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? 

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? 

To many of us, tactics seem to be the most accessible and entertaining component of chess to train. Myriads of players worldwide solve exercises regularly, yet few of us become truly powerful tacticians. Why is it so?

I have been asked this question on many occasions. Moreover, I have solved over 10,000 serious tactical problems in my life, yet over the last few years, I have hardly noticed any tangible improvement in my combinational vision. When it comes to my chess friends and colleagues, the situation is quite similar. They have more or less hit a plateu at some point. When I tried to approach experts and torture them for a reason why it's so hard to break the barrier, neither of them had an answer ready. In fact, there are far more open than solved issues for me in chess, and hardly anyone can help. The more you learn about chess or anything else, the more you realize how ignorant you are on this subject. 

In the book "Thinking Inside the Box", GM Jacob Aagaard mentions that while it is relatively easy to make a big jump if you smartly focus on developing your calculation abilities, the propensity for tactics seems to be more on the "either you have it, or you don't" side. From my experience, I tend to totally agree. I have always been reasonably gifted when it comes to spotting unusual tactical ideas and could give some low-tier GMs, especially those who lean towards positional play, a run for their money in this respect. Nevertheless, I am fully aware that I am nowhere near as sharp tactically as, let's say, Nepo or Firouzja. And even if I started drilling tactics all day long, I would never catch up with them since their talent is on a whole different level. 

Let's speak more concretely. My Lichess puzzle record rating is over 9000...sorry, 2800, and on Chess.com, I had 3200+ back when the scores seemed to be lower on average. When I looked at the top list, I was right between two GMs rated about 2650 FIDE. 

Back when Chess.com used to display the average rating of the people who tried their Puzzles tool, it used to be somewhere around 1100. The total number of attempts was a few hundred million back then. The average number of attempts was a meager 44. Clearly, most users weren't serious about their improvement or didn't enjoy the trainer, so they made a couple of tries and quit. Still, the participants' average rating was too low to stick with the hypothesis that people had hit their ceiling at a certain point.

Another idea of mine was that performance depends on several non-chess factors. For example, how fast you get tired. Whether you have the patience to diligently find that mate in 3 or not. And so on. Hence, in theory, one should make gradual progress by solving tactics daily and improving the non-chess aspects that somehow contribute to one's performance. 

For instance, I realized that I play blitz better when I am caffeinated. Also, after losing weight from 105 to about 80 kgs, I felt my endurance over the board increased. Still, such factors account only for slight boosts, while your chess skills play the leading role in the overall performance. 

My current working hypothesis is that successfully solving chess tactics requires some other forms of training. An analogy would be that if you want to bench-press a lot, you don't limit your training to merely bench-pressing daily. Similarly, one may have to resort to other supplementary exercises to improve one's tactics prowess. At first glance, this statement looks counterintuitive, but you never know.

Moreover, do you know what is even harder to train than tactics? The speed at which you solve tactics! Sometimes, puzzle ratings may be misleading since, in untimed mode, the results depend a lot on your persistence. Some club players can sit for half an hour or even more on one puzzle. As a result, they might obtain a rating close to the GM level, even though the GMs in question spend only 10 seconds or so per puzzle. However, when it comes to reaction speed, our brains seem to be wired differently. I have always been more of a strategy/RPG kind of gamer, enjoying the genres where high APM is not the deciding factor. Meanwhile, some of my classmates were into shooters or arcade games, which are about clicking fast and precisely. Even though I have practiced in Tactics Frenzy or Lichess Puzzle Storm/Racer, my skills of "fondling the mouse" (a brilliant expression by Vladimir Kramnik) or furiously tapping on my phone screen haven't improved much. Apparently, my chess software is running on a 36-year-old processor that doesn't seem to get more MHz as the years go by. And I am not proficient enough as a biohacker to give it a decent upgrade! As a result, when it comes to speed and solving simple puzzles, some relatively low-rated kids can leave me in the dust since I am nowhere as good as them in terms of premoving the solution moves.

Finally, you might wonder why the chess community keeps feeding you with all those mantras like "some tactics every day keeps the patzer away" if it is unclear whether such a strategy yields any long-term benefits? The answer is that it is known for a fact that if you don't work on his tactics, you will be degrading in this area. Meanwhile, if you practice it, you will likely experience rapid progress in the early stages and at least maintain the status quo after a long training period. The truth is that, as you can see from the abovementioned data, most people quit too early. That's why, from my experience, most people tend to overestimate at what rate they would improve if they started taking chess seriously. Since they have never practiced chess consistently for a few hours daily, they have all sorts of illusions of what will happen if they go all out. In fact, hard work is a must for any aspiring chess player, but it is by no means a guarantee of success. Sounds motivating, doesn't it? 😉

Don't miss your chance to learn tactics & other aspects of chess from Magnus Carlsen while he is still the World Champion!

Why do some people see tactics much better and faster than others? Can you close this gap? 

Relatively recently, I returned from Paracin Open in Serbia. The tournament was organized extremely well. The hosts were friendly, willing to answer any of your questions and make your experience as comfortable as possible in all respects. The playing hall was spacious, with good ventilation, a pleasant temperature, and large spaces between the boards.

Now let's talk about the COVID regulations, which were a mixed bag. 

On the one hand, I'm not too fond of all these rigorous testing procedures you must undertake to visit some countries. They add up to the overall tension of traveling. Similarly, I would rather not ever play chess wearing a mask, and it's not particularly enjoyable to stand in the queue for a test before the round. When you look at this issue from this perspective, it seems like it was a great decision not to have any COVID testing upon entering Serbia and at the tournament. 

