Magnus Carlsen has had a remarkably active schedule these days, though not all filled with his usual training regimen and chess tournament play. 

From playing in the World Series of Poker to creating his own Chessable course, and a host of other activities, the soon-to-be former World Champion never ceases to be interesting. 

So what exactly has Magnus been up to lately, now that he’s decided not to defend his World Chess Championship title? Here’s a breakdown of the “Summer of Magnus”:

That’s right, Carlsen went ‘all-in’ for the big one: The World Series of Poker Main Event. And while he’s been showing his poker face in other events around Europe, throwing $10,000 to play in the No Limit Hold’em super tournament in Las Vegas is certainly next level. 

Unfortunately for the aspiring rounder, he didn’t make it very far this time - but according to Magnus himself, he’s satisfied with his performance, making it several rounds into the tournament on the first day. And he even got to play in a high-stakes celebrity cash game while in town. 

Now you can even hear about his interesting trip to Vegas in detail - that’s because he tells the tale on the first episode of his new podcast, The Magnus Effect. Hosted together with his friend Magnus Barstad, the Magnuses recount their adventures (or misadventures?) in Sin City after the WSOP, including run-ins with NBA pros, odd passers-by in the street, and an irritating but humorous experience with hotel staff.

He also goes into some detail about his decision not to defend his World Chess Championship title - in fact, it’s the very episode in which Carlsen announced the momentous decision. 

But as he made clear on the podcast, Carlsen is not quitting chess by any means. In fact, he’s been active in chess on and off the board amidst his busy schedule. 

Spending some time in Barcelona to check out the Candidates Tournament before his trip to Vegas, it’s clear his passion for chess still continues as he strives towards his 2900 rating goal. So close but yet so far - though he’s certainly giving it a go by representing Norway on Board 1 in the 44th FIDE Olympiad in Chennai. And don’t forget online events in his Champions Chess Tour, such as the FTX Crypto Cup. 

If there’s one thing we can say about Carlsen’s chess style, it’s that he’s never afraid to grind out a win in a long, drawish-looking game. In fact, he seems to relish it - look no further to Game 6 of the last World Championship for proof.

Luckily for us fans aspiring to play like the World Champion, we can now learn the secrets of Carlsen's legendary endgame technique in his new Chessable course: Grind Like a Grandmaster. 

Set to officially launch on Monday, August 8, Chessable PRO users can get a free sneak peek into the course with a sample lesson. 

Magnus and his co-author, GM David Howell, go into remarkable detail with annotated games, exercises, and in-depth video walkthroughs of the tactics, strategy, and psychology involved in grinding wins when it looks like nothing can come out of a position. 

Get a free Chessable PRO membership for 30 days and try out the course here. 

Magnus Chess Academy — An Upcoming One-Stop Chess App

Have you ever heard of the Magnus Chess Academy? We thought not.  It will be a brand new app, comprising the best of all the previous Play Magnus apps and offering more exciting features. Sign up to be the first to find out when it will be released! 

Now that the World Champion’s schedule is about to free up much more, what will be next? Hard to say, but if we can say anything, it’s this: he’ll never bore us! 

Climbing towards the 2900 rating, unveiling more stories on his podcast, and continuing to trot the globe...in some ways, it seems like the legend of Magnus Carlsen is just beginning to unfold. 

It’s amazing what you can get done when you don’t have the stress of a World Chess Championship on your mind. 

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? 

On International Chess Day, Magnus Carlsen left everyone dumbfounded by announcing that he would not be defending his World Champion title. This historical decision will tremendously impact his life and the chess world in general. Let's breathe out and discuss some possible scenarios that could await us. 

As a chess fan and admirer of Magnus Carlsen's games, this is the scenario I would love to see most. There is a certain chance that getting rid of the burden of having to defend the title will positively affect Carlsen's play. He will no longer have to function in siege mode, preparing for one challenger after another. Then he could qualify for one of the next Candidate events by rating. Get sucked in and, knowing his competitive spirit, aim to win the tournament. Then maybe Carlsen will be willing to fight for the chess crown again, especially if the format changes. This would be a highly unconventional path that should help Carlsen become the GOAT in the eyes of most of his contemporaries. And, more importantly, in his book.  

