Chess Sprint is the first of seven mini-games currently available in the brand-new Magnus Chess Academy app.

It is an arcade platformer where you navigate one of the chess pieces (rook, bishop, knight, queen, pawn, or king) through a fantasy chess land. 

The objective of the game is to find the way to the portal while collecting as many orbs as you can and discovering the well-hidden treasure chest. Enemy pieces will make life tricky for you. Don't let your guard down! Dodge the enemy attacks and capture as many foes as you can to earn extra gem rewards. 

This mini-game is highly recommended for people who are new to chess and want to master the art of maneuvering pieces around the chessboard. Some levels remind of a sophisticated maze, so finding the portal will not be a walk in the park. 

For more advanced chess players, the platformer could be entertaining in terms of blasting through the levels as quickly as you can and sequencing a series of moves, earning additional rewards for hitting breathtaking combos. 

Currently, Chess Sprint features 13 levels, catering to players of different skill. The journey of the chess pieces is expected to continue in the future, as more game levels will be added to the game. 

Please try Chess Sprint out and see if you have what it takes to conquer the fantasy chess kingdom! 

As part of the celebration, you are eligible for an exclusive 32% discount on all our apps!

Grab the Play Magnus plus membership while supplies last. 

Do you enjoy chess and arcade games? Chess Sprint might be the cross-over you are looking for!

Since 2014, the Play Magnus Group has been producing mobile apps for chess fans of all skill levels worldwide. 

Over the last 1.5 years, one of our main projects was developing a new flagship app that would combine the best features of all our existing products and take a mighty step forward. As a result, we are proud to present to you Magnus Chess Academy — the one chess app to rule them all! 

Please look at the list of the key contributors to know who to praise for your wonderful experience...or blame if something goes wrong! 

Peter Zhdanov, Content & Translator (Russian)

Ricardo Franco da Silva, Translator (Portuguese) 

Sverre Johnsen, Content and Translator (Norwegian)

Are you hyped about Play Magnus Group's new flagship app? Time to find out who is responsible for its creation! 

Meet The Team Behind Magnus Chess Academy

Christmas comes early this year, as you are probably just a few days shy of getting your hands on the Magnus Chess Academy app. 

MCA is the brand-new flagship product of the Play Magnus Group. It combines everything you loved in our previous apps, takes them to the next level, and introduces multiple exciting features you haven't experienced elsewhere.

Want to learn more about Magnus Chess Academy? Please check out this short overview and stay tuned for upcoming blog posts showcasing the mini-games featured in the app. 

Hungry for a sneak preview of the new features? Here are some of the core ones:

New exciting mini-games: Chess Sprint, Ace in the Sleeve, Challenge the World. 

800+ interactive chess lessons covering all the key aspects of the game. Difficulty ranges from beginner to master. 

Lessons are organized in thematic blocks, ensuring a comfortable learning experience. 

Ability to earn rewards for in-game activity and use it for unlocking lessons and game levels. 

Moreover, let us treat you to some spoilers on what you can tentatively expect in the December MCA update:

Daily quests and generous rewards for completing them.

XP for in-game activities and user progression spanning 100 levels. 

At least two new lessons will be released every week. 

Offline mode, allowing you to use the app without connecting to the Internet. 

Enhanced player vs. player experience in Challenge the World. 

Video group classes, making the process of studying chess more social.

Wondering when Santa Carlsen is coming to your town? You will be able to download the Magnus Chess Academy on November 18th, both on iOS and Android.

We do hope you will have a great chess weekend playing the app🥳🎉

Sign up now to be the first to attend the Magnus Chess Academy when it opens its doors to chess fans worldwide!

Are you as hyped about the Magnus Chess Academy app as we are? Mark the date when it arrives in your country! 

Magnus Chess Academy Is Knocking On Your Door

How do you classify chess players? And how would you reply if someone asked you what your chess personality is? 

One simple classification revolves around the elements at which the chess players excel:

Positional players tend to like closed positions where they can create plans, maneuver pieces around, make favorable trades, employ prophylactics, exploit weaknesses and gradually grind the opponent down in the endgame. Example: Magnus Carlsen. 

Tactical players have an excellent combinational vision. They usually go all out, aiming for the opponent king's throat. Tacticians enjoy having active pieces and an advantage in development and are quite good at sacrificing material for the initiative and handling material imbalances. Example: Shakhriyar Mamedyarov. 

Calculators are similar to tactical players, but they are more concerned about tricks that allow one to win material and/or set traps. The name speaks for itself: they are unstoppable in murky positions where a single miscalculation can be fatal. Also, they usually have somewhat less chess intuition than positional and tactical players, but they are good at crunching the lines, similar to what a chess engine does. As a result, one some occasions, they can make weird-looking moves, but in other cases, they will discover possibilities that other players won't spot. Example: Ian Nepomniachtchi. 