On the other hand, I got slightly worried when I noticed that many of the participants were coughing, sneezing, or having running noses. And then you shake hands with them and sit for hours over the same board! Unsurprisingly, some participants didn't make it to the end of the event, even though I have no information on the causes for this. Still, with a few hundred representatives from almost 35 countries, there is a lot of infection risk involved. The Indian rising superstar Pragg was one of the few responsible people who wore a mask for every round, but most people didn't seem to care about their own or other participants' safety at all.

When the event ended, many players headed to Belgrade for sightseeing or to compete in the Gligoric Memorial. Once again, that was 72 people in a tight space, with hardly anyone wearing a mask. After enjoying the city and walking over 20 km in a day, I felt like my temperature was rising. "Maybe it's the heat," I told myself, even though I was pretty sure it was not the real reason. Then I flew to Cyprus and, upon arriving home, realized the following day that I was seriously sick. I had a strong fever, a headache, a cough, and many other symptoms you have probably experienced or read about. I took a COVID test, and it was positive. On the same day, I learned that Vladimir Kramnik could not attend a tournament due to testing positive for COVID. What a coincidence! I guess our self-isolations started at more or less the same time. 

It took me roughly ten days to recover, and I am not yet sure if there will be any aftermaths. Anyway, this accident got me thinking about how dangerous it is to travel to tournaments nowadays. 

Finally, seeing only a single stripe is one of the small joys of life!

Overall, COVID has had a tremendous effect on the chess world. Some traditional tournaments have been postponed, canceled for now, or ceased to exist altogether. More events, including those with cash prizes, have appeared online, including the elite $1.6 mln Meltwater Champions Chess Tour. A new "Queen's Gambit" generation has emerged that hasn't ever played competitive chess over the board. They refer to ratings from online sites as real ones since they are unaware of how those compare to FIDE ones. Previously, you would probably chuckle if someone told you an online rating after you asked, "What's your ELO?". Now it's becoming more of the norm, so all you have to do is to clarify which site you are talking about. 

On a separate note, ratings are all over the place now, so it's hard to come up with conversion formulas. For example, I know some people rated 2300+ FIDE who are 2300-ish Lichess. Then there are players with FIDE 2000 who have the same 2300+ online rating. And even some bright underrated kids rated 1600+ FIDE who are also 2300+ Lichess. 

In theory, I have been largely enthusiastic about hybrid tournaments. The idea behind the concept was that you could attend a local club and play official events online under the supervision of arbiters. This would have been extremely useful for people who can't afford the luxury to travel all over the world playing tournaments due to time, financial and other constraints. For instance, when I lived in Russia, there was a large chess club five minutes away from my house, and I would have been happy to play rated games almost daily. However, it is no surprise that, so far, this hybrid format hasn't blown up. I believe the main problem is that cheating is too much of an issue. There are always players who have friends among local arbiters, so it's impossible to guarantee that the playing conditions will be fair for all participants, especially with serious prizes or trophies at stake. Anyway, I strongly believe that the future lies in shorter time control (something like 45m or 1h per game and 30s/move) and the ability to play from a nearby club without flying a few thousand miles to get to the venue.

Actually, the latter point led to two entertaining conversations with experienced WGMs. Both told me that for them, one of the prevalent aspects of chess is to travel the world and socialize. I was like, "If you want to travel, why don't you just travel? Why bring chess into the equation, when we both know that you can see only so much when you are in a tournament since you are busy playing and can't focus on sightseeing?". Then they started talking that chess gives you opportunities and "excuses" to travel and such. In contrast, my point was that all I need is challenging enough competition, and then I would instead save time, energy, and money and not fly anywhere. Just let me play the game! Apparently, they didn't share this message, thinking I am some chess fanatic, which is probably true. 

Overall, if you are planning to travel to tournaments in the COVID age, you had better prepare for it. First of all, psychologically. Secondly, bring some medicines with you since you may not be able to get them fast at the venue. Thirdly, adopt safety practices that will minimize the risk of getting infected. Fourthly, make sure you have insurance that covers COVID. By the way, I brought my insurance papers with me but didn't use them since self-isolating and recovering at home doesn't cause many medical expenses. Still, there are always tough cases when you must get hospitalized, so you should be prepared for the worst. 

Anyway, I hope COVID doesn't affect your tournament schedule and spoil the process of enjoying our beloved royal game!  

Don't miss your chance to learn from Magnus Carlsen while he is still the World Champion!

Let's discuss playing in a large open event and catching COVID there. Are you prepared for such a situation? 

Chess fans all over the world are closely following the Candidates Tournament that is currently underway in Madrid, Spain. Apart from who is going to emerge the winner, the main plot is whether Magnus Carlsen will be defending his chess crown or not. 

That being said, former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik, who commentates on the event on the Levitov Chess channel on YouTube, was skeptical of the players’ chances in a WCC match against Magnus. He was shocked by the candidates’ endgame technique, rating it from “average” to “poor”, whereas Carlsen’s skills in that area he regards to be “fantastic”.  

By occasionally keeping an eye on the broadcast, I realized there is nothing new under the sun regarding the kibitzers’ reactions. Many of them tend to overdramatize the outcome of a single game or even its course. For instance, when Fabi and Nepo won in the first round, it produced plenty of speculations about a Carlsen vs. Caruana or a Carlsen vs. Nepomniachtchi rematch, as if that single game was a good predictor of the outcome of the whole tournament. 

