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?

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? 

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? 

Summer is the season when many adults take a vacation and kids have holidays. For amateur and semi-pro chess fans, it is an excellent opportunity to compete in tournaments. Some of us go full throttle and try to squeeze in as many events as possible. Do you think it is a good idea?

As often happens in life, there are both pros and cons to such a decision. Let's start with the advantages:

·       You get a chance to gain form along the way. If you have to take a long break from chess, sometimes you need to recover the momentum by playing quite a lot. In the first event, you might lose rating points while winning some in the subsequent ones.

·       Earning a title. Many people, deliberately or by accident, gain a title by accumulating a huge amount of rating points within a rating period. For example, a 2200 player is sometimes capable of harvesting 100+ points in a month and becoming an FM. This scheme was even more efficient back when the FIDE ratings lists used to be published quarterly or bi-annually. Bottom line: if you are confident that you are in a good shape chesswise, you might want to play more games than usual. 

·       Reduced travel and time costs. When traveling from one event to another, you spend less and don't have to return to your home each time, which is convenient timewise. With COVID-19 restrictions, this argument became even more valid since sometimes you could no longer revisit a country after leaving it, so it made sense to sequence your events optimally. 

·       During one of the Dvorkovich Memorials, I had a conversation with a 2600-rated GM about our playing schedules. I confessed to him that I was already quite exhausted, so I decided not to play in Moscow Open in a few days. The GM replied that he was also reasonably tired but knew his mathematical expectation in terms of prize winnings per tournament, so he would go there no matter what. For people who make a living by playing chess events, especially those who receive conditions and appearance fees, showing up is a more or less guaranteed way to make some money. 

·       For non-chess pros, it is convenient to take a vacation and to play as many games as possible because otherwise, you won't hit the projected number of games per year. 

·       Playing chess non-stop for a long period of time is rather grueling for both your body and your mind. For example, the family couple GM Yuri Drozdowski and WGM Natalia Zdebskaja have been traveling from one event to another together for a long time before deciding to give up on this nervous and monotonous routine and pretty much quit competitive chess. Please note that they were relatively young and high-rated at the point of making this decision. 

·       The other side of the "earning a title" argument is that you can shed an enormous number of points if you are in bad form and compete in numerous events within one rating period. Even though nowadays the reports are processed reasonably quickly, and the ratings are updated monthly, it is still possible to suffer a major setback. 

·       Many professional players feel lonely when traveling from one event to another and have to keep up with not seeing their parents, children, and significant others for months. Quite a few chess families have fallen apart due to the partners not spending enough time with each other or because of infidelity, the likelihood of which is increased by the promiscuous lifestyle some chess players practice when playing open events. 

·       It is hard to keep up a good shape for an extended period of time. Hence, you are likely to have some bad results due to fatigue and loss of interest in the game at a certain point. 

I personally have never played more than two tournaments in a row because chess does consume a lot of my mental and physical energy. Even after one event, I usually feel rather drained already. 

In contrast, some superhumans out there have a burning passion for chess and incredible stamina. If anything, they have to restrict themselves to not playing competitive chess every day. For instance, one of the most promising juniors in the world, Hans Niemann, can apparently get away with playing four (!) tournaments a month and even earn quite a few rating points along the way! +38 points per month is a large gain for anybody, especially for a GM of his caliber who has a K of 10 instead of 20 that most players are accustomed to. 

It may be tempting to replicate the training routine of GM Hans Niemann, but not all of us have what it takes to study and play chess pretty much 24/7!

The conventional belief of old-school masters is that one needs to have enough time to reflect on the tournament's results, analyze the games, and study chess even further before taking on new game challenges. However, it is hard to give universal advice on how many tournaments one should play in a row or even per year in our mad, mad world. My suggestion would be to try different approaches and see which performs best for you and gives you the most satisfaction.

How is summer treating you so far? What about playing a chess tournament or maybe even a few? 

How Many Tournaments in a Row Should You Play?

Let’s say you have enough time on the clock while the opponent is down to a few minutes or even seconds. What are the best ways to take advantage of this situation?

Rule 1: don’t play for cheap traps. Typically, people are fully focused when they are low on time. Therefore, they are unlikely to miss a straightforward one or two-move trick unless it’s deeply hidden in a maze of alternative variations that also require calculation. 

Rule 2: avoid falling into the “flagging” mode. This sin is especially typical of people of the older generation who used to play without the Fischer increment. Remember that in modern chess, the games are usually played with a 30s/move increment, making it much harder to flag a person. The recommendation is to take your time and proceed as normal. After all, having more time is an advantage, and you should make use of it. 