Of course, the higher-rated the players are, the more likely they are to be universal, feeling comfortable in any type of chess struggle. Still, even for the very best GMs, you can make an argument for putting them into one of the categories above. 

Yuri Averbakh was the only GM in chess history to reach the 100th anniversary.

Coming up next is an alternative classification, even if it is less widely used. According to GM Yuri Averbakh, there are six main types of chess players depending on how they approach the game. Below I will offer an interpretation of each type.

Killers – these people take the result of the game personally and use chess as a means of “breaking a man’s ego”. Notable examples of this type offered by GM Averbakh are Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov, Mikhail Botvinnik, and Viktor Korchnoi.

Fighters – they enjoy the process of struggling with the opponent and don’t lose heart even if their position is inferior because they can potentially reverse the tide. Some of the best examples that come to my mind are Arkadij Naiditsch and Valentina Gunina.

Athletes – according to GM Averbakh, for those chess is a sport, just like tennis or soccer. They do their best to win but don’t take the results personally and act like normal humans after the game is over. Yuri believes that Jose Raul Capablanca and Boris Spassky are fine examples of such an attitude.

Gamblers – they love taking risks and competing with others at everything. In a way, this category resembles athletes, if you ask me. Anatoly Karpov is a supreme example: he is a very adventurous and competitive person everywhere – in chess, politics, other board games, and in business. The same goes for Magnus Carlsen. 

According to Averbakh, all the world chess champions belong to one of the above-mentioned categories.

Artists – for them, creating a masterpiece or making a fantastic move on the board is more important than the actual outcome of the game. Arguing with Averbakh's claim cited above, I would place Vladimir Kramnik in this category. Coming from an artistic family, he also seems to value the act of creating a masterpiece above the outcome of the game. 

Researchers – chess is fuel for thought for them. They enjoy studying endgames, openings, and philosophical issues of chess and normally like correspondence chess more than head-to-head matchups. They are searching for “truth”, i.e., optimal play in every position. GM Yuri Averbakh places himself into this group. The same goes for me.

Now, what category do you belong to? Are you happy about it, or do you feel like changing your approach toward the game?

This blog post is brought to you by the Magnus Chess Academy Team. Make sure to sign up to enjoy the app as soon as it gets released!

P.S. Is there a way to test yourself and find out what your chess personality is? I appreciate Chess.com's idea of creating a special site that allows you to answer a series of questions and find out who your chess role model is. However, I am not a big fan of the implementation, namely, of how the questions are formulated and of some of the tasks presented. IMO, it is more of an entertaining experience than a real "scientific" test. 

In this video, you can see GM Hikaru Nakamura taking the chess personality test. Spoiler alert: he didn't get himself as the role model! 😁

How would you describe yourself as a chess player in one word? 

For most of us, the only chance to feel what it’s like to face a much stronger opponent is to enroll in a simultaneous exhibition. Playing against a world champion or a top GM is usually a memorable experience that we cherish for the rest of our lives, especially if we do well. 

My first experience of playing in a simul was in Canada in 1999. John Hush, the head of our chess club, kindly took on a few volunteers from the H.B. Beal Chess Club. Our game lasted quite long and, being the last one, was adjourned. I recall analyzing the endgame at home and even sharing some thoughts about the position with my Dad. I believe I won eventually.

Years later, I discovered John's YouTube channel and realized he is reasonably well-known for his entertaining videos related to Math. This was no surprise to me at all since he is a fantastic teacher. 

A bit, I used to briefly attend a chess club and tried my hand at giving simuls to kids rated about 1400-1600. My takeaway from the process was that this activity requires good physical shape. You get tired of running in circles, and the positions in front of you start to blur. Admittedly, this can probably be overcome with a lot of practice, but I didn't have that many opportunities. In other words, giving a simul is much tougher than it seems!

In the blitz club that I frequented in the early 2000s, some of the players were old-school veterans who had a chance to face chess legends in simuls. One of the regulars of our club defeated Mikhail Tal back in the day, drew Anatoly Karpov, and had some other remarkable results against World Chess Champions. I saw the games in his book and was quite impressed. Also, apparently, he was very proud of those achievements, and his friends would sometimes compliment him after a game, saying things such as, "What else did you expect from a guy who beat Tal?". 

Nevertheless, being an ambitious person, I was more interested in confronting strong players one-on-one and resorted to simuls only due to a lack of opportunities to play them live. At that time, the go-to place for simuls was ICC, where I collected a certain number of titled players' scalps. I never considered those victories "legit", but they were still a good preparation for eventually facing the same guys over the board one vs. one. 

When I came to Taganrog in 2014 to compete in the Dvorkovich Memorial, Alexander Morozevich was the first person I saw in the restaurant. He sat at the table alone, wearing his trademark rucksack. and staring into the distance We both played in the rapid portion of the event. Alas for me, our performances were significantly different. He scored 8/11, while I got only 5 points. Anyway, I was excited about the opportunity of playing against Moro in a simul since, at some point, he used to be my favorite chess player. Being well-known in small circles helped me book a sit without any problems. 