Despite having a much longer history, the Candidate tournaments have been played out under the current “double round-robin, 8 players” since 2013. Let’s look at this issue from a historical perspective and see whether the results of the first round robin offer a good chance of predicting who the winner will be in the end. 

Magnus Carlsen and Vladimir Kramnik drew both of their games at the Candidates in 2013.

What are the most notable takeaways from the table?

·        In all five events, the eventual winner was at least co-leading the tournament after the first half. 

·        There was only one tie for first. In 2013, between two chess titans ­− Magnus Carlsen and Vladimir Kramnik. 

·        Former world #2 Levon Aronian has a remarkable record of sharing the lead thrice (!) after the first half of the Candidates and not getting a single shot at the ultimate chess title. 

·        To win the Candidates, one is typically expected to score 4.5-5 points in the first seven games. 

·        In four tournaments out of five, the winner scored 8.5/14. Fabiano Caruana is the only exception, earning a remarkable 9 points in 2018. 

Of course, it’s too early to make calls at this stage, but so far, Ian Nepomniachtchi (3.5 points out of 5) and Fabiano Caruana (3 points) have a fair chance to score 4.5-5 points out of seven. Also, there is a slim possibility that someone from the large pack of players at the 50% mark (Jan-Krzysztof Duda, Richard Rapport, Hikaru Nakamura) might pull off an impressive streak of wins and achieve the coveted result. 

Who do you think is the favorite to win the whole thing? And who are you rooting for? 

Whether you are aspiring to become a candidate master or a World Championship candidate, Magnus Trainer is the right fit for you. Brought to you by the World Champion Magnus Carlsen, it is a one-stop solution for anyone who loves chess and wants to become better at it. Use the code “CHESSDADS” for a limited-time Father’s Day special discount, 40% off the regular price! 

Let’s recap the previous Candidates tournaments and see if leading the event after the first half is a solid predictor of overall success!

Who Do You Think Will Win the Candidates Tournament?

There is no such thing as chess talent. Some people just have f…ed up brains, and this is it!

International Master Vyacheslav Osnos, the coach of Grandmaster Viktor Korchnoi

This column was inspired by my recent conversation with a mother of a 11-year old girl who is into chess and studies it with a personal coach. Just like many other parents out there, the lady wanted to know whether her daughter has enough talent for chess to keep going. Her question was simple as pie: “How do I know if she is gifted chesswise or not?”

You may be wondering the same about your kids or even yourself. Indeed, how can you tell that you or your children have what it takes to become strong chess players?

You improve in chess faster than people around you. Having a natural talent in a certain field essentially means that you grasp things easier there than most people. It is similar to studying in school or at university. Some of us have to read the same page a few times to understand what it is all about, while others take a glance and can work out the details themselves. In any chess club where kids train in a group, there will be students who make impressive progress and those who lag far behind.

There are a couple of crucial disclaimers that I should make here. First of all, a lot depends on the environment. One thing is to be able to outshine the kids in your typical suburban chess club, where most of your competitors won’t progress beyond 1600 FIDE before quitting. However, if you were to enroll in the Kasparov-Botvinnik chess school and be pitted against the likes of Vladimir Kramnik or Alexei Shirov, you may easily become demotivated and decide that your chess talent is so-so. Everything is relative. 

Can you imagine what it feels like to be coached by Garry Kasparov and Mikhail Botvinnik in a class featuring Vladimir Kramnik, Alexei Shirov, Vladimir Akopian, Sergei Tiviakov, Konstantin Sakaev, Konstantin Landa, and other top players?

Secondly, especially for kids, experience plays a critical role. Some parents become discouraged if they see that some other kids are ahead of their children. However, you must consider how long and under what circumstances the people have been training. For instance, your 7-year-old children may be making their first steps in chess, and the kid you are comparing them against may have been training with a couple of coaches and playing competitively since he was four. Now, regardless of how talented the kids are, the early bird may be currently miles ahead of your kids. However, it doesn’t mean that they can’t surpass him in the future. Of course, he has a better start, but nothing is assured. Quite a few prodigies reach their ceiling and get burned out at an early age, especially if their chess studies are mainly imposed by parents. This smoothly brings us to the second item, which is of utmost importance.

You genuinely love playing chess and studying the game. There are some kids who have an immense natural talent for chess, yet they are not interested in developing it. Basically, they do only the exercises the teacher gives them. Their scores might be close to perfect, but they are unwilling to take that extra step into the unknown. Of course, it is also essential to find the right approach to studying chess that fits you best. Some kids become demotivated to study chess just because they don’t like the coach, the format, or other class members. 

To become truly good at chess, you should be immersed in the game and willing to study on your own for hours and hours. It is a good sign if you or your children jump at the opportunity to squeeze in a few more puzzles, check out a Magnus Trainer lesson, or play a couple of blitz games when you have the time for it. Becoming a professional chess player requires the right combination of talent, hard work, and environment. And, as Garry Kasparov once put it, the ability to work hard is a talent by itself. Focus, focus, focus. 

Finally, if you love what you are doing, your time is not wasted anyway. Even if you don’t become a top pro, the chess journey will still be memorable and worth it. 