Rule 3: give the opponent a choice. If possible, don’t force matters and avoid making obvious moves that are easy to anticipate. If the opponents have nothing prepared against your move and are forced to make a choice between different continuations, they are likely to go wrong, or a least burn a lot of precious time on finding the right path. 

Tip #4: if possible, keep the position complicated. Unless trades offer you a distinct advantage, keeping more pieces on the board is usually desired. Firstly, most captures can be made automatically, earning the person a 30s increment in classical chess and possibly helping reach the time control sooner. Secondly, with fewer pieces on the board, it is usually harder to blunder something. 

Tip #5: exploit the “knee-jerk” reactions. For example, in one of my games in the Chigorin Memorial against an experienced IM, I made a useful move h3 in his time trouble, basically inviting him to monkey my decision and to play h6. He went for it only to discover that this move turned out to be weakening in one of the lines that I was going to execute. By provoking him to fall for that stereotypical reply, I made the tactical operation even more beneficial for me. 

For the sake of accuracy, when I was analyzing the game with an engine after the end of the tournament, I discovered that there were better ways to convert my advantage, and my opponent could have defended better. Nevertheless, my decision proved smart in practical terms, allowing me to score a quick victory. 

Tip #6:  if your position is bad or lost, stir up complications. You have nothing to lose, while there is a chance that your opponent might not be able to calculate the variations correctly in time trouble. This recommendation is generally beneficial but even more so when your partner is in time trouble. 

Tip #7: in an objectively drawish position, you may try to repeat moves a couple of times to provoke your opponent into going all out to play for a win. This tip works exceptionally well in positions where playing for a win is the wrong strategy, and the opponent is tilted and higher-rated than yourself. Of course, this strategy may backfire if misused. Namely, opponents who are happy with a draw will be glad to repeat moves quickly, gaining some time thanks to increment and making you think about what to do next. Therefore, this method requires a lot of practical experience and having a read on the mindset of your opponent. 

In a recent online blitz game, I got this position as White. It is my move. How would you assess it?

Objectively speaking, it is a draw. Black can’t activate the king since I am threatening a rook check, promoting the a-pawn. Similarly, my king has to watch out for a breakthrough on the kingside by Black. I was very low on time, and the opponent started more or less shuffling the rook back and forth along the a-file. I played sanely for a while but then had a blackout that was caused by lack of time, desire to win and the fact that I believed my position was better at some point before. Losing objectivity and my mind, I went for 49.Kb5??, trying to run with the king to the a-pawn and promote it. How did Black punish me for this?

Black blitzed out 49…f4!, which is a natural breakthrough that takes some effort to miss. My king is too far to stop the black pawns, and I am nowhere in time to support my a-pawn. As a result, Black obtained a queen shortly and won comfortably. This was a painful loss and an instructive example from a psychological point of view. 

As you can see, my recommendations were more of a general type and didn’t mention any tricks you can pull off specifically in online blitz. These shenanigans probably deserve a separate article. Alternatively, you can find books on playing chess online, such as GM Hikaru Nakamura’s “Bullet Chess: One Minute to Mate”. Or, if you are interested in blitz tips from a legendary Soviet master and hustler, you may want to check out “Winning at Blitz: A Fun Guide to Blitz Chess” by Genrikh Chepukaitis. 

I wish you the best of luck in your games and hope that these tips will help you score some memorable victories and boost your rating!  

Download Magnus Trainer now and save 30% using the promo code CANDIDATES.

What are the best ways to capitalize on an opponent’s time trouble? Let’s review a few must-know techniques that will boost your chess performance in such cases!  

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

Fear is the greatest obstacle for most of us on our way to happiness. 

The statement is especially true for people who grew up in an environment where "making mistakes" and "failing" were unacceptable things worthy of reproach or even punishment. 

People who lack self-confidence are typically afraid that their behavior will be made fun of by their friends or relatives. 

Perfectionists are even harder on themselves. They have inner censors that prevent them from trying to do something in case there is a possibility of not meeting the surreal self-imposed expectations. This results in anxiety, procrastination, and, eventually, frustration. 

Have you ever caught yourself red-handed doing something of the following?

·       Skipping a tournament that you were planning to compete in due to feeling like you were not prepared well enough, even though your preparation was reasonably OK. 

·       Refusing to play someone rated above yourself because of fear of getting humiliated. 

