no way to prevent the Black King from controlling h8, the promotion square. This Rook pawn and wrong-colored Bishop endgame arises often.

Chess Improvement: Pattern Recognition / Endgames

This is a good example of a simple position that should be recognized instantly. It is easily calculable, but it should be a position that requires no calculation on your part. That's not to say that you won't confirm what you know if there's time available, but presume that you have virtually no time, and you can play a short series of forcing moves to arrive at this position. Do you play them? Does it matter who's to move in this position? Include such positions in your tactics drill set.



Suggested Reading in order of recommendation:

Silman's Complete Endgame Course--Jeremy Silman
100 Endgames You Must Know--Jesus de la Villa
Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual--Mark Dvoretsky (available in book and software)
The ABC of Endgames--ChessBase software

Chess Improvement: Tactics--Where to Begin?

The best thing about tactics training is that if you do it, even perhaps badly, you will get better at chess. For the most part my discussions will assume that you have learned the basic elements of tactics. Tactics are nothing in themselves, but must be measured against the object of the game, which is to deliver checkmate. So, it's understandable that the most popular tactics drills are those that end in checkmate. (Tactics may also end in a material advantage or simply in an improved position.) If you haven't learned how to deliver basic checkmates, find one of the many free sites that will help you learn mates such as K + Q vs. K, or K + R v. K, etc. You must also be familiar with simple endgame theory. You won't recognize some winning tactics if you don't recognize simple winning endgames. If you don't have a basic endgame understanding, I strongly recommend that you read at least the first Two Parts of Silman's Complete Endgame Course, and I would suggest that you go further by reading one Part beyond your present rating (the book is divided into Parts based upon the reader's rating). I also assume that you have an understanding of tactics elements such as skewers, pins, forks, double attacks, discovered checks and the like. If you don't, read Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. Beyond the above, the recommendations here make no assumptions about a player's abilities, but rather presumes that each player will design a tactics drill set that fits his or her skill level.

There are three things I have in mind when studying tactics. First and foremost is pattern recognition, which can be described as the aspects of chess problems that repeat themselves. In general, the more patterns you command firmly, the more likely and quickly one or more will emerge in your thinking during a game. Second, the solving of tactics problems provides a good platform for improving visualization skills, which might be described as how accurately you see the board during and after some sequences of moves. And third, tactics provides a good platform for improving your calculations, which begins with candidate move selection, and continues with branching, pruning, and evaluating skills. None of these things, however, have any meaning until you understand how to win a chess game and the basic elements of tactics. You have to begin with an understanding of what's to be recognized, visualized, or calculated. Once you have the requisite skills--I'm guessing as measured by, or near, a four-digit Elo rating--then you're ready to start the "next" level of tactics training.

At this point, go ahead and read de la Maza's Rapid Chess Improvement. It can be read in an hour or two (or read the summaries of his program in two parts at ChessCafe). You should read the book with an accepting mind restrained by a liberal dose of skepticism. Reasons for accepting the book abound in de la Maza's text; Jeremy Silman will help with the skepticism. Then, unless you need someone to rigidly prescribe your learning steps for you, develop your own plan and goals for drilling tactics. A good place to start is with CT-ART 3.0 (ART). ART is a moderately-priced, cleverly developed software package of about 1200 problems. The problems range from the simple (one-move shots) up to the substantially complex (tactics that might be missed by a titled player in an OTB game). You can divide the problems in various ways, including by degree of difficulty. The simplest problems are identified by a "10," the next by a "20," and so on. One way to begin, for example, is to establish for yourself a subset of the 1200 problems, say the 10, 20, and 30 level problems and drill those until you recognize the boards and solutions instantly. As you go through these problems, you'll be visualizing and calculating the solutions at the outset (as you would do in a game), but as you get familiar with the positions, you'll begin instantly recognizing the patterns on the board. (Sounds a little like Rapid Chess Improvement, ey? A little, but adapt the parts that seem right to you to your own plan. It isn't necessary to devote all of your time to tactics, nor is it necesary that you have hours for study each day. And, finally, the problem set that you create for your drilling should be changing and getting more difficult with time.) As you do more and more problems, both in ART and elsewhere, you'll discover that many of the patterns are transferable to other problems (and presumably to your game positions). You will get better. Consider also using a tactics trainer, like the one at Chess.com, to measure your progress (in addition to watching your rating). The more patterns you recognize, ultimately measured in the thousands, the better your chess skills. Please note that selecting the set of problems you will ultimately keep in your drill set should be a large part of the training. The calculations and visualization you do in identifying problems that are too difficult for you at the moment is part of the improvement process. Today's problems that are too difficult won't be tomorrow. Similarly, you're going to discard problems that you solve in, say, under 10 seconds. You've already absorbed that particular problem into your chess thinking.