You are ambitious and have a fighting spirit. Let us start from afar and travel to Ancient Rome. According to a popular anecdote, one of the ways how Julius Caesar used to decide if the recruit would become a good legionnaire was to check how the latter reacted to danger or insults. If his face became red, it was a good sign, showing that he was prepared to fight. If he turned pale, it was perceived as an intention to run away, which is not recommended for someone who serves in the military forces. There is a similar thing in chess. People who don’t care about losses, for whom chess is “just a game”, hardly ever make it to the top. However, overdramatizing defeats is no good either. There are GMs who collapse after a tough loss: they can’t sleep; they have to resort to alcohol to soothe their mental wounds; their performance drops. In contrast, there are true warriors who become enraged after a loss and bounce back. Kasparov, back in his heydays, or Carlsen as of today, are such examples. They may lose a game, but they usually come back in style and prove that they are legendary champions. 

It is normal for kids, and not only kids, to cry after bitter losses. For instance, Bobby Fischer was doing this all the time when he was young. However, what is important is what happens next. If your son becomes dismayed and says he will never play chess again, this is a bad sign. Conversely, if his eyes shine furiously, and he says he will strike back and recover his rating, it is a sign that he may have a future as a chess player. 

The three points above are probably the most important ones. Also, they have the advantage that you don’t even have to be proficient in chess to “diagnose” yourself or your kids using this short list. Now let’s mention a few more specific, purely chess-related items. 

Magnus Carlsen is arguably the finest positional chess player of all time. 

Do you have a natural positional feel? Of course, every skill needs to be developed. Still, some kids seem to intuitively feel where the pieces belong on the board. While some of their peers make random moves or ardently chase an irrelevant pawn in the middle of nowhere, these future Capabancas, Karpovs, and Carlsens are busy fighting for the center, occupying key outposts, targeting weaknesses in the opponent’s camp, and so on. They might not even be aware of what exactly they are doing, yet here they are! As long as you invest enough time and effort, this skill alone should generally take you at least to master level.

Ian Nepomniachtchi is absolutely amazing when it comes to spotting chess tactics.

Are you a tactical wizard? This is a different breed of kids. They blurt out long sequences of moves, calculating them in the blink of an eye. They are very inventive and effortlessly come up with mind-blowing tactical strikes, original defensive resources, and cunning traps. Similar to what has been said about being a strategy expert, it is possible to become a master if you are gifted at tactics. 

Vasyl Ivanchuk is rumored to remember thousands of chess games.

How good is your chess memory? Whether we like it or not, chess is a game of patterns. Gifted players memorize them easily. Once they see a tactic, an opening setup, or a middlegame plan, they add the information to their memory banks and are able to use it in their own games. Also, modern chess is demanding in terms of the amount of computer-generated theory that you have to remember. Not being able to recall the one and only continuation at the critical moment of the game can lead to a quick and painful loss against a well-prepared opponent. Therefore, even though there are still some strong GMs who don’t remember their games and opening lines well enough, most chess pros have an admirable chess memory.

Naturally, similar to the previous items, this ability can be developed somewhat. With proper training, most people should be able to memorize a 15-move line or play one game blindfolded. However, you will probably need a much bigger talent to look at a dozen pages of analysis before the round and remember all the data or give a blindfold simul on ten boards or more. 

Fabiano Caruana takes physical training extremely seriously and is known as a great calculator who can endure chess marathons without losing focus.

What about your health? Competitive chess is a grueling sport that requires maintaining full focus for hours. Even though laymen who have never played a serious event themselves tend not to view chess as physically challenging, you surely know that you should be fit and exercise a lot to play chess at the top level. Chess is an inclusive game that is quite popular with special people, but it is still demanding if you plan to pursue this activity professionally. 

Overall, to become a Grandmaster, you must be multi-faceted. Especially if we are talking about super GM level, where you will likely require all the positive traits mentioned above. When comparing Carlsen to other top players, some of his colleagues noted that he is untouchable due to being extremely well-rounded. In most aspects of chess, his scores would be in the 80s or 90s on a scale of 100. There may be people out there who, let’s say, have 90 in a field where he has 85, but Carlsen will likely have 90 in an area where they have only 70. 

Don’t hesitate to see how talented you are at chess by taking on Magnus Carlsen, Judit Polgar, Wesley So, and other remarkable opponents in the Play Magnus app! 

How do you know whether you or your kids have the talent required to become a strong chess player?

What thoughts are running through your brain when you get paired against someone rated a few hundred points above yourself? Are you an “eternal student” type of person, meekly expecting to lose, but to get a free lesson in return? Or do you spend your evening before the round trying to find a drawish line for White which is supposed to help you earn a much-desired draw? If so, I believe you are hurting your chess future! 

A true champion does his best to win every game. If he loses, he takes the medicine and learns the lesson. Players of a weaker spirit think in a different fashion. They rely on ratings and titles and start making calculations: “this guy is a GM, so a draw would be nice”; “that dude is 2200, so I have to beat him for my IM norm”. In fact, this shortcoming is typical even of average GMs, while only the very top guys have this ambition to excel and to take risks. 

In 1988, Garry Kasparov was giving a simul to six promising US juniors. In one of the games, Daniel Edelman (2360) started repeating moves against his opponent with White, clearly hoping for a draw. Garry was disgusted and shocked by such behavior: "You have White; you have to play. That is my opinion, sorry. When I was young, I would never have missed a chance to play the World Champion." Kasparov offered Daniel a chance to continue the game, but in the end the conflict was settled, and a draw was agreed. Since I have never heard about Edelman, I decided to check out his chess bio. It turned out that the guy has “only” reached IM level and the rating peak of 2420 over the course of many years. Now that’s not what one expects when being a 2360-rated junior, right? However primadonnish Kasparov’s outrage has been, one can’t deny that he was right in the sense of discovering a glaring flaw in Daniel’s psychology. Judging by what we know about his further chess career, lack of fighting spirit probably wasn’t Edelman’s only problem in chess. 