·       Playing against the computer all the time since losing to a machine doesn't hurt your ego as much as getting defeated by other humans. 

·       Not registering at an online play zone and blitzing there casually without getting a rating or spamming unrated games to avoid potential rating losses. 

·       Happily beating a weaker opponent repeatedly to feel good about yourself. 

In fact, most people are too obsessed with themselves and concerned about what others might think. In reality, when it comes to chess, hardly anyone cares how we perform. All the "crime and punishment" stories exist purely in our heads. Even when top GMs have a terrible tournament, most fans forget about it in a few days. If we consider an average chess player, there are maybe only some family members and a few friends who are concerned…if at all. If one of them breaks a nail, they will probably be more pissed than if you lose 30 rating points in a single event! 

Anxiety and fear overcome not only ordinary people but even legendary champions. We can't get a peek inside the mind of Bobby Fischer and don't know for sure why he chose not to defend his title. A popular simplistic assumption is that he was afraid of the rising star Anatoly Karpov. Another theory I find more convincing is that he put too much pressure on himself and was worried about not playing chess as perfectly as a World Champion should. What we know for sure, however, is that the chess world had suffered a terrible blow when the Fischer vs. Karpov match in 1975 never materialized. 

Overcoming fear is a complicated, multi-faceted subject that can't be addressed in a single column. There are all sorts of techniques that help let go of your fears. For instance, recently, I have read and rated 8/10 a book by Jim Lawless titled "Taming Tigers: Do Things You Never Thought You Could". One of its key messages is simple yet efficient: you become stronger when you embrace your fear and do something that scares you every day. This process feels rewarding and boosts your self-esteem. 

On top of that general advice, let me suggest one of the tips that I find quite useful when dealing with chess fear. In case you don't have a personal Wikipedia page yet, think what you would like to read there. Even better, write a draft without submitting it (you are not supposed to write about yourself on Wiki!). This exercise helps you sort out your long-term goals and understand what is truly important for you in terms of achievements. After you have completed the challenge, go for it and make your dreams come true step by step! 

More specifically, when it comes to chess, decide what your title is going to be. Do you want to become a master? Or even Grandmaster? Dream big and back it up with adequate efforts! Everything in life has a price that you should be prepared to pay. 

Which peak rating are you aiming to achieve? Magnus Carlsen has stated recently that his next target is going to be 2900+ Elo in classical chess, which is an unprecedented height. 

What are going to be your most important tournament victories? For some people, it's essential to have a clear-cut goal in front of themselves. For instance, GM Davorin Kuljasevic mentioned on several occasions that his primary motivation as a kid was to win the junior World Chess Championship. Even though he couldn't accomplish his goal due to immense competition, he became a strong GM as a result of working hard to fulfill his dream. 

One of the benefits of choosing the Wiki page route is that such encyclopedias typically focus only on your major achievements. Unless it is some record, which is remarkable by itself, you are not likely to see there your worst defeats or last-place finishes in tournaments. Therefore, you have nothing to lose by striving to make that profile reality but a lot to gain. Doing something and not succeeding at once is no longer a problem. 

The only way to avoid mistakes is to do nothing, but this is a mistake by itself!

Do you have any chess fears? Let's talk about an efficient way of overcoming them. 

I often get questions from people who have just retired, downshifted, or reconsidered their priorities and now have more free time on their hands than before. They recall that they used to have this fantastic hobby and wonder what they should do to make a smooth comeback to chess.

In 2004, I basically quit chess only to return to the game after meeting WGM Natalia Pogonina in 2008. The 5-year gap between tournaments felt like ages. I was extremely rusty and kept falling into time trouble every game, blundering pieces left and right. The result was rather harsh: I lost 36 rating points in the first event after the comeback in March 2009.

To be honest, the outcome wasn’t astonishing. I didn’t prepare for the tournament in any way and later had to make adjustments on the go, eventually leading to much better results. 

After a second hiatus from 2015 to 2021, I decided to make yet another comeback. In fact, I am still in the transition process, so it’s reasonably easy for me to tell what the most relevant aspects are. 

Tip #1. Assess your resources. How much time per week and what budget can you allocate for chess? If you genuinely want to improve, you will probably have to invest in chess accessories, software, trips, coaching, and so on. 

