Chess: tactic, tactics, tactics (no, really)

My previous post outlined the new all pervading philosophy in our house: tactics as the bedrock of chess improvement and I've been following it arduously in the last few months. Well, as arduously as I do anything. The upside is that I've won or drawn my last seven games (four wins and three draws), which is my equivalent of the Invincibles, while playing a selection of players stronger than me (and a few lower graded ones too). As well as playing above my grade, which is the general idea, I've noticed that in a couple games where I've been decidedly worse from the opening, and in two cases material down, my improved ability to spot tactical combinations has enabled me to get back in the game. Much more than the execution of a combination (which rarely happens), what is important is the threat of a tactical motif such as a knight fork which prevents your opponent from a straightforward capture. In my last game the fact that his e pawn was pinned against his queen at the end of a series of exchanges, meant that he was unable to capture my rook on d4 and I emerged slightly better.

Tactics, tactics, tactics: Winning Chess Tactics for Juniors

There is a little-expressed and I suspect little-followed belief that for club level players [which is what I aspire to] studying tactics is the best way of improving your results. The vast majority of chess books and DVDs are devoted to the start of the game with four volume treatises on the latest lines in fashionable GM openings not unusual. I would guess that most of the chess books I own relate to opening theory. If a golfer sees the swing as the bedrock of the their game, amateur chess players mistakenly believe that strong opening play will lay the foundations for success later on in the game. The problem is that while you might follow a Kasparov endorsed line in the Sicilian Nardorf for 15 or 20 moves at some point you'll be on your own and clueless about what to do next.

Encouraged by a book I borrowed from Hackney Library I've finally started doing what I knew I should have been doing all along. Instead of the endless reading of positional textbooks, game collections and worst of all opening books I've devoted all of my little available chess studying time to book I bought in a secondhand shop on Well Street Market: Winning Chess Tactic for Juniors.

I've been working though a page or so of 6 boards each day on the tube to work. The book's introduction encourages you to solve them from the diagram rather than setting them up on a board which is great for travelling, and that also you go through the book three times skipping ones you can't solve in five minutes to come back later. The revisiting problems is also to see whether the solution to that type of position has 'stuck' and if it comes up in a similar (as it's unlikely to be an identical) position if you'll spot it.

I really like the book as there's no messing, just problem after problem and over 500 of them. The solutions are no messing too, little more than a line of moves, no other annotation.


The introduction suggests that you spend no more than 5 minutes on any one problem and if you can't do it in that time move on. There are a few things that have occurred to me so far:

1. I often get the right move or idea but not necessarily in the right order. The lesson is that once you've spotted the theme, check it and check it again to make sure you have the strongest continuation. Given that these are forcing combinations then if there isn't a checkmate or win of material then you've missed something.

2. Which brings up the next point. In studying the positions knowing that you're looking for a combination obviously helps. You don't spend a great deal of assessing the positional niceties (although if the other side has a mate in one you do need to do something better - usually a forcing mating sequence.

Update three days after drafting this post: I've realised that if I don't up my rate I'll die before I've been through the book three times so I'm now aiming at doing 20 a day. Having said that I haven't played any matches so who knows if I'm getting any better.

Updating the update: I played for Hackney last night against Metropolitan and I did feel that I had a greater awareness of tactical possibilities. Nothing major, no winning combinations but when my opponent pushed his e pawn forward attacking my bishop I realised straight away that he couldn't capture it as the pawn was pinned against his unprotected Queen. I'll post the game soon.

My stupid chess habit: Three months later...[part one]

Some things that I remember about the last three months:


The Dutch defence for black [1. d4 f5 ]

I borrowed Neil McDonald's book on the Dutch defence from Hackney Library. [They've got three books on openings as far as I can see and two of them are on the French defence.] I flicked through it and decided it fulfilled my opening criteria:

• Easy to understand what the main objectives are
• Not too heavy in long theoretical lines [eg Sicilian Dragon]
• High likelihood that you'll get to play it as it starts on your first move.

I spent a couple weeks reading bits of the book on and off, studying the Leningrad Dutch. I chose the Leningrad Dutch because it's like the King's Indian [which I played as a kid] but with the king's bishop pawn already on f5 and I have a weakness for the king's bishop fianchetto.

Finally I was due to play it for the first time against a human opponent as Hackney were playing DHSS. That day at work I ran though a game with Fritz on my phone. Around move eight in the mainline Leningrad Dutch my position started to implode. The problem is that 1. Black's position is full of holes 2. The player of the black pieces needs to know what they're doing.

I decided not to play it. As it turns out I had black, my opponent played 1.d4 and I stuck with my usual 1....c5 and got a draw against a stronger player. He probably should have won but for some reason didn't swap his Queen for my two Rooks towards the end when he was running short of time. In that game I finally understood aboutv the importance of gain of tempo in the opening - in initiating an exchange of pawns and pieces I reached a position where it was his move. Had he initiated it and made the first capture I could have ended up in the same position but with the advantage of having the move.

I'm going to stick with playing it online or against weaker players. I'm also looking at a Stonewall-Leningrad hybrid [a Stonewall set up but the fianchettoed king's bishop. There's probably a good reason why it doesn't exist.].

Useful links:
The games in Neil McDonald's Starting Out: The Dutch Defence on Chessgames (buy it on Amazon UK)