Unfortunately, all the videos of this accident seem to have been removed from YouTube. You can see the footage in the "American Gambit" (1989) documentary. 

Some people think that if their opponent plays a beautiful game, it’s OK to lose. I don’t. You have to be merciless.

Great champions are well-known for dominating their contemporaries. When Kasparov was in his prime, quite a few other top GMs had this aura of hopelessness right from the start of the game when facing him. For most of them, even making a draw was considered a good result, and very few dared to dream about defeating Gazza. On a psychological level, this is not particularly surprising when you realize how devastating the scores of most super GMs were against the 13th World Champion. Here are some of Kasparov’s stats in classical chess against the world-class players of his era:

·       8 wins, 0 losses, 5 draws against Evgeny Bareev

·       15 wins, 0 losses, 14 draws against Alexei Shirov

·       9 wins, 0 losses, 8 draws against Boris Gelfand

·       7 wins, 0 losses, 2 draws against Judit Polgar

·       3 wins, 0 losses, 8 draws against Valery Salov

Similarly, people from Carlsen’s generation, +-5 years, seem to be utterly intimidated by him. This reminded me of a joke that a much older person, chess legend Vladimir Kramnik, made when he finished second in one of the tournaments, right behind Carlsen. He stated that he had essentially won the event since Carlsen was in a different league compared to others. And this revelation was coming from a man who whitewashed Kasparov in a WCC match! Unsurprisingly, a common belief these days is that Carlsen’s peers will probably not be able to wrestle the crown away from him unless he decides to walk away undefeated. In contrast, the young and upcoming chess prodigies don’t seem to idolize him as much as players of the older generations. Even though they are still considerably weaker that Magnus, you can see how passionate they are to show their best when facing him. No chickening out into a draw from most of them. 

I am trying to beat the guy sitting across from me and trying to choose the moves that are most unpleasant for him and his style.

One may point out that the experience of the top players who face each other repeatedly in closed event is very much different from what most of us deal with. This is partially so, but the point still stands true. Besides, even if you play at the club level, you typically have your own “bosses” around, such as nemeses who keep crushing you over and over again in friendly blitz, or people who win the championship of your city year after year, and so on. If you want to overcome them one day, you should believe in your ability to give them a run for their money when you meet over the board. 

I can’t count the times I have lagged seemingly hopelessly far behind, and nobody except myself thinks I can win. But I have pulled myself in from desperate [situations]. When you are behind there are two strategies – counter-attack or all men to the defenses. I’m good at finding the right balance between those.

Another related topic that comes to mind is the “every Russian schoolboy knows” advice to play solidly in an event where the caliber of opponents exceeds your out. Some old-school coaches believe that, especially when reaching GM or super GM level, you should first learn how to handle the pressure and to make draws, and only then aspire to beating the rating favorites. However, I believe this tip works best for people who are relatively faint-hearted and easily dismayed by losses. On a separate note, even some very top GMs have this “glass jaw” issue: if they suffer a painful defeat, they have trouble pulling themselves together. Also, this approach can be detrimental to the young talent’s development in the sense that they get used to 50% being a great result. Consequently, some of them grow up too cautious and not ambitious enough. And if the audience was applauding them for being able to hold their own against the chess elite at age 15, when they hit age 25 or 30, they still hug that coveted 50% mark, but the applauses are no longer there. In my opinion, people who want to unlock their potential fully shouldn’t be afraid to take risks or discouraged by losing streaks. If you can’t cope with a few losses in a row, you will probably not stick around for long in competitive chess anyway. 

So far, we have mostly been discussing the psychological aspect of this issue. However, even in purely chess terms, it is much more preferable to play for a win than for a draw, not to mention feeling doomed and marking time before an unavoidable loss. Stronger chess players don’t like being pushed around, challenged. They enjoy being feared and love seeing the opponent naively try to exchange as many pieces as possible, usually making one small concession after another along the way. Then, when the underdogs reach a drawish or worse endgame, the favorites capitalize on their experience and grind it out rather effortlessly. I have seen this a gazillion times in my tournament practice.

While learning from other people’s mistakes is what we should all strive for, most of us learn the lesson better when it is a firsthand experience. For me the moment of truth was a game against an experienced candidate master rated 2200+. I was a kid back then and felt intimidated by the opponent’s rating and patronizing look. The fight fizzled out into an endgame where I was slightly better due to having a bishop pair (two bishops and a few pawns vs. his bishop and knight with some pawns). I was so proud of myself that I offered him a draw. This is the worst thing you can do in such a situation! The veteran gave me a stern look and played on. I felt insulted and disappointed and collapsed quickly, pushing pawns on the side where I was weaker, allowing him to create a passed pawn and eventually promote it. From that moment on, I have been going for the throat of any opponent, including top GMs when I was Black. And, I have to tell you, they didn’t like that, since when the opponent goes all-out against you, you can’t expect an easy walk in the park like the one I described above. 

Self-confidence is very important. If you don’t think you can win, you will take cowardly decisions in the crucial moments, out of sheer respect for your opponent. You see the opportunity but also greater limitations than you should. I have always believed in what I do on the chessboard, even when I had no objective reason to. It is better to overestimate your prospects than underestimate them.