Set a chess goal for yourself and evaluate whether you have everything you need to reach it. When in doubt, consult your chess pals or coach (see tip #4 for more details). If your goal is too far away and thus demotivating, break down the journey into small steps. For instance, if you aim for a title or a certain rating, you can keep track of every 100 points gained along the way and award yourself for every step made. 1500-1600-1700-1800-1900-2000 is a smoother path than 1500-2000, when you will be waking up each day and feeling stressed about your progress not being substantial enough. 

Tip #2. Now that you know your goal, develop a training schedule. It is preferable to consistently dedicate some time to chess every day, even if you can’t spare much. Having the right routines and religiously following them is crucial for becoming a strong player or generally succeeding in any field.  

Magnus Trainer is the perfect one-stop solution in this sense since the lessons and game levels there are fun, interactive, and reasonably short so that you can complete them in a single session. 

Tip #3. Don’t walk alone. Unless you are a fanatic whose intrinsic motivation to succeed at chess is otherworldly, you could use some support from your relatives and friends. It is helpful to inform your inner circle about your decision to pursue chess more seriously so that there are fewer potential misunderstandings. Adults have many commitments, so you must sacrifice something to free up the space for chess! Hopefully, watching TV series will go down the drain, not your family life. Just kidding. It’s up to you to decide, of course! 

Tip #4. Catch up. Since your information about the chess world has probably become outdated, it is recommendable to update yourself on the state of affairs by reconnecting with some training partners or your coach. They will tell you about the recent developments in theory, share links to the apps and software you should download, advise what books to read, where to play, etc. 

Tip #5. Chess + traveling = ❤️. Even though the expression “chess tourist” has a negative connotation due to the Kasparov vs. Akopian beef, for many adults, the combination of playing chess and visiting a country they have never been to is a way to kill two birds with one stone. You may want to check if there are interesting open tournaments in the countries on your wish list and plan accordingly. 

Tip #6. Tactics every day keeps the patzer away. It would be great to create a daily routine of solving exercises for 30-60 minutes. Sounds like too much work? Start with 15 minutes then! Anything is better than nothing. Experiment with timed/untimed modes. Find a healthy mix of tasks that require a powerful combinational vision and those that are tackled by rigorous calculations. Check out the solutions and realize what you did wrong and why. Tactics Frenzy is a fantastic tool for becoming a tactical wizard. It has all the functionality mentioned above and much more. 

Tip #7. Give your openings an overhaul. If you have more time at your disposal than previously, you may want to add new ambitious openings to your arsenal. Or conversely, if you don’t have that much time and your memory is no longer as good as it was in your youth, you may have to find a quick fix for this in the form of opening setups that can be played without excessive analysis and memorization. 

At this stage, unless you are a professional player, it isn’t recommendable to book up too much. Finding a brilliant novelty is nice, but after a long break, you can expect silly blunders to be a more critical factor that determines the outcome of your games. Overall, the opening series from Magnus Trainer should allow you to form a solid foundation upon which you can build up material as you play more and gain additional experience. 

Tip #8. Make sure you are fit and healthy before entering an event. The psychological and physical pressures at chess tournaments are immense. I have seen players get strokes over the board, and there have been cases of people dying during the game due to one medical condition or the other. Please consult a doctor beforehand, especially if you are in the danger zone age-wise and if you have any serious chronic diseases. 

Tip #9. Enjoy the process of playing the game. Don’t overdramatize things; avoid being too hard on yourself if your play doesn’t live up to your expectations! Your performances should improve eventually as long as you are passionate about the process and having fun.  🤗

Haven’t played chess seriously in a long time? Check out our guide and return like a king!   

Returning to Chess After a Long Break: A Checklist

There are way too many fantastic and even more horrible books out there to attempt to name them all. Instead, I would like to offer you a few recommendations on how to efficiently choose what chess books to purchase. 

Tip #1: critically assess the title. Epithets such as “lazy”, “quick”, “for dummies”, “easy” etc., usually imply that the reader will be treated with second-rate material, especially if we are talking about openings. One of the ideas behind such adjectives is to capitalize on the naïve get-rich-quick crowd who believe that one can become a GM in a month or so. Also, the words “winning”/”crushing”/”steamrolling” are typically a sign that the author is not fully sincere with you, especially if the featured opening is a relatively obscure one or presented from Black’s perspective. 

To prove the validity of the claim on the cover, the author will likely rig the analysis and try to portray the main variations favorably, as if the opening was actually “winning”. This can only be done by omitting the strongest replies of the opponent. 