One does not simply beat Garry Kasparov in a simul!

Unlike Kasparov or some other legends who prefer to keep the level of the participants in check in order to secure flawless victories, Morozevich said he was OK with opponents of any strength challenging him. One of my chess pals, an IM, confessed he had a hard time restraining himself not to sign up! Anyway, Moro took on quite a strong field. Most of his opponents, myself included, were participants of the Russian Cup in Taganrog. The former world #2 played unbelievably fast. When the position got complicated, I remember not being able to ponder it for long enough before he came to my board, piercing me with his fiery gaze and waiting for a reply. I recall being disappointed about not performing as well as I could have. The GM's unusual opening choice took me by surprise, and even though his play was not perfect either, it was good enough to finish me off. The fact that he destroyed everyone else in the simul was of little consolation to me. You can check out the infamous game here. 

I am the guy wearing the white shirt. There were a few other tables around the hall. 

Over the course of my life, I have received questions from many people on how to do their best in a chess simul. Also, there are threads about it on the Internet, which is an indication that giving some advice publicly might be useful.  

First of all, play to win. Amateur players often feel intimidated by the identity of the simul giver and mentally resign before the game even begins. Also, some of them have an irritating trait of hoping to “last longer” than anyone else, even if it requires suffering in a totally lost technical endgame. What matters is how enjoyable and interesting the game is, as well as the outcome. There is no accomplishment in going for an inferior position right away and hoping to earn a draw. Instead, be brave and play to win! 

Secondly, stick with the openings you like best and know relatively well. This advice is identical to the one related to facing stronger opposition one-on-one. Even if you lose, it is better to receive a lesson in one of your pet lines than to succumb in 15 moves because you didn’t know how to handle a sharp gambit line that you don't normally play. This is one of the most popular misconceptions about simuls. People walk around asking, "How do I trick the GM by using some offbeat line?" Given the difference in opening knowledge and playing strength in general, you are more likely to trick yourself this way! 

Thirdly, keep in mind that in simuls masters have a limited time per move and a high workload. They get tired and oversee things. Hence, the more complicated and tactical the game is, the more unpleasant it is for them. If your position is suspicious, try to reach murky waters. Also, if you are MUCH weaker than the simul giver, one of your best chances is to play stubbornly and set up little traps along the way, hoping that the opponent will become careless and blunder due to fatigue or irritation.

Fourthly, try it out to get a better idea of what it feels like to give a simul. You get a way more balanced view this way, realizing how it feels to be in the shoes of someone who faces a few opponents at a time. If you are not strong enough to take on club players, you can always experiment with your friends and relatives.

I wish you the best of luck playing in simuls and giving them! 

P.S. The best way to play in a simultaneous exhibition is to monitor strong events and check out if they have such an event on the agenda. An alternative is to check out a site such as Chess24.com, where you can play in simuls or even one-on-one banter blitz games against top GMs. Or, if you prefer a fair fight, you can always download the Play Magnus app and take on Magnus Carlsen, Judit Polgar, Wesley So, and other chess celebrities. 

Is playing in simultaneous exhibitions worth it? How do you maximize your chances of winning? 

Have You Ever Played in Simultaneous Exhibitions? 

The mistakes are there, waiting to be made.

I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. 

(Years ago, this used to be a quote on my ICQ profile)

Generally speaking, most "chess is a model of life" metaphors seem far-fetched to me. However, there are some significant similarities between the game and how we handle life problems. One of them is our attitude toward making mistakes. 

On one side of the spectrum, we have people who have trouble admitting mistakes. They don't like reviewing their lost games and instead focus on how badly the opponents played. They always have excuses for themselves: they were unlucky, didn't sleep well, were distracted, didn't take the opponent seriously, and so on. In arguments, they typically go all out on you, trying to win the debate even if somewhere deep inside, they know they are dead wrong. Obviously, such behavior is not particularly beneficial for one's improvement as a player or a person. 

On the other side of the spectrum, we have people who are too obsessed with their mistakes. They can't sleep at night due to suffering psychologically about the things they have done wrong. They have low self-esteem since they neglect their excellent moves and look through the magnifying glass at their blunders. In real-life situations, they are often shy and easily dismayed. Even when they are pretty much sure they are right, they can fall under the influence of others and act according to their will just because they dislike conflicts and have no inner confidence to stand up for their views.

Chess is similar to life in the sense that it requires a balanced, objective approach to addressing your mistakes. Let's review a few tips on how to mitigate your wrongdoings over the chessboard.

First of all, it is important to make sure that it was indeed a mistake. Sometimes you realize it by yourself. In other cases, an unexpected reply from the opponent awakens you and forces you to start frantically looking for an alternative to the line you were intending to play. Even if you have overseen your opponent's idea, which is alarming and a sign of not being in the best shape, your previous move is not necessarily a mistake by itself. 