Please show me the chess GOAT in this picture! 🐐

Talking about the GOAT status, most experts were expecting Magnus to play it safe. He would probably beat Nepo again. Then in a couple of years, maybe defend the title again versus a peer or one of the relatively inexperienced young guns. This would amount to a record seven titles. By that time, he would have been on top of the rankings for like 15 years. Coupled with other spectacular achievements, this should have been more than enough to shush all the critics and catapult Carlsen to the #1 spot on the all-time rankings of chess legends. Well, I guess the pundits were wrong! Magnus has his own ways, and that's one of the qualities that makes him such a dominant champion. 

From what I have noticed, most people tend to underestimate how tough it is to keep winning matches one after another. 

For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that Carlsen has an 80% chance of beating the challenger in a match. That is 4 to 1 odds, which most of us would find insanely good. However, under such circumstances, the probability of winning two matches straight is already 64%. Three matches – 51.2%, which is essentially a coin toss. Four matches – 40.96%. Still not bad, but more likely not to happen than to occur. Five matches – 32.768%, less than one-third. This is where Carlsen is currently at. To break Lasker's record, Carlsen needs seven titles, so let's keep crunching numbers. Six matches – 26.2144%, down to almost one out of four. Seven matches – 20.97152%. As you can see, even if you are a huge favorite in each individual match, the odds keep decreasing rapidly if you have to go through a chain of trials. 

I spend hours playing chess because I find it so much fun. The day it stops being fun is the day I give up.

This option is the evil twin of the scenario described above. Switching to playing chess less professionally could have a negative impact on Carlsen's motivation and focus. Without clear goals in sight, other "distractions" could take over his life – poker, fantasy football, bullet, alcohol, dating – who knows what! Also, part of the reason why most opponents are intimidated by Carlsen is his dominance as a World Champion. Will they give him the same level of respect over the board once he concedes the title?

 Also, there is an inevitable change of guard happening. Carlsen was successful in crushing the older generation (Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, etc.). For them, it was natural that he was the guy to replace them at the top. Now, he was also able to beat into submission his peers and GMs aged 25 or so. Most of them seem to have become complacent and more interested in retaining/securing a top-10 spot or recording a best-selling Chessable course than realistically shooting for the #1 spot. The young guns, however, have a different mindset. It is not even personal. For them, it is just a rule of life that to climb to the top, they will have to overcome everyone already there. And as history tells us, this is what will happen eventually. In other words, they don't have this piety towards Magnus and will probably have even less fear of him once he loses the crown. 

While we are at it, I don't believe that the "go for 2900" goal is effective enough. First of all, it is not process-oriented. Secondly, it seems shallow and lacks a purpose behind it. Whenever chess players bring up rating goals, they usually have something very specific in mind. "I need 2800 to qualify for the Candidates tournament". "I have to become 2750+ to get invitations and make a living as a pro player". "Getting to 2650 should be good enough to represent my country along with my friends". "If I hit 2500, I will become a Grandmaster and will be able to make an efficient transition to coaching and writing books". What will change in the world or in Magnus's life if Carlsen pulls off an inhuman feat of chess strength and reaches 2900? We will probably see some articles in mainstream media. I will check out his PM bio section and change 2882 to 2900. And that's about it. 2900 is just a random number! 

Anyway, I fully understand that Carlsen has won pretty much everything there is to win in chess, apart from the Chess Olympiad gold and the World Cup. Hence, it is painstakingly difficult for him to come up with new competitive goals for himself. 

There were some speculations that Magnus would try to postpone his decision and wait until the FIDE elections in August were over. If the Baryshpolets/Nielsen ticket wins, Carlsen should be able to tweak the World Chess Championship format whatever way he likes. 