Tip #2: see if the author’s personality strikes a chord with you. Impressive credentials are a bonus, although having a Ph.D. or a GM title doesn’t prevent some authors from releasing mediocre books. Ask yourself whether the author’s personality is interesting enough to you. Is the writer special in any way compared to others? 

Also, there is a limit on how many decent books an individual is capable of writing over his lifetime. To produce a work of art, you must be passionate about it and put your soul into your creation. And don’t forget polishing that takes a lot of time!

If the so-called “prolific writer” has over 100 titles to his pen, there is a high chance that you are dealing with a graphomaniac & easy buck pursuer. They tend to avoid editing their texts, offer faulty analysis, recycle their writings, plagiarize, and hire ghostwriters. 

Tip #3: check out the date of publication. When it comes to opening theory for reasonably advanced players, it makes sense to prioritize books that were published over the last two years. Chess theory evolves extremely fast nowadays. If the book is five years old or more, you should expect quite a few plans there to be outdated, the novelties – played out already if they were of any good, and some of the lines that used to be main ones get replaced by others. Of course, there are some great old books that dwell on general principles of the opening, but those are more of an exception. Moreover, well-written modern books will still be more relevant since they will be based on state-of-the-art theory instead of demonstrating lines that have faded into obscurity. 

Even when it comes to books about middlegames/endgames/tactics, it is still preferable to focus on recent material. The main reason for this is that chess engines have made a giant leap forward over the last few years. When I check out the analysis of, let’s say, the 2010s or even 2015, Stockfish laughs at quite a few suggestions that used to be the top choice of the engines back in the day. 

Naturally, some chess books, such as memoirs, are timeless classics. In such cases, it may be advantageous that they were written a while ago by people who personally knew the legendary players featured in the narrative. 

Tip #4: see how reputable the publisher is. It is useful to be aware of the reputation of the publishing houses in the industry. For example, in the case of New in Chess, Chess Evolution, Quality Chess, Chess Stars, and a few others, one can generally expect top-notch works. Meanwhile, there are also publishers that are…OK, let’s skip this part to avoid offending people and starting a holy war. 

Tip #5: don’t get dazzled or discouraged by the cover. It is well-known that the cover is one of the critical factors that influence the customer’s choice. Please keep in mind that the authors usually have no control over what the cover is going to look like. Don’t get carried away if you see a fantastic cover, and please don’t dismiss a book just because its exterior is terrible.

Tip #6: take reviews and prizes with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, there is too much subjectivity here. Some reviewers start hating on decent books for no particular reason. Others publish cheesy panegyrics for their friends’ or influential colleagues’ works. Even online rankings at sites such as Amazon can easily get manipulated: some authors ask their friends to rate their books “five stars” and leave positive reviews there. Similarly, some haters downvote the books of the competitors. I can see that it’s a pretty tempting path of least resistance to sort the titles by rating and choose something that is on top of the list. But going with the crowd is not necessarily the best way of discovering a jewel. 

The same warning goes for the “book of the year” chess awards: all I can say about them is that they guarantee that the book is not utter rubbish, but it is by no means an indicator that such a title is indeed the best one that has been released over the past year. Some, if not all, of these awards are run by small teams of people who specialize in giving out trophies to each other or their close friends. 

Tip #7: a quick overview. Briefly scan the contents page and read a few passages across the book. Do you like the author’s style? Do you find his musings original and worthy of attention? Is the analysis detailed enough to the extent that you need, too shallow, or too complicated? I have seen many people disappointed with books just because they were either too simple or way over their heads in terms of chess content. 

Best of luck in discovering the chess books of your dream! 📚❤️

Looking for cutting-edge chess education that would give you an edge over others? 

Check out Magnus Trainer, an edutainament app created under the guidance of World Champion Magnus Carlsen. Becoming a better player is rewarding and fun! 

One of the most popular questions asked by chess fans is, “What chess books should I read to become a better player?” Since lists get outdated quickly, let’s discuss the general principles of deciding whether a chess book will be helpful to you. 

Seven Tips to Help You Choose a Good Chess Book

Have You Ever Played in Simultaneous Exhibitions?

Do You Have What It Takes To Admit Your Mistakes?

Carrot & Stick Motivation In Chess

How Do You Improve Your Chess Rating by 200 Points?

Why Are We Not All Tactical Geniuses?

How Many Tournaments in a Row Should You Play?

Playing in Your Opponent's Time Trouble

The Fear of Failure and Your Wiki Page

Returning to Chess After a Long Break: A Checklist

Seven Tips to Help You Choose a Good Chess Book