Secondly, if you are confident that you have made a mistake, remain calm and cold-bloodedly reevaluate the position. Strong players are always looking for a way to justify their previous actions. If the move you have made doesn't make sense to you, try to discover a new plan in which the move actually plays a positive role. This method works especially well if you weren't punished for your misstep, i.e., the opponent hasn't realized it was a mistake. 

This reminds me of the "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade" advice. Don't be too hard on yourself in chess or real life when you make a mistake. You missed the train? Go for a walk and enjoy yourself! Did you get turned down at a job interview? Consider it a sign to start your own business. You fell from your bike and broke your leg? Read the chess books you have been missing out on while you are lying in bed. 

GM Marat Makarov is a well-known chess coach and author. Image courtesy of ChessBase.ru

Thirdly, sometimes the mistake is so serious that you must admit you went wrong, even if it costs you some critical tempi. I recall an amusing situation from a tournament between chess pairs. One of the teams was composed of GM Marat Makarov and his student WFM Ekaterina Pakhomova. The latter decided to win an exchange using her dark-squared bishop on g7. Marat realized that the bishop was untouchable in that position because, in its absence, the king would become too exposed. So, he didn't take the exchange and even returned with the bishop to its original location. I don't remember it for sure, but I think that eventually, Katerina found a way to win that exchange and lose the game. 

Iron-willed champions such as Anatoly Karpov were known for their ability to admit their mistakes no matter how painful they felt. If Anatoly has played the knight from c3 to d5 and feels like it belongs to c3 a move later, he will spend another precious tempo to mitigate his mistake. Carlsen is of the same breed. He makes very few mistakes and keeps his objectivity most of the time, being able to admit that something went wrong and revert it. 

Handling the so-called "inexplicable" blunders is tough, even for the absolute best.

Fourthly, some mistakes are too severe and can't be amended no matter how hard to try. For instance, if you blundered mate in one, or the person whom you loved passed away, there is no going back and fixing what was broken. In such cases, you move on and learn the bitter lesson, trying to become a better version of yourself in the future. 

Summarizing, it is a tricky dilemma when to persist and when to admit one's mistake and return to the status quo. Being able to tell which case is which will be game-breaking for your chess and overall success in life. 

Regardless of whether you are afraid to admit your chess mistakes or not, use the code HALLOWEENWEEK22 to receive an exclusive 30% discount on the Play Magnus Plus Membership. The offer is scary good, so don't miss your chance to learn from the 5-time World Chess Champion!

What do you do when you realize you have made a mistake in chess? 

Do You Have What It Takes To Admit Your Mistakes? 

Ideally, you should be so hyped about chess that you won't need any external motivation to study. However, this is not always the case, so you might need some help to convince yourself to keep going. 

Nowadays, there are plenty of apps that allow you to gamify your life, setting up daily tasks for yourself and getting virtual rewards for completing them and punishments for slacking or not following the desired daily routines. 

I also like the old-school approach. You can write down all the non-urgent tasks on sticky notes, specifying a reward for completing each of them. Then in the morning, you randomly grab, let's say, three of the notes from the bag. There are your dailies! This method can be especially effective for passionate games who are used to diligently working on anything the game throws at them. 

Are you using any kind of motivation tools to boost your chess studies? It could be a good idea, but you should exercise it with caution. For instance, when it comes to positive ("carrot") motivation, a common example is rewarding oneself with some delicious sweets after a workout. However, once you count the calories, you may realize that the cake you have just eaten has killed all your gains and even done additional damage! Rewarding oneself with tasty food is generally a poor idea. 

What are good examples of "carrot" motivation in chess? Well, it depends on your financial situation. If you are well off, it becomes harder to come up with something that makes your eyes shine since you probably have it already. However, if you are on a tight budget, you can consider chess-related prizes that will benefit your chess rise. For instance, you can tell yourself that if you do X, you will purchase a lifetime subscription to your favorite chess app, a magnificent digital chess clock, travel to some distant tournament you have always wanted to compete in, hire a great coach, and so on. 

Looking for a way to reward yourself or someone else for remaining a loyal fan of chess? Check out the Play Magnus Plus Membership! It features four innovative apps devised under the guidance of 5-time World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen. Together, they provide you with all the tools you need to become a better chess player and have fun while improving. 

Speaking of the Soviet chess school, the "stick" motivation was probably even more prevalent there. Fedor Dostoevsky wrote "Crime and Punishment" for a good reason. If you do something wrong in Russia, you normally get punished! And if you perform well, there is no guarantee whatsoever that anyone is going to notice. Most likely, they will take it for granted. 

IM Mark Dvoretsky, who was widely believed to be one of, if not THE best, chess coaches in the world, is among my favorite chess authors. 

The maestro passed away, but his legacy lives on in his famous books and Chess24.com series. 

