Tactics

In trying to find some lessons for tactics, I stumbled across a useful site-- chesstempo.com-- which is quite helpful at practicing what chess people call "tactics." In chess, this term refers to a sequence of moves that results in a "win"-- either a literal win (i.e. checkmate) or a tangible and significant gain in material.

Early on in chess, you study some basic concepts in tactics, like the fork (particularly devastating is the knight fork), the pin, the skewer, and so on. Studying tactics, then, is a way to teach yourself to think ahead those few moves and see if there is winning combination that would win you material.

And while these exercises do help train the mind to look deeper for winning moves, they are also sort of frustrating. After all, you know that there is a winning move there. They tell you. But when you're actually playing a game, there's no light going off telling you that you have a winning move. So you could spend 30 minutes trying to tease something out, when in reality the best move is some minor positional improvement.

This is one of the frustrating things about trying to improve your chess. One of these days, I'll want to get a coach. But coaches can be expensive...

In any case, I spent 30 minutes today reviewing tactics. It wasn't a great performance. I started the day with a chesstempo rating of 1461.5 and went through 6 problems. I got 3 right and 3 wrong, but my rating ended up dropping to 1364.6-- almost 100 points. This is still better than my actual USCF rating, but not ideal regardless. Later on today, I'll move on to another aspect of practice: namely going over a GM game...

Openings

One of the first things any chess player who is serious about chess does is pick their openings. This is an important ritual, and while experts and coaches will tell you that you should only spend ca. 25% of your study on openings, there is still something important in a player taking ownership of an opening. It adds identity and gives a sense of belonging.

Typically, players chose an opening for white, and then two for black-- one against 1.e4, and one against everything else.

For me, as white, I always find playing 1.e4 to be problematic simply because there are too many ways for black to reply, and preparing for all of those options is mind-bogglingly difficult. Thus, while I'm happy playing the Ruy Lopez (or Spanish) opening, what happens when black plays ... c5 (the Sicilian)? Or ... c6 (the Caro-Kann)? Or ... e6 (the French)?

For me, the answer is in the very adaptable Kings Indian Attack (KIA). I'm hardly unique in this, and part of me wishes I'd have the energy to invest in the English or some other unusual-but-not-crazy opening for white (I dabbled with the Nimzo-Larsen Attack.... not ideal). But in the end, I like the idea of being able to play 1.e4, and then switching to the fianchettoed bishop, etc., or, if I like, just going full Reti with 1.Nf3.

For black against 1.e4, I have struggled to find something I'm comfortable with. I'd love to just play the Ruy as black, but after 1.e4 e5 there is no guarantee that white will play 2.Nf3. It seems like everyone does the Sicilian against 1.e4 (Note: "Indeed, most statistical surveys suggest that 1.d4 is the most successful first move for White, but only because 1...c5 scores so highly against 1.e4."...) and somehow I'd rather not just do what everyone does. So for now, my black move against 1.e4 is ...c6 and the Caro-Kann. I'm not so familiar with it, though, and am still working on it.

Next is a reply to 1.d4/everything else not 1.e4. For that, I have opted for the Kings Indian Defense, or KID. Like the KIA, there is some flexibility so that I don't have to worry so much about move order and I can set up for the first few moves as I like.

So there it is: KIA, Caro-Kann, and KID.

Introduction

This blog serves to catalog my work, thoughts, successes, and failures in an attempt to achieve a lifelong goal: becoming a chess master. It is really more for me to look back on to help track my progress, but I will write as though more than one person is actually reading this.

Some basic information: A USCF National Master is someone who has achieved a chess rating of 2200. For comparison, the top players in the world have ratings somewhere in the area of 2600-2800. Win probabilities of winning a game against someone rated just 200 points more than you hover somewhere around 25%. It's about 5% when one is playing someone rated 500 points higher.

Right now, I sit with a provisional chess rating of 1269. (Chess ratings for someone who has played fewer than 26 games are considered "provisional" and the formula used to calculate those ratings is such that wins and losses can cause that number to jump around with considerable variation. After 25 games, a different formula is used that sees much less variation. This is all explained here.) This makes me a "Class D" player-- provisionally. This puts me in ca. the 64th percentile among all USCF members, and ca. the 55% percentile when you throw out scholastic members.

In other words, I'm average.

I'd like to not be average, hence this effort to put more time into my chess. All in the hopes of becoming a USCF National Master.

To do this, I need to set some realistic goals, and then put forward a serious study regimen.

First off, goals:

• I need to play in 2 tournaments in 2014, ideally bringing my total number of rated games played to 15 (I am assuming 4 games each tournament). My rating at the end of 2014 should be over 1300.
• I need to shed my "provisional" status by the end of 2015. This may mean playing in 3 tournaments of 4 games each, or perhaps 2 tournaments where I can get in 10 games. Or some other combination that puts me at having played 25 rated games. I hope to be at 1400 by the end of the year.

At this point, things become more difficult. Moving up once you shed provisional status is a slow process. Even at 100 points a year, I it would take 6 years after 2015 to make 2000, and another 2 years (again, assuming steady success) to make Master. That's... uh, 2023. I will be over 50. That's 10 years of studying, 10 years of work, 10 years of travel and tournaments. 

I got my PhD in less time than that, so I suppose it's doable.

Let's agree that this initial timetable is provisional (there seems to be a lot of that going around) and can (and should) be adjusted as I have a better sense of how I am doing.

There is a lot to take on, and it will be a long, slow, and steady effort. But it should be fun trying...