Bottom line: I suggest you put up a fight in every game. You will enjoy chess more this way, and opponents will be afraid of you, even if they are higher rated. However, of course, playing for a win doesn’t imply being reckless or pressing the position too much when it doesn’t allow it. Also, there are certain situations when a quick draw is useful, for instance, when you are ill. Still, the “play for a win in every game” rule applies to most situations in chess.

The Play Magnus app does have an “offer draw” feature. However, when you challenge Magnus Carlsen, Judit Polgar, Wesley So or other character there, I highly recommend that you do your best to knock them out! 

“Not winning a tournament is not an option for me unless it’s no longer theoretically possible – then of course winning becomes impossible. But up to that point, not winning is just not an option.” – Magnus Carlsen. 

If you are following the Oslo Esports Cup (don’t tell me you aren’t!), you have surely noticed that Magnus Carlsen has been struggling with some health issues throughout the event. He looks weary and is sometimes on the verge of falling asleep over the board, has a nasty cough and walks around shakily, trying to speak to the reporters as little as possible. 

Unfortunately, sicknesses are an unavoidable part of a tournament player’s routine. Let’s say you find out before or during an event that you are ill. How do you handle this dire situation? 

In a perfect world, you should seek medical help and then decide whether to continue or not. However, quite often the symptoms are not that scary, and you have no possibility to consult the right doctor in due time, so you have to take risks and make decisions on the spot.

We have had a long discussion on this topic in the 2000s with Natalia Pogonina. I was arguing in favor of withdrawing when you are sick. My points were that when you are ill, you might worsen your condition by playing on. Also, you tend to perform poorly, hurting your rating and not winning any prize. Overall, the whole process feels more like a torture than entertainment. Moreover, even when you are not ill, some players, for instance, participants of open events in the US, routinely drop out of the tournament if they start poorly. The reason for this is that the prize fund there typically has a pyramid shape, and only finishing in the top spots allows you to reap tangible rewards. Therefore, if you start with, let’s say, 2/4, you are out of contention and may as well save yourself some time by withdrawing from the event. 

Natalia, however, disagreed and pointed out that one should have a fighter’s spirit and be ready to play on even if things are not going your way. What she said was essentially “Winners never quit, quitters never win”, even though she doesn’t like such simplistic motivational quotes. As far as I remember, regardless of the issues she has been having, she only withdrew from one tournament in her life. And that was in the Russian Women’s Superfinal in 2009, when the doctors stated that playing on was an absolute no-no. 

I can see where she is coming from. Once you start nurturing your inner weaknesses, you will eventually fall apart psychologically and be giving up on tournaments not only when you are seriously ill, but when you feel tired, distracted, burned out, demotivated and so on. This is a slippery path that can lead to quitting competitive chess in general. 

Also, she has this attitude of a player who regularly competes at the most prestigious individual and team women’s tournaments and/or gets appearance fees. The responsibility in such events is on a different level compared to someone who plays local open events just to have fun. Of course, one does not simply bow out of a World Championship or Chess Olympiad after catching a cold. 

Overall, I believe there is some truth to both her and my arguments. A lot depends on whether you are an amateur, semi-pro or pro player. For most of us, our wellbeing should arguably be of a much higher priority than tournament standings or FIDE ratings. For pros who live by the “chess is my life” motto, the conclusion could be different. 

In 1961, Mikhail Tal was scheduled to play a rematch against Mikhail Botvinnik. The conventional narrative is that in the 1960 match Botvinnik didn’t take his opponent seriously enough and lost the title, 8.5-12.5. Then the Patriarch of Soviet Chess did his homework, revamped his openings, and came back in style, convincingly defeating the Magician from Riga, 13-8. This story has another plot as well. Mikhail Tal generally had fragile health and therefore died young. Before the rematch, he was having serious issues with his kidneys and asked for a postponement. Mikhail Botvinnik, a formalist and someone who argued that one should never do your opponents any favors, demanded that Tal undergo an extensive examination in Moscow. Indirectly, he was hinting that the illness was a cover-up. Tal was insulted and, according to his coach, Alexander Koblentc, blurted out, “Even if I am half-alive, I will still beat the old fart!” As a result, aged 24, Misha Tal became the youngest Ex-World Chess Champion and never got another shot at the title. 

Bobby Fischer visiting Mikhail Tal in a hospital in 1962

I have known some selfish chess players who made such decisions based only on their personal wellbeing and even joked about "evening the odds" by infecting the opponents. However, if you believe the illness you have may be contagious, there is an important aspect of caring about other participants. 

At the FIDE World Cup 2021, Levon Aronian, who was the #3 seed, forfeited both games in the second round of the event for health-related reasons. As far as I know, his decision was based not only on his personal problems, but also on the unwillingness to put other participants of the tournament at risk. 

Let’s say you have weighed all the pros and cons and made a responsible decision to keep playing on. 

Interviews with Vladimir Kramnik have been eye-opening for me when it comes to dealing with illnesses as a chess player. His tips are especially useful for people like me, perfectionists and control freaks, who try too hard to perform well.

According to Kramnik, in general, no matter how well you prepare for an important event, there are no guarantees that everything will go smoothly. There is always some magic involved. Sometimes you do everything “right”, and the result is terrible. In other cases, you are facing one obstacle after another, but the outcome is favorable. 