Nevertheless, I can't abstain from commenting on a quote from his ChessCafe article “Polemic Thinking. Part One”:

Towards the same end, sometimes it makes sense to set up “fines” for “losses” – mostly in those cases where the student makes serious errors that he should certainly have known how to avoid. With young players, fines can be various forms of physical exercise; for example, pushups, sit-ups, running, etc.

Chess.com's frontman IM Danny Rensch had a training session with Dvoretsky many years ago. Here is an excerpt from his article describing the experience:

One more thing: If you want to increase the level of intensity in your own studies, find a way to "put something on the line". Before tournaments I would often put 50 push ups "on the line" for a failed 15-Minute Drill (and yes, I can do 50 push ups... come on people) in order to get my blood flowing. I've heard that Shirov did something similar. If you are someone who doesn't get enough exercise, try that.

Now what is the problem with this training method, you might wonder?

First of all, it is a case of Pavlovian (classic) conditioning. The student begins associating the “crime” (failing an exercise) with a “punishment” – having to perform physical exercises, possibly while other students are mocking him for it. As a result, he starts to consider physical activity to be something negative and worth avoiding. Unsurprisingly, when you read Dvoretsky’s books, he often mentions that good physical preparation has never been one of his strongest virtues. In fact, this is the case with most of his students. Moreover, Mark emphasizes the importance of staying fit in his writings, always mentioning running, bodily exercise, etc. Still, when you read it, you get the impression of self-torturing instead of enjoying the activity. Now that you know the psychological foundation of this issue, it shouldn’t be of any surprise to you.

Mark Dvoretsky with his students - Maxim Boguslawsky,  GMVladimir Baklan, and GM Vadim Zvyagintsev. Image courtesy of ChessPro.ru.

Secondly, regular physical exercise is an essential part of a healthy lifestyle and chess training. One shouldn’t punish oneself by adding or removing physical exercises from one’s routine. It is just about as silly as skipping lunch or making oneself eat two lunches for a certain failure in chess. Why would anyone mix the physical and the chess components of the training program like that?

Thirdly, I recall our sports coach at one of the universities attended. During the very first class, he told everyone to run 5 miles (or maybe kilometers?). Since it was a physical therapy group, some students questioned this idea and told him that they had a weak heart or something similar which could prevent them from running 5 miles in a competitive group setting without any prior training whatsoever. He dismissed those sentiments by saying that they were all men and should be able to endure marathons, fistfights, and other challenges. Now the lessons were actually quite fun, even when the sensei attempted to show everyone how to strangle a guard by jumping at me (the tallest guy in the group, 6’4" ft.) and twisting my neck from behind. Amusingly enough, how he ended up clutching my neck and waving his feet in the air, not being able to bring me down. Anyway, I believe Mark gives reckless advice here: who knows what will happen to the young kids after additional physical exercises. What if they have certain undiagnosed medical conditions and a certain overzealous coach overreacts and starts applying this method too often?

Summarizing, I would be careful about mingling physical and chess training into one session, even though some modern research shows that it might be beneficial if you combine the activities in moderation. And I would definitely not turn to physical exercises as a means of punishing myself. Or, if you feel like adopting Mark’s approach and using Pavlovian methods on yourself, you might as well reward yourself for solving puzzles correctly instead of punishing yourself for the ones you did wrong.

How do you motivate yourself to study chess?

Many years ago, I read yet another book about Bill Gates. Even though I never had role models, Gates was one of the people to whom smart kids of my generation aspired, similar to the worldwide obsession with self-proclaimed "perfume salesman" Elon Musk these days. Anyway, the book mentioned that in his youth, Gates liked chess but used to play in a somewhat straightforward “attack-attack-attack” manner. Consequently, it was not hard to beat him as long as you knew how to handle the early pressure. I have noticed the same traits in my best friend, a top manager of a large IT company: he is very competitive, quick-minded, and enjoys taking risks and seizing the initiative. Positional play adheres to his nature much less; same goes for boring and unambitious projects in life. Both in chess and in life, he is the "let's get into a fight and see how it goes" type of guy, not a patient grinder. 

In the game against Magnus Carlsen, Bill Gates also failed to switch from offense to defense and was duly punished by the World Champion in just 9 moves.

On the other hand, most of the scientists and lawyers I know tend to have a rather cautious style. They love to take their time, and even casual games with friends can last a few hours for them. Also, they normally prefer sound classical openings and love exploiting weaknesses and accumulating positional advantages. They also don’t mind defending for a while for the sake of outplaying the opponent eventually.

Two chess legends, Vladimir Kramnik and Boris Gelfand. Image: TheHindu.com. 