However, it looks as if Carlsen has made up his mind and is unlikely to reconsider his decision in the nearest future, regardless of who becomes the next FIDE President. Also, there are a few other "ifs" in this narrative, which makes the outcome rather unlikely.

Let's combine this scenario with the one where Magnus reconsiders his decision due to financial concerns. For people who don't care too much about the game itself, it is inconceivable how Carlsen could let go of a more or less "guaranteed" paycheck of another €1.2 mln or so. Well, first of all, WCC matches require a few months of preparation and a large team. If you factor in the expenses, you may as well be left with peanuts. Secondly, if you are someone who doesn't care too much about money and you have reached financial independence, you would probably not do something you don't enjoy just because it allows you to deposit some more cash into your bank account. You have no actual use for that money anyway!

It's nice to be financially secure. Apart from that, I don't really care too much about money. 

Generals are always prepared to fight the last war. It is tempting to think by analogy, recalling the period when Garry Kasparov was no longer the official FIDE World Champion, yet most people perceived him as the best player in the world. 

Compared to Garry Kasparov in 1993, Magnus Carlsen has arguably more resources for an efficient split from FIDE. There are plenty of voices out there chanting that FIDE needs Carlsen more than he needs FIDE. Suppose the general public keeps seeing Magnus as the clear #1 in the world. In that case, there is a possibility that Magnus will, officially or unofficially, compete against other challengers, putting his reputation on the line. 

I find this scenario rather unlikely because smart people tend to learn from the mistakes of others. Carlsen's former mentor, Garry Kasparov, was rather vocal in criticizing himself for the decision to split from FIDE, which resulted in a period of mayhem. Even nowadays, some people still ask whether there are different federations in chess, similar to boxing, and which title exactly Magnus owns. 

Summarizing, I believe there is a chance that Magnus will play some unofficial commercial matches against the players he finds worthy challengers. Still, I doubt that he will go as far as Fischer in 1992 and try to portray those as World Championship matches. 

What if the aliens that reportedly abducted former FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov challenge the Earth to a chess game, Mortal Kombat-style? Magnus Carlsen will probably lead the team of our realm's champions, and we will have to keep our fingers crossed that this will be enough for our planet to win the contest! 

Under such circumstances, people will stop caring about the puny title of the World Champion. Instead, Carlsen could potentially become the best chess player in the Galaxy! 

How will Magnus Carlsen's decision to concede the World Chess Champion title affect his life and our world in general? 

What Does the Future Hold for Magnus Carlsen?

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?

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

One IM friend of mine, rated about 2400, told me fondly a few times a story how he first “held his own” against a 2650-rated GM, then got an “almost winning position” only to lose it in the end. The implied meaning of his glorious tale is that his true strength should be close to 2650. Typically, such a psychological mistake is typical of club players. You hear similar complaints all the time: “I have totally outplayed him, but…”. There is always this “but”! So, what’s wrong with this attitude? And why do we see so many rollercoaster games between Davids and Goliaths?

First of all, a lot depends on the strength of the opponents. For example, in a 1700 vs. 2000 match-up, both players are relatively weak by chess engines’ standards, so the computer is likely to find many mistakes for both sides. The one who makes the last blunder loses. 

In a nutshell, humans are terrible at chess by computer standards. If you revisit the books written in the pre-engine era, you will realize that many games there have this narrative of one player consistently outplaying the other, flawlessly executing his master plan. However, if you check the masterpiece with a modern engine, you will often realize that the opponent had chances to escape or even turn the tables with a brilliant tactical strike unacknowledged by the players and the commentators. 

Secondly, the stronger players often underestimate their opponents, which results in such undesired scenarios as playing superficially and waiting for the game to win itself; attacking too vigorously and recklessly in a position that doesn’t allow it because “it’s time to show the patzer who the boss is”. 