Kramnik has been known for playing tournaments with an extreme fever, sleep-deprived, experiencing pains in his body and so on. According to him, especially as you become older, you are getting used to the new norm of not feeling totally OK on pretty much any day. If you embrace it and treat it as an exciting challenge that is part of every person’s life, it is much easier to deal with the issues. Moreover, it is a good way to shake off the stress and tension that haunts some people who are obsessed with their tournament performances. In other words, if you let go of the burden of performing at your best and focus on (literally) surviving the day, sometimes your results even improve! In fact, Kramnik has won some tournaments feeling extremely poorly, and his opponents were not even aware of this! 

Some friendly trolling from the 14th World Chess Champion

If you are experiencing health issues, think how to make life easier for yourself.

In 1985 in Tilburg, Tony Miles was going through severe back pains. To soothe them somehow, he took painkillers and played while lying flat on a massage table. One of his opponents, Roman Dzindzhichashvili, said that in return he will stand throughout the entire game! He also smoked over the board, which was not forbidden back then. It is hard to say whether Miles’ decision was justified or not. As far as I know, his doctor lamented that lying on his belly with such a condition was the worst thing he could have done. Still, from a chess perspective, it was a lifehack that allowed him to play on in the tournament. Notably, Miles shared the first place there with Robert Huebner and Viktor Korchnoi, scoring 8.5 points out of 14. 

When you are feeling sick, it makes sense to fall back upon your solid, bulletproof opening repertoire that you know from a to z. That is, if you have it, of course! In contrast, experimenting with openings and trying out new sharp lines that you haven’t mastered yet can lead to a disaster. When you are sick, you need to minimize the amount of calculation required, because blunders are much more likely to come as compared to when you are your normal self. 

You would normally not expect Magnus Carlsen to make such blunders. However, when you are sick, everything is possible! 

If you are one of those people who spend hours rehearsing their opening lines before the round, it may be a way of shooting yourself in the foot when you are ill. If your head is dizzy, you are unlikely to memorize the lines well, and getting yourself tired before the match even starts can become your undoing. However, if you play your trusted openings (see the previous item), you are less likely to need a lot of time for rehearsing. 

This tip is particularly useful when you are struggling with a short-term issue that lasts only a couple of days, such as a cold. When you face a friend or someone lower-rated than yourself, there is an option of trying to make/offer a quick draw to save some precious energy and buy yourself some time for recovery. Of course, you had better not show weakness by desperately begging for a draw after the first few moves. Otherwise, the opponent might figure out that something spooky is going on and turn down your offer.

Back in the XXth century, so-called “Grandmaster draws” were quite popular. In long round robins, players would make early draws with opponents whom they knew well and respected and focus on beating the underdogs. Bobby Fischer was particularly mad about this practice since the Soviet GMs would regularly draw each other, saving energy, and target the rest of the field. 

I recall sitting next to a guy who had the habit of showing up at tournaments drunk. This time, he was so under the weather that he could barely move the pieces. He started out with 1.d4, made a couple more moves and, shaking his head and scratching his long beard, squinted through his glasses and muttered: “The position is so CLOSED. I guess it is a draw!” The opponent knew him quite well, had a lower rating and was Black, so he agreed. The arbiter, who was observing this spectacle all along, finally intervened and lectured the first guy, warning that he will be excluded from the tournament if this happens again. As a result, I have added another catchphrase to my arsenal about the position being “closed” and hence drawn. Of course, you should use it for comic relief when the situation on the board is as far from this description as can be. 

That being said, I wish you to stay healthy and be able to play your best chess!

Let’s return to the Oslo Esports Cup. So far, Magnus 10 has proved out to be a formidable opponent for some of the best chess players in the world. Can you do better than them? Download the Play Magnus app and give the challenge a try! 

Let’s say you start feeling ill during a chess event. Do you play on or withdraw from the tournament?

Many of us enjoy reading books or listening to lectures & motivational speeches given by eminent individuals who have attained international recognition in their fields of expertise. This process of fishing for the right "secrets of success" is an inherent part of human nature. Chess players are no exception to this rule.

My soft spot in this regard is not unique: I like to pay special attention to interesting anecdotes and facts from the life of the top chess players and subconsciously make comparisons between myself and them. This might not be a bad idea if you want to become a chess journalist or occasionally win a trivia by answering correctly who came first in Zurich 1953 and other tricky chess questions. However, I have met a few chess experts who played chess very poorly, while many modern GMs sometimes amaze me with their illiteracy in chess history. Playing and studying the games is usually more productive for someone who wants to improve than reading amusing stories about how one master called a fellow guy a moron.  

Notably, GM Simen Agdestein mentions in his book "Wonderboy Magnus Carlsen" that as a kid, Magnus was much more interested in the games of the world champions than in the opportunity to have a conversation with them. Maybe it was due to his age at that time and to his introverted personality, yet it is still another sign that paying more attention to the players' games is a good idea if you are concerned about improving your chess.  

Moreover, one must keep in mind that all of us are unique. The circumstances are different, and it takes quite some effort to determine which rules of thumb from the past to follow and which to disregard. For instance, let's consider Ian Nepomniachtchi's recent interview and see what he has to say about losing the World Chess Championship match to Magnus Carlsen in a rather dramatic fashion (7.5-3.5). 

Mike: Yeah, we've already asked about that at the post-game press conference, the actual chess. Getting back to your team, you obviously had [GM] Sergey Karjakin on your team; please correct me if I'm wrong if you had [GM] Peter Leko on your team, but both of those players have played for world championships, and I'm sure they tried to describe to you what it was going to be like to be in the tank. Not chess moves, but just that experience. Was there preparation for what it was like to play in the tank? Was it what you expected, or was it somehow different?