In the award-winning book “Positional decision making in chess”, Boris Gelfand mentions showing one of his early games to Vladimir Kramnik. They both agreed that even at that time, Boris already had a clear-cut style that reminded the way he plays now. Similarly, when Vladimir showed him a game from his youth, Boris “could also recognize his trademark style in that game”. I was a bit confused by this statement because Kramnik’s style has changed at least two times over his career. Initially, he was an aggressive player who had the guts to challenge Kasparov himself on tactical turf. Then he switched to closed positions and started playing ultra-solidly, which is good for matches. Finally, towards the end of his professional career, he became a gambler, going for complications and trying to squeeze out a win in every position. Nevertheless, it is an interesting observation by Boris. Apparently, Kramnik has evolved a lot as a person over the years, which was reflected in his playing style. 

Another case is the “opposites attract” scenario. Some people seek in chess the experience they lack in normal life. Hence, if their job and life, in general, are rather dull and safe, they might try to compensate for it by playing ferocious chess. Similarly, if there is too much drama and risk around, they might feel like settling for something quiet and peaceful.

Overall, I would say that chess speaks for itself for most of the people I know, revealing their personalities, and the "opposites attract" situation is relatively rare. 

As for me, there is a direct correlation between my lifestyle in general and the way I play chess. My chess buddies used to call me "The Calculator". I have an active style, but at the same cold-blooded and materialistic. It is enough to take a brief glance at my games to realize I am not one of the positional players who enjoy closed positions where they have everything under control and can exploit small weaknesses in the opponent's camp somewhere deep down in the endgame. However, I am also not the kind of you-only-live-once caveman tactical beast who goes for the opponent's king throat in any position, willingly fuelling the attack by sacrificing pieces left and right. In a nutshell, I am the kind of guy who adores sharp play and intends to trick you in some complicated tactical line, win some material, and then proceed to convert it...or maybe not! This is precisely how I act in life: am usually optimistic, energetic, and excited about taking on new challenges, but, at the same time, trying to carefully calculate everything in advance and methodically optimize the process as well as I can. 

Of course, there is a lot of room for research here. How do nationality, age, occupation, education, and other characteristics affect the way we play chess? It is quite nourishing and beneficial for the mind to reflect on your own personality for a while. Why do you think you play this way, not the other?

Regardless of your playing style and personality, the 5-time World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen can teach you a thing or two. Make sure to check out the apps created by a star-studded team of experts led by the champ himself!

Is there a connection between your playing style in chess and your personality?

What Does Your Chess Tell About Your Personality?

As a kid, I was a big fan of watching intellectual games on TV and competing in such contests myself. Jeopardy!, Who Wants To Be a Millionaire, What? Where? When?, The Weakest Link, Brain Ring, and so on. I am less fond of them since nowadays when you can search most things online, storing too many relatively useless facts in your head is probably not the way to go. Ironically, this topic reminds me of a conversation between Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes in Arthur Conan Doyle's "A Study in Scarlet":

"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has difficulty laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."

"But the Solar System!" [Dr. Watson] protested.

"What of the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently: "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."

Nowadays, the argument made by Holmes is more alive than ever.

Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes as portrayed by Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch. Image from Popsugar.co.uk

Anyway, I still enjoy trivia questions that get your brain working instead of merely recalling the information you already know. You know, the challenges for nerds HRs ask potential employees of top IT and consulting companies. 

What if I asked you to estimate the median lifespan of the classical World Chess Champions who have already passed away? How would you approach this task? Ponder this question for a bit and see if you can reach a conclusion. 

I am by no means an expert in the field of longevity, so the musings presented below should not be treated as the "solution". 

Overall, there were only 16 classical World Chess Champions. A quick count reveals that ten of them passed away, while six are still alive. 

At 63, Vasily Smyslov played a Candidates Match against Garry Kasparov. Smyslov holds the longevity record so far when it comes to World Chess Champions - 89 years. Not in Yuri Averbakh's league, but still quite respectable! 

If you continue relying on knowledge, you can come up with a reasonably accurate estimate if you know the biographies of the champions well. I wouldn't remember the exact age at which most of them died, but I can easily come up with assessments such as "should be 80+ for Botvinnik" , "Smyslov had the longest life of them, almost hitting 90", or "Tal didn't reach 60". In a matter of seconds, I would tell you that the answer is probably between 60 and 70 years.

If you don't know the biographies of the players well enough to juggle lifespan numbers, the challenge becomes much more formidable. What factors do you think are relevant here? Once again, probably neither of us is a longevity expert, so we have to invent them on the go. 