One experienced GM coach told me that the best way to play against candidate masters and below is to put your pieces on nice central squares, after which either the opponent’s position will fall apart by itself, or he will self-destruct. This recommendation is useful to some extent. You can often see experienced GMs not trying too hard against their amateur opponents. They quickly play the moves that are supposed to be “good enough”, and the amateur becomes excited, starts sweating, gets into time trouble, and blunders something silly. However, sometimes the rating favorites play too sloppily and get punished. There is a thin line between playing practically and quickly and making second-rate moves because you believe you can get away with them. 

Thirdly, the rating difference makes the favorites take more risks to avoid drawing the game; many of them overpress and end up losing.

Fourthly, there are fluctuations in form, especially among non-professional players. On a given day, a 2200 might play at a 2400 level, while his 2400-rated opponent might perform at 2200 level, basically reversing the roles in the match-up. 

Fifthly, nowadays, when you see the pairings, it is often not even exactly clear who the favorite is. I have briefly touched upon this topic in the post about rating inflation in chess. 

The ratings of some players haven’t scaled up yet due to them not having played an adequate number of rated games. For example, 16-year-old GM Rameshbabu Praggnanadhaa, one of the most talented chess prodigies in the world right now and the finalist of the recent Chessable Masters event, has an official FIDE rapid rating of…what do you think it is?

2700? 2500? What if I tell you the answer is 1927? 

Oh, how I pity the chess players who will face him in official rapid tournaments!

What is harder: to beat Pragg or to spell his name right? 

To summarize, it is essential to avoid the typical reaction of amateur players after such a loss. For them, the story goes: “At first the position was rather balanced, then complications started. At a certain point I was winning, but he GOT LUCKY, so I ended up losing”. The real story is that, as they say in Russia, “class has prevailed”, meaning that no matter how messy the game itself was, in the end, the more experienced player had the final say. 

So, the weaker players should focus on their own mistakes in such a case and try to make sure they don’t happen again rather than ridicule the weak play of the higher-rated opponents. 

Similarly, Goliaths who suffer a loss at the hands of Davids should also carefully analyze what went wrong and adjust their approach accordingly. 

It is impossible to completely eliminate mistakes from your chess game. What you can do, however, is take it to a new level by utilizing Magnus Trainer – a one-stop solution aimed to help you become a proficient chess player. Don’t miss your chance to study under the guidance of the reigning World Chess Champion! 

One does not simply win a chess game without making any mistakes! 

Why do Stronger Players Make Mistakes Against Weaker Players?

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. 

The question whether there is rating inflation in chess or not is one of the most hotly debated topics in the chess community. Some players accept it as a universally acknowledged fact that the ratings keep growing year by year and hence assume that top masters from the past would have been rated higher today than they were back then. This belief is further enforced by interviews of former world-class players who are currently inactive. Some of them like fondly recalling their glory days when there was a limited number of 2600s in the world, and only a couple of 2700+ GMs. By mentioning this fact, they proceed to make a claim about the ratings having inflated. But is this true if we consider objective playing strength, not ranking? 

Jose Raul Capablanca was a merciless chess machine who hasn’t lost a single tournament game from 1916 to 1924. 

In his article titled “Would Carlsen have beaten Capablanca?” , GM Daniel Gormally tried to explain to the audience that chess standards have risen a lot over time. As a result, if we used a time machine to bring any of the masters from the past into the modern day, they wouldn’t stand much of a chance. The article attracted an incredible amount of attention from the readers and was received rather poorly. Let’s see what Daniel opined about Capablanca:

But what about Capa? How would he compare strength-wise to the players of today? I think he would come off rather badly. The difference in terms of knowledge and understanding between the players of today and the players of the 1920s and 30s is enormous. I know people who think Capablanca would struggle to break a 2500 rating if he came back today. I'm not sure if I completely agree with this, because Capablanca's raw chess talent is much higher than a 2500 player, but chess is also a game of information. It's difficult to see how Capablanca would have coped with the greater knowledge and sharp chess theory of today's chess elite. Sure, give him six months, and he might be able to bridge the gap, but it really is a huge leap. It's like trying to compare Jesse Owens to Usain Bolt, he'd be left many yards behind.