Ian: Well, I would say that Sergey joined somewhat last minute, so basically for the last month and it was mainly about some training, which probably, as it seems right now, were too intense and maybe not too well-timed because normally you'd probably have some break so you can play some blitz or bullet online. But if you try to play some serious or semi-serious games, not like blitz, just for training purposes, there's also a limit. You shouldn't be swallowed into this whole topic.

Indeed, it was quite instructive to speak with Peter and speak with Sergey about their world championship match experiences, but I understood after the match had started, that every match is unique. You can even imagine yourself in someone's shoes but at the same time the opponent can be different, and even if it's the same person, that person can play completely different chess with a completely different attitude.

Some general advice is not to pay too much attention to what people say, don't get too busy with some social media, and so on, but these are just general words. I asked a few questions, I asked [GM] Vladimir Kramnik [for] his thoughts. Sadly, we couldn't work together this time, but maybe sometime in the future. Of course, a lot of guys gave me a lot of advice, some of them had world championship match experience, some of them not. Perhaps today I would say that maybe it was a little bit too much, you know, trying to do your thing correctly according to all of this information you get because once again, every tournament is more or less unique and especially every match is unique and you have to prepare for your own situation. It was a bit of an unfortunate decision to try to build your preparation onto the experience of other people...

As you can see, Ian did his homework by talking to some people who have had experience playing World Chess Championship matches, hoping to discover some secrets that would help him perform better against Carlsen. However, according to Nepo, the decision to follow into the footsteps of others was not particularly beneficial for him. The "every match is unique" reminds me of a recent monologue by Vladimir Kramnik that he gave on the Levitov Chess YouTube channel. He lamented that, despite being experienced already, everything that could go wrong went wrong for him during the match against Anand in 2008, while in his very first match against Garry Kasparov in 2000 everything proceeded smoothly. In other words, if our own experience sometimes doesn't prove to be useful, then how can we expect someone else's experience to carry us through?

The one and only official chess game between Magnus Carlsen and Sergey Shipov took place in 2006. 

For objectivity's sake, I don't want to create an impression that you should totally disregard the collective chess wisdom. For comparison, here is what GM Sergey Shipov, a well-known chess commentator and ex-coach of Ian Nepomniachtchi & Carlsen's second Daniil Dubov, posted in the Crestbook VK group:

Yesterday during the press conference, Ian pointed out that he might have over-trained before the match when commenting on the possible reasons for his loss.

Well, it happens. Grandpa [Mikhail] Botvinnik was not wrong on everything 😊

For instance, he recommended not to touch the chessboard for two weeks before an important tournament to which you are preparing in advance. Sleep, food, walks, physical workouts, and as little chess as possible! As a result, you preserve your passion for chess and are able to play with pleasure and at full force. Also, this way, it is easier to maintain focus and not blunder like Ian did. 

I believe that in our days the two weeks distance is excessive. One may as well shorten the chess "quarantine" to one week. And to throw some simple chess tactics into the mix – both for entertainment and for feeling better. 

Magnus seems to follow this routine, adding light-spirited blitz matches against relatively weak opponents to it. Sometimes he whitewashes an opponent and sleeps well afterward! 😉 Well, for all the future rivals of the World Chess Champion, the failure of the Challenger is going to become an instructive case study. Maybe for Ian himself as well…

Here we can see Shipov fall back on a classical tip dating back to the days of the hegemony of Soviet chess and adapt it slightly to meet the challenges of the modern age.  

Frankly speaking, I was shocked when I heard how many training games Nepo and Karjakin have played right before the match. Even before I discovered that, I looked at Nepo during the opening ceremony and told my friends that he conveys an impression of an exhausted person who has already played a match or two. My prediction was that his relatively poor physical form would haunt him in the second half of the match, as it often happens to Nepo, and will result in a loss in 14 games or sooner. 

It turns out I was spot on; Nepo did conduct two rigorous sparring matches against Karjakin and eventually lost the match against Carlsen. Admittedly, having said what I said earlier, I didn't expect it to go THAT badly for him! As an outsider, one can only wonder why a Challenger would commit 
 "every Russian schoolboy knows" mistakes and later comment on them as if he has learned something new for himself. Still, it is probably not that straightforward if Ian and his experienced team of GM coaches chose the path that they did.

Summarizing, for mere mortals resorting to analogies and walking in the footsteps of others is a useful strategy. Still, it must be applied with caution and tweaked depending on the circumstances. When talking about breakthrough moments, you often have to be an innovator to excel; simply following well-known recipes won't cut it. I guess this is one of the explanations why Ian failed: he tried to take on the role of a trendsetter but collapsed under the superhuman pressure of the match in general and Magnus "the alien" Carlsen in particular. 

Wondering how tough it was for Nepo to face Magnus over the board? Download Play Magnus and get a feel of how unforgiving the reigning World Chess Champion is!

Is reading the biographies of top chess players a must-do for a chess improver or an entertaining way to waste your time?

Is Reading the Biographies of Top Players a Waste of Time?

What Is Your Chess Personality?

How Long Do World Chess Champions Live?

Why Are We Not All Tactical Geniuses?

Playing Chess in the COVID Era

Who Do You Think Will Win the Candidates Tournament?

How Big is Your Chess Talent?

Play for a Win in Every Game

Should You Play Chess When You are Ill?

Is Reading the Biographies of Top Players a Waste of Time?