Country of origin. If you have ever looked at the list of countries sorted by life expectancy, you will realize that the place of living has a tremendous effect on life expectancy. The numbers in the table range from 84+ in Japan to 53+ in Central African Republic. The World Champions had diverse backgrounds. Half of them were from the USSR, and the rest were mostly from developed countries. Overall, this is a tough factor to assess unless you have expert knowledge, but my guess would be that the country of origin is more of a plus than a minus in their case. +

Date of birth. This is also a huge factor to consider. Most of the late World Chess Champions died in the XXth century. The only exceptions are Vasily Smyslov and Bobby Fischer. Overall, this factor is more of a minus since life expectancy has been known to increase rapidly over the last century. +

Education. Nowadays, to become a professional chess player, you typically have to give up on your university studies or even ditch high school. However, historically it was not the case. At some point, Mikhail Botvinnik passionately argued that a person without a college degree would never become a World Champion! A few World Chess Champions of the past had Ph.D. degrees, and my guess would be that they were more educated than their average contemporaries. And since the level of education has a positive correlation with life expectancy, this should give the number in question a boost. +

Gender. In some countries, the gap is more pronounced than in others. However, throughout most of the world, females tend to outlive males by a few years. Since all the World Chess Champions were men, this factor works against them. -

Income. Before Bobby Fischer, chess players usually had a day job since playing chess was not a lucrative occupation. However, there are all sorts of privileges that come with being a World Champion. In the USSR, for instance, they received extensive support from the government. Therefore, I would claim that, compared to their average contemporaries, World Chess Champions were better off and hence more likely to live longer. +

Occupation. This one is a tough cookie. Chess is an intellectual activity that is supposed to prolong your lifespan. However, this mainly refers to playing chess as a hobby. Pursuing it competitively is a different matter. Boris Spassky once pointed out that playing a WCC match takes three years off your life expectancy. Of course, this was not a serious claim, but it drives the message home. Professional chess players have to deal with extreme stress, jet lag, and a passive lifestyle, not to mention staying late at night since to be fresh for the round that usually starts at 3-4 p.m., one has to wake up late. I am torn on this one and can't announce it to be a definite plus or minus. ?

Family status. All the late World Champions were married. The record-holder in this respect used to be Mikhail Tal, who was quite a ladies' man and ended up being married thrice. This made him untrustworthy in the eyes of the Soviet authorities and played a key role in limiting his trips abroad. Later, Garry Kasparov matched Tal's record, also marrying three times. Since, on average, married men tend to live longer than single, this is a plus. +

Mikhail Tal generally had fragile health. His bohemian lifestyle didn't quite help with longevity. Petrosian and Tal both died at 55. 

Here is the trickiest part. How do we factor in everything we have just assessed? Based on the country of origin and date of birth, I would guess something like 60 years. Considering gender, education, income, family status, and occupation, I would probably throw in another 10 years or so. Hence my bet would be around 70. 

Are you interested in Magnus Carlsen's take on his greatest predecessors? Check out the Magnus Trainer app. Among other lessons, you will find biographical articles about the best chess players of all time, presenting intriguing facts and the masterpieces they have created over the board. 

Now it's time to see how accurate your (and mine!) estimates were. Here are the nitty-gritty statistics:

Wilhelm Steinitz (Prague, May 17, 1836 – August 12, 1900) – 64

Emanuel Lasker (December 24, 1868 – January 11, 1941) – 72

José Raúl Capablanca (19 November 1888 – 8 March 1942) – 53

Alexander Alekhine (October 31, 1892 – March 24, 1946) – 53

Max Euwe (May 20, 1901 – November 26, 1981) – 80

Mikhail Botvinnik (August 17, 1911 – May 5, 1995) – 83

Vasily Smyslov (24 March 1921 – 27 March 2010) – 89

Mikhail Tal (November 9, 1936 – June 28, 1992) – 55

Tigran Petrosian (June 17, 1929 – August 13, 1984) – 55

Robert James "Bobby" Fischer (March 9, 1943 – January 17, 2008) – 64


Now let's take a look at the numbers: 89, 83, 80, 72, 64, 64, 55, 55, 53, 53.
The median life duration for a World Chess Champion is 64 – the number of chess squares on the board! Coincidence? I don't think so. 

Despite the difference in methodology, approaches #1 and #2 have provided relatively close and reasonably accurate estimates. 

Out of six World Champions who are still alive, two have already passed this threshold. Boris Spassky, the oldest living WC, is 85. Anatoly Karpov is 71. Garry Kasparov is expected to turn 60 next year. Viswanathan Anand, who has just returned to the top-10 in the world, is 52. Vladimir Kramnik, who is competing in the Chess Stars event today, is 47. Magnus Carlsen, playing in the European Chess Club Cup, is 31. 

Let's wish the legendary World Champions to exceed the current median age of 64 by far! Records are meant to be broken. 

If you were asked to guess the average lifespan of a World Chess Champion, what would you say? 

How do we take our game to the next level? Let’s say your current rating is X. Here is a nice little exercise: now think of a few players rated X+200, particularly of those whom you know well enough. Why are they better chess players than you? Try to pinpoint as many factors as possible and come up with an objective comparison. Basically, you should compile a dossier about yourself and about them.

Studying has diminishing returns. Improving from 800 to 1000 can be a matter of days. 1400 to 1600 usually takes people months or, for some, even years. The jump from 2100 to 2300 takes ages on average. And 2800 to 3000 is something no human has ever achieved yet. 