Here is what Dr. GM John Nunn had to say about one of the participants of the Karlsbad-1911 super tournament featuring such legendary names as Alekhine, Rubinstein, Nimzowitsch, Tartakower, Spielmann, Marshall, etc. In fact, they were all contemporaries and rivals of Jose Raul Capablanca to one extent or another. The quote is from “John Nunn’s Chess Puzzle Book”:

In order to be more specific about Karlsbad, take one player: Hugo Süchting (1874-1916). At Karlsbad he scored 11.5/13.5 or 'minus 2', as they say these days - a perfectly respectable score. Having played over all his games at Karlsbad I think that I can confidently state that his playing strength was not greater than Elo 2100 (BCF 187) - and that was on a good day and with a following wind. 

Let me quote one more passage from the same source:

Returning then to the question as to how Süchting scored 11.5 points, the answer is simply that the other players were not much better. If we assume Süchting as 2100, then his score implies an average rating for the tournament of 2129 - it would not even be assigned a category today.

This assessment seems quite reasonable to me. I also had an impression that the winners of the tournament used to play at below IM level by modern standards. However, when you tell that to typical chess fans, they start puffing, rolling their eyes wildly and accusing you of blasphemy! The same people also love whining about the “overrated” top players nowadays and claiming that someone like Morphy would have beaten them all. They seem to fail to acknowledge the difference between the terms “talent” and “playing strength”. Paul Morphy was definitely an extremely talented individual who was miles ahead of his contemporaries in terms of chess skills. However, back then the overall level of chess in the world was so low that he had no chance to become a proficient player by modern standards. After all, our knowledge about all aspects of chess has increased tremendously since that time, especially in the last few decades of computer revolution. That being said, some ex-World Champions remain objective and admit that. For instance, when people start bugging Garry Kasparov who is the better player: Magnus Carlsen or Garry in his prime, Garry always points out that the next generation tends to surpass the achievements of the previous ones and offers analogies such as that modern students know more about science than Isaac Newton, but it doesn’t diminish his discoveries. It’s just that you can’t directly compare chess players (or scientists) who have lived in different eras. 

Another reason why people tend to overestimate the prowess of the players of the past is that we typically remember only the best masterpieces of their lifetimes. And if you check out all the games, you will realize that they have been blundering left and right on their offdays. Even with game collections, it is not that simple. I recall a funny conversation with IM Vladislav Akselrod on this matter. One of his students asked him whose games to study as an example of attacking chess. Vlad’s first instinct was to give him a tip of advice that dates to the Soviet days: “Study Alekhine’s games since he was an exceptional tactician!”. However, when Vlad himself opened a book of Alekhine’s selected (!) games…at this point he made a vivid grimace as if he had tasted something sour! As a result, he decided that, with all due respect to Alekhine’s greatness, nowadays there are probably better role models for aspiring competitive chess players. 

What about the statistical evidence? In the paper titled “Intrinsic Chess Ratings” by Kenneth W. Regan and Guy McC. Haworth (May 18, 2011), the authors posed two important chess questions:

1.     Has there been ‘inflation’—or deflation—in the chess Elo rating system over the past forty years?

2.     Were the top players of earlier times as strong as the top players of today?

They have arrived at the following conclusion:

…there has been little or no ‘inflation’ in ratings over time—if anything there has been deflation. This runs counter to conventional wisdom, but is predicted by population models on which rating systems have been based [Gli99]. 

The results also support a ‘no’ answer to question 2. In the 1970’s there were only two players with ratings over 2700, namely Bobby Fischer and Anatoly Karpov, and there were periods as late as 1981 when no one had a rating over 2700 (see [Wee00]). In the past decade, however, there have usually been thirty or more players with such ratings. Thus the lack of inflation implies that those players are better than all but Fischer and Karpov. Extrapolated backwards, this would be consistent with the findings of [DHMG07], which (like some recent competitions to improve on the Elo system) are based only on the results of games, not on intrinsic decision-making.