Don't use only ART, but also select some good solid basic (but not too easy or too hard) problems books and other sources of problems. You want problems that are yeilding discernible patterns that you can learn and build upon. If you use Chessbase, you can build a database of these problems, with each problem as a separate "game" in the database. This requires some upfront work, but makes the problems easier to drill in the future. As you progress, you'll add patterns (problems) to your chess thinking, and the learned patterns will increase in both number and complexity. When a problem is learned entirely beyond any reasonable doubt, discard it from your set and replace it at the upper end of your set with a difficult problem. When the sources I've mentioned here, or your own, have become too easy, look for more advanced problems books to provide new material. The ChessCafe puzzle books come to mind. I won't pretend to know all of the possible sources of tactics problems, but other good sources at about the 10-40 level in ART are Dan Heisman's Back to Basics: Tactics and Jeff Coakley's Winning Chess Exercises for Kids, which is not so simple as it sounds. (Please note that I have no affiliation with any commercial chess interest whatsoever. I recommend what I've tried.)

Now develop a problem set for your ability, ranging from the easy to the difficult. (If you can't solve the problem the first time in 10 minutes of visualization/calculation, you're not ready to move it into your problem set.) The "set" should consist of ultimately 1000-2000 problems. Learn the set cold, and then add and take away from it with time. My sense is that after a year or so, you should have discarded between a quarter to a half of the easier problems and added an equal number of more difficult problems. If you're working long and often, it's possible that you could turn the set over entirely, even more than once, in a year's time. Building and maintaining the set is part of the suggested training. I leave open the distinct possibility that you'll have a better idea, and I hope you'll share it in the comments here.

2D vs. 3D. Does it matter if you're looking at a two-dimensional computer screen or a three-dimensional chessboard? If you're just beginning, or you don't like the 2D screen or page, use a board. With time, and you'll know when it arrives, there'll be no appreciable difference between visualizing on a live chessboard versus a computer screen or page. My suspicion is that this ultimate non-difference relates to the way you think about the game, and specifically, the way you visualize the play.

A final word. Your training sessions should range in my view from 15 minutes (short) to two hours (long). You should aim for at least two long sessions a month. Do not quit on the problems when you're first attempting them. And you know that some will come easy with instant recognition, and others will be unsolvable after 10 or even 20 minutes. On the latter, make your best first-move selection and then reason through the entire calculation to a conclusion. DO NOT touch the board or the mouse (move the pieces only in your head), and DO NOT take a stab at a first move out of frustration and then test it by the solution. (This is especially tempting in ART--don't do it.) If the problem genuinely leaves you stumped after 15 minutes or so, move on to another problem and come back to it on another day. And note that this is not a problem that you should have in your drill set, at least not yet. Please don't misunderstand. It's perfectly okay to get the problem wrong--it's not okay to take a stab at a move before reasoning it out to your best conclusion. More later.

[Note: CT-ART 4.0 is now available from Convekta. Convekta claims that the basic problem set has been increased by about 1,000 problems.]

Chess Improvement

There are a lot of chess improvement plans floating around the internet. I'm going to present one more, slowly, over time. The focus of the plan is on improving a player's OTB game, and in my view there are four elements requiring some level of study: (1) tactics, with an emphasis on visualization and calculation, (2) position evaluation, (3) strategic understanding, and (4) memorization, particularly openings and endgames.

I believe that every chess position is a puzzle to be solved and thus general rules should be of theoretically limited importance. Having said that, the majority of chess positions are "quiet" and solving a puzzle with no clear objective solution will invariably require some shorthand (or, yes, general rules). I'll also concede that the lines may be blurred between and among the above categories and that I may not have them listed correctly, or at least, in the best way. For example, the lines between (1), (2), and (3) above seem vague and there will be overlap between the ideas. I think this is true because there will be some level of aritificiality and arbitrariness to any way in which you attempt to sub-divide the game. For example, to master the game one needs to have a grasp of minority attacks and play against or with the isolated queen's pawn. I would place these concepts into the category of strategy (3), but they'll also obviously be a large part of evaluating a position (2). In the end, I'll leave it to others to describe the proper elements of chess study, and to ascribe their importance, and I'll get on with aiming my discussion at calculation and visualization (including especially tactics), strategy, and memorization/understanding (including as a big part, opening and endgame study). I'll use blog labels for posts related to this subject of "chess improvement," "tactics," "visualization," "calculation," "position evaluation," "strategy," "opening study" (as opposed to "opening theory"), and "endgames."

This exercise is as much about improving my own game as it is in sharing my thoughts about how to become better. I'm trusting that sharing the plan here will be an impetus for thinking more carefully about the subject. I have limited OTB experience, and in fact, my biggest hurdle may be finding time to test my progress (playing OTB). I'm almost entirely a correspondence player and correspondence chess deemphasizes especially visualization making it a somewhat different game. The goal is nevertheless to get objectively better at a reasonable pace. The exercise seems healthy to me, even if it's only done for self.

Finally, a word about de la Mazza's Rapid Chess Improvement. The book invariably comes up on the subject of chess improvement for adults. Please note that it's almost entirely a plan to improve your chess tactics. In short, I think if you follow it, you'll be rewarded. All of my instincts, however, tell me to take a more balanced approach, even though tactics occupies a special place in chess improvement.