After a few years of relative hiatus, we seem to be witnessing a generational shift in the chess elite. A squad of young and extremely talented individuals is quickly rising through the rankings. As of this writing, there are five juniors in the world rated 2700+, and one of them, Alireza Firouzja, has already been rated 2800+ before. 

Anyway, how is a person rated X+200 different chesswise from someone rated X? It’s not easy to come up with such generalizations because each individual has his own strengths and weaknesses. 

For the sake of simplicity, let's evaluate only the three stages of the game - opening, middlegame, and endgame. One 2300-rated player could have a 2400 opening, 2300 middlegame, and 2200 endgame. The other 2300+ player could have a 2200 opening, 2400 middlegame, and 2300 endgame. Even in this example, the difference in opening knowledge for people of the same rating could easily be 200 points. And this is not an extreme case by any means. Some club players out there know openings at IM or even GM level while struggling at pretty much everything else! 

Still, for the lower-ranked players, the job of offering exact improvement tips is easier because the sample is larger and the qualification requirements are simpler. After all, there are books covering pretty much everything an Expert should know, but no step-by-step guides on how to become a top GM. An analogy is the system of education: there is your school, followed by college and even Ph.D. studies, but no guides on becoming a world-class scientist.  I recall GM Alexander Khalifman saying that any master-level player requires a personal approach in terms of coaching and eliminating weaknesses. For the lower level, it's all about building up a certain well-established base. 

From talking to people, I believe most chess players tend to overestimate the role of the opening. 1600s claim that pretty much all they need to become 2000 is to improve their opening repertoire. 2000s say the same about reaching FM level, 2300+. There are even some 2500-rated GMs who sincerely believe that the main thing that separates them from the elite is opening knowledge. However, the truth is that the stronger player is usually somewhat well-versed in a few key departments than the lower-rated opponent. The opening is important, but so is everything else. 

GM Alex Yermolinsky makes an interesting attempt to come up with such a generalization in his book “The Road to Chess Improvement”. Here is a quote:

a) 1800 vs 1600 blunders less frequently;

b) 2000 vs 1800 better understands his set of transitional positions from opening to the middlegame;

c) 2200 vs 2000 better feels the flow of the middlegame, uptrends and downtrends, critical points;

d) 2400 vs 2200 better performs in the transitional stage from the middlegame to the endgame and knows and plays the endgame better;

e) 2600 vs 2400 has much more knowledge of typical middlegame and endgame positions (as a result of the elaborate preparation of one's opening repertoire) and is more skillful in tactics and time management.

Do you agree with his conclusions? Do they support or contradict your personal experience?

Alireza was the 14th player in chess history to join the elite 2800+ club

Another popular question these days is what it takes to progress from being an aspiring 2600+ player, who makes a living by playing club league games and winning mid-tier open tournaments, to a 2800+, who is highly sought in any elite closed round robin. Here are a few observations I have made over the years by observing some of the best players in the world:

While some 2600s play so much they don't have enough time to work on their openings, 2800s do invest a huge amount of time in opening preparation.

2800s face more or less the same people year after year, so they spend less time on "general" preparation and more on targeting their main competitors' weaknesses. At this stage, creating a dossier about the player and his main opponents is essential, whereas it is less important for people who mainly play open events with mixed opposition.

2600s usually work on their own or with a friend. A 2800 can afford to have a second or even a team that helps him prepare.

Your average 2600 probably doesn't have any special devices and analyses on a regular PC. 2800s rent or own chess servers, allowing them to save time on analysis and develop better ideas.

2800s tend to be much more hard-working than 2600s. They generally invest more time into studying chess and can afford this since they don't have to compete as often to make a living.

2800s are fitter and lead a healthy lifestyle. For example, no member of the current top-10 smokes. Most top players pay attention to physical exercise, sleep, and proper nutrition. In contrast, there are quite a few 2600s out there who smoke, drink alcohol, don't do any sports, etc.

2800s are more disciplined and ambitious. The typical 2600 is more or less used to the grind, traveling from one open event to another and not hoping to change his life much. If anything, they are afraid of losing the level they have already attained. The people who hit 2800+ typically invest in themselves and set high goals. Most of them aim to become the World Champion.

Regardless of your current rating, I wish you the best of luck on your chess journey!

Interested in taking your game to the next level? Try out Magnus Trainer, an app designed by 5-times World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen and his star-studded team of experts!

Do you know what it takes to increase your chess rating by 200 points? 

How Do You Improve Your Chess Rating by 200 Points? 

Are You A Skilled Chess Sprinter?

Meet The Team Behind Magnus Chess Academy

Magnus Chess Academy Is Knocking On Your Door

What Is Your Chess Personality?

Have You Ever Played in Simultaneous Exhibitions?

Do You Have What It Takes To Admit Your Mistakes?

Carrot & Stick Motivation In Chess

What Does Your Chess Tell About Your Personality?

How Long Do World Chess Champions Live?

How Do You Improve Your Chess Rating by 200 Points?