Since Elo ratings were introduced in 1971, only three players were able to set new all-time records.

If you talk to players whose careers have spanned decades and who are still active, they will probably acknowledge that the standards have risen dramatically. In the past, Mikhail Tal used to say that he would have crushed his former self from the days when he was the World Champion since his understanding of chess has improved a lot. And that was before the computer age, which has revolutionized chess! To give you a more recent statement, last month I have stumbled upon an interesting quote by Sergei Tiviakov in the “Chess for Life” book by Matthew Sadler and Natasha Regan, published in 2016:

What areas of your game have improved and worsened? 

In general, my level of chess playing has become better. I am playing a better level of chess than before. But the problem is that the general level of playing chess in the world has increased much more than my level of chess. In comparison, I am falling behind. Sometimes I look at my older games and I’m really surprised how poorly I played before. In general, I think I’m playing better than before.

Sergei is one of the most experienced players on the circuit, who has played a few thousand tournament games, winning dozens of events and visiting a plethora of countries. At one point, he had a streak of 110 consecutive games undefeated. He knows what he is talking about, and I can totally relate to what he is saying.

When I and my friends were starting on “serious” chess and received ratings of about FIDE 2000, we had no opening files and could play pretty much anything we wanted from scratch. Our “preparation” was finding a scoresheet from the previous round and checking out what first move your opponent made. We were rather clueless about endgames, even very basic ones, such as the Lucena position in rook endgames. Our defensive skills were pretty much negligible. Nowadays, thanks to chess engines, databases and other modern technology, kids learn to play like engines from the very start. They know sharp lines up to 15-20 moves and have much more middlegame experience due to being able to spam online training games against a diverse field of opponents. They prepare carefully with databases, engines and opening trees, relying on statistics to pick the optimal weapons against the opponents. They are much more resistant since engines teach you how to sacrifice material for the sake of getting counterplay, or to defend stubbornly in general even when things look bleak. I could go on about this for a long time, but my informal assessment is that someone rated 2000, let’s say, 20 years ago, would probably be 1700 or so by modern standards. That is, if we are talking about a time machine type of scenario. 

COVID-19 has had a tremendous impact on chess ratings as well. Namely, the improving players didn’t get much chance to compete during the last couple of years. As a result, nowadays in open tournament there are many kids rated like 1500-1600 who tear apart experienced 2000+ players. This, in its own turn, affects players with higher ratings as well, since if you were farming those 2000 guys before, now their ratings will probably plummet to 1800-1900, and you would be expected to score much more points against them than previously. I have seen GM discussions on FB on this topic, and we are talking about active professionals who are close to their peak in terms of strength, not some washed-up has-beens who need to come up with excuses to justify their poor performances. 

Anyway, no matter what the research findings, logical arguments and empirical experiences of the leading GMs and computer scientists are, I still realize that I am fighting an uphill battle here when trying to prove my case. The eyes of most chess fans will remain dazzled by the very best masterpieces of the good old times and by the scale of the personalities of the maestros. 

Wondering how to improve faster than the chess world in general? Try out Magnus Trainer, a one-stop app created by World Champion Magnus Carlsen and his star-studded team of experts! 

Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you must have heard about “rating inflation” in chess. Is it a scientific fact or a popular myth that deserves debunking? 

Rating Inflation in Chess: True or False? 

The Summer of Magnus

Playing Chess in the COVID Era

What Does the Future Hold for Magnus Carlsen?

How Many Tournaments in a Row Should You Play?

Returning to Chess After a Long Break: A Checklist

Why do Stronger Players Make Mistakes Against Weaker Players?

How Big is Your Chess Talent?

Play for a Win in Every Game

Rating Inflation in Chess: True or False?